draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-05.txt		draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-10.txt
	IPPM Working Group X. Min		IPPM Working Group X. Min
	Internet-Draft ZTE Corp.		Internet-Draft ZTE Corp.
	Intended status: Standards Track G. Mirsky		Intended status: Standards Track G. Mirsky
	Expires: 25 March 2023 Ericsson		Expires: 25 May 2023 Ericsson
	L. Bo		L. Bo
	China Telecom		China Telecom
	21 September 2022		21 November 2022
	Echo Request/Reply for Enabled In-situ OAM Capabilities		Echo Request/Reply for Enabled In-situ OAM Capabilities
	draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-05		draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-10
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document describes an extension to the echo request/reply		This document describes a generic format for use in echo request/
	mechanisms used in IPv6 (including Segment Routing with IPv6 data		reply mechanisms, which can be used within an In situ Operations,
	plane (SRv6)), MPLS (including Segment Routing with MPLS data plane		Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) domain, allowing the IOAM
	(SR-MPLS)), Service Function Chain (SFC) and Bit Index Explicit		encapsulating node to discover the enabled IOAM capabilities of each
	Replication (BIER) environments, which can be used within the In situ		IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node. The generic format is
	Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) domain, allowing		intended to be used with a variety of data planes such as IPv6, MPLS,
	the IOAM encapsulating node to discover the enabled IOAM capabilities		Service Function Chain (SFC) and Bit Index Explicit Replication
	of each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node.		(BIER).
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on 25 March 2023.		This Internet-Draft will expire on 25 May 2023.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
	license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.		license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
	Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights		Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
	and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components		and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
	extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as		extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
	described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are		described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
	provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.		provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3. IOAM Capabilities Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3. IOAM Capabilities Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	3.1. IOAM Capabilities Query Container . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.1. IOAM Capabilities Query Container . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	3.2. IOAM Capabilities Response Container . . . . . . . . . . 6		3.2. IOAM Capabilities Response Container . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3.2.1. IOAM Pre-allocated Tracing Capabilities Object . . . 7		3.2.1. IOAM Pre-allocated Tracing Capabilities Object . . . 8
	3.2.2. IOAM Incremental Tracing Capabilities Object . . . . 8		3.2.2. IOAM Incremental Tracing Capabilities Object . . . . 9
	3.2.3. IOAM Proof-of-Transit Capabilities Object . . . . . . 9		3.2.3. IOAM Proof-of-Transit Capabilities Object . . . . . . 10
	3.2.4. IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object . . . . . . . . 10		3.2.4. IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object . . . . . . . . 11
	3.2.5. IOAM DEX Capabilities Object . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		3.2.5. IOAM DEX Capabilities Object . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	3.2.6. IOAM End-of-Domain Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		3.2.6. IOAM End-of-Domain Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	4. Operational Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		4. Operational Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	5.1. IOAM SoP Capability Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		5.1. IOAM SoP Capability Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	5.2. IOAM TSF Capability Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		5.2. IOAM TSF Capability Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	In situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) ([RFC9197]		In situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) ([RFC9197]
	[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export]) defines data fields that record		[RFC9326]) defines data fields that record OAM information within the
	OAM information within the packet while the packet traverses a		packet while the packet traverses a particular network domain, called
	particular network domain, called an IOAM domain. IOAM can		an IOAM domain. IOAM can complement or replace other OAM mechanisms,
	complement or replace other OAM mechanisms, such as ICMP or other		such as ICMP or other types of probe packets.
	types of probe packets.
	As specified in [RFC9197], within the IOAM domain, the IOAM data may		As specified in [RFC9197], within the IOAM domain, the IOAM data may
	be updated by network nodes that the packet traverses. The device		be updated by network nodes that the packet traverses. The device
	which adds an IOAM header to the packet is called an "IOAM		which adds an IOAM header to the packet is called an "IOAM
	encapsulating node". In contrast, the device which removes an IOAM		encapsulating node". In contrast, the device which removes an IOAM
	header is referred to as an "IOAM decapsulating node". Nodes within		header is referred to as an "IOAM decapsulating node". Nodes within
	the domain that are aware of IOAM data and read and/or write and/or		the domain that are aware of IOAM data and read and/or write and/or
	process IOAM data are called "IOAM transit nodes". IOAM		process IOAM data are called "IOAM transit nodes". IOAM
	encapsulating or decapsulating nodes can also serve as IOAM transit		encapsulating or decapsulating nodes can also serve as IOAM transit
	nodes at the same time. IOAM encapsulating or decapsulating nodes		nodes at the same time. IOAM encapsulating or decapsulating nodes
	are also referred to as IOAM domain edge devices, which can be hosts		are also referred to as IOAM domain edge devices, which can be hosts
	or network devices.		or network devices. [RFC9197] defines four IOAM option types, and
			[RFC9326] introduces a new IOAM option type called the Direct Export
			(DEX) Option-Type, which is different from the other four IOAM option
			types defined in [RFC9197] on how to collect the operational and
			telemetry information defined in [RFC9197].
	As specified in [RFC9197], IOAM is focused on "limited domains" as		As specified in [RFC9197], IOAM is focused on "limited domains" as
	defined in [RFC8799]. In a limited domain, a control entity that has		defined in [RFC8799]. In a limited domain, a control entity that has
	control over every IOAM device may be deployed. If that's the case,		control over every IOAM device may be deployed. If that's the case,
	the control entity can provision both the explicit transport path and		the control entity can provision both the explicit transport path and
	the IOAM header applied to data packet at every IOAM encapsulating		the IOAM header applied to data packet at every IOAM encapsulating
	node.		node.
	In a case when a control entity that has control over every IOAM		In a case when a control entity that has control over every IOAM
	device is not deployed in the IOAM domain, the IOAM encapsulating		device is not deployed in the IOAM domain, the IOAM encapsulating
	node needs to discover the enabled IOAM capabilities at the IOAM		node needs to discover the enabled IOAM capabilities at the IOAM
	transit and decapsulating nodes. For example, what types of IOAM		transit and decapsulating nodes. For example, what types of IOAM
	tracing data can be added by the transit nodes along the transport		tracing data can be added or exported by the transit nodes along the
	path of the data packet IOAM is applied to. The IOAM encapsulating		transport path of the data packet IOAM is applied to. The IOAM
	node can then add the correct IOAM header to the data packet		encapsulating node can then add the correct IOAM header to the data
	according to the discovered IOAM capabilities. Specifically, the		packet according to the discovered IOAM capabilities. Specifically,
	IOAM encapsulating node first identifies the types and lengths of		the IOAM encapsulating node first identifies the types and lengths of
	IOAM options included in the IOAM data according to the discovered		IOAM options included in the IOAM data fields according to the
	IOAM capabilities. Then the IOAM encapsulating node can add the IOAM		discovered IOAM capabilities. Then the IOAM encapsulating node can
	header to the data packet based on the identified types and lengths		add the IOAM header to the data packet based on the identified types
	of IOAM options included in the IOAM data. The IOAM encapsulating		and lengths of IOAM options included in the IOAM data fields. The
	node may use NETCONF/YANG or IGP to discover these IOAM capabilities.		IOAM encapsulating node may use NETCONF/YANG or IGP to discover these
	However, NETCONF/YANG or IGP has some limitations:		IOAM capabilities. However, NETCONF/YANG or IGP has some
			limitations:
	* When NETCONF/YANG is used in this scenario, each IOAM		* When NETCONF/YANG is used in this scenario, each IOAM
	encapsulating node (including the host when it takes the role of		encapsulating node (including the host when it takes the role of
	an IOAM encapsulating node) needs to implement a NETCONF Client,		an IOAM encapsulating node) needs to implement a NETCONF Client,
	each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node (including the host		each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node (including the host
	when it takes the role of an IOAM decapsulating node) needs to		when it takes the role of an IOAM decapsulating node) needs to
	implement a NETCONF Server, the complexity can be an issue.		implement a NETCONF Server, the complexity can be an issue.
	Furthermore, each IOAM encapsulating node needs to establish		Furthermore, each IOAM encapsulating node needs to establish
	NETCONF Connection with each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating		NETCONF Connection with each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating
	node, the scalability can be an issue.		node, the scalability can be an issue.
	* When IGP is used in this scenario, the IGP and IOAM domains don't		* When IGP is used in this scenario, the IGP and IOAM domains don't
	always have the same coverage. For example, when the IOAM		always have the same coverage. For example, when the IOAM
	encapsulating node or the IOAM decapsulating node is a host, the		encapsulating node or the IOAM decapsulating node is a host, the
	availability can be an issue. Furthermore, it might be too		availability can be an issue. Furthermore, it might be too
	challenging to reflect enabled IOAM capabilities at the IOAM		challenging to reflect enabled IOAM capabilities at the IOAM
	transit and IOAM decapsulating node if these are controlled by a		transit and IOAM decapsulating node if these are controlled by a
	local policy depending on the identity of the IOAM encapsulating		local policy depending on the identity of the IOAM encapsulating
	node.		node.
	This document describes an extension to the echo request/reply		This document specifies formats and objects that can be used in the
	mechanisms used in IPv6 (including SRv6), MPLS (including SR-MPLS),		extension of echo request/reply mechanisms used in IPv6 (including
	SFC and BIER environments, which can be used within the IOAM domain,		Segment Routing with IPv6 data plane (SRv6)), MPLS (including Segment
	allowing the IOAM encapsulating node to discover the enabled IOAM		Routing with MPLS data plane (SR-MPLS)), SFC and BIER environments,
	capabilities of each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node.		which can be used within the IOAM domain, allowing the IOAM
			encapsulating node to discover the enabled IOAM capabilities of each
			IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node.
	The following documents contain references to the echo request/reply		The following documents contain references to the echo request/reply
	mechanisms used in IPv6 (including SRv6), MPLS (including SR-MPLS),		mechanisms used in IPv6 (including SRv6), MPLS (including SR-MPLS),
	SFC and BIER environments:		SFC and BIER environments:
	* [RFC4443] ("Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the		* [RFC4443] ("Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the
	Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification"), [RFC4620]		Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification"), [RFC4620]
	("IPv6 Node Information Queries"), [RFC4884] ("Extended ICMP to		("IPv6 Node Information Queries"), [RFC4884] ("Extended ICMP to
	Support Multi-Part Messages") and [RFC8335] ("PROBE: A Utility for		Support Multi-Part Messages") and [RFC8335] ("PROBE: A Utility for
	Probing Interfaces")		Probing Interfaces")
	* [RFC8029] ("Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-		* [RFC8029] ("Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-
	Plane Failures")		Plane Failures")
	* [I-D.ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam] ("Active OAM for Service Function		* [I-D.ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam] ("Active OAM for Service Function
	Chaining (SFC)")		Chaining (SFC)")
	* [I-D.ietf-bier-ping] ("BIER Ping and Trace")		* [I-D.ietf-bier-ping] ("BIER Ping and Trace")
	Note that specification details for these different echo request/		It is expected that the specification of the instantiation of each of
	reply protocols are outside the scope of this document. It is		these extensions will be done in the form of an RFC jointly designed
	expected that each such protocol extension would be specified by an		by the working group that develops or maintains the echo request/
	RFC and jointly designed by the working group that develops or		reply protocol and the IETF IP Performance Measurement (IPPM) Working
	maintains the echo request/reply protocol and the IETF IP Performance		Group.
	Measurement (IPPM) Working Group.
			Note that in this document the echo request/reply mechanism used in
			IPv6 does not mean ICMPv6 Echo Request/Reply [RFC4443], but means
			IPv6 Node Information Query/Reply [RFC4620].
	Fate sharing is a common requirement for all kinds of active OAM		Fate sharing is a common requirement for all kinds of active OAM
	packets, echo request is among them, in this document that means echo		packets, echo request is among them, in this document that means echo
	request is required to traverse a path of IOAM data packet. This		request is required to traverse a path of IOAM data packet. This
	requirement can be achieved by, e.g., applying same explicit path or		requirement can be achieved by, e.g., applying same explicit path or
	ECMP processing to both echo request and IOAM data packet.		ECMP processing to both echo request and IOAM data packet. Specific
			to apply same ECMP processing to both echo request and IOAM data
			packet, one possible way is to populate the same value(s) of ECMP
			affecting field(s) in the echo request.
	2. Conventions		2. Conventions
	2.1. Requirements Language		2.1. Requirements Language
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
	"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP		"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
	14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all		14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
	capitals, as shown here.		capitals, as shown here.
	2.2. Abbreviations		2.2. Abbreviations
	BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication		BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication
	BGP: Border Gateway Protocol		BGP: Border Gateway Protocol
			DEX: Direct Export
	ECMP: Equal-Cost Multipath		ECMP: Equal-Cost Multipath
	E2E: Edge to Edge		E2E: Edge to Edge
	ICMP: Internet Control Message Protocol		ICMP: Internet Control Message Protocol
	IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol		IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol
	IOAM: In situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance		IOAM: In situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
	skipping to change at page 5, line 34 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 4 ¶
	MTU: Maximum Transmission Unit		MTU: Maximum Transmission Unit
	NTP: Network Time Protocol		NTP: Network Time Protocol
	OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance		OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
	PCEP: Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol		PCEP: Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol
	POSIX: Portable Operating System Interface		POSIX: Portable Operating System Interface
	POT: Proof of Transit		POT: Proof of Transit
	PTP: Precision Time Protocol		PTP: Precision Time Protocol
	SR-MPLS: Segment Routing with MPLS data plane		SR-MPLS: Segment Routing with MPLS data plane
	SRv6: Segment Routing with IPv6 data plane		SRv6: Segment Routing with IPv6 data plane
	SFC: Service Function Chain		SFC: Service Function Chain
	TTL: Time to Live		TTL: Time to Live, this is also the Hop Limit field in the IPv6
			header
	3. IOAM Capabilities Formats		3. IOAM Capabilities Formats
	3.1. IOAM Capabilities Query Container		3.1. IOAM Capabilities Query Container
	For echo request, IOAM Capabilities Query uses a container which has		For echo request, IOAM Capabilities Query uses a container which has
	the following format:		the following format:
	0 1 2 3		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		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
	skipping to change at page 6, line 23 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 42 ¶
	. List of IOAM Namespace-IDs .		. List of IOAM Namespace-IDs .
	. .		. .
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 1: IOAM Capabilities Query Container of Echo Request		Figure 1: IOAM Capabilities Query Container of Echo Request
	When this container is present in the echo request sent by an IOAM		When this container is present in the echo request sent by an IOAM
	encapsulating node, that means the IOAM encapsulating node requests		encapsulating node, that means the IOAM encapsulating node requests
	the receiving node to reply with its enabled IOAM capabilities. If		the receiving node to reply with its enabled IOAM capabilities. If
	there is no IOAM capability to be reported by the receiving node,		there is no IOAM capability to be reported by the receiving node,
	then this container SHOULD be ignored by the receiving node, which		then this container MUST be ignored by the receiving node, which
	means the receiving node SHOULD send an echo reply without IOAM		means the receiving node MUST send an echo reply without IOAM
	capabilities or no echo reply, in the light of whether the echo		capabilities or no echo reply, in the light of whether the echo
	request includes other containers than the IOAM Capabilities Query		request includes other containers than the IOAM Capabilities Query
	Container. A list of IOAM Namespace-IDs (one or more Namespace-IDs)		Container. A list of IOAM Namespace-IDs (one or more Namespace-IDs)
	MUST be included in this container in the echo request, and if		MUST be included in this container in the echo request, and if
	present, the Default-Namespace-ID 0x0000 MUST be placed at the		present, the Default-Namespace-ID 0x0000 MUST be placed at the
	begining of the list of IOAM Namespace-IDs. The IOAM encapsulating		beginning of the list of IOAM Namespace-IDs. The IOAM encapsulating
	node requests only the enabled IOAM capabilities that match one of		node requests only the enabled IOAM capabilities that match one of
	the Namespace-IDs. The Namespace-ID has the same definition as		the Namespace-IDs. Inclusion of the Default-Namespace-ID 0x0000
	what's specified in Section 4.3 of [RFC9197].		elicits replies only for capabilities that are configured with the
			Default-Namespace-ID 0x0000.The Namespace-ID has the same definition
			as what's specified in Section 4.3 of [RFC9197].
	The IOAM Capabilities Query Container has a container header that is		The IOAM Capabilities Query Container has a container header that is
	used to identify the type and optionally length of the container		used to identify the type and optionally length of the container
	payload, and the container payload (List of IOAM Namespace-IDs) is		payload, and the container payload (List of IOAM Namespace-IDs) is
	zero-padded to align to a 4-octet boundary.		zero-padded to align to a 4-octet boundary. Since the Default-
			Namespace-ID of 0x0000 is mandated to appear first in the list, any
			other occurrences of 0x0000 MUST be disregarded.
	The length, structure, and definition of the IOAM Capabilities Query		The length, structure, and definition of the IOAM Capabilities Query
	Container Header depends on the specific environment it is applied		Container Header depends on the specific deployment environment.
	at.
	3.2. IOAM Capabilities Response Container		3.2. IOAM Capabilities Response Container
	For echo reply, IOAM Capabilities Response uses a container which has		For echo reply, IOAM Capabilities Response uses a container which has
	the following format:		the following format:
	0 1 2 3		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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	. .		. .
	skipping to change at page 7, line 23 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 41 ¶
	. List of IOAM Capabilities Objects .		. List of IOAM Capabilities Objects .
	. .		. .
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 2: IOAM Capabilities Response Container of Echo Reply		Figure 2: IOAM Capabilities Response Container of Echo Reply
	When this container is present in the echo reply sent by an IOAM		When this container is present in the echo reply sent by an IOAM
	transit node or IOAM decapsulating node, that means the IOAM function		transit node or IOAM decapsulating node, that means the IOAM function
	is enabled at this node, and this container contains the enabled IOAM		is enabled at this node, and this container contains the enabled IOAM
	capabilities of the sender. A list of IOAM capabilities objects (one		capabilities of the sender. A list of IOAM capabilities objects (one
	or more objects) which contains the enabled IOAM capabilities SHOULD		or more objects) which contains the enabled IOAM capabilities MUST be
	be included in this container of echo reply.		included in this container of echo reply except the sender encounters
			an error (e.g., no matched Namespace-ID).
	The IOAM Capabilities Response Container has a container header that		The IOAM Capabilities Response Container has a container header that
	is used to identify the type and optionally length of the container		is used to identify the type and optionally length of the container
	payload, and the container payload (List of IOAM Capabilities		payload. The container header MUST be defined such that it falls on
	Objects) is zero-padded to align to a 4-octet boundary.		a four-octet boundary.
	The length, structure, and definition of the IOAM Capabilities		The length, structure, and definition of the IOAM Capabilities
	Response Container Header depends on the specific environment it is		Response Container Header depends on the specific deployment
	applied at.		environment.
	Based on the IOAM data fields defined in [RFC9197] and		Based on the IOAM data fields defined in [RFC9197] and [RFC9326], six
	[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export], six types of objects are defined		types of objects are defined in this document. The same type of
	in this document. The same type of object MAY be present in the IOAM		object MAY be present in the IOAM Capabilities Response Container
	Capabilities Response Container more than once, only if with a		more than once, only if with a different Namespace-ID.
	different Namespace-ID.
	Similar to the container, each object has an object header that is		Similar to the container, each object has an object header that is
	used to identify the type and length of the object payload, and the		used to identify the type and length of the object payload. The
	object payload is zero-padded to align to a 4-octet boundary.		object payload MUST be defined such that it falls on a four-octet
			boundary.
	The length, structure, and definition of Object Header depends on the		The length, structure, and definition of Object Header depends on the
	specific environment it is applied at.		specific deployment environment.
	3.2.1. IOAM Pre-allocated Tracing Capabilities Object		3.2.1. IOAM Pre-allocated Tracing Capabilities Object
	0 1 2 3		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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	. .		. .
	. IOAM Pre-allocated Tracing Capabilities Object Header .		. IOAM Pre-allocated Tracing Capabilities Object Header .
	. .		. .
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| IOAM-Trace-Type | Reserved |W|		| IOAM-Trace-Type | Reserved |W|
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Namespace-ID | Ingress_MTU |		| Namespace-ID | Ingress_MTU |
	skipping to change at page 8, line 28 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 48 ¶
	Figure 3: IOAM Pre-allocated Tracing Capabilities Object		Figure 3: IOAM Pre-allocated Tracing Capabilities Object
	When this Object is present in the IOAM Capabilities Response		When this Object is present in the IOAM Capabilities Response
	Container, that means the sending node is an IOAM transit node and		Container, that means the sending node is an IOAM transit node and
	the IOAM pre-allocated tracing function is enabled at this IOAM		the IOAM pre-allocated tracing function is enabled at this IOAM
	transit node.		transit node.
	IOAM-Trace-Type field has the same definition as what's specified in		IOAM-Trace-Type field has the same definition as what's specified in
	Section 4.4 of [RFC9197].		Section 4.4 of [RFC9197].
	Reserved field is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero.		Reserved field is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero,
			and MUST be ignored when non-zero.
	W flag indicates whether Ingress_if_id is in short or wide format.		W flag indicates whether Ingress_if_id is in short or wide format.
	The W-bit is set if the Ingress_if_id is in wide format. The W-bit		The W-bit is set if the Ingress_if_id is in wide format. The W-bit
	is clear if the Ingress_if_id is in short format.		is clear if the Ingress_if_id is in short format.
	Namespace-ID field has the same definition as what's specified in		Namespace-ID field has the same definition as what's specified in
	Section 4.3 of [RFC9197], it should be one of the Namespace-IDs		Section 4.3 of [RFC9197], it MUST be one of the Namespace-IDs listed
	listed in the IOAM Capabilities Query Object of the echo request.		in the IOAM Capabilities Query Object of the echo request.
	Ingress_MTU field has 16 bits and specifies the MTU (in octets) of		Ingress_MTU field has 16 bits and specifies the MTU (in octets) of
	the ingress interface from which the sending node received echo		the ingress interface from which the sending node received echo
	request.		request.
	Ingress_if_id field has 16 bits (in short format) or 32 bits (in wide		Ingress_if_id field has 16 bits (in short format) or 32 bits (in wide
	format) and specifies the identifier of the ingress interface from		format) and specifies the identifier of the ingress interface from
	which the sending node received echo request. If the W-bit is		which the sending node received echo request. If the W-bit is
	cleared that indicates Ingress_if_id field has 16 bits, then the 16		cleared that indicates Ingress_if_id field has 16 bits, then the 16
	bits following the Ingress_if_id field are reserved for future use		bits following the Ingress_if_id field are reserved for future use
	and MUST be set to zero.		and MUST be set to zero, and MUST be ignored when non-zero.
	3.2.2. IOAM Incremental Tracing Capabilities Object		3.2.2. IOAM Incremental Tracing Capabilities Object
	0 1 2 3		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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	. .		. .
	. IOAM Incremental Tracing Capabilities Object Header .		. IOAM Incremental Tracing Capabilities Object Header .
	. .		. .
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| IOAM-Trace-Type | Reserved |W|		| IOAM-Trace-Type | Reserved |W|
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Namespace-ID | Ingress_MTU |		| Namespace-ID | Ingress_MTU |
	skipping to change at page 9, line 28 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 50 ¶
	Figure 4: IOAM Incremental Tracing Capabilities Object		Figure 4: IOAM Incremental Tracing Capabilities Object
	When this Object is present in the IOAM Capabilities Response		When this Object is present in the IOAM Capabilities Response
	Container, that means the sending node is an IOAM transit node and		Container, that means the sending node is an IOAM transit node and
	the IOAM incremental tracing function is enabled at this IOAM transit		the IOAM incremental tracing function is enabled at this IOAM transit
	node.		node.
	IOAM-Trace-Type field has the same definition as what's specified in		IOAM-Trace-Type field has the same definition as what's specified in
	Section 4.4 of [RFC9197].		Section 4.4 of [RFC9197].
	Reserved field is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero.		Reserved field is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero,
			and MUST be ignored when non-zero.
	W flag indicates whether Ingress_if_id is in short or wide format.		W flag indicates whether Ingress_if_id is in short or wide format.
	The W-bit is set if the Ingress_if_id is in wide format. The W-bit		The W-bit is set if the Ingress_if_id is in wide format. The W-bit
	is clear if the Ingress_if_id is in short format.		is clear if the Ingress_if_id is in short format.
	Namespace-ID field has the same definition as what's specified in		Namespace-ID field has the same definition as what's specified in
	Section 4.3 of [RFC9197], it should be one of the Namespace-IDs		Section 4.3 of [RFC9197], it MUST be one of the Namespace-IDs listed
	listed in the IOAM Capabilities Query Object of the echo request.		in the IOAM Capabilities Query Object of the echo request.
	Ingress_MTU field has 16 bits and specifies the MTU (in octets) of		Ingress_MTU field has 16 bits and specifies the MTU (in octets) of
	the ingress interface from which the sending node received echo		the ingress interface from which the sending node received echo
	request.		request.
	Ingress_if_id field has 16 bits (in short format) or 32 bits (in wide		Ingress_if_id field has 16 bits (in short format) or 32 bits (in wide
	format) and specifies the identifier of the ingress interface from		format) and specifies the identifier of the ingress interface from
	which the sending node received echo request. If the W-bit is		which the sending node received echo request. If the W-bit is
	cleared that indicates Ingress_if_id field has 16 bits, then the 16		cleared that indicates Ingress_if_id field has 16 bits, then the 16
	bits following the Ingress_if_id field are reserved for future use		bits following the Ingress_if_id field are reserved for future use
	and MUST be set to zero.		and MUST be set to zero, and MUST be ignored when non-zero.
	3.2.3. IOAM Proof-of-Transit Capabilities Object		3.2.3. IOAM Proof-of-Transit Capabilities Object
	0 1 2 3		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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	. .		. .
	. IOAM Proof-of-Transit Capabilities Object Header .		. IOAM Proof-of-Transit Capabilities Object Header .
	. .		. .
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Namespace-ID | IOAM-POT-Type |SoP| Reserved |		| Namespace-ID | IOAM-POT-Type |SoP| Reserved |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 5: IOAM Proof-of-Transit Capabilities Object		Figure 5: IOAM Proof-of-Transit Capabilities Object
	When this Object is present in the IOAM Capabilities Response		When this Object is present in the IOAM Capabilities Response
	Container, that means the sending node is an IOAM transit node and		Container, that means the sending node is an IOAM transit node and
	the IOAM Proof of Transit function is enabled at this IOAM transit		the IOAM Proof of Transit function is enabled at this IOAM transit
	node.		node.
	Namespace-ID field has the same definition as what's specified in		Namespace-ID field has the same definition as what's specified in
	Section 4.3 of [RFC9197], it should be one of the Namespace-IDs		Section 4.3 of [RFC9197], it MUST be one of the Namespace-IDs listed
	listed in the IOAM Capabilities Query Object of the echo request.		in the IOAM Capabilities Query Object of the echo request.
	IOAM-POT-Type field has the same definition as what's specified in		IOAM-POT-Type field has the same definition as what's specified in
	Section 4.5 of [RFC9197].		Section 4.5 of [RFC9197].
	SoP field has two bits, which means the size of "PktID" and		SoP (Size of POT) field has two bits, which means the size of "PktID"
	"Cumulative" data that are specified in Section 4.5 of [RFC9197].		and "Cumulative" data that are specified in Section 4.5 of [RFC9197].
	This document defines SoP as follow:		This document defines SoP as follows:
	0b00 means 64-bit "PktID" and 64-bit "Cumulative" data.		0b00 means 64-bit "PktID" and 64-bit "Cumulative" data.
	0b01~0b11: Reserved for future standardization		0b01~0b11: Reserved for future standardization
	Reserved field is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero.		Reserved field is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero,
			and MUST be ignored when non-zero.
	3.2.4. IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object		3.2.4. IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object
	0 1 2 3		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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	. .		. .
	. IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object Header .		. IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object Header .
	. .		. .
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	skipping to change at page 11, line 4 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 25 ¶
	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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	. .		. .
	. IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object Header .		. IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object Header .
	. .		. .
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Namespace-ID | IOAM-E2E-Type |		| Namespace-ID | IOAM-E2E-Type |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|TSF| Reserved | Reserved |		|TSF| Reserved | Reserved |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 6: IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object		Figure 6: IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object
	When this Object is present in the IOAM Capabilities Response		When this Object is present in the IOAM Capabilities Response
	Container, that means the sending node is an IOAM decapsulating node		Container, that means the sending node is an IOAM decapsulating node
	and IOAM edge-to-edge function is enabled at this IOAM decapsulating		and IOAM edge-to-edge function is enabled at this IOAM decapsulating
	node.		node.
	Namespace-ID field has the same definition as what's specified in		Namespace-ID field has the same definition as what's specified in
	Section 4.3 of [RFC9197], it should be one of the Namespace-IDs		Section 4.3 of [RFC9197], it MUST be one of the Namespace-IDs listed
	listed in the IOAM Capabilities Query Object of the echo request.		in the IOAM Capabilities Query Object of the echo request.
	IOAM-E2E-Type field has the same definition as what's specified in		IOAM-E2E-Type field has the same definition as what's specified in
	Section 4.6 of [RFC9197].		Section 4.6 of [RFC9197].
	TSF field specifies the timestamp format used by the sending node.		TSF field specifies the timestamp format used by the sending node.
	Aligned with three possible timestamp formats specified in Section 5		Aligned with three possible timestamp formats specified in Section 5
	of [RFC9197], this document defines TSF as follows:		of [RFC9197], this document defines TSF as follows:
	0b00: PTP truncated timestamp format		0b00: PTP truncated timestamp format
	0b01: NTP 64-bit timestamp format		0b01: NTP 64-bit timestamp format
	0b10: POSIX-based timestamp format		0b10: POSIX-based timestamp format
	0b11: Reserved for future standardization		0b11: Reserved for future standardization
	Reserved field is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero.		Reserved field is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero,
			and MUST be ignored when non-zero.
	3.2.5. IOAM DEX Capabilities Object		3.2.5. IOAM DEX Capabilities Object
	0 1 2 3		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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	. .		. .
	. IOAM DEX Capabilities Object Header .		. IOAM DEX Capabilities Object Header .
	. .		. .
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	skipping to change at page 12, line 6 ¶		skipping to change at page 12, line 30 ¶
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 7: IOAM DEX Capabilities Object		Figure 7: IOAM DEX Capabilities Object
	When this Object is present in the IOAM Capabilities Response		When this Object is present in the IOAM Capabilities Response
	Container, that means the sending node is an IOAM transit node and		Container, that means the sending node is an IOAM transit node and
	the IOAM direct exporting function is enabled at this IOAM transit		the IOAM direct exporting function is enabled at this IOAM transit
	node.		node.
	IOAM-Trace-Type field has the same definition as what's specified in		IOAM-Trace-Type field has the same definition as what's specified in
	Section 3.2 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export].		Section 3.2 of [RFC9326].
	Namespace-ID field has the same definition as what's specified in		Namespace-ID field has the same definition as what's specified in
	Section 4.3 of [RFC9197], it should be one of the Namespace-IDs		Section 4.3 of [RFC9197], it MUST be one of the Namespace-IDs listed
	listed in the IOAM Capabilities Query Object of the echo request.		in the IOAM Capabilities Query Object of the echo request.
	Reserved field is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero.		Reserved field is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero,
			and MUST be ignored when non-zero.
	3.2.6. IOAM End-of-Domain Object		3.2.6. IOAM End-of-Domain Object
	0 1 2 3		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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	. .		. .
	. IOAM End-of-Domain Object Header .		. IOAM End-of-Domain Object Header .
	. .		. .
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	skipping to change at page 12, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 13, line 16 ¶
	Container, that means the sending node is an IOAM decapsulating node.		Container, that means the sending node is an IOAM decapsulating node.
	Unless the IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object is present, which		Unless the IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object is present, which
	also indicates that the sending node is an IOAM decapsulating node,		also indicates that the sending node is an IOAM decapsulating node,
	the End-of-Domain Object MUST be present in the IOAM Capabilities		the End-of-Domain Object MUST be present in the IOAM Capabilities
	Response Container sent by an IOAM decapsulating node. When the IOAM		Response Container sent by an IOAM decapsulating node. When the IOAM
	edge-to-edge function is enabled at the IOAM decapsulating node, it's		edge-to-edge function is enabled at the IOAM decapsulating node, it's
	RECOMMENDED to include only the IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object		RECOMMENDED to include only the IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object
	but not the IOAM End-of-Domain Object.		but not the IOAM End-of-Domain Object.
	Namespace-ID field has the same definition as what's specified in		Namespace-ID field has the same definition as what's specified in
	Section 4.3 of [RFC9197], it SHOULD be one of the Namespace-IDs		Section 4.3 of [RFC9197], it MUST be one of the Namespace-IDs listed
	listed in the IOAM Capabilities Query Container.		in the IOAM Capabilities Query Container.
	4. Operational Guide		4. Operational Guide
	Once the IOAM encapsulating node is triggered to discover the enabled		Once the IOAM encapsulating node is triggered to discover the enabled
	IOAM capabilities of each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node,		IOAM capabilities of each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node,
	the IOAM encapsulating node will send echo requests that include the		the IOAM encapsulating node will send echo requests that include the
	IOAM Capabilities Query Container. First, with TTL equal to 1 to		IOAM Capabilities Query Container. First, with TTL equal to 1 to
	reach the closest node, which may be an IOAM transit node or not.		reach the closest node, which may be an IOAM transit node or not.
	Then with TTL equal to 2 to reach the second nearest node, which also		Then with TTL equal to 2 to reach the second-nearest node, which also
	may be an IOAM transit node or not. And further, increasing by 1 the		may be an IOAM transit node or not. And further, increasing by 1 the
	TTL every time the IOAM encapsulating node sends a new echo request,		TTL every time the IOAM encapsulating node sends a new echo request,
	until the IOAM encapsulating node receives an echo reply sent by the		until the IOAM encapsulating node receives an echo reply sent by the
	IOAM decapsulating node, which should contain the IOAM Capabilities		IOAM decapsulating node, which contains the IOAM Capabilities
	Response Container including the IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities		Response Container including the IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities
	Object or the IOAM End-of-Domain Object. Alternatively, if the IOAM		Object or the IOAM End-of-Domain Object. As a result, the echo
	encapsulating node knows precisely all the IOAM transit and IOAM		requests sent by the IOAM encapsulating node will reach all nodes one
	decapsulating nodes beforehand, once the IOAM encapsulating node is		by one along the transport path of IOAM data packet. Alternatively,
	triggered to discover the enabled IOAM capabilities, it can send an		if the IOAM encapsulating node knows precisely all the IOAM transit
	echo request to each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node		and IOAM decapsulating nodes beforehand, once the IOAM encapsulating
			node is triggered to discover the enabled IOAM capabilities, it can
			send an echo request to each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node
	directly, without TTL expiration.		directly, without TTL expiration.
	The IOAM encapsulating node may be triggered by the device		The IOAM encapsulating node may be triggered by the device
	administrator, the network management system, the network controller,		administrator, the network management system, the network controller,
	or data traffic. The specific triggering mechanisms are outside the		or data traffic. The specific triggering mechanisms are outside the
	scope of this document.		scope of this document.
	Each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node that receives an echo		Each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node that receives an echo
	request containing the IOAM Capabilities Query Container will send an		request containing the IOAM Capabilities Query Container will send an
	echo reply to the IOAM encapsulating node. For the echo reply, there		echo reply to the IOAM encapsulating node. For the echo reply, there
	should be an IOAM Capabilities Response Container containing one or		is an IOAM Capabilities Response Container containing one or more
	more Objects. The IOAM Capabilities Query Container of the echo		Objects. The IOAM Capabilities Query Container of the echo request
	request would be ignored by the receiving node unaware of IOAM.		would be ignored by the receiving node unaware of IOAM.
			Note that the mechanism defined in this document applies to all kinds
			of IOAM option types, whether the four types of IOAM option defined
			in [RFC9197] or the DEX type of IOAM option defined in [RFC9326],
			specifically, when applied to the IOAM DEX option, it allows the IOAM
			encapsulating node to discover which nodes along the transport path
			support IOAM direct exporting and which trace data types are
			supported to be directly exported at these nodes.
	5. IANA Considerations		5. IANA Considerations
	This document requests the following IANA Actions.		This document requests the following IANA Actions.
	IANA is requested to create a registry group named "In-Situ OAM		IANA is requested to create a registry group named "In-Situ OAM
	(IOAM) Capabilities Parameters".		(IOAM) Capabilities Parameters".
	This group will include the following registries:		This group will include the following registries:
	* IOAM SoP Capability		* IOAM SoP Capability
	* IOAM TSF Capability		* IOAM TSF Capability
	New registries in this group can be created via RFC Required process		New registries in this group can be created via RFC Required process
	as per [RFC8126].		as per [RFC8126].
	The subsequent sub-sections detail the registries herein contained.		The subsequent subsections detail the registries herein contained.
	Considering the Containers/Objects defined in this document would be		Considering the Containers/Objects defined in this document would be
	carried in different types of Echo Request/Reply messages, such as		carried in different types of Echo Request/Reply messages, such as
	ICMPv6 or LSP Ping, it is intended that the registries for Container/		ICMPv6 or LSP Ping, it is intended that the registries for Container/
	Object Type would be requested in subsequent documents.		Object Type would be requested in subsequent documents.
	5.1. IOAM SoP Capability Registry		5.1. IOAM SoP Capability Registry
	This registry defines 4 code points for the IOAM SoP Capability field		This registry defines 4 code points for the IOAM SoP Capability field
	for identifying the size of "PktID" and "Cumulative" data as		for identifying the size of "PktID" and "Cumulative" data as
	explained in Section 4.5 of [RFC9197]. The following code points are		explained in Section 4.5 of [RFC9197].
	defined in this document:
			A new entry in this registry requires the following fields:
			* SoP: size of POT; a two-bit binary field as defined in
			Section 3.2.3
			* Description: a terse description of the meaning of this SoP value
			The registry initially contains the following value:
	SoP Description		SoP Description
	---- -----------		---- -----------
	0b00 64-bit "PktID" and 64-bit "Cumulative" data		0b00 64-bit "PktID" and 64-bit "Cumulative" data
	0b01 - 0b11 are available for assignment via RFC Required process as		0b01 - 0b11 are available for assignment via IETF Review process as
	per [RFC8126].		per [RFC8126].
	5.2. IOAM TSF Capability Registry		5.2. IOAM TSF Capability Registry
	This registry defines 4 code points for the IOAM TSF Capability field		This registry defines 4 code points for the IOAM TSF Capability field
	of identifying the timestamp format as explained in Section 5 of		for identifying the timestamp format as explained in Section 5 of
	[RFC9197]. The following code points are defined in this document:		[RFC9197].
			A new entry in this registry requires the following fields:
			* TSF: timestamp format; a two-bit binary field as defined in
			Section 3.2.4
			* Description: a terse description of the meaning of this TSF value
			The registry initially contains the following values:
	TSF Description		TSF Description
	---- -----------		---- -----------
	0b00 PTP Truncated Timestamp Format		0b00 PTP Truncated Timestamp Format
	0b01 NTP 64-bit Timestamp Format		0b01 NTP 64-bit Timestamp Format
	0b10 POSIX-based Timestamp Format		0b10 POSIX-based Timestamp Format
	0b11 Reserved for future standardization
	0b11 is available for assignment via RFC Required process as per		0b11 is available for assignment via IETF Review process as per
	[RFC8126].		[RFC8126].
	6. Security Considerations		6. Security Considerations
	Overall, the security needs for IOAM capabilities query mechanisms		Overall, the security needs for IOAM capabilities query mechanisms
	used in different environments are similar.		used in different environments are similar.
	To avoid potential Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks, it is RECOMMENDED		To avoid potential Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks, it is RECOMMENDED
	that implementations apply rate-limiting to incoming echo requests		that implementations apply rate-limiting to incoming echo requests
	and replies.		and replies.
	To protect against unauthorized sources using echo request messages		To protect against unauthorized sources using echo request messages
	to obtain IOAM Capabilities information, it is RECOMMENDED that		to obtain IOAM Capabilities information, implementations MUST provide
	implementations provide a means of checking the source addresses of		a means of checking the source addresses of echo request messages
	echo request messages against an access list before accepting the		against an access list before accepting the message.
	message.
	When echo request/reply is used within an administrative domain, a		A deployment MUST ensure that border filtering drops inbound echo
	deployment can increase security by using border filtering of		requests with an IOAM Capabilities Container Header from outside of
	incoming and outgoing echo requests/replies.		the domain, and drops outbound echo request/replies with IOAM
			Capabilities Headers leaving the domain.
			A deployment MUST support the configuration option to enable/disable
			the IOAM Capabilities Discovery feature defined in this document. By
			default, the IOAM Capabilities Discovery feature MUST be disabled.
	The integrity protection on IOAM Capabilities information carried in		The integrity protection on IOAM Capabilities information carried in
	echo reply messages can be achieved by the underlaying transport.		echo reply messages can be achieved by the underlying transport. For
	For example, if the environment is an IPv6 network, the IP		example, if the environment is an IPv6 network, the IP Authentication
	Authentication Header [RFC4302] or IP Encapsulating Security Payload		Header [RFC4302] or IP Encapsulating Security Payload Header
	Header [RFC4303] can be used.		[RFC4303] can be used.
	The collected IOAM Capabilities information by queries may be		The collected IOAM Capabilities information by queries may be
	considered confidential. An implementation can use secure		considered confidential. An implementation can use secure underlying
	underlaying transport of echo request/reply to provide privacy		transport of echo request/reply to provide privacy protection. For
	protection. For example, if the environment is an IPv6 network,		example, if the environment is an IPv6 network, confidentiality can
	confidentiality can be achieved by using the IP Encapsulating		be achieved by using the IP Encapsulating Security Payload Header
	Security Payload Header [RFC4303]. Besides, implementations SHOULD		[RFC4303].
	provide a means of filtering the addresses to which echo reply
	messages carrying IOAM Capabilities information may be sent.
	An implementation can also directly secure the data carried in echo		An implementation can also directly secure the data carried in echo
	requests and replies if needed, the specific mechanism on how to		requests and replies if needed, the specific mechanism on how to
	secure the data is beyond the scope of this document.		secure the data is beyond the scope of this document.
			An implementation can also check whether the fields in received echo
			requests and replies strictly conform to the specifications, e.g.,
			whether the list of IOAM Namespace-IDs includes duplicate entries,
			whether the received Namespace-ID is an operator-assigned or IANA-
			assigned one, once a check fails, an exception event indicating the
			checked field should be reported to the management.
			Except for what's described above, the security issues discussed in
			[RFC9197] provide a good guidance on implementation of this
			specification.
	7. Acknowledgements		7. Acknowledgements
	The authors would like to acknowledge Tianran Zhou, Dhruv Dhody,		The authors would like to acknowledge Tianran Zhou, Dhruv Dhody,
	Frank Brockners, Cheng Li, Gyan Mishra, Marcus Ihlar and Martin Duke		Frank Brockners, Cheng Li, Gyan Mishra, Marcus Ihlar, Martin Duke,
	for their careful review and helpful comments.		Chris Lonvick, Eric Vyncke, Alvaro Retana, Paul Wouters, Roman
			Danyliw, Lars Eggert, Warren Kumari, John Scudder, Robert Wilton,
			Erik Kline, Zaheduzzaman Sarker and Murray Kucherawy for their
			careful review and helpful comments.
	The authors appreciate the f2f discussion with Frank Brockners on		The authors appreciate the f2f discussion with Frank Brockners on
	this document.		this document.
	The authors would like to acknowledge Tommy Pauly and Ian Swett for		The authors would like to acknowledge Tommy Pauly and Ian Swett for
	their good suggestion and guidance.		their good suggestion and guidance.
	8. References		8. References
	8.1. Normative References		8.1. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export]
	Song, H., Gafni, B., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T.
	Mizrahi, "In-situ OAM Direct Exporting", Work in Progress,
	Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-10, 18
	August 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-
	ippm-ioam-direct-export-10.txt>.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for		[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
	Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,		Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
	RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,		RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
	[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC		[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
	2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,		2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
	May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.		May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
	[RFC9197] Brockners, F., Ed., Bhandari, S., Ed., and T. Mizrahi,		[RFC9197] Brockners, F., Ed., Bhandari, S., Ed., and T. Mizrahi,
	Ed., "Data Fields for In Situ Operations, Administration,		Ed., "Data Fields for In Situ Operations, Administration,
	and Maintenance (IOAM)", RFC 9197, DOI 10.17487/RFC9197,		and Maintenance (IOAM)", RFC 9197, DOI 10.17487/RFC9197,
	May 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9197>.		May 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9197>.
			[RFC9326] Song, H., Gafni, B., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T.
			Mizrahi, "In Situ Operations, Administration, and
			Maintenance (IOAM) Direct Exporting", RFC 9326,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC9326, November 2022,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9326>.
	8.2. Informative References		8.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-bier-ping]		[I-D.ietf-bier-ping]
	Kumar, N., Pignataro, C., Akiya, N., Zheng, L., Chen, M.,		Kumar, N., Pignataro, C., Akiya, N., Zheng, L., Chen, M.,
	and G. Mirsky, "BIER Ping and Trace", Work in Progress,		and G. Mirsky, "BIER Ping and Trace", Work in Progress,
	Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bier-ping-07, 11 May 2020,		Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bier-ping-07, 11 May 2020,
	<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bier-ping-		<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bier-ping-
	07.txt>.		07.txt>.
	[I-D.ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam]		[I-D.ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam]
	skipping to change at page 17, line 11 ¶		skipping to change at page 18, line 29 ¶
	[RFC4620] Crawford, M. and B. Haberman, Ed., "IPv6 Node Information		[RFC4620] Crawford, M. and B. Haberman, Ed., "IPv6 Node Information
	Queries", RFC 4620, DOI 10.17487/RFC4620, August 2006,		Queries", RFC 4620, DOI 10.17487/RFC4620, August 2006,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4620>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4620>.
	[RFC4884] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro,		[RFC4884] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro,
	"Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884,		"Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4884, April 2007,		DOI 10.17487/RFC4884, April 2007,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4884>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4884>.
	[RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,		[RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
	Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label		Aldrin, S., Chen, M., and RFC Publisher, "Detecting
	Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,		Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures",
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,		RFC 8029, DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
	[RFC8335] Bonica, R., Thomas, R., Linkova, J., Lenart, C., and M.		[RFC8335] Bonica, R., Thomas, R., Linkova, J., Lenart, C., and M.
	Boucadair, "PROBE: A Utility for Probing Interfaces",		Boucadair, "PROBE: A Utility for Probing Interfaces",
	RFC 8335, DOI 10.17487/RFC8335, February 2018,		RFC 8335, DOI 10.17487/RFC8335, February 2018,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8335>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8335>.
	[RFC8799] Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "Limited Domains and Internet		[RFC8799] Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "Limited Domains and Internet
	Protocols", RFC 8799, DOI 10.17487/RFC8799, July 2020,		Protocols", RFC 8799, DOI 10.17487/RFC8799, July 2020,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8799>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8799>.
End of changes. 67 change blocks.
	155 lines changed or deleted		223 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/