draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-04.txt   draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-05.txt 
IPv6 Maintenance Working Group S. Kawamura IPv6 Maintenance Working Group S. Kawamura
Internet-Draft NEC BIGLOBE, Ltd. Internet-Draft NEC BIGLOBE, Ltd.
Intended status: Standards Track M. Kawashima Updates: 4291 (if approved) M. Kawashima
Expires: July 18, 2010 NEC AccessTechnica, Ltd. Intended status: Standards Track NEC AccessTechnica, Ltd.
January 14, 2010 Expires: August 21, 2010 February 17, 2010
A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation
draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-04 draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-05
Abstract Abstract
As IPv6 network grows, there will be more engineers and also non- As IPv6 network grows, there will be more engineers and also non-
engineers who will have the need to use an IPv6 address in text. engineers who will have the need to use an IPv6 address in text.
While the IPv6 address architecture RFC 4291 section 2.2 depicts a While the IPv6 address architecture RFC 4291 section 2.2 depicts a
flexible model for text representation of an IPv6 address, this flexible model for text representation of an IPv6 address, this
flexibility has been causing problems for operators, system flexibility has been causing problems for operators, system
engineers, and users. This document will describe the problems that engineers, and users. This document will describe the problems that
a flexible text representation has been causing. This document also a flexible text representation has been causing. This document also
skipping to change at page 1, line 48 skipping to change at page 1, line 48
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 18, 2010. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 21, 2010.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 10 skipping to change at page 3, line 43
3.4.3. Legibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.4.3. Legibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. A Recommendation for IPv6 Text Representation . . . . . . . . 9 4. A Recommendation for IPv6 Text Representation . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Handling Leading Zeros in a 16 Bit Field . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1. Handling Leading Zeros in a 16 Bit Field . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. "::" Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2. "::" Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.1. Shorten As Much As Possible . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2.1. Shorten As Much As Possible . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.2. Handling One 16 Bit 0 Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2.2. Handling One 16 Bit 0 Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.3. Choice in Placement of "::" . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2.3. Choice in Placement of "::" . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. Lower Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3. Lower Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Text Representation of Special Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Text Representation of Special Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Notes on Combining IPv6 Addresses with Port Numbers . . . . . 11 6. Notes on Combining IPv6 Addresses with Port Numbers . . . . . 11
7. Prefix Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. Prefix Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. For Developers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Appendix A. For Developers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
A single IPv6 address can be text represented in many ways. Examples A single IPv6 address can be text represented in many ways. Examples
are shown below. are shown below.
2001:db8:0:0:1:0:0:1 2001:db8:0:0:1:0:0:1
skipping to change at page 4, line 26 skipping to change at page 4, line 26
2001:db8::0:1:0:0:1 2001:db8::0:1:0:0:1
2001:0db8::1:0:0:1 2001:0db8::1:0:0:1
2001:db8:0:0:1::1 2001:db8:0:0:1::1
2001:db8:0000:0:1::1 2001:db8:0000:0:1::1
2001:DB8:0:0:1::1 2001:DB8:0:0:1::1
All the above point to the same IPv6 address. This flexibility has All the above represent the same IPv6 address. This flexibility has
caused many problems for operators, systems engineers, and customers. caused many problems for operators, systems engineers, and customers.
The problems will be noted in Section 3. Also, a canonical The problems will be noted in Section 3. Also, a canonical
representation format to avoid problems will be introduced in representation format to avoid problems will be introduced in
Section 4. Section 4.
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
skipping to change at page 5, line 25 skipping to change at page 5, line 25
'A special syntax is available to compress the zeros. The use of 'A special syntax is available to compress the zeros. The use of
"::" indicates one or more groups of 16 bits of zeros.' "::" indicates one or more groups of 16 bits of zeros.'
It is possible to select whether or not to omit just one 16 bits of It is possible to select whether or not to omit just one 16 bits of
zeros. zeros.
2001:db8:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd::1 2001:db8:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd::1
2001:db8:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd:0:1 2001:db8:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd:0:1
In case where there are more than one zero fields, there is a choice In case where there is more than one zero fields, there is a choice
of how many fields can be shortened. Examples follow. of how many fields can be shortened. Examples follow.
2001:db8:0:0:0::1 2001:db8:0:0:0::1
2001:db8:0:0::1 2001:db8:0:0::1
2001:db8:0::1 2001:db8:0::1
2001:db8::1 2001:db8::1
skipping to change at page 7, line 12 skipping to change at page 7, line 12
would think that their input was wrong, and will likely retry several would think that their input was wrong, and will likely retry several
times or make a frustrated call to the database hostmaster. If there times or make a frustrated call to the database hostmaster. If there
was a need to register the same address on different systems, and was a need to register the same address on different systems, and
each system showed a different text representation, this would each system showed a different text representation, this would
confuse people even more. Although this document focuses on confuse people even more. Although this document focuses on
addresses rather than prefixes, this is worth mentioning since addresses rather than prefixes, this is worth mentioning since
problems encountered are mostly equal. problems encountered are mostly equal.
3.1.4. Searching for an Address in a Network Diagram 3.1.4. Searching for an Address in a Network Diagram
Network diagrams and blue-prints contain IP addresses as allocated to Network diagrams and blue-prints often show what IP addresses are
system devices. In times of trouble shooting, there may be a need to assigned to a system devices. In times of trouble shooting, there
search through a diagram to find the point of failure (for example, may be a need to search through a diagram to find the point of
if a traceroute stopped at 2001:db8::1, one would search the diagram failure (for example, if a traceroute stopped at 2001:db8::1, one
for that address). This is a technique quite often in use in would search the diagram for that address). This is a technique
enterprise networks and managed services. Again, the different quite often in use in enterprise networks and managed services.
flavors of text representation will result in a time-consuming Again, the different flavors of text representation will result in a
search, leading to longer MTTR in times of trouble. time-consuming search, leading to longer MTTR in times of trouble.
3.2. Parsing and Modifying 3.2. Parsing and Modifying
3.2.1. General Summary 3.2.1. General Summary
With all the possible text representation ways, each application must With all the possible text representation ways, each application must
include a module, object, link, etc. to a function that will parse include a module, object, link, etc. to a function that will parse
IPv6 addresses in a manner that no matter how it is represented, they IPv6 addresses in a manner that no matter how it is represented, they
will mean the same address. This is not too much a problem if the will mean the same address. Many system engineers who integrate
output is to be just 'read' or 'managed' by a network engineer. complex computer systems to corporate customers will have
However, many system engineers who integrate complex computer systems difficulties finding that their favorite tool will not have this
to corporate customers will have difficulties finding that their function, or will encounter difficulties such as having to rewrite
favorite tool will not have this function, or will encounter their macro's or scripts for their customers.
difficulties such as having to rewrite their macro's or scripts for
their customers.
3.2.2. Logging 3.2.2. Logging
If an application were to output a log summary that represented the If an application were to output a log summary that represented the
address in full (such as 2001:0db8:0000:0000:1111:2222:3333:4444), address in full (such as 2001:0db8:0000:0000:1111:2222:3333:4444),
the output would be highly unreadable compared to the IPv4 output. the output would be highly unreadable compared to the IPv4 output.
The address would have to be parsed and reformed to make it useful The address would have to be parsed and reformed to make it useful
for human reading. Sometimes, logging for critical systems is done for human reading. Sometimes, logging for critical systems is done
by mirroring the same traffic to two different systems. Care must be by mirroring the same traffic to two different systems. Care must be
taken that no matter what the log output is, the logs should be taken that no matter what the log output is, the logs should be
skipping to change at page 8, line 6 skipping to change at page 8, line 4
taken that no matter what the log output is, the logs should be taken that no matter what the log output is, the logs should be
parsed so they will mean the same. parsed so they will mean the same.
3.2.3. Auditing: Case 1 3.2.3. Auditing: Case 1
When a router or any other network appliance machine configuration is When a router or any other network appliance machine configuration is
audited, there are many methods to compare the configuration audited, there are many methods to compare the configuration
information of a node. Sometimes, auditing will be done by just information of a node. Sometimes, auditing will be done by just
comparing the changes made each day. In this case, if configuration comparing the changes made each day. In this case, if configuration
was done such that 2001:db8::1 was changed to 2001:0db8:0000:0000: was done such that 2001:db8::1 was changed to 2001:0db8:0000:0000:
0000:0000:0000:0001 just because the new engineer on the block felt 0000:0000:0000:0001 just because the new engineer on the block felt
it was better, a simple diff will tell you that a different address it was better, a simple diff will show that a different address was
was configured. If this was done on a wide scale network, people configured. If this was done on a wide scale network, people will be
will be focusing on 'why the extra zeros were put in' instead of focusing on 'why the extra zeros were put in' instead of doing any
doing any real auditing. Lots of tools are just plain 'diff's that real auditing. Lots of tools are just plain 'diff's that do not take
do not take into account address representation rules. into account address representation rules.
3.2.4. Auditing: Case 2 3.2.4. Auditing: Case 2
Node configurations will be matched against an information system Node configurations will be matched against an information system
that manages IP addresses. If output notation is different, there that manages IP addresses. If output notation is different, there
will need to be a script that is implemented to cover for this. The will need to be a script that is implemented to cover for this. The
result of an SNMP GET operation, converted to text and compared to a result of an SNMP GET operation, converted to text and compared to a
textual address written by a human is highly unlikely to match on textual address written by a human is highly unlikely to match on
first try. first try.
skipping to change at page 10, line 5 skipping to change at page 9, line 50
Capital case D and 0 can be quite often misread. Capital B and 8 can Capital case D and 0 can be quite often misread. Capital B and 8 can
also be misread. also be misread.
4. A Recommendation for IPv6 Text Representation 4. A Recommendation for IPv6 Text Representation
A recommendation for a canonical text representation format of IPv6 A recommendation for a canonical text representation format of IPv6
addresses is presented in this section. The recommendation in this addresses is presented in this section. The recommendation in this
document is one that, complies fully with [RFC4291], is implemented document is one that, complies fully with [RFC4291], is implemented
by various operating systems, and is human friendly. The by various operating systems, and is human friendly. The
recommendation in this document SHOULD be followed by systems when recommendation in this section SHOULD be followed by systems when
generating an address to represent as text, but all implementations generating an address to represent as text, but all implementations
MUST accept any legitimate [RFC4291] format. It is advised that MUST accept and be able to handle any legitimate [RFC4291] format.
humans also follow these recommendations when spelling an address. It is advised that humans also follow these recommendations when
spelling an address.
4.1. Handling Leading Zeros in a 16 Bit Field 4.1. Handling Leading Zeros in a 16 Bit Field
Leading zeros should be chopped for human legibility and easier Leading zeros MUST be suppressed. For example 2001:0db8::0001 is not
searching. Also, a single 16 bit 0000 field should be represented as acceptable and must be represented as 2001:db8::1. A single 16 bit
just 0. 0000 field MUST be represented as 0.
4.2. "::" Usage 4.2. "::" Usage
4.2.1. Shorten As Much As Possible 4.2.1. Shorten As Much As Possible
The use of "::" should be used to its maximum capability (i.e. 2001: The use of symbol "::" MUST be used to its maximum capability. For
db8::0:1 is not considered as clean representation). example, 2001:db8::0:1 is not acceptable, because the symbol "::"
could have been used to produce a shorter representation 2001:db8::1.
4.2.2. Handling One 16 Bit 0 Field 4.2.2. Handling One 16 Bit 0 Field
"::" should not be used to shorten just one 16 bit 0 field for it The symbol "::" MUST NOT be used to shorten just one 16 bit 0 field.
would tend to mislead that there are more than one 16 bit field that For example, the representation 2001:db8:0:1:1:1:1:1 is correct, but
is shortened. 2001:db8::1:1:1:1:1 is not correct.
4.2.3. Choice in Placement of "::" 4.2.3. Choice in Placement of "::"
When there is an alternative choice in the placement of a "::", the When there is an alternative choice in the placement of a "::", the
longest run of consecutive 16 bit 0 fields should be shortened (i.e. longest run of consecutive 16 bit 0 fields MUST be shortened (i.e.
latter is shortened in 2001:0:0:1:0:0:0:1). When the length of the the sequence with three consecutive zero fields is shortened in 2001:
consecutive 16 bit 0 fields are equal (i.e. 2001:db8:0:0:1:0:0:1), 0:0:1:0:0:0:1). When the length of the consecutive 16 bit 0 fields
the former is shortened. This is consistent with many current are equal (i.e. 2001:db8:0:0:1:0:0:1), the first sequence of zero
implementations. One idea to avoid any confusion, is for the bits MUST be shortened. For example 2001:db8::1:0:0:1 is correct
operator to not use 16 bit field 0 in the first 64 bits. By nature representation.
IPv6 addresses are usually assigned or allocated to end-users from a
prefix of 32 bits or longer (typically 48 bits or longer).
4.3. Lower Case 4.3. Lower Case
Recent implementations tend to represent IPv6 address as lower case. The characters "a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f" in an IPv6 address MUST
It is better to use lower case to avoid problems such as described in be represented in lower case.
section 3.3.3 and 3.4.3.
5. Text Representation of Special Addresses 5. Text Representation of Special Addresses
Addresses such as IPv4-Mapped IPv6 addresses, ISATAP [RFC5214], and Addresses such as IPv4-Mapped IPv6 addresses, ISATAP [RFC5214], and
IPv4-translatable addresses [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format] have IPv4-translatable addresses [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format] have
IPv4 addresses embedded in the low-order 32 bits of the address. IPv4 addresses embedded in the low-order 32 bits of the address.
These addresses have special representation that may mix hexadecimal These addresses have special representation that may mix hexadecimal
and dot decimal notations. The decimal notation may be used only for and dot decimal notations. The decimal notation may be used only for
the last 32 bits of the address. For these addresses, mixed notation the last 32 bits of the address. For these addresses, mixed notation
is recommended if the following condition is met: The address can be is RECOMMENDED if the following condition is met: The address can be
distinguished as having IPv4 addresses embedded in the lower 32 bits distinguished as having IPv4 addresses embedded in the lower 32 bits
solely from the address field through the use of a well known prefix. solely from the address field through the use of a well known prefix.
If it is known by some external method that a given prefix includes Such prefixes are defined in [RFC4291] and [RFC5214] at the time of
an IPv4 address, it MAY be represented as mixed notation. Tools that writing. If it is known by some external method that a given prefix
provide options to specify prefixes that is (or is not) to be includes an IPv4 address, it MAY be represented as mixed notation.
represented as mixed notation may be useful. Tools that provide options to specify prefixes that is (or is not) to
be represented as mixed notation may be useful.
There is a trade-off here where a recommendation to achieve exact
match in a search (no dot decimals whatsoever) and recommendation to
help the readability of an addresses (dot decimal whenever possible)
does not result in the same solution. The above recommendation is
aimed at fixing the representation as much as possible while leaving
the opportunity for future well known prefixes to be represented in a
human friendly manner as tools adjust to newly assigned prefixes.
The text representation method noted in Section 4 should be applied The text representation method noted in Section 4 should be applied
for the leading hexadecimal part (i.e. ::ffff:192.0.2.1 instead of for the leading hexadecimal part (i.e. ::ffff:192.0.2.1 instead of
0:0:0:0:0:ffff:192.0.2.1). 0:0:0:0:0:ffff:192.0.2.1).
6. Notes on Combining IPv6 Addresses with Port Numbers 6. Notes on Combining IPv6 Addresses with Port Numbers
When IPv6 addresses and port numbers are represented in text combined When IPv6 addresses and port numbers are represented in text combined
together, there are many different ways to do so. Examples are shown together, there are many different ways to do so. Examples are shown
below. below.
skipping to change at page 11, line 40 skipping to change at page 11, line 46
o 2001:db8::1.80 o 2001:db8::1.80
o 2001:db8::1 port 80 o 2001:db8::1 port 80
o 2001:db8::1p80 o 2001:db8::1p80
o 2001:db8::1#80 o 2001:db8::1#80
The situation is not much different in IPv4, but the most ambiguous The situation is not much different in IPv4, but the most ambiguous
case with IPv6 is the second bullet. This is due to the "::"usage in case with IPv6 is the second bullet. This is due to the "::"usage in
IPv6 addresses. This style is not recommended for its ambiguity. IPv6 addresses. This style is NOT RECOMMENDED for its ambiguity.
The [] style as expressed in [RFC3986] should be employed, and is the The [] style as expressed in [RFC3986] SHOULD be employed, and is the
default unless otherwise specified. Other styles are acceptable when default unless otherwise specified. Other styles are acceptable when
there is exactly one style for the given context and cross-platform there is exactly one style for the given context and cross-platform
portability does not become an issue. portability does not become an issue. For URIs, [RFC3986] MUST be
followed.
7. Prefix Representation 7. Prefix Representation
Problems with prefixes are just the same as problems encountered with Problems with prefixes are just the same as problems encountered with
addresses. Text representation method of IPv6 prefixes should be no addresses. Text representation method of IPv6 prefixes should be no
different from that of IPv6 addresses. different from that of IPv6 addresses.
8. Conclusion 8. Security Considerations
The recommended format of text representing an IPv6 address is
summarized as follows.
(1) omit leading zeros in a 16 bit field
(2) when using "::", shorten consecutive zero fields to their
maximum extent (leave no zero fields behind).
(3) "::" used where shortens address the most
(4) "::" used in the former part in case of a tie breaker
(5) do not shorten one 16 bit 0 field, but always shorten when
there are two or more consecutive 16 bit 0 fields
(6) use lower case
Hints for developers are written in the Appendix section.
9. Security Considerations
None. This document notes on some examples where IPv6 addresses are
compared in text format. The example on Section 3.2.5 is one that
may cause a security risk if used for access control. The common
practice of comparing X.509 data is done in binary format.
10. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
None. None.
11. Acknowledgements 10. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Jan Zorz, Randy Bush, Yuichi Minami, The authors would like to thank Jan Zorz, Randy Bush, Yuichi Minami,
Toshimitsu Matsuura for their generous and helpful comments in kick Toshimitsu Matsuura for their generous and helpful comments in kick
starting this document. We also would like to thank Brian Carpenter, starting this document. We also would like to thank Brian Carpenter,
Akira Kato, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Antonio Querubin, Dave Thaler, Akira Kato, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Antonio Querubin, Dave Thaler,
Brian Haley, Suresh Krishnan, Jerry Huang, Roman Donchenko, Heikki Brian Haley, Suresh Krishnan, Jerry Huang, Roman Donchenko, Heikki
Vatiainen ,Dan Wing for their input. Also a very special thanks to Vatiainen ,Dan Wing for their input. Also a very special thanks to
Ron Bonica, Fred Baker, Brian Haberman, Robert Hinden, Jari Arkko, Ron Bonica, Fred Baker, Brian Haberman, Robert Hinden, Jari Arkko,
and Kurt Lindqvist for their support in bringing this document to the and Kurt Lindqvist for their support in bringing this document to the
light of IETF working groups. light of IETF working groups.
12. References 11. References
12.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
12.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-behave-address-format] [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format]
Huitema, C., Bao, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X. Huitema, C., Bao, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators",
draft-ietf-behave-address-format-03 (work in progress), draft-ietf-behave-address-format-04 (work in progress),
December 2009. January 2010.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, January 2005. RFC 3986, January 2005.
[RFC4038] Shin, M-K., Hong, Y-G., Hagino, J., Savola, P., and E. [RFC4038] Shin, M-K., Hong, Y-G., Hagino, J., Savola, P., and E.
Castro, "Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition", Castro, "Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition",
RFC 4038, March 2005. RFC 4038, March 2005.
[RFC5214] Templin, F., Gleeson, T., and D. Thaler, "Intra-Site [RFC5214] Templin, F., Gleeson, T., and D. Thaler, "Intra-Site
 End of changes. 29 change blocks. 
95 lines changed or deleted 84 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.38. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/