draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-typed-wildcard-01.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-typed-wildcard-02.txt 
Network Working Group Bob Thomas Network Working Group Bob Thomas
Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expiration Date: November 2007
Ina Minei Ina Minei
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
November 2007
LDP Typed Wildcard FEC LDP Typed Wildcard FEC
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-typed-wildcard-01.txt draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-typed-wildcard-02.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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
skipping to change at page 1, line 41 skipping to change at page 1, line 44
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.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF TRUST (2007). Copyright (C) The IETF TRUST (2007).
Abstract Abstract
The LDP specification [RFC3036] for the Wildcard FEC element has The LDP specification [RFC5036] for the Wildcard FEC element has
several deficiencies. This document corrects those deficiencies. In several deficiencies. This document corrects those deficiencies. In
addition, it specifies the Typed Wildcard FEC for the Prefix FEC addition, it specifies the Typed Wildcard FEC for the Prefix FEC
Element Type defined in RFC3036. Element Type defined in RFC5036.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1 Introduction .......................................... 2 1 Introduction ....................................... 2
2 Specification Language ................................ 3 2 Specification Language ............................. 3
3 The Typed Wildcard FEC Element ........................ 3 3 The Typed Wildcard FEC Element ..................... 3
4 Procedures for the Typed Wildcard FEC Element ......... 4 4 Procedures for the Typed Wildcard FEC Element ...... 4
5 Typed Wildcard FEC Element for RFC3036 Prefix FEC Element 5 5 Typed Wildcard FEC Capability ...................... 5
6 RFC3036 Host and Wildcard FEC Elements ................ 5 6 Typed Wildcard FEC Element for Prefix FEC Element .. 6
7 IANA Considerations ................................... 5 7 Host FEC and Wildcard FEC Elements ................. 7
8 Security Considerations ............................... 6 8 IANA Considerations ................................ 7
9 Acknowledgements ...................................... 6 9 Security Considerations ............................ 7
10 References ............................................ 6 10 Acknowledgements ................................... 7
11 Author Information .................................... 7 11 References ......................................... 8
12 Intellectual Property Statement ....................... 7 12 Author Information ................................. 8
13 Full Copyright Statement .............................. 8 13 Intellectual Property Statement .................... 9
14 Full Copyright Statement ........................... 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
LDP [RFC3036] distributes labels for Forwarding Equivalence Classes LDP [RFC5036] distributes labels for Forwarding Equivalence Classes
(FECs). LDP uses FEC TLVs in LDP messages to specify FECs. An LDP (FECs). LDP uses FEC TLVs in LDP messages to specify FECs. An LDP
FEC TLV includes 1 or more FEC Elements. A FEC element includes a FEC TLV includes 1 or more FEC Elements. A FEC element includes a
FEC type and an optional type-dependent value. FEC type and an optional type-dependent value.
RFC3036 specifies two FEC types (Wildcard and Prefix), and other RFC5036 specifies two FEC types (Prefix and Wildcard), and other
documents specify additional FEC types; e.g., see [PWE3] [MLDP]. documents specify additional FEC types; e.g., see [PWE3] [MLDP].
As specified in RFC3036 the Wildcard FEC Element refers to all FECs As specified by RFC5036 the Wildcard FEC Element refers to all FECs
relative to an optional constraint. The only constraint RFC3036 relative to an optional constraint. The only constraint RFC5036
specifies is one that limits the scope of the Wildcard FEC Element to specifies is one that limits the scope of the Wildcard FEC Element to
"all FECs bound to a given label". "all FECs bound to a given label".
The RFC3036 specification of the Wildcard FEC Element has the The RFC5036 specification of the Wildcard FEC Element has the
following deficiencies which limit its utility: following deficiencies which limit its utility:
1. The Wildcard FEC Element is untyped. There are situations 1. The Wildcard FEC Element is untyped. There are situations
where it would be useful to be able to refer to all FECs of a where it would be useful to be able to refer to all FECs of a
given type. given type.
2. Use of the Wildcard FEC Element is limited to Label Withdraw 2. Use of the Wildcard FEC Element is limited to Label Withdraw
and Label Release messages only. There are situations where it and Label Release messages only. There are situations where it
would be useful in Label Request messages. would be useful in Label Request messages.
This document addresses these deficiencies by defining a Typed This document:
Wildcard FEC Element and procedures for its use. Note that this
document does not change procedures specified for the LDP Wildcard - Addresses the above deficiencies by defining a Typed Wildcard
FEC Element by RFC3036. FEC Element and procedures for its use.
- Specifies use of the LDP capability mechanism [LDPCap] at
session establishment time for informing a peer that an LDP
speaker is capable of handling the Typed Wildcast FEC.
- Specifies the Typed Wildcard FEC Element for the Prefix FEC
Element specified by RFC5036.
Note that this document does not change procedures specified for the
LDP Wildcard FEC Element by RFC5036.
2. Specification Language 2. Specification Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. The Typed Wildcard FEC Element 3. The Typed Wildcard FEC Element
The Typed Wildcard FEC Element refers to all FECs of a given type The Typed Wildcard FEC Element refers to all FECs of a given type
relative to an optional constraint. The constraint, if present, is relative to an optional constraint. The constraint, if present, is
determined from the context in which the Typed Wildcard FEC Element determined from the context in which the Typed Wildcard FEC Element
appears. appears.
The format of the Typed Wildcard FEC Element is: The format of the Typed Wildcard FEC Element is:
0 1 2 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Typed (IANA) | FEC Element | Len FEC Type | | | Typed (IANA) | FEC Element | Len FEC Type | |
| Wildcard | Type | Info | | | Wildcard | Type | Info | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| | | |
| Additional FEC Type-specific Information | ~ Additional FEC Type-specific Information ~
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where: where:
Typed Wildcard: One octet FEC Element type to be assigned by IANA. Typed Wildcard: One octet FEC Element Type (to be assigned by
IANA).
FEC Element Type: One octet FEC Element Type that specifies the FEC Element Type: One octet FEC Element Type that specifies the
FEC Element Type to be wildcarded. FEC Element Type to be wildcarded.
Len FEC Type Info: One octet that specifies the length of the FEC Len FEC Type Info: One octet that specifies the length of the FEC
Type Specific information field. MUST be 0 if there is no Type Specific information field. MUST be 0 if there is no
Additional FEC Type-specific Information. Additional FEC Type-specific Information.
Additional FEC Type-specific Information: Additional information Additional FEC Type-specific Information: Additional information
specific to the FEC Element Type required to fully specify the specific to the FEC Element Type required to fully specify the
Typed Wildcard. Typed Wildcard.
Specification of the length and format of Additional FEC Type Specification of the length and format of Additional FEC Type
Specific Information for particular FEC Element Types is outside of Specific Information for particular FEC Element Types is outside of
the scope of this document. the scope of this document. It is the responsibility of the designer
of the FEC Element Type to specify the length and format of any
Additional FEC Type Specific Information.
4. Procedures for the Typed Wildcard FEC Element 4. Procedures for the Typed Wildcard FEC Element
It is the responsibility of the designer of the FEC Element Type to It is the responsibility of the designer of the FEC Element Type to
specify whether typed wildcarding is required for the FEC Element determine whether typed wildcarding makes sense the FEC Element Type.
Type. When typed wildcarding is supported for a FEC Element Type it If typed wildcarding does make sense the specification for the FEC
is the responsibility of the designer to specify the length and Element Type MUST include support for it.
format of any Additional FEC Type Specific Information.
When typed wildcarding is supported for a FEC Element Type it is the
responsibility of the designer to specify the length and format of
any Additional FEC Type Specific Information.
When a FEC TLV contains a Typed Wildcard FEC Element the Typed When a FEC TLV contains a Typed Wildcard FEC Element the Typed
Wildcard FEC Element MUST be the only FEC Element in the TLV. Wildcard FEC Element MUST be the only FEC Element in the TLV.
An LDP implementation that supports the Typed Wildcard FEC Element An LDP implementation that supports the Typed Wildcard FEC Element
MUST support its use in Label Request, Label Withdraw and Label MUST support its use in Label Request, Label Withdraw and Label
Release messages. Release messages.
An LDP implementation that supports the Typed Wildcard FEC Element
MUST support it for every FEC Element Type implemented for which it
is defined.
Receipt of a Label Request message with a FEC TLV containing a Typed Receipt of a Label Request message with a FEC TLV containing a Typed
Wildcard FEC Element is interpreted as a request to send a Label Wildcard FEC Element is interpreted as a request to send a Label
Mapping for all FECs of the type specified by the FEC Element type Mapping for all FECs of the type specified by the FEC Element Type
field in the Typed Wildcard FEC Element encoding. field in the Typed Wildcard FEC Element encoding.
An LDP implementation that supports the Typed Wildcard FEC Element An LDP implementation that supports the Typed Wildcard FEC Element
MUST support the following constraints whenever a Typed Wildcard FEC MUST support the following constraints whenever a Typed Wildcard FEC
appears in a Label Withdraw or Label Release message: appears in a Label Withdraw or Label Release message:
1. If the message carries an optional Label TLV the Typed Wildcard 1. If the message carries an optional Label TLV the Typed Wildcard
FEC Element refers to all FECs of the specified FEC type bound to FEC Element refers to all FECs of the specified FEC type bound to
the specified label. the specified label.
2. If the message has no Label TLV the Typed Wildcard FEC Element 2. If the message has no Label TLV the Typed Wildcard FEC Element
refers to all FECs of the specified FEC type. refers to all FECs of the specified FEC type.
Backwards compatibility with a router not supporting the Typed Backwards compatibility with a router not supporting the Typed
Wildcard FEC element is ensured by the FEC procedures defined in Wildcard FEC element is ensured by the FEC procedures defined in
RFC3036. Quoting from RFC3036: RFC5036. Quoting from RFC5036:
"If it" [an LSR] "encounters a FEC Element type it cannot decode, "If it" [an LSR] "encounters a FEC Element type it cannot decode,
it SHOULD stop decoding the FEC TLV, abort processing the it SHOULD stop decoding the FEC TLV, abort processing the
message containing the TLV, and send an "Unknown FEC" message containing the TLV, and send an "Unknown FEC"
Notification message to its LDP peer signaling an error." Notification message to its LDP peer signaling an error."
A router receiving a FEC TLV containing a Typed Wildcard FEC element A router receiving a FEC TLV containing a Typed Wildcard FEC element
for a FEC Element Type that it either doesn't support or for a FEC for a FEC Element Type that it either doesn't support or for a FEC
Element Type that doesn't support the use of wildcarding MUST stop Element Type that doesn't support the use of wildcarding MUST stop
decoding the FEC TLV, abort processing the message containing the decoding the FEC TLV, abort processing the message containing the
TLV, and send an "Unknown FEC" Notification message to its LDP peer TLV, and send an "Unknown FEC" Notification message to its LDP peer
signaling an error. signaling an error.
5. Typed Wildcard FEC Element for RFC3036 Prefix FEC Element 5. Typed Wildcard FEC Capability
RFC3036 defines the Prefix FEC Element but it does not specify a As noted above RFC5056 FEC procedures provide for backward
compatibility with a LSR not supporting the Typed Wildcard FEC
Element. However, they don't provide means for LSR wishing to use
the Typed Wildcard FEC Element to determine whether a peer supports
it other than to send a message that uses the FEC Element and to wait
and see how the peer responds.
An LDP speaker that supports the Typed Wildcard FEC Element MUST
inform its peers of the support by including a Typed Wildcard FEC
Element Capability Parameter [LDPCap] in its Initialization messages.
The Capability Parameter for the Typed Wildcard FEC capability is a
TLV with 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F|Typed WCard FEC Cap (IANA) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
U and F bits: As specified by RFC5036.
Typed WCard FEC Cap: TLV code point for the Typed Wildcard FEC
capability (to be assigned by IANA).
S-bit: Must be 1 (indicates that capability is being advertised).
6. Typed Wildcard FEC Element for Prefix FEC Element
RFC5036 defines the Prefix FEC Element but it does not specify a
Typed Wildcard for it. This section specifies the Typed Wildcard FEC Typed Wildcard for it. This section specifies the Typed Wildcard FEC
Element for RFC3036 Prefix Elements. Element for Prefix FEC Elements.
The format of the Prefix FEC Typed Wildcard FEC ("Prefix FEC The format of the Prefix FEC Typed Wildcard FEC ("Prefix FEC
Wildcard" for short) is: Wildcard" for short) is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Typed WCard | Prefix (2) | 2 | Address... | | Typed WCard | Prefix (2) | 2 | Address... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ...Family | | ...Family |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Address Family: Two octet quantity containing a value from ADDRESS Address Family: Two octet quantity containing a value from ADDRESS
FAMILY NUMBERS in [IANA-AF]. FAMILY NUMBERS in [IANA-AF].
The procedures of Section 4 apply to the Prefix FEC Wildcard. The procedures of Section 4 apply to the Prefix FEC Wildcard.
6. RFC3036 Host and Wildcard FEC Elements 7. Host FEC and Wildcard FEC Elements
There is no need to specify Typed Wildcard FEC Elements for the Host There is no need to specify Typed Wildcard FEC Elements for the Host
and Wildcard FEC Elements specified by RFC3036. The RFC3036 Host FEC FEC Element specified by [RFC3036] nor for the Wildcard FEC Element
Element has been removed from rfc3036bis [RFC3036bis], and the specified by RFC5036. The [RFC3036] Host FEC Element has been
Wildcard FEC Element is untyped by definition. removed from RFC5036, and the Wildcard FEC Element is untyped by
definition.
7. IANA Considerations
The Typed Wildcard FEC Element requires a code point from the LDP FEC
Type Name Space. IANA manages the FEC TYPE name space as recommended
by the following from [RFC3036]:
"FEC Type Name Space 8. IANA Considerations
The range for FEC types is 0 - 255. This draft introduces a new LDP FEC Element Type and a new LDP
Capability both of which require code points.
Following the policies outlined in [RFC3036], FEC types in the The Typed Wildcard FEC Element requires a code point from the LDP FEC
range 0 - 127 are allocated through an IETF Consensus action, Type name space. [RFC5036] partitions the FEC TYPE name space into 3
types in the range 128 - 191 are allocated as First Come First regions: IETF Consensus region, First Come First Served region, and
Served, and types in the range 192 - 255 are reserved for Private Private Use region. The authors recommend that the code point 0x05
Use." from the IETF Consensus range be assigned to the Typed Wildcard FEC
Element.
The authors recommend that the code point 0x05 from the IETF The Typed Wildcard FEC Capability requires a code point from the TLV
Consensus range be assigned to the Typed Wildcard FEC Element. Type name space. [RFC5036] partitions the TLV TYPE name space into 3
regions: IETF Consensus region, First Come First Served region, and
Private Use region. The authors recommend that a code point from the
IETF Consensus range be assigned to the Typed Wildcard FEC
Capability.
8. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
No security considerations beyond those that apply to the base LDP No security considerations beyond those that apply to the base LDP
specification and described in [RFC3036] apply to use of the Typed specification and described in [RFC5036] apply to use of the Typed
Wildcard FEC Element defined in this document. Wildcard FEC Element defined in this document.
9. Acknowledgements 10. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Yakov Rehkter for suggesting that the The authors wish to thank Yakov Rehkter for suggesting that the
deficiencies of the Wildcard FEC be addressed. deficiencies of the Wildcard FEC be addressed.
10. References 11. References
Normative References Normative References
[RFC3036] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A. and [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., Thomas, B., Editors, "LDP
Thomas, B., "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January 2001. Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
[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, RFC2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997.
[LDPCap] Thomas, B., Aggarwal, S., Aggarwal, R., Le Roux, J.L.,
"LDP Capabilities", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-capabilities-00, Work in
Progress, May 2007.
[IANA-AF] http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers [IANA-AF] http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers
Informative References Informative References
[RFC3036] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A. and
Thomas, B., "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January 2001.
[PWE3] Martini, L., Editor, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using [PWE3] Martini, L., Editor, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using
the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006. the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.
[MLDP] Minei, I., Wijnamds, I., Editors, "Label Distribution [MLDP] Minei, I., Wijnands, I., Editors, "Label Distribution
Protocol Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to- Protocol Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-
Multipoint Label Switched Paths", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp-02.txt, Multipoint Label Switched Paths", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp-03.txt,
Work in Progress, October 2006. Work in Progress, July 2007.
[RFC3036bis] Andersson, L., Minei, I., Thomas, B., Editors, "LDP
Specification", draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-04.txt, Work in
Progress, September 2006.
11. Author Information 12. Author Information
Bob Thomas Bob Thomas
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Ave. 1414 Massachusetts Ave.
Boxborough MA 01719 Boxborough MA 01719
Email: rhthomas@cisco.com Email: rhthomas@cisco.com
Ina Minei Ina Minei
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Ave. 1194 North Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: ina@juniper.net Email: ina@juniper.net
12. Intellectual Property Statement 13. Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 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 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
skipping to change at page 8, line 5 skipping to change at page 9, line 29
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr. http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org. ipr@ietf.org.
13. Full Copyright Statement 14. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST
 End of changes. 41 change blocks. 
76 lines changed or deleted 137 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/