RFC 9892

Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Traffic Classification Data Item

📅 published January 2026, from ietf

Abstract ✨

RFC 9892: Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Traffic Classification Data Item 🎀

Okay bestie, here's the title block 💖. This is an IETF Request for Comments (RFC 9892), a Standards Track document, with ISSN 2070-1721, dated January 2026 🌸. The authors are B. Cheng (MIT Lincoln Laboratory), D. Wiggins, L. Berger, and D. Fedyk, Ed. (LabN Consulting, L.L.C.). The header doesn't list an affiliation for Wiggins or Berger. Nothing is listed as obsoleted or updated here, so this doc stands on its own 🦋.

This RFC defines a new Data Item for the Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) to support traffic classification 💅. Traffic classification info identifies traffic flows based on frame or packet content, like a destination address. The Data Item is built to be extensible and reusable 🧚. Other documents that define specific DLEP extensions will mandate its use 👑. The RFC also introduces DLEP Sub-Data Items and defines two new ones, for Diffserv and Ethernet traffic classification 🔥.

Status of This Memo ✨

This is an Internet Standards Track document 🌈.

It's a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and represents the consensus of the IETF community. It went through public review and was approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). For more on Internet Standards, check Section 2 of RFC 7841 📚.

For the current status, errata, and how to send feedback, go to https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9892 💜.

Copyright (c) 2026 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. Please read these carefully, because they spell out your rights and restrictions for 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 they're provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License 🌸.

Table of Contents ✨

1.  Introduction
  1.1.  Key Words
2.  Traffic Classification
  2.1.  Traffic Classification Data Item
    2.1.1.  Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item
  2.2.  Diffserv Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item
    2.2.1.  Router Receive Processing
  2.3.  Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item
    2.3.1.  Router Receive Processing
3.  Compatibility
4.  Security Considerations
5.  IANA Considerations
  5.1.  Data Item Type Values
  5.2.  Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type Values
  5.3.  Registration Guidance
6.  References
  6.1.  Normative References
  6.2.  Informative References
Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses

1. Introduction ✨

Okay so DLEP is defined in [RFC8175] 🦋. It's the protocol that handles exchanging link-related control information between DLEP peers, and those peers are a modem and a router 💅. DLEP has a base set of mechanisms plus support for possible extensions 🌷. It defines Data Items, which are sets of info that can be reused in DLEP messaging 🧚. The thing is, DLEP doesn't do any flow identification beyond the DLEP endpoints. Flows are identified by their DLEP endpoint, and that's it 🙈.

This document defines DLEP Data Item formats that give you flow identification at a more granular level 💖. Specifically, it lets a router use traffic flow classification info from the modem to identify flows, based on a combination of info found in a data plane header 🔥. (For general background on traffic classification, see Section 2.3 of [RFC2475] 📚.) The Data Item is structured so you can use the defined traffic classification info with things like credit window flow control, as specified in [RFC9893] ✨. [RFC9893] even gives an example of combining traffic classification with credit window flow control 👑.

This document defines traffic classification based on a DLEP destination, with flows identified by either Differentiated Services Code Points (DSCPs) [RFC2475] or IEEE 802.1Q Ethernet Priority Code Points (PCPs) [IEEE8021Q] 🌈. The mechanism lets you describe flows in a flexible way. Combined with things like credit window flow control, credit windows can be (1) shared across traffic sent to multiple DLEP destinations and across multiple flows, or (2) used exclusively for traffic sent to one particular destination and/or belonging to one particular flow 🦋. It also supports "wildcard" matching of any flow (DSCP or PCP) 🎀. The traffic classification info is designed so it can be easily extended to other traffic classification techniques, or used by extensions that have nothing to do with credit windows. Examples are the extension defined in [RFC8651] and even 5-tuple IP flows 🧚.

This document defines support for traffic classification using one new Data Item (see Section 2.1) for general support. It also defines two new Sub-Data Items for identifying flows by DSCPs and PCPs (see Sections 2.2 and 2.3) 💅.

1.1. Key Words ✨

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here 🔥.

2. Traffic Classification ✨

The Traffic Classification Data Item represents a list of flows that can be used at the same time to provide different service classes for traffic sent from a router to a modem 💖. The data plane info used to identify each flow is carried in a separate Sub-Data Item 🌸. The Data Item and Sub-Data Item structures are meant to be independent of any specific use of the flow identification, like flow control, for example 🧚. The Sub-Data Item structure is also meant to allow future traffic classification types, like 5-tuple flows 🦋. The Data Item structure is extensible, but actual flow info is expected to be used in an extension-dependent way 💅. Support for DSCP-based and PCP-based flows is defined through individual Sub-Data Items, see below 🎀. Other flow identification types, like ones based on IP transport-layer protocol and ports, may be defined in the future through new Sub-Data Items 🌈. Note that when extensions supporting multiple Sub-Data Item types are negotiated, these types MAY be combined in a single Data Item 👑.

Each list of flows is identified with a "Traffic Classification Identifier" or "TID", and is expected to represent a valid combination of data plane identifiers that can be used at the same time 💜. Each flow is identified with a "Flow Identifier" or "FID" 🫶. Each FID is defined in a Sub-Data Item that carries the data plane identifier or identifiers used to associate traffic with that flow ✨. A DLEP destination address is also needed to complete the traffic classification info used in extensions like flow control 🔥. That info is expected to be provided in an extension-specific way. For example, a modem can provide this address when it identifies the traffic classification set in a Destination Up Message, using the Credit Window Association Data Item defined in [RFC9893] 🌸. TID and FID values have modem-local scope 🙈.

2.1. Traffic Classification Data Item 🎀

okay so bestie, this section is all about the Traffic Classification Data Item 💅 A modem uses it to tell a router how to classify traffic 🦋 When an extension needs any Data Item, the Data Items, including this one, SHOULD be included by a modem in any Session Initialization Response Message (e.g., see [RFC9893]) ✨ Updates to earlier traffic classifications, or brand new ones, MAY be sent by a modem by including the Data Item in Session Update Messages 🌸 And more than one Data Item MAY be included in a message so you can describe multiple traffic classifiers at once 🫶

The set of traffic classification info in the Data Item is identified by a TID 🧚 The actual data plane info used for classifying traffic lives in a variable list of Traffic Classification Sub-Data Items 💜

Here's the format, it's giving very structured 🍓

     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    | Data Item Type                | Length                        |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |Traffic Class. Identifier (TID)|   Num SDIs    |   Reserved    |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    ~           Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item 1              ~
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    ~                              ...                              ~
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    ~           Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item n              ~
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Data Item Type: 29

Length: Variable 📏

Per Section 11.3 of [RFC8175], Length is the number of octets in the Data Item, excluding the Data Item Type and Length fields. The length here is limited by the packet data unit (PDU) length supported. For example, if the packet is limited to 1400 bytes, then the length MUST NOT exceed this value. If larger packets are supported, the maximum MUST be adjusted to be smaller than or equal to the maximum PDU. Multiple messages can be used if there is more data than will fit in a single TLV. 💖

Traffic Classification Identifier (TID): A 16-bit unsigned integer identifying a traffic classification set. There is no restriction on values used by a modem, and there is no requirement for sequential or ordered values. 🌈

Num SDIs: An 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of Traffic Classification Sub-Data Items included in the Data Item. A value of zero (0) is allowed and indicates that no traffic should be matched against this TID. 🙈

Reserved: For the Traffic Classification Data Item, this reserved field is currently unused. It MUST be set to all zeros for this version of the Data Item and is currently ignored on reception. This allows for future extensions of the Data Item if needed. 🔥

Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item: Zero or more Traffic Classification Sub-Data Items of the format defined in Section 2.1.1 MAY be included. The number MUST match the value carried in the Num SDIs field. ⭐

A router receiving the Traffic Classification Data Item MUST locate the traffic classification information that is associated with the TID indicated in each received Data Item. If no associated traffic classification information is found, the router MUST initialize a new information set using the values carried in the Data Item. If the associated traffic classification information is found, the router MUST replace the corresponding information using the values carried in the Data Item. In both cases, a router MUST also ensure that any data plane state (e.g., see [RFC9893]) that is associated with the TID is updated as needed. 👑

2.1.1. Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item 🦋

All Traffic Classification Sub-Data Items share a common format that is patterned after the standard DLEP Data Item format. See Section 11.3 of [RFC8175]. There is no requirement on, or meaning to, Sub-Data Item ordering. Any errors or inconsistencies encountered in parsing Sub-Data Items are handled in the same fashion as any other Data Item parsing error encountered in DLEP. See [RFC8175]. 🌸

Here's the format of the Sub-Data Item 💅

     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    | Sub-Data Item Type            | Length                        |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    ~                           Value...                            ~
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Sub-Data Item Type: A 16-bit unsigned integer that indicates the type and corresponding format of the Sub-Data Item's Value field. Sub-Data Item Types are scoped within the Data Item in which they are carried, i.e., the Sub-Data Item Type field MUST be used together with the Traffic Classification Data Item Type to identify the format of the Sub-Data Item. Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Types are managed according to the IANA registry described in Section 5.2. 🧚

Length: Variable 📏

Per Section 11.3 of [RFC8175], Length is a 16-bit unsigned integer that is the number of octets in the Sub-Data Item, excluding the Data Item Type and Length fields. Each Sub-Data Item has its own Length field. 💜

Value: A field of <Length> octets that contains data specific to a particular Data Item. 🍓

2.2. Diffserv Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item 🌈

The Diffserv Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item identifies the set of DSCPs that should be treated as a single flow, i.e., receive the same traffic treatment. DSCPs are identified in a list of Diffserv fields. An implementation that does not support DSCPs and wants the same traffic treatment for all traffic to a destination or destinations would indicate 0 DSCPs. ✨

Here's the format ✨

     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    | Sub-Data Item Type (1)        |  Length                       |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    | Flow Identifier (FID)         |   Num DSCPs   |   DS Field 1  |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |   DS Field 2  |      ...      |   DS Field n  |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Sub-Data Item Type: Sub-Data Item Type with value one (1) identifies the Diffserv Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type in the format defined in Section 2.1.1. 🦋

Length: Variable 📏

Length is defined above. For this Sub-Data Item, it is equal to three (3) octets plus the value of the Num DSCPs field. This means that the maximum Length value is 3 + 64 or 67 octets. The definition can be in multiple Sub-Data Items that are much smaller than this. 🎀

Flow Identifier (FID): A 16-bit unsigned integer representing the data plane information carried in the Sub-Data Item that is to be used in identifying a flow. The value 0xFFFF is reserved and MUST NOT be used in this field. 🙈

Num DSCPs: An 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of DSCPs carried in the Sub-Data Item. A zero (0) indicates a (wildcard) match against any DSCP value that does not have an explicit match to a FID. A typical use of this is mapping any DSCPs that are not explicitly mapped to a default queue. 🫶

DS Field: Each DS Field is 8 bits long and carries the DSCP field as defined in [RFC2474].

              0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7
            +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
            |         DSCP          |  MBZ  |
            +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

DSCP: Differentiated Services Code Point [RFC2474] 💖 MBZ: Must Be Zero - set to zero when transmitted 🔥

2.2.1. Router Receive Processing 👑

A router receiving the Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item MUST validate the information on receipt, prior to using the carried information, including potentially updating the data behavior as determined by the extension requiring the use of the Sub-Data Item. Validation failures MUST be treated as an error as described in Section 2.1.1. 🌸

Once validated, the receiver MUST ensure that each DS Field value is listed only once across the whole Traffic Classification Data Item. Note that this check is across the Data Item and not the individual Sub-Data Items. If the same DS Field value is listed more than once within the same Traffic Classification Data Item, the Data Item MUST be treated as an error as described in Section 2.1.1. 🧚

ngl this part is super important, the router has to check for duplicate DS Field values across the whole Data Item, not just within each Sub-Data Item 🙈

2.3. Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item ✨

okay so this is the Ethernet one, and it's giving VLAN drama 🎀 It identifies the VLAN and PCPs that should get treated as a single flow, which just means they all get the same traffic treatment 💅 Ethernet PCP support comes from the IEEE 802.1Q tag format [IEEE8021Q], and that tag has a 3-bit "PCP" field. It also has a 12-bit "VLAN Identifier (VID)" field. PCPs get listed as a list of Priority Fields 🦋 An implementation that doesn't support PCPs but still wants the same treatment for all traffic to a destination (or destinations) would indicate 0 PCPs. Such an implementation could identify a VLAN to use per destination 🌸

Here's how the format looks:

     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    | Sub-Data Item Type (2)        | Length                        |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    | Flow Identifier (FID)         |NumPCPs| VLAN Identifier (VID) |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    | Pri. 1| Pri. 2| ..... | ..... | ..... |  Pad  |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Sub-Data Item Type: Sub-Data Item Type with value two (2) identifies the Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type in the format defined in Section 2.1.1.

Length: Variable 🧚

Length is defined above. For this Sub-Data Item, it is equal to four (4) plus the number of octets needed to accommodate the number of Priority Fields indicated by the NumPCPs field. Note that as the length is in octets and each Priority Field is 4 bits, the total length of this Sub-Data Item is the 2 octets of Flow Identifier, plus the 2 octets for NumPCPs and VLAN Identifier, plus the number of octets for PCPs. The number of octets for the PCPs is computed by rounding up NumPCPs to the nearest even value and dividing by 2. This TLV has maximum length of 4 plus 8 divided by 2, or 8 octets. 🫶

Flow Identifier (FID): A 16-bit unsigned integer representing the data plane information carried in the Sub-Data Item that is to be used in identifying a flow. The value 0xFFFF is reserved and MUST NOT be used in this field. 🚫

NumPCPs: A 4-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of Priority Fields carried in the Sub-Data Item. A zero (0) indicates a (wildcard) match against any PCP value that does not have an explicit match to a FID. A typical use of a wildcard is mapping any PCPs that are not explicitly mapped to a default queue. The maximum number of PCPs is 8. 💖

VLAN Identifier (VID): A 12-bit unsigned integer field indicating the VLAN to be used in traffic classification. VID value zero (0x000) is used to indicate that the VID is to be ignored. VID 0xFFF is reserved. Any other VID value from 0x001 through 0xFFE can be used in traffic classification. Any explicitly mapped VLANs are matched first. Any VLANs that do not have a mapping will then map to this default mapping. 👑

Priority: Each Priority Field is 4 bits long and indicates a PCP field as defined in [IEEE8021Q]. Note that zero (0) is a valid value for PCP. 🌈

          0   1   2   3
        +---+---+---+---+
        |    PCP    |MBZ|
        +---+---+---+---+

PCP: Priority Code Point [IEEE8021Q] MBZ: Must Be Zero - set to zero when transmitted

Pad: A field that is 4 bits long and is included when NumPCPs is an odd number. This field MUST be set to zero by the sender and MUST be ignored on receipt. 🍓

2.3.1. Router Receive Processing 💜

A router receiving the Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item MUST validate the information on receipt, prior to using the carried information, including potentially updating the data behavior as determined by the extension requiring the use of the Sub-Data Item. Note that validation can include usage-specific semantics such as those found in [RFC9893]. Any failures MUST be treated as an error as described in Section 2.1.1. 🔥

After successful validation, the receiver MUST ensure that each Priority Field value is listed only once across the whole Traffic Classification Data Item. Note that this check is across the Data Item and not the individual Sub-Data Items. If the same Priority Field value is listed more than once within the same Traffic Classification Data Item, the Data Item MUST be treated as an error as described in Section 2.1.1. 💅

In cases where both Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Types are defined, matching on Ethernet information takes precedence. More specifically, when a packet matches both a DSCP indicated in a Diffserv Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item (Section 2.2) and a VID/PCP identified in an Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item (Section 2.3), the TID associated with the matching VLAN/PCP MUST be used. ✨

3. Compatibility 🎀

The formats defined in this document will only be used when extensions require their use. 🌸

The DLEP specification [RFC8175] defines the handling of unexpected appearances of any Data Items, including those defined in this document. 🦋

4. Security Considerations 🚨

bestie, this one is SERIOUS 😭

This document introduces finer-grained flow identification mechanisms for DLEP. These mechanisms expose vulnerabilities similar to existing DLEP messages. An example of a threat to which traffic classification might be susceptible is where a malicious actor masquerading as a DLEP peer could inject an alternate Traffic Classification Data Item, changing the mapping of traffic to queues. This would in turn cause delay, congestion, or loss in one or more service classes. Other possible threats are discussed in the Security Considerations section of [RFC8175] and are also applicable, but not specific, to traffic classification. 💀

The transport-layer security mechanisms documented in [RFC8175], along with the latest versions of [BCP195], [IEEE-802.1AE], and [IEEE-802.1X] at the time of this writing, can be applied to this document. Implementations following the "networked deployment" model described in Section 4 ("Implementation Scenarios") of [RFC8175] SHOULD refer to [BCP195] for additional details. The Layer 2 security mechanisms documented in [RFC8175] can also, with some updates, be applied to the mechanisms defined in this document. Examples of technologies that can be deployed to secure the Layer 2 link include [IEEE-802.1AE] and [IEEE-802.1X]. 🔐

5. IANA Considerations 📋

5.1. Data Item Type Values

IANA has assigned the following value from the "Specification Required" range [RFC8126] in the DLEP "Data Item Type Values" registry:

              +===========+========================+
              | Type Code | Description            |
              +===========+========================+
              | 29        | Traffic Classification |
              +-----------+------------------------+

                Table 1: New Data Item Type Value

5.2. Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type Values

IANA has created a new DLEP registry named "Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type Values". 🌈

Table 2 shows the registration policies [RFC8126] for the registry:

             +=============+=========================+
             | Range       | Registration Procedures |
             +=============+=========================+
             | 1-65407     | Specification Required  |
             +-------------+-------------------------+
             | 65408-65534 | Private Use             |
             +-------------+-------------------------+

                   Table 2: Registration Policies

Table 3 shows the initial contents of the registry:

  +=============+=================================+=============+
  | Type Code   | Description                     | Reference   |
  +=============+=================================+=============+
  | 0           | Reserved                        | RFC 9892    |
  +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
  | 1           | Diffserv Traffic Classification | [RFC2474]   |
  +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
  | 2           | Ethernet Traffic Classification | [IEEE8021Q] |
  +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
  | 3-65407     | Unassigned                      |             |
  +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
  | 65408-65534 | Reserved for Private Use        | RFC 9892    |
  +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
  | 65535       | Reserved                        | RFC 9892    |
  +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+

                 Table 3: Initial Registry Contents

This registry encompasses packet traffic classification, where standard packet header identifiers in packets or data frames indicate Quality of Service (QoS) treatment. It includes two specific entries for widely recognized identifiers used in QoS management for IP and Ethernet networks. Reserved values are set aside for similar future identifiers that may emerge to denote QoS treatment. However, requests for new entries are not expected to be frequent. 🦋

Allocations within the registry are subject to the following requirements:

  1. Documentation of the intended use of the requested value, in compliance with the "Specification Required" policy defined in [RFC8126].
  2. Approval by the designated expert (DE) appointed by the IESG. The DE must do the following:
    • Verify that the requested value is clearly documented and its purpose and usage are unambiguous.
    • Ensure that the proposed value does not conflict with existing work or ongoing efforts within the IETF.
    • Confirm that any specification requesting a code point has undergone review by the MANET Working Group (or a successor mailing list designated by the IESG).
    • Validate that external specifications requesting code points are publicly available, are permanently archived, and do not conflict with active or published IETF work.
    • Ensure that the review process is conducted in a timely manner, with any disputes resolved through consultation with the appropriate working groups.

5.3. Registration Guidance

This section provides guidance for registrations in the "Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type Values" registry. To simplify future registrations in DLEP-related registries, it is recommended that the guidance in this section apply to all registries within the "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Parameters" registry group that use the "Specification Required" policy [RFC8126]. Future specifications may point to the guidance in this document. 🫶

6. References 📚

6.1. Normative References

okay bestie, these are the need-to-read ones 📚✨

6.2. Informative References

these ones are more like the bonus content 🎀 still super cute to have around

Acknowledgments

huge thank-yous to Rick Taylor 🫶, whose "Data Item Containers" inspired the Sub-Data Item format ✨. He's also the one who suggested splitting credit windows away from traffic classification back at IETF 98 💡. This document came out of [RFC9894] after some discussions at IETF 101 🧠. A bunch of really helpful comments came in from folks in the MANET Working Group, especially Ronald in 't Velt and David Black 💜.

we had the honor of working too briefly with David Wiggins on this and related DLEP work 🕊️. His contributions to the IETF, plus publishing the first and definitive open-source DLEP implementation, were critical to DLEP getting accepted 👑. We mourn his passing on November 26, 2023 🥀. We're so grateful for his guidance, leadership, and professional excellence, and for getting to learn from his friendship too. He shall be missed 💔.

Authors' Addresses

Bow-Nan Cheng
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
244 Wood Street
Lexington, MA 02421-6426
United States of America
Email: bcheng@ll.mit.edu


David Wiggins


Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: lberger@labn.net


Don Fedyk (editor)
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: dfedyk@labn.net
📦 where this page comes from