< draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry   rfc7718.txt 
Network Working Group A. Morton Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Morton
Internet-Draft AT&T Labs Request for Comments: 7718 AT&T Labs
Updates: 4656 (if approved) September 11, 2015 Updates: 4656 December 2015
Intended status: Standards Track Category: Standards Track
Expires: March 14, 2016 ISSN: 2070-1721
Registries for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol - OWAMP Registries for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP)
draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry-03
Abstract Abstract
This memo describes the registries for OWAMP - the One-Way Active This memo describes the registries for OWAMP -- the One-Way Active
Measurement Protocol. The registries allow assignment of MODE bit Measurement Protocol. The registries allow assignment of Mode bit
positions and OWAMP Command numbers. The memo also requests that positions and OWAMP Command numbers. Per this memo, IANA has
IANA establish the registries for new features, called the OWAMP- established the registries for new features, called the OWAMP-Modes
Modes registry and the OWAMP Control Command Number registry. This registry and the OWAMP Control Command Number registry. This memo
memo updates RFC 4656. updates RFC 4656.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 14, 2016. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7718.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IANA Considerations for OWAMP Control Registries . . . . . . 3 3. IANA Considerations for OWAMP-Control Registries . . . . . . 3
3.1. Control Command Number Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Control Command Number Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.1. Registry Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1.1. Registry Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.2. Registry Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1.2. Registry Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.3. Experimental Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1.3. Experimental Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.4. OWAMP-Control Command Numbers Initial Contents . . . 3 3.1.4. OWAMP-Control Command Numbers Initial Contents . . . 3
3.2. OWAMP-Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. OWAMP-Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2.1. Registry Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2.1. Registry Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2.2. Registry Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2.2. Registry Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2.3. Experimental Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2.3. Experimental Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2.4. OWAMP-Modes Initial Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2.4. OWAMP-Modes Initial Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The One-way Active Measurement Protocol, OWAMP [RFC4656] was prepared The One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) [RFC4656] was
to support measurements of metrics specified by the IP Performance prepared to support measurements of metrics specified by the IP
Metrics (IPPM) working group in the IETF. The Two-Way Active Performance Metrics (IPPM) working group in the IETF. The Two-Way
Measurement Protocol, TWAMP [RFC5357] is an extension of OWAMP. The Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) [RFC5357] is an extension of
TWAMP specification gathered wide review as it approached completion, OWAMP. The TWAMP specification gathered wide review as it approached
and the by-products were several recommendations for new features in completion, and the by-products were several recommendations for new
TWAMP. As a result, a registry of new features was established for features in TWAMP. As a result, a registry of new features was
TWAMP. However, there were no new features proposed for OWAMP until established for TWAMP. However, there were no new features proposed
recently [I-D.ietf-ippm-ipsec]. for OWAMP until recently [RFC7717].
This memo establishes the needed registries for OWAMP, and updates This memo establishes the needed registries for OWAMP and updates
[RFC4656]. [RFC4656].
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Purpose and Scope 2. Purpose and Scope
The purpose and scope of this memo is to describe and request the The purpose and scope of this memo is to describe and request the
establishment of registries for future OWAMP [RFC4656] extensions. establishment of registries for future OWAMP [RFC4656] extensions.
IANA already administers the "Two-way Active Measurement Protocol IANA already administers the "Two-way Active Measurement Protocol
(TWAMP) Parameters", and this request follows a similar form (with (TWAMP) Parameters", and this request follows a similar form (with
one exception identified below). one exception identified below).
This memo also provides the initial contents for the OWAMP This memo also provides the initial contents for the OWAMP
registries. registries.
3. IANA Considerations for OWAMP Control Registries 3. IANA Considerations for OWAMP-Control Registries
OWAMP-Control protocol coordinates the measurement capability. All The OWAMP-Control protocol coordinates the measurement capability.
OWAMP-Control messages follow specifications defined in section 3 of All OWAMP-Control messages follow specifications defined in Section 3
[RFC4656]. of [RFC4656].
3.1. Control Command Number Registry 3.1. Control Command Number Registry
IANA is requested to create an OWAMP-Control Command Number registry. IANA has created an OWAMP-Control Command Number registry.
OWAMP-Control Commands follow specifications defined in section 3.4 OWAMP-Control Commands follow specifications defined in Section 3.4
of [RFC4656]. of [RFC4656].
3.1.1. Registry Specification 3.1.1. Registry Specification
OWAMP-Control Command Numbers are specified in the first octet of OWAMP-Control Command Numbers are specified in the first octet of
OWAMP-Control-Client command messages consistent with section 3 of OWAMP-Control-Client command messages consistent with Section 3 of
[RFC4656]. There are a maximum of 256 command numbers. [RFC4656]. There are a maximum of 256 command numbers.
3.1.2. Registry Management 3.1.2. Registry Management
Because the "OWAMP-Control Command Numbers" registry can contain only Because the "OWAMP-Control Command Numbers" registry can contain only
256 values, and because OWAMP is an IETF protocol, these registries 256 values, and because OWAMP is an IETF protocol, these registries
MUST be updated only by "IETF Review" as specified in [RFC5226] (an MUST be updated only by "IETF Review" as specified in [RFC5226] (an
RFC that documents registry use and is approved by the IESG). RFC that documents registry use and is approved by the IESG).
3.1.3. Experimental Numbers 3.1.3. Experimental Numbers
One experimental value is currently assigned in the Command Numbers One experimental value is currently assigned in the Command Numbers
Registry, as indicated in the initial contents below. Registry, as indicated in the initial contents below.
3.1.4. OWAMP-Control Command Numbers Initial Contents 3.1.4. OWAMP-Control Command Numbers Initial Contents
OWAMP-Control Commands follows the procedure defined in section 3.5 OWAMP-Control Commands follows the procedure defined in Section 3.5
of [RFC4656] (and in the remainder of section 3). of [RFC4656] and in the remainder of Section 3 of that document.
The complete set of OWAMP-Control Command Numbers are as follows The complete set of OWAMP-Control Command Numbers are as follows
(including two reserved values): (including two reserved values):
OWAMP-Control Command Numbers Registry OWAMP-Control Command Numbers
Value Description Semantics Reference Value Description Semantics Reference
Definition Definition
========================================================== ==========================================================
0 Reserved 0 Reserved Section 3.1.4 RFC 7718
1 Request-Session Section 3.5 RFC 4656 1 Request-Session Section 3.5 RFC 4656
2 Start-Sessions Section 3.7 RFC 4656 2 Start-Sessions Section 3.7 RFC 4656
3 Stop-Sessions Section 3.8 RFC 4656 3 Stop-Sessions Section 3.8 RFC 4656
4 Fetch-Sessions Section 3.9 RFC 4656 4 Fetch-Sessions Section 3.9 RFC 4656
5-253 Unassigned 5-253 Unassigned
254 Experimentation Section 3.1.4 This Memo 254 Experimentation Section 3.1.4 RFC 7718
255 Reserved 255 Reserved Section 3.1.4 RFC 7718
where "This Memo" is the published version of draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-
registry
3.2. OWAMP-Modes 3.2. OWAMP-Modes
IANA is requested to create an OWAMP-Modes registry. IANA has created an OWAMP-Modes registry.
3.2.1. Registry Specification 3.2.1. Registry Specification
OWAMP-Modes are specified in OWAMP Server Greeting messages and Set- OWAMP-Modes are specified in OWAMP Server Greeting messages and Set-
up Response messages consistent with section 3.1 of [RFC4656]. Modes up Response messages consistent with Section 3.1 of [RFC4656]. Modes
are currently indicated by setting single bits in the 32-bit Modes are currently indicated by setting single bits in the 32-bit Modes
Field. However, more complex encoding may be used in the future. field. However, more complex encoding may be used in the future.
3.2.2. Registry Management 3.2.2. Registry Management
Because the "OWAMP-Modes" are based on only 32 bit positions with Because the "OWAMP-Modes" are based on only 32 bit positions with
each position conveying a unique feature, and because OWAMP is an each position conveying a unique feature, and because OWAMP is an
IETF protocol, these registries MUST be updated only by "IETF Review" IETF protocol, these registries MUST be updated only by "IETF Review"
as specified in [RFC5226] (an RFC that documents registry use and is as specified in [RFC5226] (an RFC that documents registry use and is
approved by the IESG). IANA SHOULD allocate monotonically increasing approved by the IESG). IANA SHOULD allocate monotonically increasing
bit positions when requested. bit positions when requested.
3.2.3. Experimental Numbers 3.2.3. Experimental Numbers
No experimental bit positions are currently assigned in the Modes No experimental bit positions are currently assigned in the Modes
Registry, as indicated in the initial contents below. registry, as indicated in the initial contents below.
3.2.4. OWAMP-Modes Initial Contents 3.2.4. OWAMP-Modes Initial Contents
OWAMP-Control connection establishment follows the procedure defined OWAMP-Control connection establishment follows the procedure defined
in section 3.1 of [RFC4656]. in Section 3.1 of [RFC4656].
In the OWAMP-Modes registry, assignments are straightforward on the In the OWAMP-Modes registry, assignments are straightforward on the
basis of bit positions, and there are no references to values - this basis of bit positions, and there are no references to values -- this
is a difference from the comparable TWAMP registry (and a topic for is a difference from the comparable TWAMP registry (and a topic for
improvement in the TWAMP-Modes registry which is reconciled in improvement in the TWAMP-Modes registry that is reconciled in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ipsec]). [RFC7717]).
An Extension of the OWAMP-Modes is proposed in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ipsec]. An extension of the OWAMP-Modes is proposed in [RFC7717]. With this
With this extension, the complete set of OWAMP Mode bit positions are extension, the complete set of OWAMP Mode bit positions are as
as follows (including one reserved bit position): follows (including one reserved bit position):
OWAMP-Modes Registry OWAMP-Modes
Bit Semantics Bit Semantics
Pos. Description Definition Reference Pos. Description Definition Reference
===================================================== =======================================================
0 Unauthenticated Section 3.1 RFC4656 0 Unauthenticated Section 3.1 RFC 4656
1 Authenticated Section 3.1 RFC4656 1 Authenticated Section 3.1 RFC 4656
2 Encrypted Section 3.1 RFC4656 2 Encrypted Section 3.1 RFC 4656
3 Reserved Section 3.2.4 This Memo 3 Reserved Section 3.2.4 RFC 7718
------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------
4 IKEv2-derived Shared Section 3.2.4 This Memo 4 IKEv2-derived Shared Section 3.2.4 RFC 7718
Secret Key and Section 5 RFC-to-be Secret Key of RFC 7718,
Section 5 of RFC 7717
of RFC 7717
------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------
5-31 Unassigned 5-31 Unassigned
(where RFC-to-be is the published version of draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec, In the original OWAMP Modes field, setting bit position 0, 1, or 2
and where "This Memo" is draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry )
In the original OWAMP Modes field, setting bit position 0, 1 or 2
indicated the security mode of the Control protocol, and the Test indicated the security mode of the Control protocol, and the Test
protocol inherited the same mode (see section 4 of [RFC4656]). protocol inherited the same mode (see Section 4 of [RFC4656]).
The value of the Modes Field sent by the Server in the Server- The value of the Modes field sent by the Server in the Server-
Greeting message is the bit-wise OR of the modes (bit positions) that Greeting message is the bit-wise OR of the modes (bit positions) that
it is willing to support during this session. Thus, the five least it is willing to support during this session. Thus, the five least
significant bits of the Modes 32-bit Field are used. When no other significant bits of the 32-bit Modes field are used. When no other
features are activated, the 27 most significant bits MUST be zero. A features are activated, the 27 most significant bits MUST be zero. A
Control-Client conforming to [RFC4656] MAY ignore the values in the Control-Client conforming to [RFC4656] MAY ignore the values in the
29 most significant bits of the Modes Field, or it MAY support 29 most significant bits of the Modes field, or it MAY support
features that are communicated in other bit positions, such as the features that are communicated in other bit positions, such as the
IKEv2-derived Shared Secret Key extension [I-D.ietf-ippm-ipsec]. IKEv2-derived Shared Secret Key extension [RFC7717].
OWAMP and TWAMP registries for Modes may grow to contain different OWAMP and TWAMP registries for Modes may grow to contain different
features and functions due to the inherent differences in one-way and features and functions due to the inherent differences in one-way and
two-way measurement configurations and the metrics they measure. No two-way measurement configurations and the metrics they measure. No
attempt will be made to coordinate them unnecessarily, except the attempt will be made to coordinate them unnecessarily, except for the
Reserved bit position 3 above. This is available for assignment if a Reserved bit position 3 above. This is available for assignment if a
mixed security mode similar to[RFC5618] is defined for OWAMP, and mixed security mode similar to [RFC5618] is defined for OWAMP; it
would allow alignment with the comparable TWAMP feature. would allow alignment with the comparable TWAMP feature.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
As this memo simply requests the creation of OWAMP registries, it As this memo simply documents the creation of OWAMP registries, it
presents no new security or privacy issues for the Internet. presents no new security or privacy issues for the Internet.
The security considerations that apply to any active measurement of The security considerations that apply to any active measurement of
live networks are relevant here as well. See [RFC4656] and live networks are relevant here as well. See [RFC4656] and
[RFC5357]. [RFC5357].
Privacy considerations for measurement systems, particularly when Privacy considerations for measurement systems, particularly when
Internet users participate in the tests in some way, are described in Internet users participate in the tests in some way, are described in
[I-D.ietf-lmap-framework]. [RFC7594].
5. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Kostas Pentikousis, Nalini Elkins,
Mike Ackermann, and Greg Mirsky for insightful reviews and comments.
We thought Spencer Dawkins caught the last of the small errors in his
AD review, but Nevil Brownlee found a few more during OPS-DIR review.
Roni Even found our use of "IETF Consensus" was out of date with
[RFC5226]. Michelle Cotton helped to clarify the IANA
considerations.
6. References 5. References
6.1. Normative References 5.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M. [RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
(OWAMP)", RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC4656, September 2006, (OWAMP)", RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC4656, September 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4656>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4656>.
skipping to change at page 7, line 15 skipping to change at page 6, line 42
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J. [RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008, RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>.
6.2. Informative References 5.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ipsec]
Pentikousis, K., Zhang, E., and Y. Cui, "IKEv2-derived
Shared Secret Key for O/TWAMP", draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-11
(work in progress), August 2015.
[I-D.ietf-lmap-framework]
Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A framework for Large-Scale
Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", draft-ietf-
lmap-framework-14 (work in progress), April 2015.
[RFC5618] Morton, A. and K. Hedayat, "Mixed Security Mode for the [RFC5618] Morton, A. and K. Hedayat, "Mixed Security Mode for the
Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", RFC 5618, Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", RFC 5618,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5618, August 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5618, August 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5618>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5618>.
[RFC7594] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale
Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7594>.
[RFC7717] Pentikousis, K., Ed., Zhang, E., and Y. Cui,
"IKEv2-Derived Shared Secret Key for the One-Way Active
Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way Active
Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", RFC 7717,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7717, December 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7717>.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Kostas Pentikousis, Nalini Elkins,
Mike Ackermann, and Greg Mirsky for insightful reviews and comments.
We thought Spencer Dawkins caught the last of the small errors in his
AD review, but Nevil Brownlee found a few more during OPS-DIR review.
Roni Even found our use of "IETF Consensus" was out of date with
[RFC5226]. Michelle Cotton helped to clarify the IANA
considerations.
Author's Address Author's Address
Al Morton Al Morton
AT&T Labs AT&T Labs
200 Laurel Avenue South 200 Laurel Avenue South
Middletown,, NJ 07748 Middletown,, NJ 07748
USA United States
Phone: +1 732 420 1571 Phone: +1 732 420 1571
Fax: +1 732 368 1192 Fax: +1 732 368 1192
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
URI: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/ URI: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/
 End of changes. 48 change blocks. 
121 lines changed or deleted 116 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/