doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 1291 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc7391.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc7391.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d4c9a8b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc7391.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,1291 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                     J. Hadi Salim
+Request for Comments: 7391                             Mojatatu Networks
+Updates: 5810, 7121                                         October 2014
+Category: Standards Track
+ISSN: 2070-1721
+
+
+ Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol Extensions
+
+Abstract
+
+   Experience in implementing and deploying the Forwarding and Control
+   Element Separation (ForCES) architecture has demonstrated the need
+   for a few small extensions both to ease programmability and to
+   improve wire efficiency of some transactions.  The ForCES protocol is
+   extended with a table range operation and a new extension for error
+   handling.  This document updates the semantics in RFCs 5810 and 7121
+   to achieve that end goal.
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+   This is an Internet Standards Track document.
+
+   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
+   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
+   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
+   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
+   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
+
+   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/rfc7391.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
+   document authors.  All rights reserved.
+
+   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
+   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
+   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
+   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
+   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
+   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
+   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
+   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
+   described in the Simplified BSD License.
+
+
+
+
+Hadi Salim                   Standards Track                    [Page 1]
+
+RFC 7391               ForCES Protocol Extensions           October 2014
+
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1. Introduction ....................................................2
+      1.1. Terminology and Conventions ................................3
+           1.1.1. Requirements Language ...............................3
+           1.1.2. Terminology .........................................3
+   2. Problem Overview ................................................4
+      2.1. Table Ranges ...............................................4
+      2.2. Error Codes ................................................4
+   3. Protocol Update .................................................5
+      3.1. Table Ranges ...............................................5
+      3.2. Error Codes ................................................6
+           3.2.1. New Codes ...........................................7
+           3.2.2. Private Vendor Codes ................................8
+           3.2.3. Extended Result TLV .................................8
+                  3.2.3.1. Extended Result Backward Compatibility .....9
+      3.3. Large Table Dumping ........................................9
+   4. IANA Considerations ............................................11
+   5. Security Considerations ........................................12
+   6. References .....................................................12
+      6.1. Normative References ......................................12
+      6.2. Informative References ....................................12
+   Appendix A. New FEPO Version ......................................13
+   Acknowledgments ...................................................23
+   Author's Address ..................................................23
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   Experience in implementing and deploying the ForCES architecture has
+   demonstrated the need for a few small extensions both to ease
+   programmability and to improve wire efficiency of some transactions.
+   This document describes a few extensions to the semantics in the
+   ForCES protocol specification [RFC5810] to achieve that end goal.
+
+   This document describes and justifies the need for two small
+   extensions that are backward compatible.  This document also
+   clarifies details of how dumping of a large table residing on an FE
+   (Forwarding Element) is achieved.  To summarize:
+
+   1.  A table range operation to allow a controller or control
+       application to request an arbitrary range of table rows is
+       introduced.
+
+   2.  Additional error codes returned to the controller (or control
+       application) by an FE are introduced.  Additionally, a new
+       extension to carry details on error codes is introduced.  As a
+       result, this document updates the definition of the FE Protocol
+       Object (FEPO) Logical Functional Block (LFB) in [RFC7121].
+
+
+
+Hadi Salim                   Standards Track                    [Page 2]
+
+RFC 7391               ForCES Protocol Extensions           October 2014
+
+
+   3.  While already supported, an FE response to a GET request of a
+       large table that does not fit in a single Protocol Layer (PL)
+       message is not described in [RFC5810].  This document clarifies
+       the details.
+
+1.1.  Terminology and Conventions
+
+1.1.1.  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 [RFC2119].
+
+1.1.2.  Terminology
+
+   This document reiterates the terminology defined in several ForCES
+   documents ([RFC3746], [RFC5810], [RFC5811], and [RFC5812]) for the
+   sake of contextual clarity.
+
+      Control Element (CE)
+
+      Forwarding Element (FE)
+
+      FE Model
+
+      LFB (Logical Functional Block) Class (or type)
+
+      LFB Instance
+
+      LFB Model
+
+      LFB Metadata
+
+      ForCES Component
+
+      LFB Component
+
+      ForCES Protocol Layer (ForCES PL)
+
+      ForCES Protocol Transport Mapping Layer (ForCES TML)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Hadi Salim                   Standards Track                    [Page 3]
+
+RFC 7391               ForCES Protocol Extensions           October 2014
+
+
+2.  Problem Overview
+
+   In this section, we present sample use cases to illustrate each
+   challenge being addressed.
+
+2.1.  Table Ranges
+
+   Consider, for the sake of illustration, an FE table with 1 million
+   reasonably sized table rows that are sparsely populated.  Assume,
+   again for the sake of illustration, that there are 2000 table rows
+   sparsely populated between the row indices 23-10023.
+
+   Implementation experience has shown that existing approaches for
+   retrieving or deleting a sizable number of table rows are both
+   programmatically tedious and inefficient on utilization of both
+   compute and wire resources.
+
+   By definition, ForCES GET and DEL requests sent from a controller (or
+   control application) are prepended with a path to a component and
+   sent to the FE.  In the case of indexed tables, the component path
+   can point to either a table or a table row index.
+
+   As an example, a control application attempting to retrieve the first
+   2000 table rows appearing between row indices 23 and 10023 can
+   achieve its goal in one of the following ways:
+
+   o  Dump the whole table and filter for the needed 2000 table rows.
+
+   o  Send up to 10000 ForCES PL requests, incrementing the index by one
+      each time, and stop when the needed 2000 entries are retrieved.
+
+   o  If the application had knowledge of which table rows existed (not
+      unreasonable given the controller is supposed to be aware of state
+      within a Network Element (NE)), then the application could take
+      advantage of ForCES batching to send fewer large messages (each
+      with different path entries for a total of 2000).
+
+   As argued, while the above options exist, all are tedious.
+
+2.2.  Error Codes
+
+   [RFC5810] has defined a generic set of error codes that are to be
+   returned to the CE from an FE.  Deployment experience has shown that
+   it would be useful to have more fine-grained error codes.  As an
+   example, the error code E_NOT_SUPPORTED could be mapped to many FE
+   error source possibilities that need to then be interpreted by the
+   caller based on some understanding of the nature of the sent request.
+   This makes debugging more time consuming.
+
+
+
+Hadi Salim                   Standards Track                    [Page 4]
+
+RFC 7391               ForCES Protocol Extensions           October 2014
+
+
+3.  Protocol Update
+
+   This section describes a normative update to the ForCES protocol to
+   address the issues discussed in Section 2.
+
+3.1.  Table Ranges
+
+   We define a new TLV, TABLERANGE-TLV (type ID 0x0117), that will be
+   associated with the PATH-DATA-TLV in the same manner the KEYINFO-TLV
+   is.  Figure 1 shows how this new TLV is constructed.
+
+      0                   1                   2                   3
+      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+      |  Type (0x0117)              |     Length                      |
+      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+      |                         Start Index                           |
+      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+      |                         End Index                             |
+      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+
+                Figure 1: ForCES Table Range Request Layout
+
+   Figure 2 illustrates a GET request for a range of rows 11 to 23 of a
+   table with a component path of "1/6".
+
+      OPER = GET-TLV
+             PATH-DATA-TLV:
+               flags = F_SELTABRANGE, IDCount = 2, IDs = {1,6}
+               TABLERANGE-TLV content = {11,23}
+
+               Figure 2: ForCES Table Range Request Example
+
+   The path flag F_SELTABRANGE (0x2, i.e., bit 1, where bit 0 is
+   F_SELKEY as defined in [RFC5810]) MUST be set to indicate the
+   presence of the TABLERANGE-TLV.  The path flag bit F_SELTABRANGE can
+   only be used in a GET or DEL and is mutually exclusive with F_SELKEY.
+   The FE MUST enforce the path flag constraints and ensure that the
+   selected path belongs to a defined, indexed table component.  Any
+   violation of these constraints MUST be rejected with an error code of
+   E_INVALID_TFLAGS with a description of what the problem is when using
+   extended error reporting (refer to Section 3.2).
+
+   It should be noted that there are combinations of path selection
+   mechanisms that should not appear together for the sake of simplicity
+   of operations.  These include TABLERANGE-TLV and KEYINFO-TLV as well
+   as multiple nested TABLERANGE-TLVs.
+
+
+
+
+Hadi Salim                   Standards Track                    [Page 5]
+
+RFC 7391               ForCES Protocol Extensions           October 2014
+
+
+   The TABLERANGE-TLV contents constitute:
+
+   o  A 32-bit start index.  An index of 0 implies the beginning of the
+      table row.
+
+   o  A 32-bit end index.  A value of 0xFFFFFFFF implies the last entry.
+
+   The response for a table range query will either be:
+
+   o  The requested table data returned (when at least one referenced
+      row is available); in such a case, a response with a path pointing
+      to the table and whose data content contains the row(s) will be
+      sent to the CE.  The data content MUST be encapsulated in a
+      SPARSEDATA-TLV.  The SPARSEDATA-TLV content will have the "I" (in
+      Index-Length-Value (ILV)) for each table row indicating the table
+      indices.
+
+   o  An EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV (refer to Section 3.2.3) when:
+
+      *  the response is to a range delete request.  The result will
+         either be:
+
+         +  a success if any of the rows that were requested are
+            deleted; or
+
+         +  a proper error code if none of the rows that were requested
+            can be deleted.
+
+      *  data is absent and an error code of E_EMPTY with an optional
+         content string describing the nature of the error is used
+         (refer to Section 3.2).
+
+      *  both a path key and path table range were stated on the path
+         flags of the original request.  In such a case, an error code
+         of E_INVALID_TFLAGS with an optional content string describing
+         the nature of the error is used (refer to Section 3.2).
+
+      *  other standard ForCES errors (such as Access Control List (ACL)
+         constraints trying to retrieve contents of an unreadable table,
+         accessing unknown components, etc.) occur.
+
+3.2.  Error Codes
+
+   We define the following:
+
+   1.  A new set of error codes.
+
+   2.  Allocation of some reserved codes for private use.
+
+
+
+Hadi Salim                   Standards Track                    [Page 6]
+
+RFC 7391               ForCES Protocol Extensions           October 2014
+
+
+   3.  A new TLV, EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV (0x0118), that will carry a code
+       (which will be a superset of what is currently specified in
+       [RFC5810]) as well as an optional cause content.  This is
+       illustrated in Figure 3.
+
+3.2.1.  New Codes
+
+   The EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV Result Value is 32 bits and is a superset of
+   the RESULT-TLV Result Value defined in [RFC5810].  The new version
+   code space is 32 bits as opposed to the code size of 8 bits in
+   [RFC5810].  The first 8-bit values (256 codes) are common to both
+   code spaces.
+
+   +------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
+   | Code       | Mnemonic                | Details                    |
+   +------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
+   | 0x18       | E_TIMED_OUT             | A timeout occurred while   |
+   |            |                         | processing the message     |
+   |            |                         |                            |
+   | 0x19       | E_INVALID_TFLAGS        | Invalid table flags        |
+   |            |                         |                            |
+   | 0x1A       | E_INVALID_OP            | Requested operation is     |
+   |            |                         | invalid                    |
+   |            |                         |                            |
+   | 0x1B       | E_CONGEST_NT            | Node congestion            |
+   |            |                         | notification               |
+   |            |                         |                            |
+   | 0x1C       | E_COMPONENT_NOT_A_TABLE | Component not a table      |
+   |            |                         |                            |
+   | 0x1D       | E_PERM                  | Operation not permitted    |
+   |            |                         |                            |
+   | 0x1E       | E_BUSY                  | System is busy             |
+   |            |                         |                            |
+   | 0x1F       | E_EMPTY                 | Table is empty             |
+   |            |                         |                            |
+   | 0x20       | E_UNKNOWN               | A generic catch-all error  |
+   |            |                         | code.  Carries a string to |
+   |            |                         | further extrapolate what   |
+   |            |                         | the error implies.         |
+   +------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
+
+                            Table 1: New Codes
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Hadi Salim                   Standards Track                    [Page 7]
+
+RFC 7391               ForCES Protocol Extensions           October 2014
+
+
+3.2.2.  Private Vendor Codes
+
+   Codes 0x100-0x200 are reserved for use as private codes.  Since these
+   are freely available, it is expected that the FE and CE side
+   implementations will both understand/interpret the semantics of any
+   used codes and avoid any conflicts.
+
+3.2.3.  Extended Result TLV
+
+        0                   1                   2                   3
+        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+       |   Type = EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV   |              Length           |
+       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+       |                        Result Value                           |
+       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+       |                    Optional Cause Content                     |
+       .                                                               .
+       |                                                               |
+       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+
+                       Figure 3: EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV
+
+   o  Like all other ForCES TLVs, the EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV is expected to
+      be 32-bit aligned.
+
+   o  The EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV Result Value derives and extends from the
+      same current namespace that is used by the RESULT-TLV Result Value
+      as specified in Section 7.1.7 of [RFC5810].  The main difference
+      is that there is now a 32-bit Result Value (as opposed to the old
+      8-bit).
+
+   o  The Optional Cause Content is defined to further disambiguate the
+      Result Value.  It is expected that UTF-8 string values will be
+      used.  The content Result Value is intended to be consumed by the
+      (human) operator, and implementations may choose to specify
+      different content for the same error code.  Additionally, future
+      codes may specify cause content to be of types other than string.
+
+   o  It is recommended that the maximum size of the cause string should
+      not exceed 32 bytes.  The cause string is not standardized by this
+      document.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Hadi Salim                   Standards Track                    [Page 8]
+
+RFC 7391               ForCES Protocol Extensions           October 2014
+
+
+3.2.3.1.  Extended Result Backward Compatibility
+
+   To support backward compatibility, we update the FEPO LFB (in
+   Appendix A) to version 1.2.  We also add a new component ID 16 (named
+   EResultAdmin), and a capability component ID 32 (named EResultCapab).
+
+   An FE will advertise its capability to support extended TLVs via the
+   EResultCapab table.  When an FE is capable of responding with both
+   extended results and older result TLVs, it will have two table rows,
+   one for each supported value.  By default, an FE capable of
+   supporting both modes will assume the lowest common denominator
+   (i.e., EResultAdmin will be EResultNotSupported) and will issue
+   responses using RESULT-TLVs.  It should be noted that an FE
+   advertising FEPO version 1.2 MUST support EXTENDEDRESULT-TLVs at
+   minimum.
+
+   On an FE that supports both RESULT-TLVs and EXTENDEDRESULT-TLVs, a
+   master CE can turn on support for extended results by setting the
+   EResultAdmin value to 2, in which case the FE MUST switch over to
+   sending only EXTENDEDRESULT-TLVs.  Likewise, a master CE can turn off
+   extended result responses by writing a 1 to the EResultAdmin.  An FE
+   that does not support one mode or the other MUST reject setting
+   EResultAdmin to a value it does not support by responding with an
+   error code of E_NOT_SUPPORTED.  It is expected that all CEs
+   participating in a high availability (HA) mode be capable of
+   supporting FEPO version 1.2 whenever EResultAdmin is set to strict
+   support of EXTENDEDRESULT-TLVs.  The consensus between CEs in an HA
+   set up to set strict support of EXTENDEDRESULT-TLVs is out of scope
+   for this document.
+
+3.3.  Large Table Dumping
+
+   Imagine a GET request to a path that is a table, i.e., a table dump.
+   Such a request is sent to the FE with a specific correlator, say X.
+   Imagine this table to have a large number of entries at the FE.  For
+   the sake of illustration, let's say millions of rows.  This requires
+   that the FE delivers the response over multiple messages, all using
+   the same correlator X.
+
+   The ForCES protocol document [RFC5810] does not adequately describe
+   how a large multi-part GET response message is delivered; the text in
+   this section clarifies.  We limit the discussion to a table object
+   only.
+
+   Implementation experience of dumping large tables shows that we can
+   use transaction flags to indicate that a GET response is the
+   beginning, middle, or end of a multi-part message.  In other words,
+   we mirror the effect of an atomic transaction sent by a CE to an FE.
+
+
+
+Hadi Salim                   Standards Track                    [Page 9]
+
+RFC 7391               ForCES Protocol Extensions           October 2014
+
+
+       CE PL                                                  FE PL
+
+         |                                                      |
+         | (0) Query, Path-to-a-large-table, OP=GET             |
+         |----------------------------------------------------->|
+         |                correlator = X                        |
+         |                                                      |
+         | (1) Query-Response, SOT,AT, OP=GET-RESPONSE, DATA    |
+         |<-----------------------------------------------------|
+         |                correlator = X                        |
+         |             DATA TLV (SPARSE/FULL)                   |
+         |                                                      |
+         | (2) Query-Response, MOT,AT, OP=GET-RESPONSE, DATA    |
+         |<-----------------------------------------------------|
+         |                correlator = X                        |
+         |             DATA TLV (SPARSE/FULL)                   |
+         |                                                      |
+         | (3) Query-Response, MOT,AT, OP=GET-RESPONSE, DATA    |
+         |<-----------------------------------------------------|
+         |                correlator = X                        |
+         |             DATA TLV (SPARSE/FULL)                   |
+         .                                                      .
+         .                                                      .
+         .                                                      .
+         .                                                      .
+         |                                                      |
+         | (N) Query-Response, MOT,AT, OP=GET-RESPONSE, DATA    |
+         |<-----------------------------------------------------|
+         |                correlator = X                        |
+         |             DATA TLV (SPARSE/FULL)                   |
+         |                                                      |
+         | (N) Query-Response, EOT,AT, OP=GET-RESPONSE          |
+         |<-----------------------------------------------------|
+         |                correlator = X                        |
+         |             RESULT-TLV (SUCCESS)                     |
+         |                                                      |
+
+                 Figure 4: Large Table Dump Time Sequence
+
+   The last message to go to the CE, which carries the End Of
+   Transaction (EOT) flag, MUST NOT carry any data.  This allows us to
+   mirror ForCES two-phase commit (2PC) messaging [RFC5810] where the
+   last message is an empty commit message.  A GET response will carry a
+   RESULT-TLV in such a case.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Hadi Salim                   Standards Track                   [Page 10]
+
+RFC 7391               ForCES Protocol Extensions           October 2014
+
+
+4.  IANA Considerations
+
+   This document updates <https://www.iana.org/assignments/forces>
+   as follows:
+
+   This document registers two new top-level TLVs and two new path
+   flags; it also updates an IANA-registered FE Protocol Object Logical
+   Functional Block (LFB).
+
+   Appendix A defines an update to the FE Protocol Object LFB to
+   version 1.2.  An entry for FE Protocol Object LFB version 1.2 has
+   been added to the "Logical Functional Block (LFB) Class Names and
+   Class Identifiers" sub-registry.
+
+   The following new TLVs have been defined and added to the "TLV Types"
+   sub-registry:
+
+   o  TABLERANGE-TLV (type ID 0x0117)
+
+   o  EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV (type ID 0x0118)
+
+   The "RESULT-TLV Result Values" sub-registry has been updated
+   as follows:
+
+   o  Codes 0x21-0xFE are marked as Unassigned.
+
+   o  Codes 0x18-0x20 are defined by this document in Section 3.2.1.
+
+   o  Codes 0x100-0x200 are reserved for private use.
+
+   A new "EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV Result Values" sub-registry has been
+   created.  The codes 0x00-0xFF are mirrored from the "RESULT-TLV
+   Result Values" sub-registry.  Any future allocations of this code
+   range (in the range 0x21-0xFE) must be made only in the new
+   "EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV Result Values" sub-registry and not in the
+   "RESULT-TLV Result Values" sub-registry.  The codes 0x100-0x200 are
+   reserved for private use as described earlier, and the code ranges
+   0x21-0xFE and 0x201-0xFFFFFFFF are marked as Unassigned with the IANA
+   allocation policy of Specification Required [RFC5226].  The
+   Designated Expert (DE) needs to ensure that existing deployments are
+   not broken by any specified request.  The DE should post a given code
+   request to the ForCES WG mailing list (or a successor designated by
+   the Area Director) for comment and review.  The DE should then either
+   approve or deny the registration request, publish a notice of the
+   decision to the ForCES WG mailing list or its successor, and inform
+   IANA of his/her decision.  A denial notice must be justified by an
+
+
+
+
+
+Hadi Salim                   Standards Track                   [Page 11]
+
+RFC 7391               ForCES Protocol Extensions           October 2014
+
+
+   explanation and, in the cases where it is possible, concrete
+   suggestions on how the request can be modified so as to become
+   acceptable.
+
+5.  Security Considerations
+
+   The security considerations described in the ForCES protocol
+   [RFC5810] apply to this document as well.
+
+6.  References
+
+6.1.  Normative References
+
+   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
+              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
+
+   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
+              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
+              May 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
+
+   [RFC5810]  Doria, A., Hadi Salim, J., Haas, R., Khosravi, H., Wang,
+              W., Dong, L., Gopal, R., and J. Halpern, "Forwarding and
+              Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol
+              Specification", RFC 5810, March 2010,
+              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5810>.
+
+   [RFC5811]  Hadi Salim, J. and K. Ogawa, "SCTP-Based Transport Mapping
+              Layer (TML) for the Forwarding and Control Element
+              Separation (ForCES) Protocol", RFC 5811, March 2010,
+              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5811>.
+
+   [RFC5812]  Halpern, J. and J. Hadi Salim, "Forwarding and Control
+              Element Separation (ForCES) Forwarding Element Model",
+              RFC 5812, March 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/
+              info/rfc5812>.
+
+   [RFC7121]  Ogawa, K., Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., and J. Hadi Salim,
+              "High Availability within a Forwarding and Control Element
+              Separation (ForCES) Network Element", RFC 7121,
+              February 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7121>.
+
+6.2.  Informative References
+
+   [RFC3746]  Yang, L., Dantu, R., Anderson, T., and R. Gopal,
+              "Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)
+              Framework", RFC 3746, April 2004,
+              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3746>.
+
+
+
+Hadi Salim                   Standards Track                   [Page 12]
+
+RFC 7391               ForCES Protocol Extensions           October 2014
+
+
+Appendix A.  New FEPO Version
+
+   This version of FEPO updates the earlier one given in [RFC7121].  The
+   XML has been validated against the schema defined in [RFC5812].
+
+  <LFBLibrary xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:forces:lfbmodel:1.0"
+     xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
+     xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="lfb-schema.xsd" provides="FEPO">
+     <!-- XXX -->
+     <dataTypeDefs>
+        <dataTypeDef>
+           <name>CEHBPolicyValues</name>
+           <synopsis>
+              The possible values of CE heartbeat policy
+           </synopsis>
+           <atomic>
+              <baseType>uchar</baseType>
+              <specialValues>
+                 <specialValue value="0">
+                    <name>CEHBPolicy0</name>
+                    <synopsis>
+                        The CE will send heartbeats to the FE
+                        every CEHDI timeout if no other messages
+                        have been sent since.
+                    </synopsis>
+                 </specialValue>
+                 <specialValue value="1">
+                    <name>CEHBPolicy1</name>
+                    <synopsis>
+                        The CE will not send heartbeats to the FE.
+                    </synopsis>
+                 </specialValue>
+              </specialValues>
+           </atomic>
+        </dataTypeDef>
+        <dataTypeDef>
+           <name>FEHBPolicyValues</name>
+           <synopsis>
+               The possible values of FE heartbeat policy
+           </synopsis>
+           <atomic>
+              <baseType>uchar</baseType>
+              <specialValues>
+                 <specialValue value="0">
+                    <name>FEHBPolicy0</name>
+                    <synopsis>
+                    The FE will not generate any heartbeats to the CE.
+                    </synopsis>
+
+
+
+Hadi Salim                   Standards Track                   [Page 13]
+
+RFC 7391               ForCES Protocol Extensions           October 2014
+
+
+                 </specialValue>
+                 <specialValue value="1">
+                    <name>FEHBPolicy1</name>
+                    <synopsis>
+                       The FE generates heartbeats to the CE every
+                       FEHI if no other
+                       messages have been sent to the CE.
+                    </synopsis>
+                 </specialValue>
+              </specialValues>
+           </atomic>
+        </dataTypeDef>
+        <dataTypeDef>
+           <name>FERestartPolicyValues</name>
+           <synopsis>
+              The possible values of FE restart policy
+           </synopsis>
+           <atomic>
+              <baseType>uchar</baseType>
+              <specialValues>
+                 <specialValue value="0">
+                    <name>FERestartPolicy0</name>
+                    <synopsis>
+                       The FE restarts its state from scratch.
+                    </synopsis>
+                 </specialValue>
+              </specialValues>
+           </atomic>
+        </dataTypeDef>
+        <dataTypeDef>
+           <name>HAModeValues</name>
+           <synopsis>
+              The possible values of HA modes
+           </synopsis>
+           <atomic>
+              <baseType>uchar</baseType>
+              <specialValues>
+                 <specialValue value="0">
+                    <name>NoHA</name>
+                    <synopsis>
+                       The FE is not running in HA mode.
+                    </synopsis>
+                 </specialValue>
+                 <specialValue value="1">
+                    <name>ColdStandby</name>
+                    <synopsis>
+                       The FE is running in HA mode cold standby.
+                    </synopsis>
+
+
+
+Hadi Salim                   Standards Track                   [Page 14]
+
+RFC 7391               ForCES Protocol Extensions           October 2014
+
+
+                 </specialValue>
+                 <specialValue value="2">
+                    <name>HotStandby</name>
+                    <synopsis>
+                       The FE is running in HA mode hot standby.
+                    </synopsis>
+                 </specialValue>
+              </specialValues>
+           </atomic>
+        </dataTypeDef>
+        <dataTypeDef>
+           <name>CEFailoverPolicyValues</name>
+           <synopsis>
+              The possible values of CE failover policy
+           </synopsis>
+           <atomic>
+              <baseType>uchar</baseType>
+              <specialValues>
+                 <specialValue value="0">
+                    <name>CEFailoverPolicy0</name>
+                    <synopsis>
+                        The FE should stop functioning immediately
+                        and transition to FE OperDisable state.
+                    </synopsis>
+                 </specialValue>
+                 <specialValue value="1">
+                    <name>CEFailoverPolicy1</name>
+                    <synopsis>
+                        The FE should continue forwarding even
+                        without an associated CE for CEFTI.  The
+                        FE goes to FE OperDisable when the CEFTI
+                        expires and there is no association.  Requires
+                        graceful restart support.
+                    </synopsis>
+                 </specialValue>
+              </specialValues>
+           </atomic>
+        </dataTypeDef>
+        <dataTypeDef>
+           <name>FEHACapab</name>
+           <synopsis>
+              The supported HA features
+           </synopsis>
+           <atomic>
+              <baseType>uchar</baseType>
+              <specialValues>
+                 <specialValue value="0">
+                    <name>GracefullRestart</name>
+
+
+
+Hadi Salim                   Standards Track                   [Page 15]
+
+RFC 7391               ForCES Protocol Extensions           October 2014
+
+
+                    <synopsis>
+                       The FE supports graceful restart.
+                    </synopsis>
+                 </specialValue>
+                 <specialValue value="1">
+                    <name>HA</name>
+                    <synopsis>
+                       The FE supports HA.
+                    </synopsis>
+                 </specialValue>
+              </specialValues>
+           </atomic>
+        </dataTypeDef>
+        <dataTypeDef>
+           <name>CEStatusType</name>
+           <synopsis>Status values.  Status for each CE</synopsis>
+           <atomic>
+              <baseType>uchar</baseType>
+              <specialValues>
+                 <specialValue value="0">
+                    <name>Disconnected</name>
+                    <synopsis>No connection attempt with the CE yet
+                    </synopsis>
+                 </specialValue>
+                 <specialValue value="1">
+                    <name>Connected</name>
+                    <synopsis>The FE connection with the CE at the TML
+                       has been completed.
+                    </synopsis>
+                 </specialValue>
+                 <specialValue value="2">
+                    <name>Associated</name>
+                    <synopsis>The FE has associated with the CE.
+                    </synopsis>
+                 </specialValue>
+                 <specialValue value="3">
+                    <name>IsMaster</name>
+                    <synopsis>The CE is the master (and associated).
+                    </synopsis>
+                 </specialValue>
+                 <specialValue value="4">
+                    <name>LostConnection</name>
+                    <synopsis>The FE was associated with the CE but
+                       lost the connection.
+                    </synopsis>
+                 </specialValue>
+                 <specialValue value="5">
+                    <name>Unreachable</name>
+
+
+
+Hadi Salim                   Standards Track                   [Page 16]
+
+RFC 7391               ForCES Protocol Extensions           October 2014
+
+
+                    <synopsis>The CE is deemed as unreachable by the FE.
+                    </synopsis>
+                 </specialValue>
+              </specialValues>
+           </atomic>
+        </dataTypeDef>
+        <dataTypeDef>
+           <name>StatisticsType</name>
+           <synopsis>Statistics Definition</synopsis>
+           <struct>
+              <component componentID="1">
+                 <name>RecvPackets</name>
+                 <synopsis>Packets received</synopsis>
+                 <typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
+              </component>
+              <component componentID="2">
+                 <name>RecvErrPackets</name>
+                 <synopsis>Packets received from CE with errors
+                 </synopsis>
+                 <typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
+              </component>
+              <component componentID="3">
+                 <name>RecvBytes</name>
+                 <synopsis>Bytes received from CE</synopsis>
+                 <typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
+              </component>
+              <component componentID="4">
+                 <name>RecvErrBytes</name>
+                 <synopsis>Bytes received from CE in error</synopsis>
+                 <typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
+              </component>
+              <component componentID="5">
+                 <name>TxmitPackets</name>
+                 <synopsis>Packets transmitted to CE</synopsis>
+                 <typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
+              </component>
+              <component componentID="6">
+                 <name>TxmitErrPackets</name>
+                 <synopsis>
+                    Packets transmitted to CE that incurred
+                    errors
+                 </synopsis>
+                 <typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
+              </component>
+              <component componentID="7">
+                 <name>TxmitBytes</name>
+                 <synopsis>Bytes transmitted to CE</synopsis>
+                 <typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
+
+
+
+Hadi Salim                   Standards Track                   [Page 17]
+
+RFC 7391               ForCES Protocol Extensions           October 2014
+
+
+              </component>
+              <component componentID="8">
+                 <name>TxmitErrBytes</name>
+                 <synopsis>Bytes transmitted to CE incurring errors
+                 </synopsis>
+                 <typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
+              </component>
+           </struct>
+        </dataTypeDef>
+        <dataTypeDef>
+           <name>AllCEType</name>
+           <synopsis>Table Type for AllCE component</synopsis>
+           <struct>
+              <component componentID="1">
+                 <name>CEID</name>
+                 <synopsis>ID of the CE</synopsis>
+                 <typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
+              </component>
+              <component componentID="2">
+                 <name>Statistics</name>
+                 <synopsis>Statistics per CE</synopsis>
+                 <typeRef>StatisticsType</typeRef>
+              </component>
+              <component componentID="3">
+                 <name>CEStatus</name>
+                 <synopsis>Status of the CE</synopsis>
+                 <typeRef>CEStatusType</typeRef>
+              </component>
+           </struct>
+        </dataTypeDef>
+        <dataTypeDef>
+           <name>ExtendedResultType</name>
+           <synopsis>
+               Possible extended result support
+           </synopsis>
+           <atomic>
+              <baseType>uchar</baseType>
+              <rangeRestriction>
+                <allowedRange min="1" max="2"/>
+              </rangeRestriction>
+              <specialValues>
+                 <specialValue value="1">
+                    <name>EResultNotSupported</name>
+                    <synopsis>
+                        Extended results are not supported.
+                    </synopsis>
+                 </specialValue>
+                 <specialValue value="2">
+
+
+
+Hadi Salim                   Standards Track                   [Page 18]
+
+RFC 7391               ForCES Protocol Extensions           October 2014
+
+
+                    <name>EResultSupported</name>
+                    <synopsis>
+                        Extended results are supported.
+                    </synopsis>
+                 </specialValue>
+              </specialValues>
+           </atomic>
+        </dataTypeDef>
+     </dataTypeDefs>
+     <LFBClassDefs>
+        <LFBClassDef LFBClassID="2">
+           <name>FEPO</name>
+           <synopsis>
+              The FE Protocol Object, with extended result control
+           </synopsis>
+           <version>1.2</version>
+           <components>
+              <component componentID="1" access="read-only">
+                 <name>CurrentRunningVersion</name>
+                 <synopsis>Currently running ForCES version</synopsis>
+                 <typeRef>uchar</typeRef>
+              </component>
+              <component componentID="2" access="read-only">
+                 <name>FEID</name>
+                 <synopsis>Unicast FEID</synopsis>
+                 <typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
+              </component>
+              <component componentID="3" access="read-write">
+                 <name>MulticastFEIDs</name>
+                 <synopsis>
+                    The table of all multicast IDs
+                 </synopsis>
+                 <array type="variable-size">
+                    <typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
+                 </array>
+              </component>
+              <component componentID="4" access="read-write">
+                 <name>CEHBPolicy</name>
+                 <synopsis>
+                    The CE Heartbeat Policy
+                 </synopsis>
+                 <typeRef>CEHBPolicyValues</typeRef>
+              </component>
+              <component componentID="5" access="read-write">
+                 <name>CEHDI</name>
+                 <synopsis>
+                    The CE Heartbeat Dead Interval in milliseconds
+                 </synopsis>
+
+
+
+Hadi Salim                   Standards Track                   [Page 19]
+
+RFC 7391               ForCES Protocol Extensions           October 2014
+
+
+                 <typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
+              </component>
+              <component componentID="6" access="read-write">
+                 <name>FEHBPolicy</name>
+                 <synopsis>
+                    The FE Heartbeat Policy
+                 </synopsis>
+                 <typeRef>FEHBPolicyValues</typeRef>
+              </component>
+              <component componentID="7" access="read-write">
+                 <name>FEHI</name>
+                 <synopsis>
+                    The FE Heartbeat Interval in milliseconds
+                 </synopsis>
+                 <typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
+              </component>
+              <component componentID="8" access="read-write">
+                 <name>CEID</name>
+                 <synopsis>
+                    The Primary CE this FE is associated with
+                 </synopsis>
+                 <typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
+              </component>
+              <component componentID="9" access="read-write">
+                 <name>BackupCEs</name>
+                 <synopsis>
+                    The table of all backup CEs other than the
+                    primary
+                 </synopsis>
+                 <array type="variable-size">
+                    <typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
+                 </array>
+              </component>
+              <component componentID="10" access="read-write">
+                 <name>CEFailoverPolicy</name>
+                 <synopsis>
+                    The CE Failover Policy
+                 </synopsis>
+                 <typeRef>CEFailoverPolicyValues</typeRef>
+              </component>
+              <component componentID="11" access="read-write">
+                 <name>CEFTI</name>
+                 <synopsis>
+                    The CE Failover Timeout Interval in milliseconds
+                 </synopsis>
+                 <typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
+              </component>
+              <component componentID="12" access="read-write">
+
+
+
+Hadi Salim                   Standards Track                   [Page 20]
+
+RFC 7391               ForCES Protocol Extensions           October 2014
+
+
+                 <name>FERestartPolicy</name>
+                 <synopsis>
+                    The FE Restart Policy
+                 </synopsis>
+                 <typeRef>FERestartPolicyValues</typeRef>
+              </component>
+              <component componentID="13" access="read-write">
+                 <name>LastCEID</name>
+                 <synopsis>
+                    The Primary CE this FE was last associated
+                    with
+                 </synopsis>
+                 <typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
+              </component>
+              <component componentID="14" access="read-write">
+                 <name>HAMode</name>
+                 <synopsis>
+                    The HA mode used
+                 </synopsis>
+                 <typeRef>HAModeValues</typeRef>
+              </component>
+              <component componentID="15" access="read-only">
+                 <name>AllCEs</name>
+                 <synopsis>The table of all CEs</synopsis>
+                 <array type="variable-size">
+                    <typeRef>AllCEType</typeRef>
+                 </array>
+               </component>
+               <component componentID="16" access="read-write">
+                 <name>EResultAdmin</name>
+                 <synopsis>
+                     Turn extended results off or on,
+                     but default to off.
+                 </synopsis>
+                 <typeRef>ExtendedResultType</typeRef>
+                 <defaultValue>1</defaultValue>
+              </component>
+           </components>
+           <capabilities>
+              <capability componentID="30">
+                 <name>SupportableVersions</name>
+                 <synopsis>
+                    The table of ForCES versions that FE supports
+                 </synopsis>
+                 <array type="variable-size">
+                    <typeRef>uchar</typeRef>
+                 </array>
+              </capability>
+
+
+
+Hadi Salim                   Standards Track                   [Page 21]
+
+RFC 7391               ForCES Protocol Extensions           October 2014
+
+
+              <capability componentID="31">
+                 <name>HACapabilities</name>
+                 <synopsis>
+                    The table of HA capabilities the FE supports
+                 </synopsis>
+                 <array type="variable-size">
+                    <typeRef>FEHACapab</typeRef>
+                 </array>
+              </capability>
+               <capability componentID="32">
+                 <name>EResultCapab</name>
+                 <synopsis>
+                    The table of supported result capabilities
+                 </synopsis>
+                 <array type="variable-size">
+                    <typeRef>ExtendedResultType</typeRef>
+                 </array>
+             </capability>
+           </capabilities>
+           <events baseID="61">
+              <event eventID="1">
+                 <name>PrimaryCEDown</name>
+                 <synopsis>
+                    The primary CE has changed.
+                 </synopsis>
+                 <eventTarget>
+                    <eventField>LastCEID</eventField>
+                 </eventTarget>
+                 <eventChanged/>
+                 <eventReports>
+                    <eventReport>
+                       <eventField>LastCEID</eventField>
+                    </eventReport>
+                 </eventReports>
+              </event>
+              <event eventID="2">
+                 <name>PrimaryCEChanged</name>
+                 <synopsis>A new primary CE has been selected.
+                 </synopsis>
+                 <eventTarget>
+                    <eventField>CEID</eventField>
+                 </eventTarget>
+                 <eventChanged/>
+                 <eventReports>
+                    <eventReport>
+                       <eventField>CEID</eventField>
+                    </eventReport>
+                 </eventReports>
+
+
+
+Hadi Salim                   Standards Track                   [Page 22]
+
+RFC 7391               ForCES Protocol Extensions           October 2014
+
+
+              </event>
+           </events>
+        </LFBClassDef>
+     </LFBClassDefs>
+  </LFBLibrary>
+
+Acknowledgments
+
+   The author would like to thank Evangelos Haleplidis and Joel Halpern
+   for discussions that made this document better.  Adrian Farrel did an
+   excellent AD review of the document, which improved the quality of
+   this document.  Tobias Gondrom did the Security Directorate review.
+   Brian Carpenter did the Gen-ART review.  Nevil Brownlee performed the
+   Operations Directorate review.  S. Moonesamy (SM) worked hard to
+   review our publication process.  Pearl Liang caught issues in the
+   IANA text.
+
+   The author would like to thank the following IESG members who
+   reviewed and improved this document: Alia Atlas, Barry Leiba, Brian
+   Haberman, Kathleen Moriarty, Richard Barnes, and Spencer Dawkins.
+
+Author's Address
+
+   Jamal Hadi Salim
+   Mojatatu Networks
+   Suite 400, 303 Moodie Dr.
+   Ottawa, Ontario  K2H 9R4
+   Canada
+
+   EMail: hadi@mojatatu.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Hadi Salim                   Standards Track                   [Page 23]
+