OPSAWG
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Boucadair
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 9870 Orange
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track T. Reddy.K
Expires: 23 January 2025
ISSN: 2070-1721 Nokia
22 July 2024
September 2025
Export of UDP Options Information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-14
Abstract
This document specifies new IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Information Elements for UDP options.
Discussion Venues
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Discussion of this document takes place on the Operations and
Management Area Working Group Working Group mailing list
(opsawg@ietf.org), which is archived at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/boucadair/udp-ipfix.
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 an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of six months RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 23 January 2025.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9870.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 2025 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)
(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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. UDP Options at a Glance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. New UDP IPFIX Information Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. udpSafeOptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. udpUnsafeOptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. udpExID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. udpSafeExIDList . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.5. udpUnsafeExIDList . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Reduced-size Reduced-Size Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. SAFE Experimental Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. ExIDs and Reduced-size Reduced-Size Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. IPFIX Information Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) [RFC7011] is a protocol that is
widely deployed in networks for traffic management purposes
(Section 2 of [RFC6632]). The protocol specifies the encoding of a
set of basic data types and how the various Information Elements
(IEs) are transmitted. In order to support the export of new flow- Flow-
related measurement data, new IEs can be defined and registered in a
dedicated IANA registry [IANA-IPFIX] for interoperability.
This document specifies new IPFIX Information Elements for UDP
options (Section 4). A brief overview of UDP options is provided in
Section 3.
The IE specified in Section 4.1 uses the new abstract data type
("unsigned256") defined in [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh]. [RFC9740].
Transport (including MTU) considerations are discussed in Section 10
of [RFC7011].
Examples to illustrate the use of the new IPFIX Information Elements
are provided in Section 5.
2. Conventions and Definitions
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.
This document uses the IPFIX-specific terminology (e.g., Flow)
defined in Section 2 of [RFC7011]. As in the base IPFIX
specification [RFC7011], these IPFIX-specific terms have the first
letter of a word capitalized.
The document adheres to the naming conventions for Information
Elements per Section 2.3 of [RFC7012].
Also, this document uses the terms defined in Section 3 of
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options], [RFC9868],
especially "datagram" and "surplus area".
3. UDP Options at a Glance
UDP [RFC0768] does not support an extension mechanism similar to the
options supported by other transport protocols, such as TCP
[RFC9293], SCTP Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) [RFC9260], or DCCP
Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) [RFC4340]. Such a
mechanism can be useful for various applications, e.g., to discover a
path MTU or share timestamps. To fill that void, [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] [RFC9868] extends
UDP with a mechanism to insert extensions in datagrams. To do so,
and unlike the conventional approach that relies upon transport
headers, [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] [RFC9868] uses trailers. Concretely, UDP options are placed
in the surplus area (that is, the area of an IP payload that follows
a UDP packet). See Figure 1. An example of the use of UDP options
for Datagram Packetization Layer Path Maximum Transmission Unit MTU Discovery (DPLPMTUD) is
described in
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud]. [RFC9869].
IP transport payload
<------------------------------------------------->
+--------+---------+----------------------+------------------+
| IP Hdr | UDP Hdr | UDP user data | surplus area |
+--------+---------+----------------------+------------------+
<------------------------------>
UDP Length
Figure 1: Surplus Area
Sections 4.1 and 4.2 introduce new IEs to export the observed UDP
options.
UDP options are unambiguously identified by means of a 1-byte field,
called "Kind".
Options indicated by Kind values in the range 0-191 are called SAFE
options. Such options can be silently ignored by legacy receivers
because they do not alter the UDP user data (Section 11 of
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options]).
[RFC9868]). SAFE options are exported using the IE defined in
Section 4.1.
Options indicated by Kind values in the range 192-255 are called
UNSAFE options. Such options are not safe for legacy receivers to
ignore because they alter the UDP user data (Section 12 of
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options]).
[RFC9868]). UNSAFE options are exported using the IE defined in
Section 4.2.
UDP options occur per-packet within a Flow and can be inserted at any
time in the Flow.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options]
[RFC9868] reserves two options for experiments: the Experimental option
(EXP, Kind=127) option for SAFE options and the UNSAFE Experimental
option (UEXP, Kind=254). For both options, Experiment Identifiers
(ExIDs) are used to differentiate concurrent use of these options.
Known ExIDs are expected to be registered within IANA. Section 4.4
specifies a new IPFIX IE to export observed ExIDs in the EXP options.
Also, Section 4.5 specifies a new IPFIX IE to export observed ExIDs
in the UEXP options. Only 16-bit ExIDs are supported in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options]. [RFC9868].
This document does not intend to elaborate operational guidance/
implications of UDP options. The document focuses exclusively on
exporting observed UDP options in datagrams.
4. New UDP IPFIX Information Elements
RFC Editor Note: Please update "URL_IANA_UDP_OPTIONS" reference
with the URL of the "UDP Option Kind Numbers" registry group and
"URL_IANA_UDP_ExIDs" with the URL of the "UDP Experimental Option
Experiment Identifiers (UDP ExIDs)" registry that will be created
by IANA as per Section 25 of [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options].
Given the Kind structure of SAFE and UNSAFE UDP options, using one
single IE that would multiplex both types of option options will limit the
benefits of reduced-size encoding in the presence of UNSAFE options.
For example, at least 24 octets would be needed to report mandatory
SAFE options that are observed in a Flow. In order to use less bits
to report observed UDP options, distinct IEs are thus defined to
report SAFE (Section 4.1) and UNSAFE (Section 4.2) UDP options. As
further detailed in Section 5.1, only one octet is needed to report
mandatory SAFE options.
4.1. udpSafeOptions
Name: udpSafeOptions
ElementID: TBD1 525
Description: Observed SAFE UDP options in a Flow. The information
is encoded in a set of bit fields.
Options are mapped to bits according to their option numbers. UDP
option Kind 0 corresponds to the least-significant least significant bit in the
udpSafeOptions IE IE, while Kind 191 corresponds to the 65th most- most
significant bit of the IE. The bit is set to 1 if the
corresponding SAFE UDP option is observed at least once in the
Flow. The bit is set to 0 if the option is never observed in the
Flow. The 64 most-significant most significant bits MUST be set to 0.
The reduced-size encoding per Section 6.2 of [RFC7011] is followed
whenever fewer octets are needed to report observed SAFE UDP
options. For example, if only option Kinds <= 31 are observed,
then the value of the udpSafeOptions IE can be encoded as
unsigned32, or if only option Kinds <= 63 are observed, then the
value of the udpSafeOptions IE can be encoded as unsigned64.
The presence of udpSafeExIDList is an indication that the SAFE
Experimental option is observed in a Flow. The presence of
udpSafeExIDList takes precedence over setting the corresponding
bit in the udpSafeOptions IE for the same Flow. In order to
optimize the use of the reduced-size encoding in the presence of
udpSafeExIDList IE, the Exporter MUST NOT set to 1 the EXP flag of the
udpSafeOptions IE that is reported for the same Flow. Flow to 1.
Abstract Data Type: unsigned256
Data Type Semantics: flags
Additional Information: See the "UDP Option Kind Numbers" registry
at [URL_IANA_UDP_OPTIONS]. [UDP_OPTIONS].
See [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] [RFC9868] for more details about UDP options.
Reference: This-Document RFC 9870
4.2. udpUnsafeOptions
Name: udpUnsafeOptions
ElementID: TBD2 526
Description: Observed UNSAFE UDP options in a Flow. The information
is encoded in a set of bit fields.
Options are mapped to bits according to their option numbers. UDP
option Kind 192 corresponds to the least-significant least significant bit in the
udpUnsafeOptions IE IE, while Kind 255 corresponds to the most- most
significant bit of the IE. The bit is set to 1 if the
corresponding UNSAFE UDP option is observed at least once in the
Flow. The bit is set to 0 if the option is never observed in the
Flow.
The reduced-size encoding per Section 6.2 of [RFC7011] is followed
whenever fewer octets are needed to report observed UNSAFE UDP
options.
The presence of udpUnsafeExIDList is an indication that the UNSAFE
Experimental option is observed in a Flow. The presence of
udpUnsafeExIDList takes precedence over setting the corresponding
bit in the udpUnsafeOptions IE for the same Flow. In order to
optimize the use of the reduced-size encoding in the presence of
udpUnsafeExIDList IE, the Exporter MUST NOT set to 1 the UEXP flag of
the udpUnsafeOptions IE that is reported for the same Flow. Flow to 1.
Abstract Data Type: unsigned64
Data Type Semantics: flags
Additional Information: See the "UDP Option Kind Numbers" registry
at [URL_IANA_UDP_OPTIONS]. [UDP_OPTIONS].
See [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] [RFC9868] for more details about UDP options.
Reference: This-Document RFC 9870
4.3. udpExID
Name: udpExID
ElementID: TBD3 527
Description: Observed ExID in an Experimental option (EXP, Kind=127) option
or an UNSAFE Experimental option (UEXP, Kind=254). Kind=254) option.
A basicList of udpExID is used to report udpSafeExIDList and
udpUnsafeExIDList values.
Abstract Data Type: unsigned16
Data Type Semantics: identifier
Additional Information: See the "UDP "TCP/UDP Experimental Option
Experiment Identifiers (UDP (TCP/UDP ExIDs)" registry at [URL_IANA_UDP_ExIDs]. [UDP_ExIDs].
See [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] [RFC9868] for more details about ExIDs.
Reference: This-Document RFC 9870
4.4. udpSafeExIDList
Name: udpSafeExIDList
ElementID: TBD4 528
Description: Observed ExIDs in the Experimental option (EXP,
Kind=127). Kind=127)
option.
A basicList of udpExID Information Elements in which each udpExID
Information Element carries the ExID observed in an EXP option.
Abstract Data Type: basicList
Data Type Semantics: list
Additional Information: See the "UDP "TCP/UDP Experimental Option
Experiment Identifiers (UDP (TCP/UDP ExIDs)" registry at [URL_IANA_UDP_ExIDs]. [UDP_ExIDs].
See [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] [RFC9868] for more details about ExIDs.
Reference: This-Document RFC 9870
4.5. udpUnsafeExIDList
Name: udpUnsafeExIDList
ElementID: TBD5 529
Description: Observed ExIDs in the UNSAFE Experimental option (UEXP,
Kind=254).
Kind=254) option.
A basicList of udpExID Information Elements in which each udpExID
Information Element carries the ExID observed in an UEXP option.
Abstract Data Type: basicList
Data Type Semantics: list
Additional Information: See the "UDP "TCP/UDP Experimental Option
Experiment Identifiers (UDP (TCP/UDP ExIDs)" registry at [URL_IANA_UDP_ExIDs]. [UDP_ExIDs].
See [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] [RFC9868] for more details about ExIDs.
Reference: This-Document RFC 9870
5. Examples
5.1. Reduced-size Reduced-Size Encoding
Given the UDP Kind allocation in Section 10 of
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] [RFC9868] and the
option mapping defined in Section 4.1 of this document, fewer octets
are likely to be used for Flows with mandatory UDP options.
Figure 2 shows an example of the Kind/bit mappings in the
udpSafeOptions IE for a Flow in which End of Options List (EOL,
Kind=0) and Alternate payload checksum Additional Payload Checksum (APC, Kind=2) options are
observed. Only the bits that corresponds to EOL and APC options are
set to 1.
MSB LSB
1 25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0| |0|0|0|0|0|1|0|1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-++-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: An Example of udpSafeOptions IE with EOL and APC Options
One octet is sufficient to report these observed options because the
leading zeros are dropped per the reduced-size encoding guidance.
Concretely, the reported udpSafeOptions IE will be set to 0x05
(Figure 3).
MSB LSB
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0|0|0|0|1|0|1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: An Example of the Wire udpSafeOptions IE Value with EOL
and APC Options
5.2. SAFE Experimental Option
Let us now consider a UDP Flow in which SAFE Experimental options are
observed. If a udpSafeOptions IE is exported for this Flow, then
that IE will have the EXP bit set to 1 (Figure 4). This example does
not make any assumption about the presence of other UDP options ("X"
can be set to 0 or 1).
MSB LSB
12 25
0 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X|X|X|X| |X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|1|X|X| |X|X|X|X|X|X|X|
+-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-++-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: An Example of udpSafeOptions with EXP Option
5.3. ExIDs and Reduced-size Reduced-Size Encoding
Now assume that EOL, APC, EXP, and UEXP options are observed in a
Flow. Let us also consider that the observed SAFE Experimental
options have ExIDs set to 0x9858 and 0xE2D4, 0xE2D4 and UNSAFE Experimental
options have ExIDs set to 0xC3D9 and 0x1234. Figure 5 shows an
excerpt of the Data Set encoding with a focus on SAFE Experimental
options that have ExIDs. The meaning of the fields is are defined in [RFC6313].
MSB LSB
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
: ... :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 255 | List Length = 9 |semantic=allof |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| udpExID = TBD3 527 | Field Length = 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SAFE ExID = 0x9858 | SAFE ExID = 0xE2D4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 255 | List Length = 9 |semantic=allof |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| udpExID = TBD3 527 | Field Length = 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| UNSAFE ExID = 0xC3D9 | UNSAFE ExID = 0x1234 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: ... :
Figure 5: Example of UDP Experimental Option ExID IEs
Following the guidance in Section 4.1, the reported udpSafeOptions IE
will be set to 0x05 even in the presence of EXP options.
6. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce new security considerations other
than those already discussed in Section 11 of [RFC7011] and Section 8
of [RFC7012].
The reader may refer to Section 24 of [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] [RFC9868] for the security
considerations related to UDP options.
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. IPFIX Information Elements
This document requests
IANA to add has added the following new IEs to the "IPFIX Information
Elements" registry under the "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Entities" registry group [IANA-IPFIX]:
+===========+===================+==============================+
+===========+===================+=========================+
| ElementID | Name | Specification Reference |
+===========+===================+==============================+
+===========+===================+=========================+
| TBD1 525 | udpSafeOptions | Section 4.1 of This-Document RFC 9870 |
+-----------+-------------------+------------------------------+
+-----------+-------------------+-------------------------+
| TBD2 526 | udpUnsafeOptions | Section 4.2 of This-Document RFC 9870 |
+-----------+-------------------+------------------------------+
+-----------+-------------------+-------------------------+
| TBD3 527 | udpExID | Section 4.3 of This-Document RFC 9870 |
+-----------+-------------------+------------------------------+
+-----------+-------------------+-------------------------+
| TBD4 528 | udpSafeExIDList | Section 4.4 of This-Document RFC 9870 |
+-----------+-------------------+------------------------------+
+-----------+-------------------+-------------------------+
| TBD5 529 | udpUnsafeExIDList | Section 4.5 of This-Document RFC 9870 |
+-----------+-------------------+------------------------------+
+-----------+-------------------+-------------------------+
Table 1: New IPFIX Information Elements
udpSafeOptions uses the abstract data type ("unsigned256") defined in [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh].
Note to IANA: The "Specification" column points to the sections
with the required information to register each IE.
Note to the RFC Editor: Please remove the IANA note once IANA
actions are implemented.
[RFC9740].
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh]
Boucadair, M. and B. Claise, "Extended TCP Options and
IPv6 Extension Headers IPFIX Information Elements", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-
v6eh-17, 5 July 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-
ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-17>.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options]
Touch, J. D., "Transport Options for UDP", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-32,
21 March 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-32>.
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc768>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.
[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/rfc/rfc2119>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6313] Claise, B., Dhandapani, G., Aitken, P., and S. Yates,
"Export of Structured Data in IP Flow Information Export
(IPFIX)", RFC 6313, DOI 10.17487/RFC6313, July 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6313>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6313>.
[RFC7011] Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken,
"Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77,
RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7011>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7011>.
[RFC7012] Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model
for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7012>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7012>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC9740] Boucadair, M. and B. Claise, "New IPFIX Information
Elements for TCP Options and IPv6 Extension Headers",
RFC 9740, DOI 10.17487/RFC9740, March 2025,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9740>.
[RFC9868] Touch, J. and C. Heard, Ed., "Transport Options for UDP",
RFC 9868, DOI 10.17487/RFC9868, September 2025,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9868>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud]
Fairhurst, G. and T. Jones, "Datagram PLPMTUD for UDP
Options", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud-12, 7 May 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-
udp-options-dplpmtud-12>.
[IANA-IPFIX]
IANA, "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities", n.d.,
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml>.
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix>.
[RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4340, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4340>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4340>.
[RFC6632] Ersue, M., Ed. and B. Claise, "An Overview of the IETF
Network Management Standards", RFC 6632,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6632, June 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6632>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6632>.
[RFC9260] Stewart, R., Tüxen, M., and K. Nielsen, "Stream Control
Transmission Protocol", RFC 9260, DOI 10.17487/RFC9260,
June 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9260>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9260>.
[RFC9293] Eddy, W., Ed., "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)",
STD 7, RFC 9293, DOI 10.17487/RFC9293, August 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9293>.
[URL_IANA_UDP_ExIDs]
"UDP
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9293>.
[RFC9869] Fairhurst, G. and T. Jones, "Datagram Packetization Layer
Path MTU Discovery (DPLPMTUD) for UDP Options", RFC 9869,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9869, September 2025,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9869>.
[UDP_ExIDs]
IANA, "TCP/UDP Experimental Option Experiment Identifiers (UDP
(TCP/UDP ExIDs)", n.d., <https://www.iana.org/assignments/url2>.
[URL_IANA_UDP_OPTIONS] <https://www.iana.org/assignments/udp>.
[UDP_OPTIONS]
IANA, "UDP Option Kind Numbers", n.d.,
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/url1>.
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/udp>.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Benoît Claise for the discussion on the ordering of IPFIX
IEs. Thanks to Paul Aitken for the review and comments.
Thanks to Tommy Pauly for the tsvart TSVART review, Joe Touch for the intdir INTDIR
review, Robert Sparks for the genart GENART review, Watson Ladd for the
secdir
SECDIR review, and Jouni Korhonen for the opsdir OPSDIR review.
Thanks to Thomas Graf for the Shepherd shepherd review.
Thanks to Mahesh Jethanandani for the AD review.
Thanks to Éric Vyncke, Roman Danyliw, and Zahed Sarker for the IESG
review.
Authors' Addresses
Mohamed Boucadair
Orange
35000 Rennes
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Tirumaleswar Reddy.K
Nokia
India
Email: kondtir@gmail.com