NETCONF G. Zheng
Internet-Draft T. Zhou
Intended status: Standards Track A. Clemm
Expires: September 19, 2018 Huawei
March 18, 2018
UDP based Publication Channel for Streaming Telemetry
draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel-02
Abstract
This document describes a UDP-based publication channel for streaming
telemetry use to collect data from devices. A new shim header is
proposed to facilitate the distributed data collection mechanism
which directly pushes data from line cards to the collector. Because
of the lightweight UDP encapsulation, higher frequency and better
transit performance can be achieved.
Requirements Language
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].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 19, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Zheng, et al. Expires September 19, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2018
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Transport Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Dynamic Subscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Configured Subscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. UDP Transport for Publication Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Design Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Data Format of the Message Header . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3.1. Reliability Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3.2. Fragmentation Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4. Data Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
Streaming telemetry refers to sending a continuous stream of
operational data from a device to a remote receiver. This provides
an ability to monitor a network from remote and to provide network
analytics. Devices generate telemetry data and push that data to a
collector for further analysis. By streaming the data, much better
performance, finer-grained sampling, monitoring accuracy, and
bandwidth utilization can be achieved than with polling-based
alternatives.
Zheng, et al. Expires September 19, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2018
Sub-Notif [I-D.ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications] and YANG-Push
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] defines a mechanism that allows a
collector to subscribe to updates of YANG-defined data that is
maintained in a YANG [RFC7950] datastore. The mechanism separates
the management and control of subscriptions from the transport that
is used to actually stream and deliver the data. Two transports,
NETCONF transport [I-D.ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications] and
HTTP transport [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf-notif], have been defined
so far for the notification messages.
While powerful in its features and general in its architecture, in
its current form the mechanism needs to be extended to stream
telemetry data at high velocity from devices that feature a
distributed architecture. The transports that have been defined so
far, NETCONF and HTTP, are ultimately based on TCP and lack the
efficiency needed to stream data continuously at high velocity. A
lighter-weight, more efficient transport, e.g. a transport based on
UDP is needed.
o Firstly, data collector will suffer a lot of TCP connections from,
for example, many line cards equipped on different devices.
o Secondly, as no connection state needs to be maintained, UDP
encapsulation can be easily implemented by hardware which will
further improve the performance.
o Thirdly, because of the lightweight UDP encapsulation, higher
frequency and better transit performance can be achieved, which is
important for streaming telemetry.
This document specifies a higher-performance transport option for
YANG-Push that leverages UDP. Specifically, it facilitates the
distributed data collection mechanism described in
[I-D.zhou-netconf-multi-stream-originators]. In the case of data
originating from multiple line cards, the centralized design requires
data to be internally forwarded from those line cards to the push
server, presumably on a main board, which then combines the
individual data items into a single consolidated stream. The
centralized data collection mechanism can result in a performance
bottleneck, especially when large amounts of data are involved. What
is needed instead is the support for a distributed mechanism that
allows to directly push multiple individual substreams, e.g. one from
each line card, without needing to first pass them through an
additional processing stage for internal consolidation, but still
allowing those substreams to be managed and controlled via a single
subscription. The proposed UDP based Publication Channel (UPC)
natively supports the distributed data collection mechanism.
Zheng, et al. Expires September 19, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2018
The transport described in this document can be used for transmitting
notification messages over both IPv4 and IPv6 [RFC8200].
While this document will focus on the data publication channel, the
subscription can be used in conjunction with the mechanism proposed
in [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] with extensions
[I-D.zhou-netconf-multi-stream-originators].
2. Terminology
Streaming Telemetry: refers to sending a continuous stream of
operational data from a device to a remote receiver. This provides
an ability to monitor a network from remote and to provide network
analytics.
3. Solution Overview
The typical distributed data collection solution is shown in Fig. 1.
Both the Collector and the Subscribed Domain can be distributed. The
Collector includes the Subscriber and a set of Receivers. And the
Subscribed Domain includes a Master and a set of Agents. The
Subscriber cannot see the Agents directly, so it will send the Global
Subscription information to the Master (e.g., main board) via the
Subscription Channel. When receiving a Global Subscription, the
Master decomposes the subscription request into multiple Component
Subscriptions, each involving data from a separate internal telemetry
source, for example a line card. The Component Subscriptions are
distributed to the Agents. Subsequently, each data originator
generates its own stream of telemetry data, collecting and
encapsulating the packets per the Component Subscription and
streaming them to the designated Receivers. This distributed data
collection mechanism may form multiple Publication Channels between
the Data Originators and the Receivers. The Collector is able to
assemble many pieces of data associated with one Global Subscription.
The Publication Channel supports the reliable data streaming, for
example for some alarm events. The Collector has the option of
deducing the packet loss and the disorder based on the information
carried by the notification data. And the Collector will decide the
behavior to request retransmission.
The rest of the draft describes the UDP based Publication Channel
(UPC).
Zheng, et al. Expires September 19, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2018
+---------------------------------+
| Collector |
| |
| +------------+ +-----------+ |
| | Subscriber | | Receivers | |
| +----+-------+ +--^----^---+ |
| | | | |
+---------------------------------+
| | |
Subscription | | | Publication
Channel | | | Channel
| +---------+ |
| | |
+---------------------------------+
| | | | |
| +---v---+--+ +------+-+ |
| | Master | | Agents | |
| +----------+ +--------+ |
| |
| Subscribed Domain |
+---------------------------------+
Fig. 1 Distributed Data Collection
4. Transport Mechanisms
For a complete pub-sub mechanism, this section will describe how the
UPC is used to interact with the Subscription Channel relying on
NETCONF or RESTCONF.
4.1. Dynamic Subscription
Dynamic subscriptions for YANG-Push [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] are
configured and managed via signaling messages transported over
NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The YANG-Push defined RPCs
are sent and responded via the Subscription Channel (a), between the
Subscriber and the Master of the Subscribed Domain. In this case,
only one Receiver is associated with the Subscriber. In the
Subscribed Domain, there may be multiple Data Originators.
Notification messages are pushed on separate channels (b), from
different Data Originators to the Receiver .
Zheng, et al. Expires September 19, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2018
+--------------+ +--------------+
| Collector | | Subscribed |
| | | Domain |
| (a) (b) | | (a) (b) |
+--+------+----+ +--+-------+---+
| | | |
| | RPC:establish-subscription | |
+----------------------------------------> |
| | RPC Reply: OK | |
<----------------------------------------+ |
| | UPC:notifications | |
| <-----------------------------------------+
| | | |
| | RPC:modify-subscription | |
+----------------------------------------> |
| | RPC Reply: OK | |
<----------------------------------------+ |
| | UPC:notifications | |
| <-----------------------------------------+
| | | |
| | RPC:delete subscription | |
+----------------------------------------> |
| | RPC Reply: OK | |
<----------------------------------------+ |
| | | |
| | | |
+ + + +
Fig. 2 Call Flow for Dynamic Subscription
In the case of dynamic subscription, the Receiver and the Subscriber
SHOULD be collocated. So UPC can use the source IP address of the
Subscription Channel as it's destination IP address. The Receiver
MUST support listening messages at the IANA-assigned PORT-X, but MAY
be configured to listen at a different port.
4.2. Configured Subscription
For a Configured Subscription, there is no guarantee that the
Subscriber is currently in place with the associated Receiver(s). As
defined in [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push], the subscription
configuration contains the location information of all the receivers,
including the IP address and the port number. So that the Data
Originator can actively send generated messages to the corresponding
Receivers via the UPC.
Zheng, et al. Expires September 19, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2018
The first message MUST be a separate subscription-started
notification to indicate the Receiver that the pushing is started.
Then, the notifications can be sent immediately without any wait.
All the subscription state notifications, as defined in
[I-D.ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications], MUST be encapsulated to
be separated notification messages.
+--------------+ +--------------+
| Collector | | Subscribed |
| | | Domain |
| (a) (b) | | (a) (b) |
+--+------+----+ +--+-------+---+
| | | |
| | Capability Exchange | |
<----------------------------------------> |
| | | |
| | Edit config(create) | |
+----------------------------------------> |
| | RPC Reply: OK | |
<----------------------------------------+ |
| | UPC:subscription started | |
| <-----------------------------------------+
| | UPC:notifications | |
| <-----------------------------------------+
| | | |
| | Edit config(delete) | |
+----------------------------------------> |
| | RPC Reply: OK | |
<----------------------------------------+ |
| | UPC:subscription terminated | |
| <-----------------------------------------+
| | | |
| | | |
+ + + +
Fig. 3 Call Flow for Configured Subscription
5. UDP Transport for Publication Channel
5.1. Design Overview
As specified in YANG-Push, the telemetry data is encapsulated in the
NETCONF/RESTCONF notification message, which is then encapsulated and
carried in the transport protocols, e.g. TLS, HTTP2. The following
figure shows the overview of the typical UDP publication message
structure.
Zheng, et al. Expires September 19, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2018
o The Message Header contains information that can facilitate the
message transmission before de-serializing the notification
message.
o Notification Message is the encoded content that the publication
channel transports. The common encoding method includes GPB [1],
CBOR [RFC7049], JSON, and XML.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-notification-messages] describes the structure
of the Notification Message for both single notification and
multiple bundled notifications.
+-------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
| UDP | | Message | | Notification |
| | | Header | | Message |
+-------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
Fig. 4 UDP Publication Message Overview
5.2. Data Format of the Message Header
The Message Header contains information that can facilitate the
message transmission before de-serializing the notification message.
The data format is shown as follows.
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
+-------+---------------+-------+-------------------------------+
| Vers. | Flag | ET | Length |
+-------+---------------+-------+-------------------------------+
| Subscribed Domain ID |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Message ID |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
~ Options ~
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Fig. 5 Message Header Format
The Message Header contains the following field:
o Vers.: represents the PDU (Protocol Data Unit) encoding version.
The initial version value is 0.
o Flag: is a bitmap indicating what features this packet has and the
corresponding options attached. Each bit associates to one
feature and one option data. When the bit is set to 1, the
associated feature is enabled and the option data is attached.
Zheng, et al. Expires September 19, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2018
The sequence of the presence of the options follows the bit order
of the bitmap. In this document, the flag is specified as
follows:
* bit 0, the reliability flag;
* bit 1, the fragmentation flag;
* other bits are reserved. All the reserved bits MUST be set to
0.
o ET: is a 4 bits identifier to indicate the encoding type used for
the Notification Message. While 16 types of encoding can be
expressed, this document specifies the following usage:
* 0: GPB;
* 1: CBOR;
* 2: JSON;
* 3: XML;
* others are reserved.
o Length: is the total length of the message, measured in octets,
including message header. If the notification message is
fragmented, this Length indicates the actual length of the current
message fragmentation.
o Subscribed Domain ID: is a 32-bit identifier of the Subscribed
Domain. With this parameter, the receiver can easily identify
messages generated from the same Subscription Domain. One
possible value is the visible IPv4 address of the Master.
o The Message ID is generated continuously by the Data Originator.
Different subscribers share the same Message ID sequence.
Different fragmentations of one message share the same Message ID.
o Options: is a variable-length field. The details of the Options
will be described in the respective sections below.
5.3. Options
The order of packing the data fields in the Options field follows the
bit order of the Flag field.
Zheng, et al. Expires September 19, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2018
5.3.1. Reliability Option
The UDP based publication transport described in this document
provides two streaming modes, the reliable mode an the unreliable
mode, for different SLA (Service Level Agreement) and telemetry
requirements.
In the unreliable streaming mode, the line card pushes the
encapsulated data to the data collector without any sequence
information. So the subscriber does not know whether the data is
correctly received or not.
The reliable streaming mode provides sequence information in the UDP
packet, based on which the subscriber can deduce the packet loss and
disorder. Then the subscriber can decide whether to request the
retransmission of the lost packets.
In most case, the unreliable streaming mode is preferred. Because
the reliable streaming mode will cost more network bandwidth and
precious device resource. Different from the unreliable streaming
mode, the line card cannot remove the sent reliable notifications
immediately, but to keep them in the memory for a while. Reliable
notifications may be pushed multiple times, which will increase the
traffic. When choosing the reliable streaming mode or the unreliable
streaming mode, the operate need to consider the reliable requirement
together with the resource usage.
When the reliability flag bit is set to 1 in the Flag field, the
following option data will be attached
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
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Previous Message ID |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Fig. 4 Reliability Option Format
The Data Originator has the capability of index the Previous Message
ID for the message. Together with the current Message ID, the
Receiver can detect whether the current message is in a right order.
For example, there are two subscriber A and B,
o Message IDs for the generator are : [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9],
in which Subscriber A subscribes [1,2,3,6,7] and Subscriber B
subscribes [1,2,4,5,7,8,9].
Zheng, et al. Expires September 19, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2018
o Subscriber A will receive : [0,1][1,2][2,3][3,6][6,7].
o Subscriber B will receive : [0,1][1,2][2,4][4,5][5,7][7,8].
5.3.2. Fragmentation Option
UDP payload has a theoretical length limitation to 65535. Other
encapsulation headers will make the actual payload even shorter.
Binary encodings like GPB and CBOR can generate a compact
notification message. So that the message can fit in one UDP packet.
In this case, fragmentation will not easily happen. However, text
encodings like JSON and XML can easily generate a notification
message exceeding the UDP length limitation.
The fragmentation flag in the fixed header is set to 1 only when the
Notification Message is actually fragmented. And the Fragmentation
Option is available in the message header when the fragmentation flag
is set to 1.
The Fragmentation Option is formatted as follow:
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
+-------------------------------------------------------------+-+
| Fragment Number |L|
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Fig. 5 Fragmentation Option Format
This option contains:
o Fragment Number: indicates the sequence number of the current
fragment. Together with the Message ID, the Receiver can compose
the entire Notification Message.
o L: is a flag to indicate whether the current fragment is the last
one. When 0 is set, current fragment is not the last one, hence
more fragments are expected. When 1 is set, current fragment is
the last one.
5.4. Data Encoding
Subscribed data can be encoded in GPB, CBOR, XML or JSON format. It
is conceivable that additional encodings may be supported as options
in the future. This can be accomplished by augmenting the
subscription data model with additional identity statements used to
refer to requested encodings.
Zheng, et al. Expires September 19, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2018
Implementation may support different encoding method per
subscription. When bundled notifications is supported between the
publisher and the receiver, only subscribed notifications with the
same encoding can be bundled as one message.
6. Congestion Control
Congestion control mechanisms that respond to congestion by reducing
traffic rates and establish a degree of fairness between flows that
share the same path are vital to the stable operation of the Internet
[RFC2914]. While efficient, UDP has no build-in congestion control
mechanism. Because streaming telemetry can generate unlimited
amounts of data, transferring this data over UDP is generally
problematic. It is not recommended to use the UPC over congestion-
sensitive network paths. The only environments where the UPC MAY be
used are managed networks. The deployments require the network path
has been explicitly provisioned for the UPC through traffic
engineering mechanisms, such as rate limiting or capacity
reservations.
7. IANA Considerations
This RFC requests that IANA assigns one UDP port number in the
"Registered Port Numbers" range with the service names "udp-pub-ch".
This port will be the default port for the UDP based publication
channel for NETCONF and RESTCONF. Below is the registration template
following the rules in [RFC6335].
Service Name: udp-pub-ch
Transport Protocol(s): UDP
Assignee: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Contact: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Description: NETCONF Call Home (SSH)
Reference: RFC XXXX
Port Number: PORT-X
8. Security Considerations
TBD
Zheng, et al. Expires September 19, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2018
9. Acknowledgements
The authors of this documents would like to thank Eric Voit, Tim
Jenkins, and Huiyang Yang for the initial comments.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2914] Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41,
RFC 2914, DOI 10.17487/RFC2914, September 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2914>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
October 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications]
Prieto, A., Voit, E., Clemm, A., Nilsen-Nygaard, E., and
A. Tripathy, "NETCONF Support for Event Notifications",
draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-08 (work in
progress), February 2018.
Zheng, et al. Expires September 19, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2018
[I-D.ietf-netconf-notification-messages]
Voit, E., Birkholz, H., Bierman, A., Clemm, A., and T.
Jenkins, "Notification Message Headers and Bundles",
draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages-03 (work in
progress), February 2018.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf-notif]
Voit, E., Tripathy, A., Nilsen-Nygaard, E., Clemm, A.,
Prieto, A., and A. Bierman, "RESTCONF and HTTP Transport
for Event Notifications", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-
notif-04 (work in progress), January 2018.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications]
Voit, E., Clemm, A., Prieto, A., Nilsen-Nygaard, E., and
A. Tripathy, "Custom Subscription to Event Streams",
draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-10 (work in
progress), February 2018.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push]
Clemm, A., Voit, E., Prieto, A., Tripathy, A., Nilsen-
Nygaard, E., Bierman, A., and B. Lengyel, "YANG Datastore
Subscription", draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-15 (work in
progress), February 2018.
[I-D.zhou-netconf-multi-stream-originators]
Zhou, T., Zheng, G., Voit, E., Clemm, A., and A. Bierman,
"Subscription to Multiple Stream Originators", draft-zhou-
netconf-multi-stream-originators-01 (work in progress),
November 2017.
10.3. URIs
[1] https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/
Appendix A. Change Log
(To be removed by RFC editor prior to publication)
A.1. draft-ietf-zheng-udp-pub-channel-00 to v00
o Modified the message header format.
o Added a section on the Authentication Option.
o Cleaned up the text and removed unnecessary TBDs.
A.2. v01
Zheng, et al. Expires September 19, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2018
o Removed the detailed description on distributed data collection
mechanism from this document. Mainly focused on the description
of a UDP based publication channel for telemetry use.
o Modified the message header format.
A.2. v02
o Add the section on the transport mechanism.
o Modified the fixed message header format.
o Add the fragmentation option for the message header.
Authors' Addresses
Guangying Zheng
Huawei
101 Yu-Hua-Tai Software Road
Nanjing, Jiangsu
China
Email: zhengguangying@huawei.com
Tianran Zhou
Huawei
156 Beiqing Rd., Haidian District
Beijing
China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Alexander Clemm
Huawei
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, California
USA
Email: alexander.clemm@huawei.com
Zheng, et al. Expires September 19, 2018 [Page 15]