--- 1/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt 2006-02-05 00:02:54.000000000 +0100 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08.txt 2006-02-05 00:02:54.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,19 +1,19 @@ IPv6 Working Group John Loughney (ed) Internet-Draft Nokia - December 9, 2003 + January 14, 2004 -Expires: June 8, 2004 +Expires: July 14, 2004 IPv6 Node Requirements - draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt + draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08.txt Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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. @@ -39,43 +39,42 @@ that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations. Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function well and interoperate in a large number of situations and deployments. Internet-Draft Table of Contents 1. Introduction - 1.1 Scope of this Document - 1.2 Description of IPv6 Nodes & Conformance Groups + 1.1 Requirement Language + 1.2 Scope of this Document + 1.3 Description of IPv6 Nodes 2. Abbreviations Used in This Document 3. Sub-IP Layer - 3.1 RFC2464 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks - 3.2 RFC2472 - IP version 6 over PPP - 3.3 RFC2492 - IPv6 over ATM Networks + 3.1 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks - RFC2464 + 3.2 IP version 6 over PPP - RFC2472 + 3.3 IPv6 over ATM Networks - RFC2492 4. IP Layer 4.1 Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC2460 4.2 Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC2461 4.3 Path MTU Discovery & Packet Size 4.4 ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC2463 4.5 Addressing 4.6 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC2710 5. Transport and DNS 5.1 Transport Layer 5.2 DNS 5.3 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) 6. IPv4 Support and Transition 6.1 Transition Mechanisms 7. Mobility - 7.1 Mobile IP - 7.2 Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification - RFC2473 8. Security 8.1 Basic Architecture 8.2 Security Protocols 8.3 Transforms and Algorithms 8.4 Key Management Methods 9. Router Functionality 9.1 General 10. Network Management 10.1 MIBs 11. Security Considerations @@ -122,21 +121,21 @@ 1.2 Scope of this Document IPv6 covers many specifications. It is intended that IPv6 will be deployed in many different situations and environments. Therefore, it is important to develop the requirements for IPv6 nodes, in order to ensure interoperability. This document assumes that all IPv6 nodes meet the minimum requirements specified here. -1.2 Description of IPv6 Nodes +1.3 Description of IPv6 Nodes From Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification [RFC-2460] we have the following definitions: Description of an IPv6 Node Internet-Draft - a device that implements IPv6 @@ -299,25 +298,24 @@ Advertisement (NA) MUST be supported. NS and NA messages are required for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD). Redirect functionality SHOULD be supported. If the node is a router, Redirect functionality MUST be supported. 4.3 Path MTU Discovery & Packet Size 4.3.1 Path MTU Discovery - RFC1981 - Path MTU Discovery [RFC-1981] MAY be supported. It is expected that - most implementations will indeed support this, although the possible - exception cases are sufficient that the used of "SHOULD" is not - justified. The rules in RFC 2460 MUST be followed for packet - fragmentation and reassembly. + Path MTU Discovery [RFC-1981] SHOULD be supported, though minimal + implementations MAY choose to not support it and avoid large packets. + The rules in RFC 2460 MUST be followed for packet fragmentation and + reassembly. 4.3.2 IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC2675 IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC-2675] MAY be supported. 4.4 ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC2463 ICMPv6 [RFC-2463] MUST be supported. 4.5 Addressing @@ -332,24 +330,24 @@ This specification MUST be supported for nodes that are hosts. Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link local addresses as described in RFC 2462 [RFC-2462]. From 2462: The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies only to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses information advertised by routers, routers will need to be + configured by some other means. However, it is expected that Internet-Draft - configured by some other means. However, it is expected that routers will generate link-local addresses using the mechanism described in this document. In addition, routers are expected to successfully pass the Duplicate Address Detection procedure described in this document on all addresses prior to assigning them to an interface. Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) MUST be supported. 4.5.3 Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC3041 @@ -365,60 +363,58 @@ The rules specified in the Default Address Selection for IPv6 [RFC- 3484] document MUST be implemented. It is expected that IPv6 nodes will need to deal with multiple addresses. 4.5.5 Stateful Address Autoconfiguration Stateful Address Autoconfiguration MAY be supported. DHCPv6 [RFC- 3315] is the standard stateful address configuration protocol; see section 5.3 for DHCPv6 support. - For nodes which do not support Stateful Address Autoconfiguration, - the node may be unable to obtain any IPv6 addresses aside from link- - local addresses when it receives a router advertisement with the 'M' - flag (Managed address configuration) set and which contains no - prefixes advertised for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (see - section 4.5.2). Additionally, such nodes will be unable to obtain - other configuration information such as the addresses of DNS servers - when it is connected to a link over which the node receives a router - advertisement in which the 'O' flag ("Other stateful configuration") - is set. + Nodes which do not support Stateful Address Autoconfiguration may be + unable to obtain any IPv6 addresses aside from link-local addresses + when it receives a router advertisement with the 'M' flag (Managed + address configuration) set and which contains no prefixes advertised + for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (see section 4.5.2). + Additionally, such nodes will be unable to obtain other configuration + information such as the addresses of DNS servers when it is connected + to a link over which the node receives a router advertisement in + which the 'O' flag ("Other stateful configuration") is set. 4.6 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC2710 Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD implement MLDv2 [MLDv2]. However, if the node has applications, which only need support for Any-Source Multicast [RFC3569], the node MAY implement MLDv1 [MLDv1] instead. If the node has applications, which need support for Source-Specific Multicast [RFC3569, SSMARCH], the node + MUST support MLDv2 [MLDv2]. Internet-Draft - MUST support MLDv2 [MLDv2]. - When MLD is used, the rules in "Source Address Selection for the Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol" [RFC-3590] MUST be followed. 5. Transport Layer and DNS 5.1 Transport Layer 5.1.1 TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC2147 This specification MUST be supported if jumbograms are implemented [RFC-2675]. 5.2 DNS DNS, as described in [RFC-1034], [RFC-1035], [RFC-3152], [RFC-3363] - and [RFC-1886] MAY be supported. Not all nodes will need to resolve + and [RFC-3596] MAY be supported. Not all nodes will need to resolve names. All nodes that need to resolve names SHOULD implement stub- resolver [RFC-1034] functionality, in RFC 1034 section 5.3.1 with support for: - AAAA type Resource Records [RFC-3596]; - reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC-3152]; - EDNS0 [RFC-2671] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512 octets. Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extentions @@ -435,24 +431,24 @@ 5.3.1 Managed Address Configuration Those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP for address assignment initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration information upon receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag set, as described in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462. In addition, in the absence of a router, those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP for address assignment MUST initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration information, as described in section 5.5.2 of RFC 2462. Those IPv6 + nodes that do not use DHCP for address assignment can ignore the 'M' Internet-Draft - nodes that do not use DHCP for address assignment can ignore the 'M' flag in Router Advertisements. 5.3.2 Other Configuration Information Those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP to obtain other configuration information initiate DHCP for other configuration information upon receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set, as described in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462. Those IPv6 nodes that do not use DHCP for other configuration information can ignore the 'O' flag in Router Advertisements. @@ -486,43 +482,44 @@ Hosts MAY support mobile node functionality described in Section 8.5 of [MIPv6], including support of generic packet tunneling [RFC-2473] and secure home agent communications [MIPv6-HASEC]. Hosts SHOULD support route optimization requirements for correspondent nodes described in Section 8.2 of [MIPv6]. Routers SHOULD support the generic mobility-related requirements for all IPv6 routers described in Section 8.3 of [MIPv6]. Routers MAY support the home agent functionality described in Section 8.4 of + [MIPv6], including support of [RFC-2473] and [MIPv6-HASEC]. Internet-Draft - [MIPv6], including support of [RFC-2473] and [MIPv6-HASEC]. - 8. Security This section describes the specification of IPsec for the IPv6 node. + 8.1 Basic Architecture Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-2401] MUST be - supported. + supported. RFC-2401 is being updated by the IPsec Working Group. 8.2 Security Protocols ESP [RFC-2406] MUST be supported. AH [RFC-2402] MUST be supported. + RFC- 2406 and RFC 2402 are being updated by the IPsec Working Group. 8.3 Transforms and Algorithms Current IPsec RFCs specify the support of certain transforms and algorithms, NULL encryption, DES-CBC, HMAC-SHA-1-96, and HMAC-MD5-96. The requirements for these are discussed first, and then additional - algorithms 3DES-CBC, AES-128-CBC, and HMAC-SHA-256-96 are discussed. + algorithms 3DES-CBC, AES-128-CBC and HMAC-SHA-256-96 are discussed. NULL encryption algorithm [RFC-2410] MUST be supported for providing integrity service and also for debugging use. The "ESP DES-CBC Cipher Algorithm With Explicit IV" [RFC-2405] SHOULD NOT be supported. Security issues related to the use of DES are discussed in [DESDIFF], [DESINT], [DESCRACK]. It is still listed as required by the existing IPsec RFCs, but as it is currently viewed as an inherently weak algorithm, and no longer fulfills its intended role. @@ -533,33 +530,49 @@ described in [RFC-2403] MUST be supported. An implementer MUST refer to Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication [RFC-2104]. 3DES-CBC does not suffer from the issues related to DES-CBC. 3DES-CBC and ESP CBC-Mode Cipher Algorithms [RFC-2451] MAY be supported. AES- CBC Cipher Algorithm [RFC-3602] MUST be supported, as it is expected to be a widely available, secure algorithm that is required for interoperability. It is not required by the current IPsec RFCs, but is expected to become required in the future. + In addition to the above requirements, "Cryptographic Algorithm + Implementation Requirements For ESP And AH" [CRYPTREQ] contains the + current set of mandatory to implement algorithms for ESP and AH as + +Internet-Draft + + well as specifying algorithms that should be implemented because they + may be promoted to mandatory at some future time. It is RECOMMENDED + that IPv6 nodes conform to the requirements in this document. + 8.4 Key Management Methods Manual keying MUST be supported. -Internet-Draft - IKE [RFC-2407] [RFC-2408] [RFC-2409] MAY be supported for unicast traffic. Where key refresh, anti-replay features of AH and ESP, or on-demand creation of Security Associations (SAs) is required, automated keying MUST be supported. Note that the IPsec WG is working on the successor to IKE [IKE2]. Key management methods for multicast traffic are also being worked on by the MSEC WG. + "Cryptographic Algorithms for use in the Internet Key Exchange + Version 2" [IKEv2ALGO] defines the current set of mandatory to + implement algorithms for use of IKEv2 as well as specifying + algorithms that should be implemented because they made be promoted + to mandatory at some future time. It is RECOMMENDED that IPv6 nodes + implementing IKEv2 conform to the requirements in this + document. + 9. Router-Specific Functionality This section defines general host considerations for IPv6 nodes that act as routers. Currently, this section does not discuss routing- specific requirements. 9.1 General 9.1.1 IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC2711 @@ -570,94 +583,98 @@ implemented. See Section 4.6. 9.1.2 Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC2461 Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation MUST be supported. 10. Network Management Network Management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for IPv6 + +Internet-Draft + nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the only possibility to control these nodes. 10.1 Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) The following two MIBs SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an SNMP agent. 10.1.1 IP Forwarding Table MIB IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC-2096BIS] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an SNMP agent. - Support for this MIB does not imply that IPv4 or IPv4 specific - portions of this MIB be supported. - -Internet-Draft - 10.1.2 Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP) IP MIB [RFC-2011BIS] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an SNMP agent. - Support for this MIB does not imply that IPv4 or IPv4 specific - portions of this MIB be supported. 11. Security Considerations This draft does not affect the security of the Internet, but implementations of IPv6 are expected to support a minimum set of security features to ensure security on the Internet. "IP Security Document Roadmap" [RFC-2411] is important for everyone to read. The security considerations in RFC2460 describe the following: The security features of IPv6 are described in the Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-2401]. 12. References 12.1 Normative + [CRYPTREQ] D. Eastlake 3rd, "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementa- + tion Requirements For ESP And AH", draft-ietf-ipsec- + esp-ah-algorithms-01.txt, January 2004. + + [IKEv2ALGO] J. Schiller, "Cryptographic Algorithms for use in the + Internet Key Exchange Version 2", draft-ietf-ipsec- + ikev2-algorithms-04.txt, Work in Progress. + [DHCPv6-SL] R. Droms, "A Guide to Implementing Stateless DHCPv6 - Service", draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-00.txt, Work - in Progress. + Service", draft- ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-00.txt, + Work in Progress. [MIPv6] J. Arkko, D. Johnson and C. Perkins, "Mobility Support in IPv6", draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-24.txt, Work in + +Internet-Draft + progress. [MIPv6-HASEC] J. Arkko, V. Devarapalli and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling between Mobile Nodes - and Home Agents", draft-ietf-mobileip-mipv6-ha-ipsec- - 06.txt, Work in Progress. + and Home Agents", draft-ietf- mobileip-mipv6-ha- + ipsec-06.txt, Work in Progress. [MLDv2] Vida, R. et al., "Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", draft-vida-mld-v2-07.txt, Work in Progress. [RFC-1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. [RFC-1981] McCann, J., Mogul, J. and Deering, S., "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996. [RFC-2096BIS] Haberman, B. and Wasserman, M., "IP Forwarding Table - MIB", draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-05.txt, Work in - -Internet-Draft - + MIB", draft-ietf- ipv6-rfc2096-update-07.txt, Work in Progress. [RFC-2011BIS] Routhier, S (ed), "Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP)", draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2011- - update-03.txt, Work in progress. + update-07.txt, Work in progress. [RFC-2104] Krawczyk, K., Bellare, M., and Canetti, R., "HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, February 1997. [RFC-2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC-2401] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998. @@ -668,93 +685,93 @@ [RFC-2403] Madson, C., and Glenn, R., "The Use of HMAC-MD5 within ESP and AH", RFC 2403, November 1998. [RFC-2404] Madson, C., and Glenn, R., "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1 within ESP and AH", RFC 2404, November 1998. [RFC-2405] Madson, C. and Doraswamy, N., "The ESP DES-CBC Cipher Algorithm With Explicit IV", RFC 2405, November 1998. [RFC-2406] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "IP Encapsulating Security + +Internet-Draft + Protocol (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998. [RFC-2407] Piper, D., "The Internet IP Security Domain of Interpretation for ISAKMP", RFC 2407, November 1998. [RFC-2408] Maughan, D., Schertler, M., Schneider, M., and Turner, J., "Internet Security Association and Key Management Protocol (ISAKMP)", RFC 2408, November 1998. [RFC-2409] Harkins, D., and Carrel, D., "The Internet Key Exchange (IKE)", RFC 2409, November 1998. [RFC-2410] Glenn, R. and Kent, S., "The NULL Encryption Algorithm and Its Use With IPsec", RFC 2410, November 1998. [RFC-2451] Pereira, R. and Adams, R., "The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher Algorithms", RFC 2451, November 1998. - [RFC-2460] Deering, S. and Hinden, R., "Internet Protocol, - -Internet-Draft - - Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December - 1998. + [RFC-2460] Deering, S. and Hinden, R., "Internet Protocol, Ver- + sion 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. [RFC-2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and Simpson, W., "Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998. [RFC-2462] Thomson, S. and Narten, T., "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462. [RFC-2463] Conta, A. and Deering, S., "ICMP for the Internet Pro- tocol Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2463, December 1998. [RFC-2472] Haskin, D. and Allen, E., "IP version 6 over PPP", RFC 2472, December 1998. [RFC-2473] Conta, A. and Deering, S., "Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998. Xxx add - [RFC-2671] + [RFC-2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC + 2671, August 1999. [RFC-2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W. and Haberman, B., "Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October 1999. [RFC-2711] Partridge, C. and Jackson, A., "IPv6 Router Alert Option", RFC 2711, October 1999. +Internet-Draft + [RFC-3041] Narten, T. and Draves, R., "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 3041, January 2001. [RFC-3152] Bush, R., "Delegation of IP6.ARPA", RFC 3152, August 2001. [RFC-3315] Bound, J. et al., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. [RFC-3363] Bush, R., et al., "Representing Internet Protocol ver- sion 6 (IPv6) Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363, August 2002. [RFC-3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for IPv6", RFC 3484, February 2003. [RFC-3513] Hinden, R. and Deering, S. "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003. -Internet-Draft - [RFC-3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Multi- cast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590, September 2003. [RFC-3596] Thomson, S., et al., "DNS Extensions to support IP version 6", RFC 3596, October 2003. [RFC-3602] S. Frankel, "The AES-CBC Cipher Algorithm and Its Use with IPsec", RFC 3602, September 2003. @@ -769,43 +786,43 @@ 1991. [DESCRACK] Cracking DES, O'Reilly & Associates, Sebastapol, CA 2000. [DESINT] Bellovin, S., "An Issue With DES-CBC When Used Without Strong Integrity", Proceedings of the 32nd IETF, Danvers, MA, April 1995. [DHCPv6-SL] Droms, R., "A Guide to Implementing Stateless DHCPv6 Ser- vice", draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-02.txt, Work in + +Internet-Draft + Progress. [DNSSEC-INTRO] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and Rose, S., "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements" draft- ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro-06.txt, Work in Progress. [DNSSEC-REC] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and Rose, S., "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records-04.txt, Work in Pro- gress. [DNSSEC-PROT] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and Rose, S., "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Exten- - sions", draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-protocol-02.txt, Work in - Progress. + sions", draft-ietf-dnsext- dnssec-protocol-02.txt, Work + in Progress. [IKE2] Kaufman, C. (ed), "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Proto- col", draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-10.txt, Work in Progress. [IPv6-RH] P. Savola, "Security of IPv6 Routing Header and Home - -Internet-Draft - Address Options", draft-savola-ipv6-rh-ha-security- 03.txt, Work in Progress, March 2002. [MC-THREAT] Ballardie A. and Crowcroft, J.; Multicast-Specific Secu- rity Threats and Counter-Measures; In Proceedings "Sympo- sium on Network and Distributed System Security", Febru- ary 1995, pp.2-16. [RFC-793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 793, August 1980. @@ -819,43 +836,44 @@ [RFC-2205] Braden, B. (ed.), Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)", RFC 2205, September 1997. [RFC-2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks", RFC 2462, December 1998. [RFC-2492] G. Armitage, M. Jork, P. Schulter, G. Harter, IPv6 over ATM Networks", RFC 2492, January 1999. - [RFC-2675] Borman, D., Deering, S. and Hinden, B., "IPv6 Jumbo- - grams", RFC 2675, August 1999. + [RFC-2675] Borman, D., Deering, S. and Hinden, B., "IPv6 + +Internet-Draft + + Jumbograms", RFC 2675, August 1999. [RFC-2732] R. Hinden, B. Carpenter, L. Masinter, "Format for Literal IPv6 Addresses in URL's", RFC 2732, December 1999. [RFC-2851] M. Daniele, B. Haberman, S. Routhier, J. Schoenwaelder, - "Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses", - RFC 2851, June 2000. + "Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses", RFC + 2851, June 2000. [RFC-2893] Gilligan, R. and Nordmark, E., "Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 2893, August 2000. [RFC-3569] S. Bhattacharyya, Ed., "An Overview of Source-Specific Multicast (SSM)", RFC 3569, July 2003. [SSM-ARCH] H. Holbrook, B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for IP", draft-ietf-ssm-arch-03.txt, Work in Progress. 13. Authors and Acknowledgements -Internet-Draft - This document was written by the IPv6 Node Requirements design team: Jari Arkko [jari.arkko@ericsson.com] Marc Blanchet [marc.blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca] Samita Chakrabarti [samita.chakrabarti@eng.sun.com] @@ -871,43 +889,42 @@ Atsushi Inoue [inoue@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp] Masahiro Ishiyama [masahiro@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp] John Loughney [john.loughney@nokia.com] +Internet-Draft + Rajiv Raghunarayan [raraghun@cisco.com] Shoichi Sakane [shouichi.sakane@jp.yokogawa.com] Dave Thaler [dthaler@windows.microsoft.com] Juha Wiljakka [juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com] The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian Car- penter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas Narten, Juha Ollila and Pekka Savola for their comments. 14. Editor's Contact Information Comments or questions regarding this document should be sent to the - -Internet-Draft - - IPv6 Working Group mailing list (ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com) or to: + IPv6 Working Group mailing list (ipv6@ietf.org) or to: John Loughney Nokia Research Center Itamerenkatu 11-13 00180 Helsinki Finland Phone: +358 50 483 6242 Email: John.Loughney@Nokia.com @@ -922,13 +939,16 @@ 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 + +Internet-Draft + rights, which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director.