draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-07.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-08.txt 
CCAMP Working Group K. Kompella (Juniper Networks) Network Working Group K. Kompella (Editor)
Internet Draft Y. Rekhter (Juniper Networks) Internet Draft Y. Rekhter (Editor)
Expiration Date: November 2002 A. Banerjee (Calient Networks) Category: Standards Track Juniper Networks
J. Drake (Calient Networks) Expires: February 2003 August 2002
G. Bernstein (Ciena)
D. Fedyk (Nortel Networks)
E. Mannie (GTS Network)
D. Saha (Tellium)
V. Sharma (Metanoia, Inc.)
OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-07.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-08.txt
1. Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
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.
2. Abstract Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document specifies encoding of extensions to the OSPF routing This document specifies encoding of extensions to the OSPF routing
protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching. protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching.
3. Summary for Sub-IP Area Summary for Sub-IP Area
3.1. Summary (This section to be removed before publication.)
0.1. Summary
This document specifies encoding of extensions to the OSPF routing This document specifies encoding of extensions to the OSPF routing
protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS). The description of the extensions is specified in [GMPLS- (GMPLS). The description of the extensions is specified in [GMPLS-
ROUTING]. ROUTING].
3.2. Where does it fit in the Picture of the Sub-IP Work 0.2. Where does it fit in the Picture of the Sub-IP Work
This work fits squarely in either the CCAMP or OSPF box. This work fits squarely in either the CCAMP or OSPF box.
3.3. Why is it Targeted at this WG 0.3. Why is it Targeted at this WG
This draft is targeted at the CCAMP or the OSPF WG, because this This draft is targeted at the CCAMP or the OSPF WG, because this
draft specifies the extensions to the OSPF routing protocols in draft specifies the extensions to the OSPF routing protocols in
support of GMPLS, because GMPLS is within the scope of the CCAMP WG, support of GMPLS, because GMPLS is within the scope of the CCAMP WG,
and because OSPF is within the scope of the OSPF WG. and because OSPF is within the scope of the OSPF WG.
3.4. Justification 0.4. Justification
The WG should consider this document as it specifies the extensions The WG should consider this document as it specifies the extensions
to the OSPF routing protocols in support of GMPLS. to the OSPF routing protocols in support of GMPLS.
4. Specification of Requirements 1. Specification of Requirements
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
5. Introduction 2. Introduction
This document specifies extensions to the OSPF routing protocol in This document specifies extensions to the OSPF routing protocol in
support of carrying link state information for Generalized Multi- support of carrying link state information for Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). The set of required enhancements to Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). The set of required enhancements to
OSPF are outlined in [GMPLS-ROUTING]. OSPF are outlined in [GMPLS-ROUTING].
6. OSPF Routing Enhancements 3. OSPF Routing Enhancements
In this section we define the enhancements to the TE properties of In this section we define the enhancements to the TE properties of
GMPLS TE links that can be announced in OSPF TE LSAs. The Traffic GMPLS TE links that can be announced in OSPF TE LSAs. The Traffic
Engineering (TE) LSA, which is an opaque LSA with area flooding scope Engineering (TE) LSA, which is an opaque LSA with area flooding scope
[OSPF-TE], has only one top-level Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplet and [OSPF-TE], has only one top-level Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplet and
has one or more nested sub-TLVs for extensibility. The top-level TLV has one or more nested sub-TLVs for extensibility. The top-level TLV
can take one of two values (1) Router Address or (2) Link. In this can take one of two values (1) Router Address or (2) Link. In this
document, we enhance the sub-TLVs for the Link TLV in support of document, we enhance the sub-TLVs for the Link TLV in support of
GMPLS. Specifically, we add the following sub-TLVs to the Link TLV: GMPLS. Specifically, we add the following sub-TLVs to the Link TLV:
Sub-TLV Type Length Name Sub-TLV Type Length Name
11 8 Link Local/Remote Identifiers 11 8 Link Local/Remote Identifiers
14 4 Link Protection Type 14 4 Link Protection Type
15 variable Interface Switching Capability Descriptor 15 variable Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
16 variable Shared Risk Link Group 16 variable Shared Risk Link Group
6.1. Link Local/Remote Identifiers 3.1. Link Local/Remote Identifiers
A Link Local/Remote Identifiers is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV. The A Link Local/Remote Identifiers is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV. The
type of this sub-TLV is 11, and length is eight octets. The value type of this sub-TLV is 11, and length is eight octets. The value
field of this sub-TLV contains four octets of Link Local Identifier field of this sub-TLV contains four octets of Link Local Identifier
followed by four octets of Link Remote Idenfier (see Section "Support followed by four octets of Link Remote Idenfier (see Section "Support
for unnumbered links" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]). If the Link Remote for unnumbered links" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]). If the Link Remote
Identifier is unknown, it is set to 0. Identifier is unknown, it is set to 0.
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Local Idenfiier | | Link Local Idenfiier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Remote Idenfiier | | Link Remote Idenfiier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
A node can communicate its Link Local Identifier to its neighbor A node can communicate its Link Local Identifier to its neighbor
using a link local Opaque LSA, as described in Section "Exchanging using a link local Opaque LSA, as described in Section "Exchanging
Link Local TE Information". Link Local TE Information".
6.2. Link Protection Type 3.2. Link Protection Type
The Link Protection Type is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV. The type of The Link Protection Type is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV. The type of
this sub-TLV is 14, and length is four octets. this sub-TLV is 14, and length is four octets.
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Protection Cap | Reserved | |Protection Cap | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 4, line 42 skipping to change at page 4, line 42
0x40 Reserved 0x40 Reserved
0x80 Reserved 0x80 Reserved
The remaining three octets SHOULD be set to zero by the sender, and The remaining three octets SHOULD be set to zero by the sender, and
SHOULD be ignored by the receiver. SHOULD be ignored by the receiver.
The Link Protection Type sub-TLV may occur at most once within the The Link Protection Type sub-TLV may occur at most once within the
Link TLV. Link TLV.
6.3. Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) 3.3. Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG)
The SRLG is a sub-TLV (of type 16) of the Link TLV. The length is the The SRLG is a sub-TLV (of type 16) of the Link TLV. The length is the
length of the list in octets. The value is an unordered list of 32 length of the list in octets. The value is an unordered list of 32
bit numbers that are the SRLGs that the link belongs to. The format bit numbers that are the SRLGs that the link belongs to. The format
of the value field is as shown below: of the value field is as shown below:
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Shared Risk Link Group Value | | Shared Risk Link Group Value |
skipping to change at page 5, line 16 skipping to change at page 5, line 15
| ............ | | ............ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Shared Risk Link Group Value | | Shared Risk Link Group Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This sub-TLV carries the Shared Risk Link Group information (see This sub-TLV carries the Shared Risk Link Group information (see
Section "Shared Risk Link Group Information" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]). Section "Shared Risk Link Group Information" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]).
The SRLG sub-TLV may occur at most once within the Link TLV. The SRLG sub-TLV may occur at most once within the Link TLV.
6.4. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor 3.4. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub-TLV (of type The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub-TLV (of type
15) of the Link TLV. The length is the length of value field in 15) of the Link TLV. The length is the length of value field in
octets. The format of the value field is as shown below: octets. The format of the value field is as shown below:
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved | | Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 7, line 29 skipping to change at page 7, line 27
by the receiver. by the receiver.
When the Switching Capability field is LSC, there is no Switching When the Switching Capability field is LSC, there is no Switching
Capability specific information field present. Capability specific information field present.
To support interfaces that have more than one Interface Switching To support interfaces that have more than one Interface Switching
Capability Descriptor (see Section "Interface Switching Capability Capability Descriptor (see Section "Interface Switching Capability
Descriptor" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]) the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]) the Interface Switching Capability
Descriptor sub-TLV may occur more than once within the Link TLV. Descriptor sub-TLV may occur more than once within the Link TLV.
7. Implications on Graceful Restart 4. Implications on Graceful Restart
The restarting node should follow the OSPF restart procedures [OSPF- The restarting node should follow the OSPF restart procedures [OSPF-
RESTART], and the RSVP-TE restart procedures [GMPLS-RSVP]. RESTART], and the RSVP-TE restart procedures [GMPLS-RSVP].
When a restarting node is going to originate its TE LSAs, the TE LSAs When a restarting node is going to originate its TE LSAs, the TE LSAs
containing Link TLV should be originated with 0 unreserved bandwidth, containing Link TLV should be originated with 0 unreserved bandwidth,
Traffic Engineering metric set to 0xffffffff, and if the Link has LSC Traffic Engineering metric set to 0xffffffff, and if the Link has LSC
or FSC as its Switching Capability then also with 0 as Max LSP or FSC as its Switching Capability then also with 0 as Max LSP
Bandwidth, until the node is able to determine the amount of Bandwidth, until the node is able to determine the amount of
unreserved resources taking into account the resources reserved by unreserved resources taking into account the resources reserved by
skipping to change at page 8, line 12 skipping to change at page 8, line 10
Switching Capability then also with 0 as Max LSP Bandwidth. This Switching Capability then also with 0 as Max LSP Bandwidth. This
would discourage new LSP establishment through the restarting router. would discourage new LSP establishment through the restarting router.
Neighbors of the restarting node should continue advertise the actual Neighbors of the restarting node should continue advertise the actual
unreserved bandwidth on the TE links from the neighbors to that node. unreserved bandwidth on the TE links from the neighbors to that node.
Regular graceful restart should not be aborted if a TE LSA or TE Regular graceful restart should not be aborted if a TE LSA or TE
topology changes. TE graceful restart need not be aborted if a TE LSA topology changes. TE graceful restart need not be aborted if a TE LSA
or TE topology changes. or TE topology changes.
8. Exchanging Link Local TE Information 5. Exchanging Link Local TE Information
It is often useful for a node to communicate some Traffic Engineering It is often useful for a node to communicate some Traffic Engineering
information for a given interface to its neighbors on that interface. information for a given interface to its neighbors on that interface.
One example of this is a Link Local Identifier. If nodes X and Y are One example of this is a Link Local Identifier. If nodes X and Y are
connected by an unnumbered point-to-point interface I, then X's Link connected by an unnumbered point-to-point interface I, then X's Link
Local Identifier for I is Y's Link Remote Identifier for I. X can Local Identifier for I is Y's Link Remote Identifier for I. X can
communicate its Link Local Identifer for I by exchanging with Y a TE communicate its Link Local Identifer for I by exchanging with Y a TE
link local opaque LSA described below. Note that this information link local opaque LSA described below. Note that this information
need only be exchanged over interface I, hence the use of a link need only be exchanged over interface I, hence the use of a link
local Opaque LSA. local Opaque LSA.
skipping to change at page 9, line 6 skipping to change at page 9, line 5
The format of the TLVs that make up the body of the TE Link Local LSA The format of the TLVs that make up the body of the TE Link Local LSA
is the same as that of the TE TLVs: a 2-octet Type field followed by is the same as that of the TE TLVs: a 2-octet Type field followed by
a 2-octet Length field which indicates the length of the Value field a 2-octet Length field which indicates the length of the Value field
in octets. The Value field is zero-padded at the end to a four octet in octets. The Value field is zero-padded at the end to a four octet
boundary. boundary.
The only TLV defined here is the Link Local Identifier TLV, with Type The only TLV defined here is the Link Local Identifier TLV, with Type
1, Length 4 and Value the 32 bit Link Local Identifier for the link 1, Length 4 and Value the 32 bit Link Local Identifier for the link
over which the TE Link Local LSA is exchanged. over which the TE Link Local LSA is exchanged.
9. Security Considerations 6. Normative References
The sub-TLVs proposed in this document do not raise any new security
concerns.
10. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Suresh Katukam, Jonathan Lang,
Quaizar Vohra, and Alex Zinin for their comments on the draft.
11. References
[OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., "Traffic Engineering Extensions to [OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D. and Kompella, K., "Traffic Engineering
OSPF", Extensions to OSPF", (work in progress)
draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-06.txt (work in progress)
[GMPLS-SIG] "Generalized MPLS - Signaling Functional [GMPLS-SIG] Berger, L., and Ashwood-Smith, P. (Editors), "Generalized
Description", draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-04.txt (work MPLS - Signaling Functional Description", (work in progress)
in progress)
[GMPLS-RSVP] "Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions", [GMPLS-RSVP] Berger, L., and Ashwood-Smith, P. (Editors),
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06.txt (work in progress) "Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions", (work in
progress)
[GMPLS-ROUTING] "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", [GMPLS-ROUTING] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y. (Editors), "Routing
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-01.txt (work in progress) Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", (work in progress)
[OSPF-RESTART] "Hitless OSPF Restart", draft-ietf-ospf-hitless- [OSPF-RESTART] Moy, J., "Hitless OSPF Restart", (work in progress)
restart-02.txt
(work in progress)
[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.
12. Authors' Information 7. Security Considerations
Kireeti Kompella The sub-TLVs proposed in this document do not raise any new security
Juniper Networks, Inc. concerns.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: kireeti@juniper.net
Yakov Rekhter 8. Acknowledgements
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave The authors would like to thank Suresh Katukam, Jonathan Lang,
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Quaizar Vohra, and Alex Zinin for their comments on the draft.
Email: yakov@juniper.net
9. Contributors
Ayan Banerjee Ayan Banerjee
Calient Networks Calient Networks
5853 Rue Ferrari 5853 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138 San Jose, CA 95138
Phone: +1.408.972.3645 Phone: +1.408.972.3645
Email: abanerjee@calient.net Email: abanerjee@calient.net
John Drake John Drake
Calient Networks Calient Networks
skipping to change at page 11, line 13 skipping to change at page 10, line 27
Email: greg@ciena.com Email: greg@ciena.com
Don Fedyk Don Fedyk
Nortel Networks Corp. Nortel Networks Corp.
600 Technology Park Drive 600 Technology Park Drive
Billerica, MA 01821 Billerica, MA 01821
Phone: +1-978-288-4506 Phone: +1-978-288-4506
Email: dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com Email: dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com
Eric Mannie Eric Mannie
GTS Network Services Independent Consultant
RDI Department, Core Network Technology Group E-mail: eric_mannie@hotmail.com
Terhulpsesteenweg, 6A
1560 Hoeilaart, Belgium
Phone: +32-2-658.56.52
E-mail: eric.mannie@gtsgroup.com
Debanjan Saha Debanjan Saha
Tellium Optical Systems Tellium Optical Systems
2 Crescent Place 2 Crescent Place
P.O. Box 901 P.O. Box 901
Ocean Port, NJ 07757 Ocean Port, NJ 07757
Phone: (732) 923-4264 Phone: (732) 923-4264
Email: dsaha@tellium.com Email: dsaha@tellium.com
Vishal Sharma Vishal Sharma
Metanoia, Inc. Metanoia, Inc.
335 Elan Village Lane, Unit 203 335 Elan Village Lane, Unit 203
San Jose, CA 95134-2539 San Jose, CA 95134-2539
Phone: +1 408-943-1794 Phone: +1 408-943-1794
Email: v.sharma@ieee.org Email: v.sharma@ieee.org
10. Authors' Information
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: kireeti@juniper.net
Yakov Rekhter
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: yakov@juniper.net
11. Intellectual Property Rights Notices
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 implementors 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.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published and
distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/