draft-ietf-ippm-more-twamp-00.txt   draft-ietf-ippm-more-twamp-01.txt 
Network Working Group A. Morton Network Working Group A. Morton
Internet-Draft AT&T Labs Internet-Draft AT&T Labs
Intended status: Standards Track K. Hedayat Updates: 5357 (if approved) K. Hedayat
Expires: April 22, 2009 Brix Networks Intended status: Standards Track EXFO
October 19, 2008 Expires: November 6, 2009 May 5, 2009
More Features for TWAMP More Features for the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol - TWAMP
draft-ietf-ippm-more-twamp-00 draft-ietf-ippm-more-twamp-01
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the
copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from
the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
translate it into languages other than English.
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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 22, 2009. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 6, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract Abstract
The IETF has completed its work on TWAMP - the Two-Way Active This memo describes a simple extension to TWAMP - the Two-Way Active
Measurement Protocol. This memo describes a simple extension to Measurement Protocol. The extension adds the option to use different
TWAMP, the option to use different security modes in the TWAMP- security modes in the TWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Test protocols
Control and TWAMP-Test protocols. simultaneously. The memo also requests that IANA establish a
registry for additional new features, called the TWAMP-Modes
registry.
Requirements Language 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. TWAMP Control Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. TWAMP Control Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Extended Connection Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Extended Control Connection Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Extended TWAMP Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Extended TWAMP Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Sender Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Sender Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.1. Packet Timings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1.1. Packet Timings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.2. Packet Format and Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1.2. Packet Format and Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Reflector Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. Reflector Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Registry Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.1. Registry Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Registry Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.2. Registry Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.3. Experimental Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.3. Experimental Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.4. Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.4. Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The IETF has completed its work on the core specification of TWAMP - The Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol, TWAMP [RFC5357] is an
the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol [RFC5357]. TWAMP is an
extension of the One-way Active Measurement Protocol, OWAMP extension of the One-way Active Measurement Protocol, OWAMP
[RFC4656]. The TWAMP specification gathered wide review as it [RFC4656]. The TWAMP specification gathered wide review as it
approached completion, and the by-products were several approached completion, and the by-products were several
recommendations for new features in TWAMP. There are a growing recommendations for new features in TWAMP. There are a growing
number TWAMP implementations at present, and wide-spread usage is number TWAMP implementations at present, and wide-spread usage is
expected. There are even devices that are designed to test expected. There are even devices that are designed to test
implementations for protocol compliance. implementations for protocol compliance.
This memo describes a simple extension for TWAMP, the option to use This memo describes a simple extension for TWAMP, the option to use
different security modes in the TWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Test different security modes in the TWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Test
protocols. protocols (mixed security mode). It also requests that IANA
establish a registry for additional new features, called the TWAMP-
Modes registry.
The relationship between this memo and TWAMP is intended to be an When the Server and Control-Client have agreed to use the mixed
update to [RFC5357] when published. security mode during control connection setup, then the Control-
Client, the Server, the Session-Sender and the Session-Reflector MUST
all conform to the requirements of this mode as described in sections
3, 4, and 5.
This memo updates [RFC5357].
2. Purpose and Scope 2. Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this memo is to describe and specify an extension for The purpose of this memo is to describe and specify an extension for
TWAMP [RFC5357]. The features and extensions were vetted before TWAMP [RFC5357], and request the establishment of a registry for
adoption in this memo. future TWAMP extensions.
The scope of the memo is limited to specifications of the following: The scope of the memo is limited to specifications of the following:
o Extension of the modes of operation through assignment of one new o Extension of the modes of operation through assignment of one new
value in the Mode field (see section 3.1 of [RFC4656]), while value in the Mode field (see section 3.1 of [RFC4656]), while
retaining backward compatibility with TWAMP [RFC5357] retaining backward compatibility with TWAMP [RFC5357]
implementations. This value adds the OPTIONAL ability to use implementations. This value adds the OPTIONAL ability to use
different security modes in the TWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Test different security modes in the TWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Test
protocols. The motivation for this extension is to permit the low protocols. The motivation for this extension is to permit the low
packet rate TWAMP-Control protocol to utilize a stronger mode of packet rate TWAMP-Control protocol to utilize a stronger mode of
skipping to change at page 4, line 5 skipping to change at page 5, line 11
TWAMP-Control protocol is a derivative of the OWAMP-Control protocol, TWAMP-Control protocol is a derivative of the OWAMP-Control protocol,
and coordinates a two-way measurement capability. All TWAMP Control and coordinates a two-way measurement capability. All TWAMP Control
messages are similar in format and follow similar guidelines to those messages are similar in format and follow similar guidelines to those
defined in section 3 of [RFC4656] with the exceptions described in defined in section 3 of [RFC4656] with the exceptions described in
TWAMP [RFC5357], and in the following sections. TWAMP [RFC5357], and in the following sections.
All OWAMP-Control messages apply to TWAMP-Control, except for the All OWAMP-Control messages apply to TWAMP-Control, except for the
Fetch Session command. Fetch Session command.
3.1. Extended Connection Setup 3.1. Extended Control Connection Setup
TWAMP connection establishment follows the same procedure defined in TWAMP-Control connection establishment follows the same procedure
section 3.1 of [RFC4656]. This extended mode assigns one new bit defined in section 3.1 of [RFC4656]. This extended mode assigns one
position (and value) to allow the Test protocol security mode to new bit position (and value) to allow the Test protocol security mode
operate in Unauthenticated mode, while the Control protocol operates to operate in Unauthenticated mode, while the Control protocol
in Encrypted mode. With this extension, the complete set of TWAMP operates in Encrypted mode. With this extension, the complete set of
values are as follows: TWAMP Mode values are as follows:
Value Description Reference/Explanation Value Description Reference/Explanation
0 Reserved 0 Reserved
1 Unauthenticated RFC4656, Section 3.1 1 Unauthenticated RFC4656, Section 3.1
2 Authenticated RFC4656, Section 3.1 2 Authenticated RFC4656, Section 3.1
4 Encrypted RFC4656, Section 3.1 4 Encrypted RFC4656, Section 3.1
8 Unauth. TEST protocol, new bit position (3) 8 Unauth. TEST protocol, new bit position (3)
Encrypted CONTROL Encrypted CONTROL
In the original OWAMP Modes field, setting bit positions 0, 1 or 2 In the original OWAMP and TWAMP Modes field, setting bit position 0,
indicated the security mode of the Control protocol, and the Test 1 or 2 indicated the security mode of the Control protocol, and the
protocol inherited the same mode (see section 4 of [RFC4656]). In Test protocol inherited the same mode (see section 4 of [RFC4656]).
this extension to TWAMP, setting Modes Field bit position 3 SHALL
discontinue the inheritance of the security mode in the Test In this extension to TWAMP, when the Control-Client sets Modes Field
protocol, and each protocol's mode SHALL be as specified below. When bit position 3, it SHALL discontinue the inheritance of the security
the desired TWAMP Test protocol mode is identical to the Control mode in the Test protocol, and each protocol's mode SHALL be as
Session mode, the corresponding Modes Field bit (position 0, 1 or 2) specified below. When the desired TWAMP-Test protocol mode is
SHALL be set. The table below gives the various combinations of identical to the Control Session mode, the corresponding Modes Field
integrity protection that are permissible in TWAMP (with this bit (position 0, 1 or 2) SHALL be set by the Control-Client. The
extension). The Test protocol SHALL use the mode in each column table below gives the various combinations of integrity protection
corresponding to the Modes Field bit position. that are permissible in TWAMP (with this extension). The TWAMP-
Control and TWAMP-Test protocols SHALL use the mode in each column
corresponding to the bit position set in the Modes Field.
-------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
Protocol | Permissible Mode Combinations (Modes bit set) Protocol | Permissible Mode Combinations (Modes bit set)
-------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
Control | Unauth.(0)| Auth. == Encrypted (1,2,3) Control | Unauth.(0)| Auth. == Encrypted (1,2,3)
-------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
| Unauth.(0)| Unauth. (3) | Unauth.(0)| Unauth. (3)
----------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------
Test | | Auth.(1) Test | | Auth.(1)
----------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------
| | Encrypted (2) | | Encrypted (2)
-------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
Note that the TWAMP-Control protocol security measures are identical Note that the TWAMP-Control protocol security measures are identical
in the Authenticated and Encrypted Modes. Therefore, only one new in the Authenticated and Encrypted Modes. Therefore, only one new
bit position (3) is needed to convey the single mixed security mode. bit position (3) is needed to convey the single mixed security mode.
The value of the Modes Field sent by the Server in the Server- The value of the Modes Field sent by the Server in the Server-
Greeting message is the bit-wise OR of the modes (bit positions) that Greeting message is the bit-wise OR of the modes (bit positions) that
it is willing to support during this session. Thus, the last four it is willing to support during this session. Thus, the last four
bits of the Modes 32-bit Field are used. The first 28 bits MUST be bits of the Modes 32-bit Field are used. When no other features are
zero. A client conforming to this extension of [RFC5357] MAY ignore activated, the first 28 bits MUST be zero. A client conforming to
the values in the first 28 bits of the Modes Field, or it MAY support this extension of [RFC5357] MAY ignore the values in the first 28
other features that are communicated in these bit positions. bits of the Modes Field, or it MAY support other features that are
communicated in these bit positions.
Other ways in which TWAMP extends OWAMP are described in [RFC5357]. Other ways in which TWAMP extends OWAMP are described in [RFC5357].
4. Extended TWAMP Test 4. Extended TWAMP Test
The TWAMP test protocol is similar to the OWAMP [RFC4656] test The TWAMP test protocol is similar to the OWAMP [RFC4656] test
protocol with the exception that the Session-Reflector transmits test protocol with the exception that the Session-Reflector transmits test
packets to the Session-Sender in response to each test packet it packets to the Session-Sender in response to each test packet it
receives. TWAMP [RFC5357] defines two different test packet formats, receives. TWAMP [RFC5357] defines two different test packet formats,
one for packets transmitted by the Session-Sender and one for packets one for packets transmitted by the Session-Sender and one for packets
transmitted by the Session-Reflector. As with OWAMP-Test protocol transmitted by the Session-Reflector. As with OWAMP-Test protocol
there are three security modes: unauthenticated, authenticated, and there are three security modes that also determine the test packet
encrypted. This TWAMP extension makes it possible to use TWAMP-Test format: unauthenticated, authenticated, and encrypted. This TWAMP
Unauthenticated mode regardless of the mode used in the TWAMP-Control extension makes it possible to use TWAMP-Test Unauthenticated mode
protocol. regardless of the mode used in the TWAMP-Control protocol.
This section describes OPTIONAL extensions. When the Server has
identified the ability to support the mixed security mode, the
Control-Client has selected the mixed security mode in its Set-Up-
Response, and the Server responds with a zero Accept field in the
Server-Start message, then these extensions are conditionally
REQUIRED.
4.1. Sender Behavior 4.1. Sender Behavior
This section describes REQUIRED extensions to the behavior of the This section describes extensions to the behavior of the TWAMP
TWAMP Sender. Session-Sender.
4.1.1. Packet Timings 4.1.1. Packet Timings
The Send Schedule is not utilized in TWAMP, and there are no The Send Schedule is not utilized in TWAMP, and there are no
extensions defined in this memo. extensions defined in this memo.
4.1.2. Packet Format and Content 4.1.2. Packet Format and Content
The Session Sender packet format and content MUST follow the same The Session-Sender packet format and content MUST follow the same
procedure and guidelines as defined in section 4.1.2 of [RFC4656] and procedure and guidelines as defined in section 4.1.2 of [RFC4656] and
section 4.1.2 of [RFC5357], with the following exceptions: section 4.1.2 of [RFC5357], with the following exceptions:
o the Send Schedule is not used, and o the Send Schedule is not used, and
o the Sessions-Sender MUST support the mixed security mode o the Session-Sender MUST support the mixed security mode
(Unauthenticated TEST, Encrypted CONTROL,value 8, bit position 3) (Unauthenticated TEST, Encrypted CONTROL,value 8, bit position 3)
defined in section 3.1 of this memo. defined in section 3.1 of this memo.
4.2. Reflector Behavior 4.2. Reflector Behavior
The TWAMP Reflector is REQUIRED to follow the procedures and The TWAMP Session-Reflector is REQUIRED to follow the procedures and
guidelines in section 4.2 of [RFC5357], with the following guidelines in section 4.2 of [RFC5357], with the following
extensions: extensions:
o the Sessions-Reflector MUST support the mixed security mode o the Session-Reflector MUST support the mixed security mode
(Unauthenticated TEST, Encrypted CONTROL,value 8, bit position 3) (Unauthenticated TEST, Encrypted CONTROL,value 8, bit position 3)
defined in section 3.1 of this memo. defined in section 3.1 of this memo.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
The extended mixed-mode of operation permits stronger security/ The extended mixed-mode of operation permits stronger security/
integrity protection on the TWAMP-Control protocol while integrity protection on the TWAMP-Control protocol while
simultaneously emphasizing accuracy or efficiency on the TWAMP-Test simultaneously emphasizing accuracy or efficiency on the TWAMP-Test
protocol, thus making it possible to increase overall security when protocol, thus making it possible to increase overall security when
compared to the previous options. compared to the previous options.
The security considerations that apply to any active measurement of The security considerations that apply to any active measurement of
live networks are relevant here as well. See [RFC4656] and live networks are relevant here as well. See [RFC4656] and
[RFC5357]. [RFC5357].
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This memo adds three security mode combinations to the OWAMP-Control This memo adds one security mode bit position/value beyond those in
specification[RFC4656], and describes behavior when the new modes are the OWAMP-Control specification[RFC4656], and describes behavior when
used. This memo requests creation an IANA registry for the TWAMP the new mode is used. This memo requests creation of an IANA
Mode field. This field is a recognized extension mechanism for registry for the TWAMP Modes field. This field is a recognized
TWAMP. extension mechanism for TWAMP.
6.1. Registry Specification 6.1. Registry Specification
IANA is requested to create a TWAMP-Modes registry. TWAMP-Modes are IANA is requested to create a TWAMP-Modes registry. TWAMP-Modes are
specified in TWAMP Server Greeting messages and Set-up Response specified in TWAMP Server Greeting messages and Set-up Response
messages consistent with section 3.1 of [RFC4656], and extended by messages consistent with section 3.1 of [RFC4656] and section 3.1 of
this memo. Modes are indicated by setting bits in the 32-bit Modes [RFC5357], and extended by this memo. Modes are indicated by setting
Field. Thus, this registry can contain a total of 32 possible bit bits in the 32-bit Modes Field. Thus, this registry can contain a
positions and corresponding values. total of 32 possible bit positions and corresponding values.
6.2. Registry Management 6.2. Registry Management
Because the TWAMP-Modes registry can contain only thirty-two values, Because the TWAMP-Modes registry can contain only thirty-two values,
and because TWAMP is an IETF protocol, this registry must be updated and because TWAMP is an IETF protocol, this registry must be updated
only by "IETF Consensus" as specified in [RFC2434](an RFC documenting only by "IETF Consensus" as specified in [RFC5226](an RFC documenting
registry use that is approved by the IESG). For the Modes registry, registry use that is approved by the IESG). For the TWAMP-Modes
we expect that new features will be assigned using monotonically registry, we expect that new features will be assigned using
increasing bit positions and in the range [0-31] and the monotonically increasing bit positions and in the range [0-31] and
corresponding values, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. the corresponding values, unless there is a good reason to do
otherwise.
6.3. Experimental Numbers 6.3. Experimental Numbers
No experimental values are currently assigned for the Modes Registry. No experimental values are currently assigned for the Modes Registry.
6.4. Initial Registry Contents 6.4. Initial Registry Contents
TWAMP Modes Registry TWAMP Modes Registry
Value Description Semantics Definition Value Description Semantics Definition
0 Reserved 0 Reserved
1 Unauthenticated RFC4656, Section 3.1 1 Unauthenticated RFC4656, Section 3.1
2 Authenticated RFC4656, Section 3.1 2 Authenticated RFC4656, Section 3.1
4 Encrypted RFC4656, Section 3.1 4 Encrypted RFC4656, Section 3.1
8 Unauth. TEST protocol, this document, Section 3.1 8 Unauth. TEST protocol, this document, Section 3.1
skipping to change at page 7, line 32 skipping to change at page 9, line 21
4 Encrypted RFC4656, Section 3.1 4 Encrypted RFC4656, Section 3.1
8 Unauth. TEST protocol, this document, Section 3.1 8 Unauth. TEST protocol, this document, Section 3.1
Encrypted CONTROL Encrypted CONTROL
7. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Len Ciavattone for helpful review and The authors would like to thank Len Ciavattone for helpful review and
comments. comments.
8. References 8. Normative References
8.1. 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.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.
[RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M. [RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
(OWAMP)", RFC 4656, September 2006. (OWAMP)", RFC 4656, September 2006.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J. [RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
RFC 5357, October 2008. RFC 5357, October 2008.
8.2. Informative References
[x] "".
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Al Morton Al Morton
AT&T Labs AT&T Labs
200 Laurel Avenue South 200 Laurel Avenue South
Middletown,, NJ 07748 Middletown,, NJ 07748
USA USA
Phone: +1 732 420 1571 Phone: +1 732 420 1571
Fax: +1 732 368 1192 Fax: +1 732 368 1192
Email: acmorton@att.com Email: acmorton@att.com
URI: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/ URI: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/
Kaynam Hedayat Kaynam Hedayat
Brix Networks EXFO
285 Mill Road 285 Mill Road
Chelmsford, MA 01824 Chelmsford, MA 01824
USA USA
Phone: +1 Phone: +1
Fax: +1 Fax: +1
Email: khedayat@brixnet.com Email: khedayat@exfo.com
URI: http://www.brixnet.com/ URI: http://www.exfo.com/
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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.
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, THE IETF TRUST 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.
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.
 End of changes. 30 change blocks. 
102 lines changed or deleted 130 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/