wdiff draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-00.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-01.txt

Network Working GroupInternet Draft Lou Berger - Editor (Movaz Networks)
Internet Draft
Category: Standards Track
Expiration Date: September 2004 March 2005
September 2004

GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information

draft-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-00.txt

draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-01.txt

Status of this Memo

This document is an Internet-Draft

By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
or will be disclosed, and is any of which I become aware will be
disclosed, in full conformance accordance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. RFC 3668.

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.

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 a "work in progress."

To view the current status

The list of any Internet-Draft, please check the
"1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in an current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

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

Abstract

This document describes an extension to Generalized MPLS (Multi-
Protocol Label Switching) signaling to support communication of alarm
information. GMPLS signaling already supports the control of alarm
reporting, but not the communication of alarm information. This
document presents both a functional description and GMPLS-RSVP
specifics of such an extension. This document also proposes
modification of the RSVP ERROR_SPEC object.

Contents

1 Introduction .............................................. 3
1.1 Background ................................................ 3
2 Alarm Information Communication ........................... 4
3 GMPLS-RSVP Details ........................................ 5
3.1 ALARM_SPEC Objects ........................................ 5
3.1.1 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC (and ERROR_SPEC) TLVs .................... 5
3.1.2 Procedures ................................................ 9
3.1.3 Error Codes and Values .................................... 10
3.1.4 Backwards Compatibility ................................... 10
3.2 Controlling Alarm Communication ........................... 10
3.2.1 Updated Admin Status Object ............................... 10
3.2.2 Procedures ................................................ 11
3.3 Message Formats ........................................... 11
3.4 Relationship to GMPLS UNI ................................. 12
3.5 Relationship to GMPLS E-NNI .............................. 13
4 Security Considerations ................................... 14
5 IANA Considerations ....................................... 14
6 References ................................................ 15
6.1 Normative References ...................................... 15
6.2 Informative References .................................... 15
7 Contributors .............................................. 16
8 Contact Address ........................................... 16
9 Full Copyright Statement .................................. 17
10 Intellectual Property ..................................... 17

1. Introduction

GMPLS Signaling provides mechanisms that can be used to control the
reporting of alarms associated with an LSP. This support is provided
via Administrative Status Information [RFC3471] and the Admin_Status
object [RFC3473]. These mechanisms only control if alarm reporting
is inhibited. No provision is made for communication of alarm
information within GMPLS.

The extension described in this document defines how the alarm
information associated with a GMPLS label-switched path (LSP) may be
communicated along the path of the LSP. Communication both upstream
and downstream is supported. The value in communicating such alarm
information is that this information is then available at every node
along the LSP for display and diagnostic purposes. Alarm information
may also be useful in certain traffic protection scenarios, but such
uses are out of scope of this document. Alarm communication is
supported via a new object, new error/alarm information TLVs, and a
new Administrative Status Information bit.

The communication of alarms, as described in this document, is
controllable on a per LSP basis. Such communication may be useful
within network configurations where not all nodes support
communication to a user for reporting of alarms and/or communication
is needed to support specific applications. The support of this
functionality is optional.

The communication of alarms within GMPLS does not imply any
modification in behavior of processing of alarms, or for the
communication of alarms outside of GMPLS.

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 [RFC2119].

1.1. Background

Problems with data plane state can often be detected by associated
data plane hardware components. Such data plane problems are
typically filtered based on elapsed time and local policy. Problems
that pass the filtering process are normally raised as alarms. These
alarms are available for display to operators. They also may be
collected centrally through means that are out of the scope of this
document.

Not all data plane problems cause the LSP to be immediately torn
down. Further, there may be a desire, particularly in optical
transport networks, to retain an LSP and communicate relevant alarm
information even when the data plane state has failed completely.

Although error information can be reported using PathErr, ResvErr and
Notify messages, these messages typically indicate a problem in
signaling state and can only report one problem at at a time. This
makes it hard to correlate all of the problems that may be associated
with a single LSP and to allow an operator examining the status of an
LSP to view a full list of current problems. This situation is
exacerbated by the absence of any way to communicate that a problem
has been resolved and a corresponding alarm cleared.

The extensions defined in this document allow an operator or a
software component to obtain a full list of current alarms associated
with all of the resources used to support an LSP. The extensions
also ensure that this list is kept up-to-date and synchronized with
the real alarm status in the network. Finally, the extensions make
the list available at every node traversed by an LSP.

2. Alarm Information Communication

A new object is introduced to carry alarm information details. The
details of alarm information are much like the error information
carried in the existing ERROR_SPEC objects. For this reason the
communication of alarm information uses a format that is based on the
communication of error information.

The new object introduced to carry alarm information details is
called an ALARM_SPEC object. This object has the same format as the
ERROR_SPEC object, but uses a new C-Num to avoid the semantics of
error processing. Also, additional TLVs are defined for the IF_ID
ALARM_SPEC objects to support the communication of information
related to a specific alarm. These TLVs may also be useful when
included in ERROR_SPEC objects, e.g., when the ERROR_SPEC object is
carried within a Notify message.

While the details of alarm information are like the details of
existing error communication, the semantics of processing differ.
Alarm information will typically relate to changes in data plane
state, without changes in control state. Alarm information will
always be associated with in-place LSPs. Such information will also
typically be most useful to operators and applications other than
control plane protocol processing. Finally, while error information
is communicated within PathErr, ResvErr and Notify messages
[RFC3473], alarm information will be carried within Path and Resv
messages.

Path messages are used to carry alarm information to downstream nodes
and Resv messages are used to carry alarm information to upstream
nodes. The intent of sending alarm information both upstream and
downstream is to provide the same visibility to alarm information at
any point along an LSP. The communication of multiple alarms
associated with an LSP is supported. In this case, multiple
ALARM_SPEC objects will be carried in the Path or Resv messages.

The addition of alarm information to Path and Resv messages is
controlled via a new Administrative Status Information bit.
Administrative Status Information is carried in the Admin_Status
object.

3. GMPLS-RSVP Details

This section provides the GMPLS-RSVP [RFC3473] specification for
communication of alarm information. The communication of alarm
information is optional. This section applies to nodes that support
communication of alarm information.

3.1. ALARM_SPEC Objects

The ALARM_SPEC objects use the same format as the ERROR_SPEC object,
but with class number of TBA (to be assigned by IANA in the form
11bbbbbb).

o IPv4 ALARM_SPEC object: Class = TBA, C-Type = 1
Definition same as IPv4 ERROR_SPEC [RFC2205].

o IPv6 ALARM_SPEC object: Class = TBA, C-Type = 2
Definition same as IPv6 ERROR_SPEC [RFC2205].

o IPv4 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC object: Class = TBA, C-Type = 3
Definition same as IPv4 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC [RFC3473].

o IPv6 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC object: Class = TBA, C-Type = 4
Definition same as IPv6 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC [RFC3473].

3.1.1. IF_ID ALARM_SPEC (and ERROR_SPEC) TLVs

The following new TLVs are defined for use with the IPv4 and IPv6
IF_ID ALARM_SPEC objects. They may also be used with the IPv4 and
IPv6 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC objects. See [RFC3471] section 9.1.1 for the
original definition of these values. Note the length provided below
is for the total TLV. All TLVs defined in this section are optional.

No rules apply to the relative ordering of these TLVs. These TLVs
MUST be listed after any interface identifying TLVs.

[Note: Type values are TBA (to be assigned) by IANA]

Type Length Description
----------------------------------
512 8 REFERENCE_COUNT
513 8 SEVERITY
514 8 GLOBAL_TIMESTAMP
515 8 LOCAL_TIMESTAMP
516 variable ERROR_STRING

The Reference Count TLV has the following format:

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reference Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Reference Count: 32 bits

The number of times this alarm has been repeated. This field
MUST NOT be set to zero.

Only one Reference Count TLV may be included in an object.

The Severity TLV has the following format:

Reserved: 24 bits

This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on generation
and MUST be ignored on receipt.

Impact: 4 bits

Indicates the impact of the alarm indicated in the TLV. The
following values are defined:

Value Definition
----- ---------------------
0 Unspecified impact
1 Non-Service Affecting
2 Service Affecting

Severity: 8 bits

Indicates the impact of the alarm indicated in the TLV. The
following values are defined:

Value Definition
----- ----------
0 Reserved
1 Critical
2 Major
3 Minor
4 Warning

Only one Severity TLV may be included in an object.

The Global Timestamp TLV has the following format:

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Global Timestamp |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Global Timestamp: 32 bits

The number of seconds since 0000 UT on 1 January 1970,
according to the clock on the node that originates this TLV.

Only one Global Timestamp TLV may be included in an object.

The Local Timestamp TLV has the following format:

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Timestamp |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Local Timestamp: 32 bits

Number of seconds reported by the local system clock at the
time the associated alarm was detected on the node that
originates this TLV.

Only one Local Timestamp TLV may be included in an object.

The Error String TLV has the following format:

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Error String (NULL padded display string) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Error String: 32 bits minimum (variable)

A string of characters, representing the type of error/alarm.
This string is padded to the next largest 4 byte boundary using
null characters. Null padding is not required when the string
is 32-bit aligned. The contents of error string are
implementation dependent. See the condition types listed in
Appendices of [GR833] for a list of example strings.

Multiple Error String TLVs may be included in an object.

3.1.2. Procedures

This section applies to nodes that support the communication of alarm
information. ALARM_SPEC objects are carried in Path and Resv
messages. Multiple ALARM_SPEC objects MAY be present. The IPv4 and
IPv6 formats of the ALARM_SPEC object, C-Type 1 and 2, SHOULD NOT be
used as they do not support the inclusion of the TLVs defined above.

Nodes that support the communication of alarm information, SHOULD
record the information contained in a received ALARM_SPECs for later
use. All ALARM_SPEC objects received in Path messages SHOULD be
passed unmodified downstream in the corresponding Path messages. All
ALARM_SPEC objects received in Resv messages SHOULD be passed
unmodified upstream in the corresponding Resv messages. ALARM_SPEC
objects are merged in transmitted Resv messages by including a copy
of all ALARM_SPEC objects received in corresponding Resv Messages.

To advertise local alarm information, a node generates an ALARM_SPEC
object for each alarm and adds it to both the Path and Resv messages
for the affected LSP. The IPv4 or IPv6 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC object
format SHOULD be used. In all cases, appropriate Error Node Address,
Error Code and Error Values MUST be set, see below for a discussion
on Error Code and Error Values. The InPlace and NotGuilty flags
SHOULD NOT be set. When the IPv4 or IPv6 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC object
format is used, TLVs SHOULD be included to identify the interface, if
any, the severity, the time and a brief string associated with the
alarm. The reference count TLV MAY also be included. ALARM_SPEC
objects received from other nodes are not effected by the addition of
local ALARM_SPEC objects, i.e., they continue to be processed as
described above. The choice of which alarm or alarms to advertise
and which to omit is a local policy matter, and may configurable by
the user.

Note, ALARM_SPEC objects SHOULD NOT be added to LSPs that are in
"alarm communication inhibited." ALARM_SPEC objects MAY be added to
LSPs that are "administratively down". These states are indicated by
the I and A bits of the Admin_Status object, see Section 3.2.

To remove local alarm information, a node simply removes the matching
locally generated ALARM_SPEC objects from the outgoing Path and Resv
messages. A node MAY modify a locally generated ALARM_SPEC object.

Normal refresh and trigger message processing applies to Path or Resv
message that contain ALARM_SPEC objects. Note that changes in
ALARM_SPEC objects from one message to the next may include a
modification in the contents of a specific ALARM_SPEC object, or a
change in the number of ALARM_SPEC objects present. All changes in
ALARM_SPEC objects SHOULD be processed as trigger messages.

3.1.3. Error Codes and Values

The Error Codes and Values used in ALARM_SPEC objects are the same as
those used in ERROR_SPEC objects. New Error Code values for use with
both ERROR_SPEC and ALARM_SPEC objects may be assigned to support
alarm types defined by other standards.

In this document we define one new Error Code. The Error Code uses
the value TBA (by IANA) and is referred to as "Alarms". The values
used in the Error Values field are the same as the values used for
IANAItuProbableCause in the Alarm MIB [ALARM-MIB]. Note these values
are managed by IANA, see http://www.iana.org.

3.1.4. Backwards Compatibility

The support of ALARM_SPEC objects is optional. Non-supporting nodes
will pass the objects through the node unmodified, because the
ALARM_SPEC object has a C-Num of the form 11bbbbbb.

This allows alarm information to be collected and examined in a
network built from a collection of nodes some of which support the
communication of alarm information, and some of which do not.

3.2. Controlling Alarm Communication

Alarm information communication is controlled via Administrative
Status Information as carried in the Admin_Status object. A new bit
is defined, called the I bit, that indicates when alarm communication
is to be inhibited. The definition of this bit does not modify the
procedures defined in Section 7 of [RFC3473].

3.2.1. Updated Admin Status Object

The format of the Admin_Status object is updated to include the I
bit:

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num(196)| C-Type (1) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R| Reserved |I| |T|A|D|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Inhibit Alarm Communication (I): 1 bit
When set, indicates that alarm communication is disabled for
the LSP and that nodes SHOULD NOT add local alarm information.

See [RFC3471] for the definition of the remaining bits.

3.2.2. Procedures

The I bit may be set and cleared using the procedures defined in
Sections 7.2 and 7.3 of [RFC3473]. A node that receives (or
generates) an Admin_Status object with the A and I bits set (1),
SHOULD remove all locally generated alarm information from the
matching LSP's outgoing Path and Resv messages. When a node receives
(or generates) an Admin_Status object with the A and I bits clear
(0), it should add any local alarm information to the matching LSP's
outgoing Path and Resv messages. The processing of non-locally
generated ALARM_SPEC objects MUST NOT be impacted by the contents of
the Admin_Status object. Note, per [RFC3473], the absence of the
Admin_Status object is equivalent to receiving an object containing
values all set to zero (0).

When generating Notify messages for LSPs with the I bit set, the TLVs
described in this document MAY be added to the ERROR_SPEC object sent
in the the Notify message.

3.3. Message Formats

This section presents the RSVP message related formats as modified by
this document. The formats specified in [RFC3473] served as the
basis of these formats.

The format of a Path message is as follows:

<sender descriptor> is not modified by this document.

The format of a Resv message is as follows:

<flow descriptor list> is not modified by this document.

3.4. Relationship to GMPLS UNI

[GMPLS-UNI] defines how GMPLS may be used in an overlay model to
provide a user-to-network interface. In this model, restrictions may
be applied to the information that is signaled between an edge-node
and a core-node. This restriction allows the core network to limit
the information that is visible outside of the core. This restriction
may be made for confidentiality, privacy or security reasons. It may
also be made for operational reasons, for example if the information
is only applicable within the core network.

The extensions described in this document are candidates for
filtering as described in [GMPLS-UNI]. In particular the following
observations apply.

o An ingress or egress core-node MAY filter alarms from the GMPLS core
to the overlay UNI LSP. This may be to protect information about the
core network, or to indicate that the core network is performing or
has completed recovery actions for the GMPLS LSP.

o An ingress or egress core-node MAY modify alarms from the GMPLS
core when sending to the overlay UNI LSP. This may facilitate the
UNI client's ability to understand the failure and its effect on the
data plane, and enable the UNI client to take corrective actions in a
more-appropriate manner.

o Similarly, an egress core-node MAY choose to not request alarm
reporting on Path messages that it sends downstream to the overlay
network.

o Further, even when alarm reporting is requested along the whole
length of an overlay LSP, an ingress or egress core-node MAY choose
to selectively filter alarms that are reported to the overlay
network. This may be to protect information about the core network,
or may reflect the fact that the core network intends to take
remedial action and does not want the overlay network to operate on
the alarm information.

3.5. Relationship to GMPLS E-NNI

GMPLS may be used at the external network-to-network (E-NNI)
interface, see [GMPLS-ASON]. At this interface, restrictions may be
applied to the information that is signaled between an egress and an
ingress core- node.

This restriction allows the ingress core network to limit the
information that is visible outside of its core network. This
restriction may be made for confidentiality, privacy or security
reasons. It may also be made for operational reasons, for example if
the information is only applicable within the core network.

The extensions described in this document are candidates for
filtering as described in [GMPLS-ASON]. In particular the following
observations apply.

o An ingress or egress core-node MAY filter internal core network alarms.
This may be to protect information about the internal network, or to
indicate that the core network is performing or has completed recovery
actions for this LSP.

o An ingress or egress core-node MAY modify internal core network alarms.
This may facilitate the peering E-NNI (i.e. the egress core-node) to
understand the failure and its effect on the data plane, and take
corrective actions in a more-appropriate manner or prolong the
generated alarms upstream/downstream as appropriated.

o Similarly, an egress/ingress core-node MAY choose to not request
alarm reporting on Path messages that it sends downstream.

o Further, even when alarm reporting is requested along the whole
length of an end-to-end LSP, an egress or an ingress core-node MAY
choose to selectively filter alarms that are reported through the
UNI. This may be to protect information about the whole core network,
or may reflect the fact that the core network intends to take
remedial action and does not want the overlay network to operate
on the alarm information.

4. Security Considerations

Some operators may consider alarm information as sensitive. To
support environments where this is the case, implementations SHOULD
allow the user to disable the generation of ALARM_SPEC objects.

This document introduces no additional security considerations. See
[RFC3473] for relevant security considerations.

5. IANA Considerations

IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for
namespaces defined in this document. This section uses the
terminology of BCP 26 "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations
Section in RFCs" [BCP26].

This document defines a new RSVP "ALARM_SPEC object" with a Class-Num
of the form 11bbbbbb. The value 197 is suggested. The C-type values
associated with this object should read "Same values as ERROR_SPEC
(C-Num 6)". The text associated with ALARM_SPEC object should also
read "The ALARM_SPEC object uses the Error Code and Values from the
ERROR_SPEC object."

Additionally, Section 3.1.3 defines a new Error Code. The Error Code
is "Alarms" and uses Error Values defined in the Alarm MIB [ALARM-
MIB]. The suggested Error code value is 28.

This document also defines the TLVs for use with the IF_ID ERROR_SPEC
objects defined in [RFC3473]. Please see Section 3.1.1 for a list of
TLV description and (suggested) type values.

Note that the type values are not sequential with existing ERROR_SPEC
object TLV assignments. This is intentional and is intended to
provide space for future error TLVs.

This document also defines the I bit in the Admin Status Object, see
Section 3.2.1. This bit field was originally defined in Section 7.1
of [RFC3473]. We recommend that IANA being managing assignment of
bits in the Admin Status Object, and that the bits be allocated
through IETF Consensus actions.

6. References

6.1. Normative References

[RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional
Description", RFC 3471, January 2003.

[RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
RFC 3473, January 2003.

[ALARM-MIB] Chisholm, S., Romascanu, D., "Alarm MIB",
draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-18.txt, February 2004

6.2. Informative References

[GR833] Bellcore, "Network Maintenance: Network Element and
Transport Surveillance Messages" (GR-833-CORE), Issue 3,
February 1999.

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels," RFC 2119.

[GMPLS-UNI] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Rekhter, Y.
"GMPLS UNI: RSVP Support for the Overlay Model",
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-02.txt, October 2003,
work in progress.

[GMPLS-ENNI] Papadimitriou, D., Editor, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
RSVP-TE Signaling in support of Automatically Switched
Optical Network (ASON)",
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-ason-01.txt, January 2004,
work in progress.

7. Contributors

Contributors are listed in alphabetical order:

Lou Berger Deborah Brungard
Movaz Networks, Inc. AT&T Labs, Room MT D1-3C22
7926 Jones Branch Drive 200 Laurel Avenue
Suite 615
McLean VA, 22102 Middletown, NJ 07748, USA
Phone: +1 703 847-1801 Phone: (732) 420-1573
Email: lberger@movaz.com Email: dbrungard@att.com

Igor Bryskin Adrian Farrel
Movaz Networks, Inc. Old Dog Consulting
7926 Jones Branch Drive
Suite 615
McLean VA, 22102 Phone: +44 (0) 1978 860944
Email: ibryskin@movaz.com Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk

Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) Arun Satyanarayana
Francis Wellesplein 1 Movaz Networks, Inc.
B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium 7926 Jones Branch Drive
Suite 615
McLean VA, 22102
Phone: +32 3 240-8491 Phone: +1 703 847-1785
Email: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be Email: aruns@movaz.com

8. Contact Address

Lou Berger
Movaz Networks, Inc.
7926 Jones Branch Drive
Suite 615
McLean VA, 22102
Phone: +1 703 847-1801
Email: lberger@movaz.com

9. Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

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.

10. Intellectual Property

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.

Generated on: Mon Mar 15 11:06:23 Tue Sep 21 09:52:18 2004