doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 240 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc8757.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc8757.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2c1316f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc8757.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,240 @@
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                          B. Cheng
+Request for Comments: 8757                        MIT Lincoln Laboratory
+Category: Standards Track                                 L. Berger, Ed.
+ISSN: 2070-1721                                  LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
+                                                              March 2020
+
+
+     Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Latency Range Extension
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document defines an extension to the Dynamic Link Exchange
+   Protocol (DLEP) to provide the range of latency that can be
+   experienced on a link.
+
+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 7841.
+
+   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
+   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
+   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8757.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (c) 2020 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
+   (https://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.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1.  Introduction
+     1.1.  Key Words
+   2.  Extension Usage and Identification
+   3.  Latency Range Data Item
+   4.  Security Considerations
+   5.  IANA Considerations
+     5.1.  Extension Type Value
+     5.2.  Data Item Value
+   6.  References
+     6.1.  Normative References
+     6.2.  Informative References
+   Acknowledgments
+   Authors' Addresses
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) is defined in [RFC8175].
+   It provides the exchange of link-related control information between
+   DLEP peers.  DLEP peers are comprised of a modem and a router.  DLEP
+   defines a base set of mechanisms as well as support for possible
+   extensions.  This document defines one such extension.
+
+   The base DLEP specification includes the Latency Data Item, which
+   provides a single, implementation-dependent latency value on a link.
+   This document adds the ability to relay the minimum and maximum
+   latency range seen on a link.  The extension defined in this document
+   is referred to as "Latency Range".
+
+   This document defines a new DLEP Extension Type Value that is used to
+   indicate the use of the extension; see Section 2.  A new DLEP Data
+   Item is defined in Section 3.
+
+1.1.  Key Words
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
+   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
+   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
+   capitals, as shown here.
+
+2.  Extension Usage and Identification
+
+   The use of the Latency Range Extension SHOULD be configurable.  To
+   indicate that the Latency Range Extension is to be used, an
+   implementation MUST include the Latency Range Extension Type Value in
+   the Extensions Supported Data Item.  The Extensions Supported Data
+   Item is sent and processed according to [RFC8175].
+
+   Note: The usage of the extension defined in this document does not
+   impact processing associated with the Latency Data Item defined in
+   [RFC8175].
+
+   The Latency Range Extension Type Value is 4; see Section 5.
+
+3.  Latency Range Data Item
+
+   The Latency Range Data Item serves much the same purpose as the
+   Latency Data Item defined in [RFC8175] with the addition of being
+   able to communicate the latency range that can be experienced by
+   traffic on a link.  The Latency Range Data Item MUST be included in
+   the Session Initialization Response Message, with default values to
+   be used on a session-wide basis.  The Latency Range Data Item also
+   MAY be carried in any message where the Latency Data Item [RFC8175]
+   is allowed and is carried as an additional data item.  When present,
+   the Latency Range Data Item MUST be processed according to the same
+   rules as the Latency Data Item defined in [RFC8175].
+
+   The format of the Latency Range Data Item is:
+
+   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
+   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+   | Data Item Type                | Length                        |
+   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+   |                        Maximum Latency                        :
+   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+   :                        Maximum Latency                        |
+   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+   |                        Minimum Latency                        :
+   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+   :                        Minimum Latency                        |
+   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+
+   Data Item Type:
+      28
+
+   Length:
+      16
+
+   Maximum Latency:
+      A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the longest transmission
+      delay, in microseconds, that a packet encounters as it is
+      transmitted over the link.
+
+   Minimum Latency:
+      A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the shortest transmission
+      delay, in microseconds, that a packet can encounter as it is
+      transmitted over the link.
+
+4.  Security Considerations
+
+   The extension introduces a new Data Item for DLEP.  The extension
+   does not inherently introduce any additional vulnerabilities above
+   those documented in [RFC8175].  The approach taken to security in
+   that document applies equally when running the extension defined in
+   this document.
+
+5.  IANA Considerations
+
+   As described below, IANA has assigned two values per this document.
+   Both assignments are to registries defined by [RFC8175].
+
+5.1.  Extension Type Value
+
+   IANA has assigned the following value in the "Extension Type Values"
+   registry within the "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)
+   Parameters" registry.  The new value is in the range with the
+   "Specification Required" [RFC8126] policy:
+
+                          +------+---------------+
+                          | Code | Description   |
+                          +======+===============+
+                          | 4    | Latency Range |
+                          +------+---------------+
+
+                           Table 1: New Extension
+                                 Type Value
+
+5.2.  Data Item Value
+
+   IANA has assigned the following value in the "Data Item Type Values"
+   registry within the "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)
+   Parameters" registry.  The new value is in the range with the
+   "Specification Required" [RFC8126] policy:
+
+                       +-----------+---------------+
+                       | Type Code | Description   |
+                       +===========+===============+
+                       | 28        | Latency Range |
+                       +-----------+---------------+
+
+                        Table 2: New Data Item Value
+
+6.  References
+
+6.1.  Normative References
+
+   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
+
+   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
+              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
+              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
+
+   [RFC8175]  Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B.
+              Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", RFC 8175,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC8175, June 2017,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8175>.
+
+6.2.  Informative References
+
+   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
+              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
+              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
+
+Acknowledgments
+
+   Helpful comments were received from members of the MANET working
+   group, including Ronald in 't Velt, Henning Rogge, and Victoria
+   Pritchard.
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+   Bow-Nan Cheng
+   MIT Lincoln Laboratory
+   Massachusetts Institute of Technology
+   244 Wood Street
+   Lexington, MA 02421-6426
+   United States of America
+
+   Email: bcheng@ll.mit.edu
+
+
+   Lou Berger (editor)
+   LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
+
+   Email: lberger@labn.net