| Rfc | 5284 |
|---|
| Title | User-Defined Errors for RSVP |
|---|
| Author | G. Swallow, A. Farrel |
|---|
| Date | August 2008 |
|---|
| Format: | TXT, HTML |
|---|
| Status: | PROPOSED STANDARD |
|---|
|
Network Working Group G. Swallow
Request for Comments: 5284 Cisco Systems, Inc.
Category: Standards Track A. Farrel
Old Dog Consulting
August 2008
User-Defined Errors for RSVP
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
The Resource ReserVation Protocol (RSVP) defines an ERROR_SPEC object
for communicating errors. That object has a defined format that
permits the definition of 256 error codes. As RSVP has been
developed and extended, the convention has been to be conservative in
defining new error codes. Further, no provision for user-defined
errors exists in RSVP.
This document defines a USER_ERROR_SPEC to be used in addition to the
ERROR_SPEC to carry additional user information related to errors.
1. Introduction
The Resource ReserVation Protocol (RSVP) [RFC2205] defines an
ERROR_SPEC object for communicating errors. That object has a
defined format that permits the definition of 256 error codes. As
RSVP has been developed and extended, the convention has been to be
conservative in communicating errors. Further, no provision for user
defined errors exists in RSVP.
When developing extensions to RSVP, it is often useful for those
implementing to define error messages to aid both in the initial
debugging and in testing against older versions or other
implementations.
This document defines a new RSVP object to permit user-defined errors
to be communicated. This will enable organizations to define errors
that they can use for internal development. These error values could
also be shared with the community at large to aid in promoting
interoperability between diverse implementations.
RSVP PathErr and ResvErr messages require the presence of an
ERROR_SPEC object ([RFC2205]). [RFC3473] defines the Notify message
that also requires the presence of an ERROR_SPEC object. In order to
not change the mandatory contents of these messages, this document
defines a new error code value that indicates that the new object is
present and carries a user-defined error code.
Note that the ResvConf message defined in [RFC2205] also carries an
ERROR_SPEC object. But this usage of the object does not carry
meaningful Error Codes or Error Values and so the extensions defined
in this document are not applicable to that message.
1.1. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. User-Defined Error
A new Error Code is defined for use in an ERROR_SPEC object.
Error Code = 33: User Error Spec
This error code is used to signal the presence of a
USER_ERROR_SPEC. One Error Value is defined as follows.
Error Value 0 = Further details in User Error Spec
Further error values may be defined in future specifications.
When sending this error code, a USER_ERROR_SPEC object MUST be
included in the PathErr, ResvErr, or Notify message.
3. USER_ERROR_SPEC Class
A new RSVP object class called USER_ERROR_SPEC is defined. To
support backwards compatibility, its class number is in the range
192-247. As defined in [RFC2205], implementations that do not
understand such an object will forward it unmodified.
USER_ERROR_SPEC object: Class = 194, C-Type = 1
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
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Enterprise Number |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Sub Org | Err Desc Len | User Error Value |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| |
~ Error Description ~
| |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| |
~ User-Defined Subobjects ~
| |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
Enterprise Number
A unique identifier of an organization encoded as a 32-bit
integer. Enterprise Numbers (sometimes known as Private
Enterprise Numbers) are assigned by IANA and managed on a first
come first served basis through the IANA registry named
"Enterprise Numbers" [RFC2578].
Sub Org
A unique identifier of an organization encoded as an 8-bit
integer. An organization MAY use this field to create
independent Error Value spaces. This is intended to facilitate
teams that are doing parallel development. If independent
spaces are not required, this field SHOULD be set to zero.
Err Desc Len
The length of the error description in the Error Description
field in bytes excluding any padding. Zero is a valid length
if no error description is supplied.
User Error Value
A 16-bit integer. The meaning is specified by the
(sub-)organization indicated by the Enterprise Number and Sub
Org fields.
Error Description
A string of characters padded with nulls (0x00) to a multiple
of 4 bytes. According to the guidance in [RFC2277], this
string MUST use UTF-8/Net-Unicode encoding [RFC5198].
Furthermore, it is RECOMMENDED that implementations limit the
strings that they generate to single-line printable US-ASCII
[ASCII] whenever feasible to improve the likelihood of easy use
by the recipient.
If the Err Desc Len is zero, then no bytes are supplied.
Note that the content of this field is implementation-specific.
It is typically printable, but might not be shown to all users
in all implementations (because of character set choice).
Therefore, the content of the field SHOULD be limited to
supplementary information and SHOULD NOT contain information
critical to operating the network. Critical information is
present in the User Error Value field.
User-Defined Subobjects
User-defined subobjects MAY be included. The generic format of
subobjects is specified in Section 3.1. The semantics of a
subobject is indicated by the Type field, but the semantics,
format, and contents of the Value field are specified by the
(sub-)organization indicated by the Enterprise Number and Sub
Org fields of this object.
3.1. Subobjects
Each subobject is encoded as a TLV in the following format:
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-------------//----------------+
| Type | Length | (Subobject contents) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-------------//----------------+
Type
An 8-bit number assigned by the (sub-)organization indicated by
the Enterprise Number and Sub Org fields of the USER_ERROR_SPEC
object.
Length
The Length contains the total length of the subobject in bytes,
including the Type and Length fields. The Length MUST be at
least 4, and MUST be a multiple of 4.
4. Procedures for Using the User Error Spec
4.1. Procedures for Sending the User Error Spec
A USER_ERROR_SPEC object MAY be included in any PathErr, ResvErr, or
Notify message for any defined error code. The Enterprise Number
MUST be a valid value assigned by IANA from the "Enterprise Numbers"
registry.
As specified in [RFC2205] and [RFC3473], an ERROR_SPEC object with a
valid error code MUST be included in all PathErr, ResvErr, and Notify
messages. This rule is not changed by these procedures even when a
USER_ERROR_SPEC object is included. If no other error code applies,
the Error Code in the ERROR_SPEC object MUST be set to "User Error
Spec" as defined in Section 2 of this document. When the Error Code
in the ERROR_SPEC object is set to "User Error Spec", the Error Value
sub-code SHOULD be set to "Further details in User Error Spec" as
defined in Section 2, but further Error Value sub-codes may be
defined in future specifications.
4.2. Procedures for Receiving the User Error Spec
It is RECOMMENDED that implementations that receive a PathErr,
ResvErr, or Notify message carrying a USER_ERROR_SPEC object log (at
a minimum) the Enterprise Number, Sub-organization, User Error Value,
and Error Description. Note that the character set used for the
Error Description may mean that it might not be suitable for display
of logging in all systems. Implementations capable of interpreting
the contents of the USER_ERROR_SPEC object SHOULD take further action
based on the reported error.
Implementations that are not UTF-8 capable and that receive a
USER_ERROR_SPEC object SHOULD handle the Error Description according
to the procedures set out in [RFC5137].
If a message is received containing an ERROR_SPEC object using the
"User Error Spec" error code, but not containing a USER_ERROR_SPEC
object, the message MUST be treated as malformed and handled
according to [RFC2205].
Implementations SHOULD ignore repeated occurrences of USER_ERROR_SPEC
objects, and SHOULD forward them unchanged on any messages that they
forward. This provides for forward compatibility.
Implementations receiving a USER_ERROR_SPEC object on some message
other than a PathErr, ResvErr, or Notify message MUST treat the error
as a malformed message and process according to [RFC2205].
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. RSVP Error Codes
This document makes the following assignments from the RSVP Error
Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes registry:
Error Code Meaning
33 User Error Spec
One Error Value sub-code is defined for use with this Error Code as
follows:
0 = Further details in User Error Spec
5.2. RSVP Objects
This document makes the following assignments from the RSVP Class
Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types registry:
Number Space Value Name
Class Numbers 194 USER_ERROR_SPEC
Class Type 1 User-Defined Error
6. Security Considerations
This document makes no changes to the basic message exchanges of
[RFC2205] and [RFC3473]. It will result in a small increase in the
number of error messages sent in cases where messages were previously
silently dropped due to the lack of an appropriate error code.
The mechanisms defined in this document may be used by
implementations to report additional error conditions and information
arising from security issues and attacks on the RSVP network.
Note that the use of a character string that will be displayed or
logged opens the potential for certain security attacks through the
use of overruns or embedded control characters. Implementations
SHOULD take precautions against overruns, and (especially where the
full character set of [RFC5198] is not supported, SHOULD use the
procedures set out in [RFC5137] to handle unexpected or unknown
control characters.
7. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Elisheva Halevy for motivating this
document. Thanks to Tom Nadeau, Magnus Westerlund, Hannes
Tschofenig, Bruce Davie, Jukka Manner, Francois Le Faucheur, Lars
Eggert, and Tom Petch for their review and comments.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
3473, January 2003.
[RFC5137] Klensin, J., "ASCII Escaping of Unicode Characters", BCP
137, RFC 5137, February 2008.
[RFC5198] Klensin, J. and M. Padlipsky, "Unicode Format for Network
Interchange", RFC 5198, March 2008.
[ASCII] American National Standards Institute, "USA Code for
Information Interchange", ANSI X3.4, 1968.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC2277] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.
[RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder,
"Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)",
STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999.
Authors' Addresses
George Swallow
Cisco Systems, Inc.
EMail: swallow@cisco.com
Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting
EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.