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

Versions: 00 01

   Operations Group                                            I. Singh
   Internet Draft                                          P. Francisco
   Expires: December 2005                                 M. Montemurro
                                                       Chantry Networks
                                                              June 2005



               Evaluation of CAPWAP Tunneling Protocol (CTP)
               draft-francisco-capwap-ctp-evaluation-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 8, 2005.

Copyright Notice

      Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).


Abstract

   This document presents a self evaluation of the CAPWAP Tunneling
   Protocol (CTP) with respect to the requirements presented in the
   CAPWAP Objectives draft.  This work is to aid in the official working
   group evaluation of the candidate protocols for CAPWAP.




Francisco              Expires - December 2005               [Page 1]


 Internet-Draft             CTP Evaluation                   June 2005


Table of Contents

   1. Definitions....................................................3
      1.1 Conventions used in this document..........................3
   2. Introduction...................................................3
   3. Objectives Responses...........................................3
      3.1 Mandatory and Accepted Objectives..........................3
         3.1.1 Logical Groups........................................3
         3.1.2 Support for Traffic Separation........................3
         3.1.3 Wireless Terminal Transparency........................4
         3.1.4 Configuration Consistency.............................4
         3.1.5 Firmware Trigger......................................4
         3.1.6 Monitoring and Exchange of System-wide Resource State.5
         3.1.7 Resource Control Objective............................5
         3.1.8 CAPWAP Protocol Security..............................6
         3.1.9 System-wide Security..................................6
         3.1.10 IEEE 802.11i Considerations..........................7
         3.1.11 Interoperability Objective...........................7
         3.1.12 Protocol Specifications..............................8
         3.1.13 Vendor Independence..................................8
         3.1.14 Vendor Flexibility...................................9
         3.1.15 NAT Traversal........................................9
      3.2 Desirable Objectives.......................................9
         3.2.1 Multiple Authentication Mechanisms....................9
         3.2.2 Support for Future Wireless Technologies.............10
         3.2.3 Support for New IEEE Requirements....................10
         3.2.4 Interconnection Objective............................10
         3.2.5 Access Control.......................................11
      3.3 Non-objectives............................................11
         3.3.1 Support for Non-CAPWAP WTPs..........................11
         3.3.2 Technical Specifications.............................11
      3.4 Operator Requirements.....................................12
         3.4.1 AP Fast Handoff......................................12
   4. Compliance Table..............................................12
   5. Security considerations.......................................13
   6. References....................................................13
   7. Author's Addresses............................................13
      Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements ...............13













Francisco              Expires - December 2005               [Page 2]


 Internet-Draft             CTP Evaluation                   June 2005



1.
  Definitions

1.1
   Conventions used in this document

   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 [1]

2.
  Introduction

   The authors of the CAPWAP Tunneling Protocol(CTP) [2] believe that
   CTP provides a robust solution in the form of a protocol that
   addresses the issues raised in the CAPWAP Problem Statement draft
   [3].  CTP can be run over an L2 or an L3 network and it is extensible
   to support WTPs which terminate other radio technologies than IEEE
   802.11.

   Given below is a brief analysis of the protocol with respect to the
   objectives draft [4] that has been presented and discussed in the WG.

3.
  Objectives Responses
3.1
   Mandatory and Accepted Objectives

3.1.1
     Logical Groups
   The ability to control and manage physical WTPs in terms of logical
   groups.

3.1.1.1
       Protocol Evaluation
   The CTP protocol allows the AP and WTP to exchange  information on
   logical groups as part of the capabilities exchange
   (CTP_CAP_REQ/RESP). The AC uses this information to provision logical
   groups on the WTP as part of the configuration transaction.
   The CTP header in the control and data messages provides a mechanism
   to segment traffic between logical groups.

3.1.1.2
       Compliance
   CTP is compliant with this objective.

3.1.2
     Support for Traffic Separation
   This objective pertains to the need to maintain separation of control
   and data traffic in the operation of the protocol.

3.1.2.1
       Protocol Evaluation
   CTP provides specific message types control and data traffic. CTP
   data traffic can either be tunneled to the AC or bridged locally at
   the WTP. Control traffic will always travel between the AC and the
   WTP.



Francisco              Expires - December 2005               [Page 3]


 Internet-Draft             CTP Evaluation                   June 2005


3.1.2.2
       Compliance
   CTP is compliant with this objective.

3.1.3
     Wireless Terminal Transparency
   This objective specifies the need for the protocol to be client
   agnostic.  That is, the wireless terminals need not be aware of the
   existence of the CAPWAP protocol running underneath.

3.1.3.1
       Protocol Evaluation
   CTP defines a protocol for the provisioning and control of WTPs. The
   protocol is agnostic to wireless MAC technology and entirely
   transparent to a wireless terminal. Shipping products using CTP
   demonstrate that this protocol does not have any adverse effects,
   interoperability or otherwise, on the wireless terminals.

3.1.3.2
       Compliance
   CTP is compliant with this objective.

3.1.4
     Configuration Consistency
   This objectives pertains to the protocolÆs ability to provide
   consistent configuration state information of the WTPs at the AC.

3.1.4.1
       Protocol Evaluation
   CTP defines a configuration transaction where the AC can exchange
   configuration with the WTP. The mechanism uses an SNMP data payload
   encapsulated inside a CTP frame. The WTP must acknowledge the
   configuration update to confirm that the configuration state on the
   WTP is synchronized with the AC.

   The protocol makes use of the SNMP MIB that is defined in the IEEE
   802.11 standard and its amendments. This provides a generic mechanism
   for configuration which is agnostic to wireless technologies and
   updates to wireless standards.

3.1.4.2
       Compliance
   CTP is compliant with this objective.

3.1.5
      Firmware Trigger
   This objective states that the protocol must have the ability to
   trigger WTP firmware updates.  It does not necessarily state the need
   for the protocol to integrate a software update mechanism within the
   protocol itself.

3.1.5.1
       Protocol Evaluation
   After the device capability exchange phase (CTP-CAP_REQ/RESP) which
   allows for the identification of the type of WTP connecting, CTP
   protocol specifies a phase of firmware image validation (CTP-
   Software-upgrade-req/resp, section 5.1.5) where the WTP indicates the



Francisco              Expires - December 2005               [Page 4]


 Internet-Draft             CTP Evaluation                   June 2005


   version of its firmware to the Controller. The controller can
   evaluate the version of the WTP software and signal the WTP to update
   its image. CTP does not specify the actual method for firmware
   upgrade, but rather assumes the application of standardized binary
   transport protocols (FTP/TFTP).

3.1.5.2
       Compliance
   CTP is compliant with this objective.

3.1.6
      Monitoring and Exchange of System-wide Resource State
   This objective states that the protocol must incorporate the ability
   for the WTP to send statistics, congestion indications and other
   pertinent wireless state information to the AC.

3.1.6.1
        Protocol Evaluation
   CTP protocol defines frames for the periodic exchange of a WTPÆs
   operational statistics (CTP-Stats-req/resp, CTP-Stats-Notify, Section
   5.2.7-9). The protocol uses an SNMP format for the statistics based
   on MIB definitions from the 802.11 standard and its amendments. This
   protocol mechanism is agnostic to wireless technology and updates to
   existing wireless standards.

3.1.6.2
        Compliance
   CTP is compliant with this objective.

3.1.7
      Resource Control Objective
   This objective pertains to the ability of the protocol to provide a
   mapping mechanism of the IEEE 802.11e QOS priorities across the
   wireless and wired infrastructure.

3.1.7.1
        Protocol Evaluation
   CTP defines a two tiered mechanism for QoS that addresses the
   switching segment as well as the wireless medium. The QoS strategy
   for the protocol involves mapping the QoS marking of the data frame
   to the CTP frame.

   Across the switched segment, CTP is an IP protocol that provides
   several mechanisms to ensure the preservation of QoS markers within
   the original data packet. The protocol header (CTP Section 4.1)
   natively defines an 8-bit field for relaying of QoS policy related
   information in a transport independent manner. Alternatively, CTP
   could use 802.1p tagging to preserve QoS across the switched segment.
   This allows the WTP and Controller to classify and guarantee the
   preservation of QoS across the switched network.

   CTP makes use of the 802.11e standard to preserve QoS across the
   wireless medium. The mapping for QoS data frames to 802.11e QoS
   frames is defined in the 802.11e amendment to the 802.11 standard.



Francisco              Expires - December 2005               [Page 5]


 Internet-Draft             CTP Evaluation                   June 2005



3.1.7.2
        Compliance
   CTP is compliant with this objective.

3.1.8
      CAPWAP Protocol Security
   This objective concerns the security of the CAPWAP protocol.  The
   protocol must support mutual authentication of the WTP and the AC and
   the communication channel between the two entities must be secured.
   In addition, however, the protocol must not preclude the possibility
   of supporting asymmetric authentication mechanisms.

3.1.8.1
        Protocol Evaluation
   First of all, as currently defined, CTP does not support a pre-shared
   key mechanism for mutual authentication.  It assumes the existence of
   digital certificates on the WTP and AC.  The mutual authentication
   mechanism between WTP and AC using digital certificates as described
   in the CTP draft is very similar to the method employed in the LWAPP
   draft [5].  As such, some of the recent comments on the WG email list
   regarding the security of LWAPPÆs mutual authentication also applies
   to CTP.  Specifically in the area of the generation of the encryption
   key.  Currently CTP specifies that the encryption key is generated by
   the AC and is securely transported to the WTP.  An obvious
   improvement would be for the WTP and the AC to mutually contribute to
   the generation of the encryption key by providing independently
   generated random material for the session keys.

   Also, based on discussion on the WG list it is not clear whether the
   use of pre-shared key for mutual authentication is required or simply
   that the authentication must be mutual.  Nevertheless, we believe
   that adding another method of mutual authentication, ie. with using
   pre-shared keys, will enhance the flexibility of the CTP protocol,
   but at the cost of increased protocol complexity.

3.1.8.2
        Compliance
   CTP is partially compliant with this objective.

3.1.9
      System-wide Security
   The protocol must not adversely affect the security of the wireless
   and wired networks on which it runs.

3.1.9.1
        Protocol Evaluation
   CTP defines that any exchanges of control based material such as PMK
   is natively encrypted. All Control messages are mutually encrypted
   between the WTP and controller. In lieu of a thorough security and
   cryptographic analysis of the protocol by peers, the authors believe
   that the encryption/keying mechanism currently provides adequate
   protection against un-authorized compromise of the transported
   information which, in turn, would not adversely affect the security
   of the wireless or wired network.


Francisco              Expires - December 2005               [Page 6]


 Internet-Draft             CTP Evaluation                   June 2005





3.1.9.2
        Compliance
   The protocol is partially compliant with this objective pending a
   thorough security and cryptographic review.

3.1.10
       IEEE 802.11i Considerations
   The CAPWAP protocol must determine the exact structure of the
   centralized WLAN architecture in which authentication needs to be
   supported, i.e. the location of major authentication components.

   This may be achieved during WTP initialization where major
   capabilities are distinguished.

   The protocol must allow for the exchange of key information when
   authenticator and encryption roles are located in distinct entities.

3.1.10.1
         Protocol Evaluation
   The CTP protocol has separated the 802.11i security function into two
   components, EAP Authenticator and Key Management. The EAP
   Authenticator and Key Management functions provide a natural
   delineation point between 802.11i functions. The location of the
   components is negotiated between the AC and WTP during the
   capabilities exchange and registration. The components can either co-
   located or separate on the WTP or the AC. Any exchange of security
   association information between the AC and the WTP is protected
   either by 802.11i mechanisms or by CTP mechanisms.

3.1.10.2
         Compliance
   CTP is compliant with this objective.

3.1.11
       Interoperability Objective
   The objective specifies that the protocol must include a capabilities
   exchange mechanism so that different types of WTPs can be managed by
   ACs.  That is, local-MAC and split-MAC WTPs may be recognized by the
   AC through protocol exchange and appropriate handling within the
   protocol would ensue as a result of this capability exchange.

3.1.11.1
         Protocol Evaluation
   The CTP protocol as specified, provides a mechanism for capabilities
   exchange (CTP-caps-req/resp) that allows the WTP and the Controller
   to negotiate their operational mode. The capabilities exchange for
   control and data traffic is treated independently.

   Control traffic in split-MAC mode indicates that the WTP will forward
   all wireless MAC management traffic (i.e. IEEE 802.11) to the AC.




Francisco              Expires - December 2005               [Page 7]


 Internet-Draft             CTP Evaluation                   June 2005


   Control traffic in local-MAC mode indicates that all 802.11
   management frames will terminate at the WTP. CTP defines update
   messages to allow the WTP to signal the AC for updates to wireless
   client connection states.

   Data traffic in split-MAC modes indicates that the WTP will forward
   all traffic to the AC. The format for the traffic can be either
   wireless MAC dependent (i.e. IEEE 802.11) or IEEE 802.3 depending
   whether the control channel is split-MAC or local-MAC.

   Data traffic in local-MAC mode indicates that data frames will be
   bridged locally by the AP to its switching segment. The switching
   segment may be present locally at the AP or at the Controller. For
   Controller handled bridged access the CTP protocol provides a
   tunneling method for 802.3 frame encapsulation.

3.1.11.2
         Compliance
   CTP is compliant with this objective.

3.1.12
      Protocol Specifications
   This objective states that any vendor of a WTP or AC or any person
   may implement the CAPWAP protocol and that all such implementations
   should interoperate.

3.1.12.1
         Protocol Evaluation
   CTP specification fully specify the protocol and its operation within
   WTPs and ACs.  It also indicates the configuration and statistics
   capabilities come from MIB specifications that are published by IEEE
   that fully describe the managed objects within an WTP.  The authors
   believe that the work done by the IEEE will enable full
   interoperability as the specifications coming from IEEE will be
   complete and not require any knowledge of any vendor specific
   wireless device information.

3.1.12.2
         Compliance
   CTP is compliant with this objective.

3.1.13
       Vendor Independence
   This objective states that the CAPWAP protocol must not be reliant on
   any underlying vendor implementation of hardware of either the WTP or
   the AC.

3.1.13.1
         Protocol Evaluation
   CTP does not assume any underlying hardware architecture of the WTPs
   or the ACs.  In addition any dependency on MIB definitions in its
   current form also does not assume any reliance on hardware
   specifications.

3.1.13.2
         Compliance


Francisco              Expires - December 2005               [Page 8]


 Internet-Draft             CTP Evaluation                   June 2005


   CTP is compliant with this objective.

3.1.14
       Vendor Flexibility
   The protocol must not be bound to any specific MAC.

3.1.14.1
         Protocol Evaluation
   CTP has been completely implemented on hardware from at least two
   different vendors whose wireless MAC implementations are completely
   independent.  Given this fact as well as CTPÆs inherent agnosticity
   of wireless implementation, CTP can be implemented without knowledge
   of underlying vendor hardware.

3.1.14.2
         Compliance
   CTP is compliant with this objective.

3.1.15
       NAT Traversal
   The protocol must not prevent operation across WLAN topologies which
   include NAT segments.

3.1.15.1
         Protocol Evaluation
   CTP provides an authentication mechanism which uses AC and WTP
   identifiers to establish a secure connection without a dependency on
   MAC or IP address. The CTP protocol is primarily transported as UDP
   payload. Typical NAT implementations are IP and TCP/UDP port based.
   Since CTP is transported above these layers, CTP will work properly
   through NAT devices. The WTP can be statically configured to discover
   the AC through a NAT segment.

3.1.15.2
         Compliance
   CTP is compliant with this objective.


3.2
    Desirable Objectives

3.2.1
       Multiple Authentication Mechanisms
   This objective specifies the requirement that the protocol should be
   able to support authentication mechanisms other than IEEE 802.11i.

3.2.1.1
         Protocol Evaluation
   Since CTP is wireless terminal agnostic, and since the PMK key
   exchange is generic (for example, does not assume any authentication
   mechanism in the form of an EAP type), CTP does not prevent the
   operation of any other authentication mechanisms.

   CTP logically separates the EAP-Authentication function from the Key
   Management function. Different authentication or key management
   frameworks can be substituted without affecting the protocol
   behavior.



Francisco              Expires - December 2005               [Page 9]


 Internet-Draft             CTP Evaluation                   June 2005


3.2.1.2
         Compliance
   CTP is compliant with this objective.

3.2.2
       Support for Future Wireless Technologies
   This objective states that the protocol should be able to be extended
   to future layer 2 wireless technologies and should not be limited to
   only supporting IEEE 802.11.

3.2.2.1
         Protocol Evaluation
   The current specification lists alternative layer 2 wireless
   technologies that and be indicated as part of the capabilities
   exchange phase.  The protocol is sufficiently modular in that the
   configuration, statistics and other management functions of these
   wireless devices can be supported.  If indeed there are layer 2
   wireless specific elements that need to be added, those are easily
   supported by extensions to the protocol.

3.2.2.2
         Compliance
   CTP is compliant with this objective.

3.2.3
       Support for New IEEE Requirements
   The protocol must be able to accommodate defined changes or
   extensions to the IEEE 802.11 specifications.

3.2.3.1
        Protocol Evaluation
   CTP provides an abstraction layer to accommodate any type of wireless
   MAC technology. It provides control messages to exchange basic state
   information between the AC and the WTP. It provides a split MAC
   mechanism where all MAC frames can be forwarded and handled at the
   controller. It uses SNMP-based encapsulation to provide a generic
   mechanism for exchanging configuration and statistics data .  New
   802.11 amendments can be easily accommodated by the protocol.  There
   will be work required to interpret the impact of the amendment on
   both the AC and the WTP to determine whether further message
   definition is required.

3.2.3.2
        Compliance
   CTP is compliant with this objective.

3.2.4
       Interconnection Objective
   The CAPWAP protocol must not be constrained by the underlying
   transport technologies of the wired medium.

3.2.4.1
         Protocol Evaluation
   CTP is agnostic to the underlying transport technology as it is
   implemented as UDP.  This was done with the assumption that the
   transport technology can carry IP packets across its medium either L2
   or L3 network.  In itÆs current definition CTP is transported as UDP
   payload therefore directly abstracted from IPv4/v6 base.


Francisco              Expires - December 2005              [Page 10]


 Internet-Draft             CTP Evaluation                   June 2005



3.2.4.2
         Compliance
   CTP is compliant with this objective in terms of not having specified
   IPv6 header types.

3.2.5
       Access Control
   This objective pertains to the ability of the protocol to exchange
   information required for access control of WTPs and wireless
   terminals.

3.2.5.1
         Protocol Evaluation
   CTP provides specific messages, e.g. CTP-MU-
   Connect/Disconnect/Authenticate messages, that control the access of
   wireless terminals.  In addition to the actual mutual authentication
   of WTPs and ACs, the registration phase contains a AP-ID field that
   needs to be verified by the AC.  This field needs to be checked by
   the AC and the mechanism for this check is not within the scope of
   any CAPWAP work.  However, the CTP protocol itself provides this
   identification token as a means of access control of the WTP.

3.2.5.2
         Compliance
   CTP is compliant with this objective.

3.3
    Non-objectives

   The current objectives draft states this section as ôRejected
   Objectivesö.  We have used the term ôNon-Objectivesö for this section
   based on the discussion on the WG email list.

3.3.1
       Support for Non-CAPWAP WTPs
   This objective states that the CAPWAP protocol should be capable of
   recognizing legacy WTPs and existing network management systems.

3.3.1.1
         Protocol Evaluation
   This requirement is more of a feature for centralized WLAN network
   applications and thus does not apply to the CAPWAP problem statement.

3.3.1.2
         Compliance
   CTP is compliant with this objective.

3.3.2
       Technical Specifications
   This objective states that WTP vendors should not have to share
   technical specifications for hardware and software to AC vendors in
   order for interoperability to be achieved.

3.3.2.1
         Protocol Evaluation
   As discussed earlier, CTP is hardware and vendor agnostic.

3.3.2.2
         Compliance


Francisco              Expires - December 2005              [Page 11]


 Internet-Draft             CTP Evaluation                   June 2005


   CTP is compliant with this objective.

3.4
    Operator Requirements

3.4.1
      AP Fast Handoff
   This objective states that the CAPWAP protocol operations must not
   impede or obstruct the efficiency of fast handoff procedures.

3.4.1.1
         Protocol Evaluation
   In the CTP protocol, the signaling of roaming events are efficiently
   encoded in the CTP-MU messages.  Also, the 802.1x messaging is
   centralized allowing efficient use of CPU resources at the AC.  In
   effect, the mere existence of the centralized architecture ensures
   that the efficiency of fast handoffs is improved rather than impeded.

3.4.1.2
         Compliance
   CTP complies with this objective.

4.
  Compliance Table

   Given below is a table summarizing the compliance to the objectives.
   C = Compliant, P = Partially compliant, N = Non-compliant.

   +----------------------------------------------------+------------+
   | Objective Type                                     | Compliance |
   +----------------------------------------------------+------------+
   | Logical Groups                                     |     C      |
   | Support for Traffic Separation                     |     C      |
   | Wireless Terminal Transparency                     |     C      |
   | Configuration Consistency                          |     C      |
   | Firmware Trigger                                   |     C      |
   | Monitoring & Exchange of System-wide Resource State|     C      |
   | Resource Control Objective                         |     C      |
   | CAPWAP Protocol Security                           |     P      |
   | System-wide Security                               |     C      |
   | IEEE 802.11i Considerations                        |     C      |
   | Interoperability Objective                         |     C      |
   | Protocol Specifications                            |     C      |
   | Vendor Independence                                |     C      |
   | Vendor Flexibility                                 |     C      |
   | NAT Traversal                                      |     C      |
   | Multiple Authentication Mechanisms                 |     C      |
   | Support for Future Wireless Technologies           |     C      |
   | Support for New IEEE Requirements                  |     C      |
   | Interconnection Objective                          |     C      |
   | Access Control                                     |     C      |
   | Support for Non-CAPWAP WTPs                        |     C      |
   | Technical Specifications                           |     C      |
   | AP Fast Handoff                                    |     C      |


Francisco              Expires - December 2005              [Page 12]


 Internet-Draft             CTP Evaluation                   June 2005


   +----------------------------------------------------+------------+


5.
  Security considerations

   This document provides a self evaluation of CTP in respect to the
   CAPWAP objectives.  The CTP draft itself has a section that
   catalogues all the pertinent security concerns.  Therefore, in this
   draft there are no new security considerations to be discussed.

6.
  References



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

   [2] Singh, I., et. al., ôCAPWAP Tunneling Protocolö, draft-singh-
      capwap-ctp-01.txt (work in progress), April 2005.

   [3] Calhoun, P., "CAPWAP Problem Statement", draft-ietf-capwap-
      problem-statement-02.txt (work in progress), September 2004.

   [4] Govindan, S., et. al., ôObjectives for Control and Provisioning
      of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP)ö, draft-ietf-capwap-objectives-
      02.txt (work in progress), April 2005

   [5] Calhoun, et. al., ôLight Weight Access Point Protocol (LWAPP)ö,
      draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt (work in progress), April 2005


7.
  Author's Addresses

   Paulo Francisco
   Chantry Networks Inc.
   1900 Minnesota Court
   Mississauga, ON L5N 3C9
   Canada

   Phone: +1 905-363-6410
   Email: paulo.francisco@siemens.com

   Inderpreet Singh
   Chantry Networks Inc.
   1900 Minnesota Court
   Mississauga, ON L5N 3C9
   Canada




Francisco              Expires - December 2005              [Page 13]


 Internet-Draft             CTP Evaluation                   June 2005


   Phone: +1 905-363-6412
   Email: inderpreet.singh@siemens.com

   Michael Montemurro
   Chantry Networks Inc.
   1900 Minnesota Court
   Mississauga, ON L5N 3C9
   Canada

   Phone: +1 905-363-6413
   Email: michael.montemurro@siemens.com

Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication 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 Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
   Director.

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.


Francisco              Expires - December 2005              [Page 14]


 Internet-Draft             CTP Evaluation                   June 2005




Acknowledgment

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













































Francisco              Expires - December 2005              [Page 15]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/