[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-tuexen-rserpool-policies) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 RFC 5356

Network Working Group                                          M. Tuexen
Internet-Draft                        Muenster Univ. of Applied Sciences
Expires: December 14, 2005                                  T. Dreibholz
                                            University of Duisburg-Essen
                                                           June 12, 2005


                    Reliable Server Pooling Policies
                  draft-ietf-rserpool-policies-01.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 14, 2005.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

   This document describes server pool policies for Reliable Server
   Pooling including considerations for implementing them at name
   servers and pool users.







Tuexen & Dreibholz      Expires December 14, 2005               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft              RSerPool Policies                  June 2005


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Terminology and Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1   Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2   Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Non-Adaptive Policies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1   Round Robin Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       3.1.1   Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       3.1.2   Name Server Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       3.1.3   Pool User Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       3.1.4   Pool Member Selection Policy Parameter . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2   Weighted Round Robin Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       3.2.1   Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       3.2.2   Name Server Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.2.3   Pool User Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.2.4   Pool Member Selection Policy Parameter . . . . . . . .  6
     3.3   Random Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.3.1   Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.3.2   Name Server Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.3.3   Pool User Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.3.4   Pool Member Selection Policy Parameter . . . . . . . .  7
     3.4   Weighted Random Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.4.1   Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.4.2   Name Server Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.4.3   Pool User Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.4.4   Pool Member Selection Policy Parameter . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Adaptive Policies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1   Least Used Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.1.1   Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.1.2   Name Server Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.1.3   Pool User Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.1.4   Pool Member Selection Policy Parameter . . . . . . . .  8
     4.2   Least Used with Degradation Policy . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.2.1   Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.2.2   Name Server Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.2.3   Pool User Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.2.4   Pool Member Selection Policy Parameter . . . . . . . .  9
     4.3   Priority Least Used Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.3.1   Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.3.2   Name Server Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.3.3   Pool User Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.3.4   Pool Member Selection Policy Parameter . . . . . . . . 10
     4.4   Randomized Least Used Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.4.1   Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.4.2   Name Server Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.4.3   Pool User Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.4.4   Pool Member Selection Policy Parameter . . . . . . . . 11



Tuexen & Dreibholz      Expires December 14, 2005               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft              RSerPool Policies                  June 2005


   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     7.1   Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     7.2   Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 14












































Tuexen & Dreibholz      Expires December 14, 2005               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft              RSerPool Policies                  June 2005


1.  Introduction

   The protocols defined in ENRP [5], ASAP [4] and Parameters [3]
   support a variety of server policies.  Some of the policies use
   dynamic load information of the pool elements and others do not.
   Therefore, we classify them as adaptive and non-adaptive.  The
   selection of the pool user is performed by two different entities.
   Some of the consequences for policies which are not stateless are
   described in Performance [7].

   Therefore this document describes not only packet formats but also
   gives a detailed description of the procedures to be followed at the
   name servers and the pool users to implement each server policy.

2.  Terminology and Definitions

2.1  Load

   The term load is a value specifying how much a pool element's
   resources are currently utilized. 0x000000 states, that the pool
   element is not utilized (0%), 0xffffff states that it is fully
   utilized (100%).  Defining what utilization means is application-
   dependent and out of the scope of RSerPool.  However, it is required
   that all pool elements of the same pool using load information have
   the same definition of load.

   For example, load may define the current amount of users out of a
   maximum on a FTP server, the CPU usage of a database server or the
   memory utilization of a compute service.

2.2  Weight

   Weight defines a pool element's service capacity relatively to other
   pool elements of the same pool.  Theoretically, there is no upper
   limit for weight values (although limited by datatype size).
   Defining what value weights compare is application-dependent and out
   of the scope of RSerPool.  However, it is required that all pool
   elements of the same pool using weight information have the same
   definition of weight.

   A weight of 0 denotes that the pool element is not capable of
   providing any service, a weight of 2*n denotes that the pool element
   is capable of providing a two times better service than a pool
   element having weight n.

   For example, weight may define a compute service's computation
   capacity.  That is, a pool element of weight 100 will complete a work
   package in half of the time compared to a pool element of weight 50.



Tuexen & Dreibholz      Expires December 14, 2005               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft              RSerPool Policies                  June 2005


3.  Non-Adaptive Policies

3.1  Round Robin Policy

3.1.1  Description

   The Round Robin (RR) policy is a very simple and efficient policy
   which requires state.  This policy is denoted as the default policy
   and MUST be supported by all RSerPool components.

3.1.2  Name Server Considerations

   The name server SHOULD hold the pool elements of each server pool in
   a circular list and SHOULD store a pointer to one of the elements,
   called the head.  On reception of a name resolution request the name
   server SHOULD return the pool elements from the circular list
   starting with head.  Then head SHOULD be advanced by one element.

   Using this algorithm it is made sure that not all lists presented to
   the pool users start with the same element.

3.1.3  Pool User Considerations

   A pool user SHOULD use the list of pool elements returned by the name
   server in a round robin fashion, starting with the first.  If all
   elements of the list have been used it should start from the
   beginning again until the information is out of date.

3.1.4  Pool Member Selection Policy Parameter


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Param Type = 0x6           |      Length = 0x8             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Policy=0x1   |                (reserved)                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-------------------------------+

   o  Reserved: 24 bits, SHOULD be set to 0.

3.2  Weighted Round Robin Policy

3.2.1  Description

   The Weighted Round Robin (WRR) policy is a generalization of the RR
   policy.  If all weights are 1 then WRR is just RR.




Tuexen & Dreibholz      Expires December 14, 2005               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft              RSerPool Policies                  June 2005


3.2.2  Name Server Considerations

   The name server SHOULD follow the same rules as for RR but initialize
   and modify the circular list differently.  The name server puts each
   pool element possibly multiple times into the list such that:
   o  The ratio of the number of occurrences of a pool element to the
      list length is the same as the ratio of the weight of that pool
      element to the sum of weights.
   o  Each pool element is inserted as distributed as possible in the
      circular list.

3.2.3  Pool User Considerations

   The pool user SHOULD follow the same rules as for RR.

3.2.4  Pool Member Selection Policy Parameter


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Param Type = 0x6           |      Length = 0x8             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Policy=0x2   |                 Weight                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-------------------------------+

   o  Weight: Weight constant for the WRR process.

3.3  Random Policy

3.3.1  Description

   The Random (RAND) policy is a very simple stateless policy.

3.3.2  Name Server Considerations

   The name server selects at most the requested number of pool elements
   from the list of pool elements.  Each element MUST NOT be reported
   more than once to the pool user.

3.3.3  Pool User Considerations

   Each time the pool user must select one pool element it does this by
   randomly selecting one element from the list of pool elements
   received from the name server.






Tuexen & Dreibholz      Expires December 14, 2005               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft              RSerPool Policies                  June 2005


3.3.4  Pool Member Selection Policy Parameter


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Param Type = 0x6           |      Length = 0x8             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Policy=0x3   |                (reserved)                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-------------------------------+

   o  Reserved: 24 bits, SHOULD be set to 0.

3.4  Weighted Random Policy

3.4.1  Description

   The Weighted Random (WRAND) policy is a generalization of the RAND
   policy, adding a weight for each pool element entry.  RAND is equal
   to WRAND having all weights set to 1.

3.4.2  Name Server Considerations

   The name server SHOULD select at most the requested number of pool
   elements randomly from the list of pool elements.  Each element MUST
   NOT be reported more than once to the pool user.  The probability of
   selecting a pool element should be the ratio of the weight of that
   pool element to the sum of weights.

3.4.3  Pool User Considerations

   Each time the pool user must select one pool element it does this by
   randomly selecting one element from the list of pool elements
   received from the name server.

3.4.4  Pool Member Selection Policy Parameter


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Param Type = 0x6           |      Length = 0x8             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Policy=0x4   |                 Weight                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-------------------------------+






Tuexen & Dreibholz      Expires December 14, 2005               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft              RSerPool Policies                  June 2005


   o  Weight: Weight constant for the WRAND process.

4.  Adaptive Policies

4.1  Least Used Policy

4.1.1  Description

   The Least Used (LU) policy uses load information provided by the pool
   elements to select the lowest-loaded pool elements within the pool.

4.1.2  Name Server Considerations

   The name server SHOULD select at most the requested number of pool
   elements.  Their load values SHOULD be the lowest possible ones
   within the pool.  Each element MUST NOT be reported more than once to
   the pool user.  If there is a choice of equal-loaded pool elements,
   round robin selection SHOULD be made between these elements.  The
   returned list of pool elements MUST be sorted ascending by load
   value.

4.1.3  Pool User Considerations

   The pool user should try to use the pool elements returned from the
   list in the order returned by the name server.  A subsequent call for
   name resolution may result in the same list.  Thereofore, it is
   RECOMMENDED for a pool user to request multiple entries in order to
   have a sufficient amount of feasible backup entries available.

4.1.4  Pool Member Selection Policy Parameter


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Param Type = 0x6           |      Length = 0x8             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Policy=0x5   |                 Load                          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-------------------------------+

   o  Load: Current load of the pool element.

4.2  Least Used with Degradation Policy

4.2.1  Description

   The Least Used with Degradation (LUD) policy extends the LU policy by
   a load degradation value describing the pool element's load increment



Tuexen & Dreibholz      Expires December 14, 2005               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft              RSerPool Policies                  June 2005


   when a new service association is accepted.

4.2.2  Name Server Considerations

   For every pool element entry, a degradation counter MUST be stored.
   When a pool element entry is added or updated by registration or
   reregistration, this counter MUST be set to 0.  When an entry is
   selected for being returned to a pool user, the internal degradation
   counter MUST be incremented by the entry's load degradation constant.
   The selection of pool element entries is handled like for LU, except
   that the selected pool element entries SHOULD have the lowest
   possible sum of load value + degradation counter.

4.2.3  Pool User Considerations

   See LU policy.

4.2.4  Pool Member Selection Policy Parameter


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Param Type = 0x6           |      Length = 0xc             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Policy=0x6   |                  Load                         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-------------------------------+
      |  (reserved)   |              Load Degradation                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-------------------------------+

   o  Load: Current load of the pool element.
   o  Reserved: 8 bits, SHOULD be set to 0.
   o  Load Degradation: Load Degradation constant of the pool element.

4.3  Priority Least Used Policy

4.3.1  Description

   The Priority Least Used (PLU) policy uses load information provided
   by the pool elements to select the lowest-loaded pool elements within
   the pool under the assumption that a new application request is
   accepted by the pool elements.  Therefore, the pool elements also
   have to specify load degradation information.

   Example: Pool elements A and B are loaded by 50%, but the load of A
   will increase due to a new application request only by 10% while B
   will be fully loaded.  PLU allows to specify this load degradation in
   the policy information, the selection is made on the lowest sum of



Tuexen & Dreibholz      Expires December 14, 2005               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft              RSerPool Policies                  June 2005


   load and degradation value.  That is, A will be selected (50+10=60)
   instead of B (50+50=100).

4.3.2  Name Server Considerations

   The name server SHOULD select at most the requested number of pool
   elements.  Their sums of load + degradation SHOULD be the lowest
   possible ones within the pool.  Each element MUST NOT be reported
   more than once to the pool user.  If there is a choice of equal-
   valued pool element entries, round robin SHOULD be made between these
   elements.  The returned list of pool elements MUST be sorted
   ascending by the sum of load and degradation value.

4.3.3  Pool User Considerations

   The pool user should try to use the pool elements returned from the
   list in the order returned by the name server.  A subsequent call for
   name resolution may result in the same list.  Therefore, it is
   RECOMMENDED for a pool user to request multiple entries in order to
   have a sufficient amount of feasible backup entries available.

4.3.4  Pool Member Selection Policy Parameter


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Param Type = 0x6           |      Length = 0xc             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Policy=0x7   |                 Load                          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-------------------------------+
      |  (reserved)   |              Load Degradation                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-------------------------------+

   o  Load: Current load of the pool element.
   o  Load Degradation: Load Degradation constant of the pool element.

4.4  Randomized Least Used Policy

4.4.1  Description

   The Randomized Least Used (RLU) policy combines LU and WRAND.  That
   is, the pool element entries are selected randomly; the probability
   for a pool element entry to be selected is the ratio of 100%-load to
   the sum of all pool elements' load values.






Tuexen & Dreibholz      Expires December 14, 2005              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft              RSerPool Policies                  June 2005


4.4.2  Name Server Considerations

   The name server SHOULD behave like WRAND, having every PE's weight
   set to (0xffffff - Load value provided by the pool element).

4.4.3  Pool User Considerations

   See WRAND policy.

4.4.4  Pool Member Selection Policy Parameter


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Param Type = 0x7           |      Length = 0x8             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Policy=0x9   |                 Load                          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-------------------------------+

   o  Load: Current load of the pool element.

5.  Security Considerations

   The security threats regarding RSerPool have been analyzed in
   RSerPool threats [6].  The server policy descriptions  in this
   document do not add any other threats.

6.  IANA Considerations

   IANA keeps a list of Policy Types which are 1 byte values.  The
   Policy values used in this document are:

     Value     Policy
     -----     ---------
     0x00      (reserved by IETF)
     0x01      Round Robin
     0x02      Weighted Round Robin
     0x03      Random
     0x04      Weighted Random
     0x05      Least Used
     0x06      Least Used with Degradation
     0x07      Priority Least Used
     0x09      Randomized Least Used
     others    (reserved by IETF)


7.  References



Tuexen & Dreibholz      Expires December 14, 2005              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft              RSerPool Policies                  June 2005


7.1  Normative References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [2]  Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology",
        RFC 3668, February 2004.

   [3]  Stewart, R., Xie, Q., and M. Tuexen, "Aggregate Server Access
        Protocol (ASAP) and Endpoint Name Resolution (ENRP)
        Parameters", draft-ietf-rserpool-common-param-08 (work in
        progress), February 2005.

   [4]  Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Stillman, M., and M. Tuexen, "Aggregate
        Server Access Protocol (ASAP)", draft-ietf-rserpool-asap-11
        (work in progress), February 2005.

   [5]  Xie, Q., Stewart, R., and M. Stillman, "Enpoint Name Resolution
        Protocol (ENRP)", draft-ietf-rserpool-enrp-11 (work in
        progress), February 2005.

   [6]  Stillman, M., "Threats Introduced by Rserpool and Requirements
        for Security in response to  Threats",
        draft-ietf-rserpool-threats-04 (work in progress), January 2005.

7.2  Informative References

   [7]  Dreibholz, T., Rathgeb, E., and M. Tuexen, "Load Distribution
        Performance of the Reliable Server Pooling Framework", Submitted
        to Globecom 2004.


Authors' Addresses

   Michael Tuexen
   Muenster University of Applied Sciences
   Stegerwaldstrasse 39
   48565 Steinfurt
   Germany

   Email: tuexen@fh-muenster.de










Tuexen & Dreibholz      Expires December 14, 2005              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft              RSerPool Policies                  June 2005


   Thomas Dreibholz
   University of Duisburg-Essen, Institute for Experimental Mathematics
   Ellernstrasse 29
   45326 Essen, Nordrhein-Westfalen
   Germany

   Phone: +49 201 183-7637
   Fax:   +49 201 183-7673
   Email: dreibh@exp-math.uni-essen.de
   URI:   http://www.exp-math.uni-essen.de/~dreibh/









































Tuexen & Dreibholz      Expires December 14, 2005              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft              RSerPool Policies                  June 2005


Intellectual Property Statement

   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.


Disclaimer of Validity

   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 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.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).  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.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




Tuexen & Dreibholz      Expires December 14, 2005              [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/