doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 273 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc9214.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc9214.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c211c5e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc9214.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,273 @@
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         N. Nainar
+Request for Comments: 9214                                  C. Pignataro
+Updates: 8287                                        Cisco Systems, Inc.
+Category: Standards Track                                    M. Aissaoui
+ISSN: 2070-1721                                                    Nokia
+                                                              April 2022
+
+
+                  OSPFv3 Code Point for MPLS LSP Ping
+
+Abstract
+
+   IANA has created "Protocol in the Segment ID Sub-TLV" and "Protocol
+   in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV" registries
+   under the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths
+   (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry.  RFC 8287 defines the code points
+   for Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and Intermediate System to
+   Intermediate System (IS-IS) protocols.
+
+   This document specifies the code point to be used in the Segment ID
+   sub-TLV and Downstream Detailed Mapping (DDMAP) TLV when the Interior
+   Gateway Protocol (IGP) is OSPFv3.  This document also updates
+   RFC 8287 by clarifying that the existing "OSPF" code point is to be
+   used only to indicate OSPFv2 and by defining the behavior when the
+   Segment ID sub-TLV indicates the use of IPv6.
+
+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/rfc9214.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (c) 2022 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
+   Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
+   in the Revised BSD License.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1.  Introduction
+   2.  Requirements Notation
+   3.  Terminology
+   4.  OSPFv3 Protocol in Segment ID Sub-TLVs
+   5.  OSPFv3 Protocol in Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV
+   6.  Update to RFC 8287 - OSPFv2 Protocol in Segment ID and DDMAP
+           Sub-TLVs
+   7.  IANA Considerations
+     7.1.  Protocol in the Segment ID Sub-TLV
+     7.2.  Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed
+           Mapping TLV
+   8.  Security Considerations
+   9.  Normative References
+   Acknowledgements
+   Authors' Addresses
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   IANA has created the "Protocol in the Segment ID Sub-TLV" registry
+   and "Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed Mapping
+   TLV" registries under the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
+   Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry [IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING].
+   [RFC8287] defines the code points for OSPF and IS-IS.
+
+   "OSPF for IPv6" [RFC5340] describes OSPF version 3 (OSPFv3) to
+   support IPv6.  "Support of Address Families in OSPFv3" [RFC5838]
+   describes the mechanism to support multiple address families (AFs) in
+   OSPFv3.  Accordingly, OSPFv3 may be used to advertise IPv6 and IPv4
+   prefixes.
+
+   This document specifies the code point to be used in the Segment ID
+   sub-TLV (Types 34, 35, and 36) and in the Downstream Detailed Mapping
+   (DDMAP) TLV when the IGP is OSPFv3.
+
+   This document also updates "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute
+   for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment
+   Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data Planes" [RFC8287] by clarifying
+   that the existing "OSPF" code point is to be used only to indicate
+   OSPFv2 and by defining the behavior when the Segment ID sub-TLV
+   indicates the use of IPv6.
+
+2.  Requirements Notation
+
+   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.
+
+3.  Terminology
+
+   This document uses the terminology defined in "Segment Routing
+   Architecture" [RFC8402], "Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched
+   (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures" [RFC8029], and "Label Switched Path (LSP)
+   Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency
+   Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data Planes" [RFC8287], and so
+   the readers are expected to be familiar with the same.
+
+4.  OSPFv3 Protocol in Segment ID Sub-TLVs
+
+   When the protocol field of the Segment ID sub-TLV of Type 34 (IPv4
+   IGP-Prefix Segment ID), Type 35 (IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID), and
+   Type 36 (IGP-Adjacency Segment ID) is set to 3, the responder MUST
+   perform the Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) validation using
+   OSPFv3 as the IGP.
+
+   The initiator MUST NOT set the protocol field of the Segment ID sub-
+   TLV Type 35 and Type 36 as OSPF (value 1) as OSPFv2 is not compatible
+   with the use of IPv6 addresses indicated by this sub-TLV.
+
+   When the protocol field in the received Segment ID sub-TLV Type 35
+   and Type 36 is OSPF (value 1), the responder MAY treat the protocol
+   value as "Any IGP Protocol" (value 0) according to step 4a of
+   Section 7.4 of [RFC8287].  This allows the responder to support
+   legacy implementations that use value 1 to indicate OSPFv3.
+
+5.  OSPFv3 Protocol in Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV
+
+   The protocol field of the DDMAP TLV in an echo reply is set to 7 when
+   OSPFv3 is used to distribute the label carried in the Downstream
+   Label field.
+
+6.  Update to RFC 8287 - OSPFv2 Protocol in Segment ID and DDMAP Sub-
+    TLVs
+
+   Section 5 of [RFC8287] defines the code point for OSPF to be used in
+   the Protocol field of the Segment ID sub-TLV.  Section 6 of [RFC8287]
+   defines the code point for OSPF to be used in the Protocol field of
+   the DDMAP TLV.
+
+   This document updates [RFC8287] by specifying that the "OSPF" code
+   points SHOULD be used only for OSPFv2.
+
+7.  IANA Considerations
+
+7.1.  Protocol in the Segment ID Sub-TLV
+
+   IANA has assigned a new code point from the "Protocol in the Segment
+   ID Sub-TLV" registry under the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
+   Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry as follows:
+
+                      +=======+=========+===========+
+                      | Value | Meaning | Reference |
+                      +=======+=========+===========+
+                      | 3     | OSPFv3  | RFC 9214  |
+                      +-------+---------+-----------+
+
+                                  Table 1
+
+   IANA has added a note for the existing entry for code point 1 (OSPF):
+   "To be used for OSPFv2 only".
+
+7.2.  Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV
+
+   IANA has assigned a new code point for OSPFv3 from "Protocol in Label
+   Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV" registry under the
+   "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
+   Ping Parameters" registry as follows:
+
+                      +=======+=========+===========+
+                      | Value | Meaning | Reference |
+                      +=======+=========+===========+
+                      | 7     | OSPFv3  | RFC 9214  |
+                      +-------+---------+-----------+
+
+                                  Table 2
+
+   IANA has added a note for the existing codepoint 5 (OSPF): "To be
+   used for OSPFv2 only".
+
+8.  Security Considerations
+
+   This document updates [RFC8287] and does not introduce any additional
+   security considerations.  See [RFC8029] to see generic security
+   considerations about the MPLS LSP Ping.
+
+9.  Normative References
+
+   [IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]
+              IANA, "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched
+              Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters",
+              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-
+              parameters>.
+
+   [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>.
+
+   [RFC5340]  Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
+              for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
+
+   [RFC5838]  Lindem, A., Ed., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Barnes, M., and
+              R. Aggarwal, "Support of Address Families in OSPFv3",
+              RFC 5838, DOI 10.17487/RFC5838, April 2010,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5838>.
+
+   [RFC8029]  Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
+              Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
+              Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
+
+   [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>.
+
+   [RFC8287]  Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya,
+              N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP)
+              Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and
+              IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data
+              Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8287>.
+
+   [RFC8402]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
+              Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
+              Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
+              July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
+
+Acknowledgements
+
+   The authors would like to thank Les Ginsberg, Zafar Ali, Loa
+   Andersson, Andrew Molotchko, Deborah Brungard, Acee Lindem, and
+   Adrian Farrel for their review and suggestions.
+
+   The authors also would like to thank Christer Holmberg, Tero Kivinen,
+   Matthew Bocci, Tom Petch, and Martin Vigoureux for their review
+   comments.
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+   Nagendra Kumar Nainar
+   Cisco Systems, Inc.
+   7200-12 Kit Creek Road
+   Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
+   United States of America
+   Email: naikumar@cisco.com
+
+
+   Carlos Pignataro
+   Cisco Systems, Inc.
+   7200-11 Kit Creek Road
+   Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
+   United States of America
+   Email: cpignata@cisco.com
+
+
+   Mustapha Aissaoui
+   Nokia
+   Canada
+   Email: mustapha.aissaoui@nokia.com