Internet DRAFT - draft-trossen-detnet-control-signaling
draft-trossen-detnet-control-signaling
DetNet Working Group D. Trossen
INTERNET-DRAFT Huawei
Intended Status: Standards Track F.-J. Goetz
Expires: August 11, 2021 J. Schmitt
Siemens
February 11, 2021
DetNet Control Plane Signaling
draft-trossen-detnet-control-signaling-01.txt
Abstract
This document provides solutions for control plane signaling, in
accordance with the control plane framework developed in the DetNet
WG. The solutions cover distributed, centralized, and hybrid
signaling scenarios in the TSN and SDN domain. We propose changes to
RSVP IntServ for a better integration with Layer 2 technologies for
resource reservation, outlining example API specifications for the
realization of the revised RSVP (called RSVP-TSN in the document).
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Trossen, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT DetNet Control Plane Signaling
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Distributed DetNet User Network Interface (ddUNI) . . . . 3
2.2. Fully Distributed Detnet Control Plane (still supports
ddUNI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Design Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. RAP Reservation in TSN vs RSVP IntServ Model . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Similarities and Differences between RSVP and RAP . . . . 5
3.2.1. Assumptions on Network Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.2. Mapping of Latency Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.3. Dealing with Latency Margins . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.4. Dealing with Jitter and Non-Shaping Nodes . . . . . . 6
3.2.5. Mapping Resource Reservation Styles . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Design Considerations for RSVP-TSN . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.1. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.2. Splitting Control over Resource Style and Sender
Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.3. Coordinated Shared Resource Style . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.4. DnFlow DestinatinIpAddress Resolution . . . . . . . . 8
4. RSVP-TSN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Layer Interactions between RSVP and TSN . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. API for Deterministic QoS (gQoS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. RSVP-TSN upper API (uRSVP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. RSVP-TSN lower API (lRSVP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.5. RSVP-TSN Message Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Trossen, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT DetNet Control Plane Signaling
1. Introduction
The authors in [ID.malis-detnet-controller-plane-framework] provide
an overview of the DetNet control plane architecture along three
possible classes, namely (i) fully distributed control plane
utilizing dynamic signaling protocols, (ii) a centralized, SDN-like,
control plane, and (iii) a hybrid control plane.
When investigating the usage of RSVP [RFC2205] for the signaling of
deterministic IP connectivity in combination of underlying Layer 2
mechanisms, considerations arise for the development of the detnet-
specific RSVP protocol, called RSVP-TSN in the following.
This document will outline use cases spanning the classes of control
planes introduced in [ID.malis-detnet-controller-plane-framework],
followed by the design rationale and specification for the proposed
RSVP-TSN protocol.
1.1. Terminology
This document uses the terminology established in the DetNet
Architecture [RFC8655], and the reader is assumed to be familiar with
that document and its terminology.
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. Use Cases
Based on the detnet stack model [RFC 8938], "Resource allocation",
located in the forwarding sub-layer, is split into RSVP-TSN IP flow
signaling and underlying TSN subnet stream reservation. Stream
reservation within TSN subnetworks can be organized with a
decentralized, centralized or hybrid configuration model. The notion
of TSN in these use cases and the remainder of the document assumes a
Bridged-Ethernet LAN with enhancements for time-sensitive
networking.
2.1. Distributed DetNet User Network Interface (ddUNI)
The following figure illustrates the principle of a hybrid DetNet
using RSVP-TSN for DnFlow signaling in a TSN aware customer network.
DetNet/TSN end nodes signal their DnFlows over RSVP-TSN. In parallel,
the TSN control plane triggers the stream reservation within a TSN
aware customer network, using e.g., LRP/RAP. The control plane
solution of a TSN customer network is independent from RSVP-TSN
signaling and can cover distributed, centralized or hybrid
Trossen, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT DetNet Control Plane Signaling
reservation scenarios.
An RSVP detnet Edge Router supports RSVP-TSN signaling of DnFlows and
covers DnFlow signaling supported by the associated detnet aware core
network. Although the DetNet control plane within the DetNet core
network is without support for RSVP, it still supports the DetNet
Flow and Service Information Model [ID-detnet-flow-information-model]
and can be organized in a decentralized or centralized (SDN-like)
manner.
+-------+
+-------+ +-------+| +-------+
+----+ | | +------+ | || +------+ | | +----+
|RSVP| | TSN | | RSVP | |DetNet || | RSVP | | TSN | |RSVP|
|TSN |--| Cust. | |DetNet| | aware || |DetNet| | Cust. |--|TSN |
|End-| |Network|--| Edge |--| Core ||--| Edge |--|Network| |End-|
|Node| | | |Router| |Network|| |Router| | | |Node|
+----+ +-------+ +------+ | |+ +------+ +-------+ +----+
+-------+
Figure 1 : Distributed DetNet UNI
2.2. Fully Distributed Detnet Control Plane (still supports ddUNI)
The following figure illustrates a fully distributed DetNet using
RSVP-TSN for DnFlow signaling in TSN aware customer networks and RSVP
aware core networks. In difference to the previous scenario, the
detnet control plane within the detnet aware core network still
supports RSVP to establish detnet end-2-end connectivity.
+-------+
+-------+ +-------+| +-------+
+----+ | | +------+ | RSVP || +------+ | | +----+
|RSVP| | TSN | | RSVP | | aware || | RSVP | | TSN | |RSVP|
|TSN |--| Cust. | | Edge | | Core || | Edge | | Cust. |--|TSN |
|End-| |Network|--|Router|--|Network||--|Router|--|Network| |End-|
|Node| | | +------+ | |+ +------+ | | |Node|
+----+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +----+
Figure 2 : Fully Distributed DetNet UNI
3. Design Rationale
This section will explore the design rationale behind the development
of RSVP-TSN. The next two sub-sections outline aspects derived from
the comparison of RAP, as a Layer2 mechanism, and RSVP, before
highlighting key design considerations for the presentation of RSVP-
TSN in Section 4.
Trossen, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT DetNet Control Plane Signaling
3.1. RAP Reservation in TSN vs RSVP IntServ Model
Layer2 reservation in TSN-based networks is supported through RAP,
providing a maximum of 8 classes of traffic where the frame priority
code point (PCP) is used to select the Resource Allocation (RA) class
at the ingress bridge. Streams within a single RA class are queued in
a single traffic class where the latency of the stream is guaranteed
per hop and per RA class.
This model contrasts with the RSVP IntServ [RFC2212] model, which
provides a flow bandwidth driven latency model with a separate
transmission queue per flow, not a class-based model like in the
aforementioned RAP model.
This difference in models poses a number of challenges:
1. Is RSVP IntServ (as defined in [RFC2212]) the right starting
point?
2. How to efficiently map the different reservation styles of RSVP-
TSN onto RAP?
3. What is the nature of the interface between RSVP-TSN and RAP?
4. How is the binding between L3 signaling (RSVP IntServer) and L2
signaling (RAP ) realized, e.g., mapping of Stream-ID?
The following sub-sections elaborate on the various aspects in
addressing those challenges.
3.2. Similarities and Differences between RSVP and RAP
The following sub-sections will outline various aspects to be
considered when designing the interfaces between RSVP-TSN and RAP,
namely the assumptions on network nodes (Section 3.2.1), the mapping
of the latency model used in both models (Section 3.2.2), the dealing
with latency margins (Section 3.2.3), the dealing with Jitter and
non-shaping nodes (Section 3.2.4), and the mapping of resource
reservation styles (Section 3.2.5).
3.2.1. Assumptions on Network Nodes
RSVP assumes three different nodes over which a reservation can be
done, namely
- Shaping node, which implements the RSVP signaling and shaping on
the data plane,
Trossen, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT DetNet Control Plane Signaling
- None shaping node, which implements the RSVP signaling and is
capable of estimating the latency caused by this node
- Legacy node, which does neither implement RSVP nor any shaping.
RAP assumes properties common to all nodes within a reservation
domain:
- All nodes take part in the signaling process
- Different data plane architectures are supported albeit limited to
those defined in IEEE 802.1Q.
- Bridging between different (heterogeneous) data planes is achieved
through a peer-to-peer model where every upstream node is a talker
for the next downstream node.
3.2.2. Mapping of Latency Model
RSVP assumes a weighted fair queuing (WFQ) at the data plane, where a
listener is able to influence therefore the latency through the
reserved bandwidth per flow.
RAP assumes one traffic class with given interference per common RA
class, resulting in a per hop latency for all stream within a single
RA class. The E2E latency is just signaled by accumulating hop
latency while the allowed interference determines the amount of
allowed flow per RA class. Here, the listener is unable to influence
the latency but the stream requirement is signaled upstream.
3.2.3. Dealing with Latency Margins
RSVP provides the notion of slack [RFC2212] per flow, which can be
consumed by the processing node in the network to enable additional
reservations.
In RAP, every listener of a stream propagates its required latency
upstream to the talker. Latency margins are not handled directly by
RAP, while the per hop latency of an RA class is preconfigured by
management. In each node, the per RA class upstream required latency
of all streams can be used to locally calculate the latency margins
per hop. The management system can then use this information to
adjust the per hop maximum latency at runtime.
3.2.4. Dealing with Jitter and Non-Shaping Nodes
RSVP has two different parameters to propagate the maximum non-
Trossen, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT DetNet Control Plane Signaling
conformance to the leaky bucket model introduced through jitter and
non-shaping nodes. These can be accumulated by non-shaping nodes,
i.e., those which implement the RSVP protocol but are not performing
shaping at the data plane.
Within RAP, there is no distinction between shaping and non-shaping
nodes since all nodes adhere to the data plane architecture defined
in IEEE 802.1Q. Heterogeneous data planes are possible as long as
assurances to the next hop can be upheld, while RA class attributes
are used to propagate data plane behavior (e.g., shaper) to the next
neighbor.
3.2.5. Mapping Resource Reservation Styles
RSVP uses the notion of 'sessions', which are able to maintain
different kinds of end-to-end connectivity and resource styles,
namely fixed (i) filter style, (ii) shared explicit style, and (iii)
wildcard filter style - see [RFC2205] and Figure 3. It is important
to note that in RSVP, both sender selection and resource styles are
controlled by the receiver; we return to this issue in our next
section, discussing the rationale for the proposed design for RSVP-
TSN.
The current draft version of RAP supports only distinct explicit mode
of reservation, while in principle supporting reservation between one
talker and multiple listeners. Bridged Ethernet technology is also
able to support the shared resource modes as specified by RSVP. Also
a new resource style called Coordinated Shared Resource Style is
planned.
|| Resource Style |
Sender || |
Selection || Distinct | Shared | Coordinated Shared |
-----------------||-------------|-------------|--------------------|
|| | | |
Explicit || supported | supported | supported |
-----------------||-------------|-------------|--------------------|
|| | | |
Wildcard || | supported | |
-----------------||------------------------------------------------|
Figure 3: Resource Style and Sender Selection [RFC2205]
3.3. Design Considerations for RSVP-TSN
3.3.1. Rationale
Continuing from Section 3.2.5, in RSVP (for IntServ), the receiver
initiates resource style and sender selection through the Resv
Trossen, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT DetNet Control Plane Signaling
message being sent upstream, while path state being setup through the
Path message from the sender to the receiver upon receiving the Resv
message.
When looking into an integration with lower layer APIs, such as the
TSN API, we identify key differences in WHEN these lower layer APIs
decide if a reservation is possible:
1. For a new Announce downstream, each L2 node decides that if this
stream was reserved at this port, would there be enough resources
available to do so?
2. For a new Attachment upstream, each L2 node will lock the required
resources and bandwidth exclusively for this stream. For every L2
node local non-locked Announce, the L2 node will decide the same
question as in item 1 and refresh and propagate the necessary
states accordingly.
It is important to note that steps 1 and 2 only work if the 'resource
style' is already known by the Announce propagation.
3.3.2. Splitting Control over Resource Style and Sender Selection
In order to allow for an efficient resource reservation at the lower
network level by implementing the steps 1 and 2 in Section 3.3.1, we
propose to split the control over 'resource style' and 'sender
selection' in that in RSVP-TSN the sender controls the 'resource
style' and the listener controls the 'sender selection'.
3.3.3. Coordinated Shared Resource Style
Independent from the efficient realization of lower layer resource
reservation, we have also identified a requirement in industrial use
cases to support a large amount of deterministic connections with
small data usage. In those cases, separate reservation for each
connection could be inefficient.
To address this, we propose to introduce another 'resource style'
called 'Coordinated Shared', which would indicate the use of
scheduling (of those many deterministic connections) at L2-Listener
and L3-Receiver level. A first proposal for a solution in the TSN RAP
protocol was presented to the IEEE in [CHEN-IEEE]
3.3.4. DnFlow DestinatinIpAddress Resolution
To support deterministic QoS Bridged Ethernet has introduced Streams.
Streams differ from legacy traffic within a Bridged Ethernet sub-
network because streams belong to a traffic class which is uniquely
Trossen, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT DetNet Control Plane Signaling
identified by a priority value in the range of 0 through 7. Streams
within an TSN aware Bridged Ethernet sub-network also need unique
destination MAC-address for identification. The priority and the
unique destination MAC-address indicates a Stream within a virtual
LAN (VLAN). The IEEE 802.1CQ draft for "Multicast and Local Address
Assignment" specifies protocols and procedures of locally unique
assignment for 48-bit and 64-bit addresses in IEEE 802 networks.
Streams do not use the interface Mac-Address as destination MAC-
Address within a Bridged Ethernet. Further enhancements for IP
address resolutions are required within TSN and detnet aware end-
systems and routers and to map one or multiple detnet IP flows to a
stream destination MAC-Address. DnFlows are identified by a "6-tuple"
that refers to information carried in IP and higher layer protocol
headers. The 6-tuple referred to in this document is the same as that
defined in [RFC3290]. Specifically, 6-tuple is DestinationIpAddress,
SourceIpAddress, Protocol, SourcePort, DestinationPort, and
differentiated services (DiffServ) code point (DSCP).
4. RSVP-TSN
In this section, we specify the APIs for RSVP-TSN, the message
formats, as well as outline the layer and node interactions in an
RSVP-TSN based system
4.1. Layer Interactions between RSVP and TSN
Figure 4 provides an overview of the interactions between L2 and L3
elements in a network deployment as an elaboration of the elements in
Figure 1, also illustrating the various interfaces described in the
following sections.
The application utilizes a generalized API for deterministic QoS
(dQoS) that controls and signals the establishment of deterministic
end-to-end DnFlow via the upper API of RSVP-TSN (uRSVP).
RSVP-TSN end nodes utilize RSVP-TSN to signal DnFlows to a detnet
aware edge router. This L3 network interface is called "Distributed
DetNet User Network Interface" (ddUNI).
The lower API of RSVP-TSN (lRSVP) interacts with the TSN control
plane to trigger the establishment of streams in an TSN aware (e.g.
customer) sub-network. The TSN control plane for the establishment of
streams in a TSN sub-network can be organized decentralized,
centralized or hybrid for stream reservation. For stream
establishment based on centralized scheduling, a third-party protocol
like RESTCONF is typically used.
Trossen, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT DetNet Control Plane Signaling
+-----------+
|Application|
+-----------+
| dQoS |
| |
|C S|
| |
| uRSVP |
+-----------+ +-------------+
| RSVP-TSN |<------------------------------------->| RSVP-TSN |
+-----------+ +-------------+
| lRSVP | | | | |
| | | | | |
|M&A S| |M S| |M S|
| | | | | |
+-----------+ +--------------------------+ +-------------+
| RSVP-TSN |<===>| TSN aware |<===>| RSVP/DetNet |
| End-Node | | Customer Subnetwork | | Edge Router |
+-----------+ +--------------------------+ +-----+ +-----+
<---> RSVP-TSN DNFlow Signaling
<===> TSN Stream Reservation
dQoS API for deterministic QoS
uRSVP upper API of RSVP-TSN
lRSVP lower API of RSVP-TSN
C Controls S Signals M&A Maps and Aggregation
Figure 4: Layer Interactions between RSVP and TSN
4.2. API for Deterministic QoS (gQoS)
The description of a generalized API to support deterministic QoS is
not part of this document.
4.3. RSVP-TSN upper API (uRSVP)
The definition of the upper and lower APIs of RSVP-TSN is based on
the DetNet flow information model [ID-detnet-flow-information-model].
This interface is oriented on the interface specified by RSVP-IntServ
(RFC 2205). Most of the changes are due to mapping resource
reservation styles (see Section 2.4.5).
Sender
Call: Open Session (oriented to the RSVP-IntServ interface)
Request parameter (make use of pieces from the
DnFlowSpecification)
Trossen, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT DetNet Control Plane Signaling
- DestinationIpAddress, Protocol, DestinationPort
Response parameter:
- SessionID
Call: Add DnFlow
Request parameter (make use of pieces from the
DnFlowSpecification)
- SessionID, SourceIpAddress, SourcePort, DSCP
- DnTrafficSpecification: Interval, MaxPacketsPerInterval,
MaxPayloadSize, MinPayloadSize
- DnFLowRank
- Select one of the Resource Style: Distinct, Shared,
CoordinatedShared
- Data TTL, PATH MTU size, LossRate
Notes for new parameter:
The DSCP is required to map DnFlows according their service class
to offered service classes of the lower layer.
The resource style for an DnFlow is announced by the sender within
the path message.
The LossRate is accumulated per DnFlow from Sender to Receiver.
Upcall: DnFlow
- Session ID
- One of the Info_type: RESV_EVENT; PATH_ERROR
Receiver
Call: Open Session
Request parameter (make use of pieces from the
DnFlowSpecification)
- DestinationIpAddress, Protocol, DestinationPort
Trossen, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 11]
INTERNET DRAFT DetNet Control Plane Signaling
Response parameter
- SessionID
Call: Join DnFlow
Request parameter
- SessionID
- Select one of the DnFlow Source Selection: Wildcard, List of
explicit sources with SourcePort
- MaximumPacketSize
- Extended Traffic Specification: MaximumExpectedLatency
Notes for new parameter:
The Source Selection is split from the RSVP-IntServ Reservation
Style but still follows the rules defined by RSVP-IntServ.
The extended traffic specification MaximumExpectedLatency is
propagated and merged to a minimum upstream from receiver to
sender.
Upcall: DnFlow
- SessionID
- SourceIpAddress (Sender)
- SourcePort
- One of the Info_type: RESV_EVENT; PATH_ERROR
General
Call: Close Session
Request parameter
- SessionID
4.4. RSVP-TSN lower API (lRSVP)
Sender
Trossen, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 12]
INTERNET DRAFT DetNet Control Plane Signaling
Call: Add DnFlow
Request parameter
- SessionID, Interface, DnFlowID, DestinationIpAddress, DSCP
- DnTrafficSpecification: Interval, MaxPacketsPerInterval,
MaxPayloadSize, MinPayloadSize, MinPacketsInterval
- One of the Resource Styles: Distinct, Shared, Coordinated
Shared
Response parameter
- TransportFlowID (TSN StreamID)
Notes for new parameter:
The DnFlowID is a local parameter to correlate DnFlows to
transport flows (e.g., TSN Stream).
The TransportFlowID correlates the DnFlow to the lower layer
transport flow, e.g., TSN Stream ID.
Upcall: DnFlow
Response parameter
- SessionID
- TransportFlowID
- One of the Info_type: RESV_EVENT, RES_MODIFY_EVENT
Receiver
Call: Join DnFlow
Request parameter
- SessionID, Interface, DnFlowID, TransportFlowID
- MaximumPacketSize
- Extended Traffic Specification: MaximumExpectedLatency
Notes for new parameter:
Trossen, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 13]
INTERNET DRAFT DetNet Control Plane Signaling
(see notes above)
Upcall: DnFlow
Response parameter
- SessionID, TransportFlowID
- One of the Info_type: ANNOUNCE_EVENT, ANNOUNCE_MODIFY_EVENT
4.5. RSVP-TSN Message Formats
TBD
5. Security Considerations
Editor's note: This section needs more details.
6. IANA Considerations
N/A
7. Conclusion
This draft outlines the possible control plane signaling in
deterministic networking environments for distributed, centralized
and hybrid deployments.
For this, changes to the RSVP signaling have been proposed in the
form of RSVP-TSN for a better alignment of the Layer 3 signaling with
that of emerging Layer 2 solutions, together with suggested API
specifications for the realization of the L3 to L2 interfaces in
endpoints.
8. References
8.1. 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>.
[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655, DOI
10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc8655>.
Trossen, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 14]
INTERNET DRAFT DetNet Control Plane Signaling
[RFC2212] Shenker, S., Partridge, C., and Guerin, R., "Specification
of Guaranteed Quality of Service", RFC 2212, September
1997.
[RFC2205] R. Braden, L. Zhang, S. Berson, S. Herzog, S. Jasmin, "
Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[RFC8938] B. Varga, Ed, J. Farkas, L. Berger, A. Malis, S. Bryant,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane Framework",
RFC8938, November 2020.
8.2. Informative References
[ID.malis-detnet-controller-plane-framework] A. Malis, X. Geng, M.
Chen, F. Qin, B. Varga, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet)
Controller Plane Framework", draft-malis-detnet-
controller-plane-framework-05 (work in progress), 2020.
[ID-detnet-flow-information-model] Balazs Varga, Janos Farkas, Rodney
Cummings, Yuanlong Jiang, Don Fedyk, "DetNet Flow and
Service Information Model", draft-ietf-detnet-flow-
information-model-14 (work in progress), 2021
[CHEN-IEEE] F. Chen, F.J. Goetz, M. Kiessling, J. Schmitt, " Support
for uStream Aggregation in RAP (ver 0.3)" (work in
progess), Jan 2019,
<http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2019/dd-chen-
flow-aggregation-0119-v03.pdf>
[RAP_IEEE] IEEE, "P802.1Qdd - Resource Allocation Protocol", (work in
progress), <https://1.ieee802.org/tsn/802-1qdd/>
Authors' Addresses
Dirk Trossen
Huawei Technologies Duesseldorf GmbH
Riesstr. 25C
80992 Munich
Germany
Email: Dirk.Trossen@Huawei.com
Franz-Josef Goetz
Siemens AG
Trossen, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 15]
INTERNET DRAFT DetNet Control Plane Signaling
Gleiwitzer-Str. 555
90475 Nuremberg
Germany
Email: franz-josef.goetz@siemens.com
Juergen Schmitt
Siemens AG
Gleiwitzer Str. 555
90475 Nuremberg
Germany
Email: juergen.jues.schmitt@siemens.com
Trossen, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 16]
