draft-ietf-netconf-beep-01.txt   draft-ietf-netconf-beep-02.txt 
Network Working Group E. Lear Network Working Group E. Lear
Internet-Draft K. Crozier Internet-Draft K. Crozier
Expires: December 6, 2004 Cisco Systems Expires: April 18, 2005 Cisco Systems
June 7, 2004 October 18, 2004
BEEP Application Protocol Mapping for NETCONF Using the NETCONF Protocol over Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol
draft-ietf-netconf-beep-01 (BEEP)
draft-ietf-netconf-beep-02
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
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 other Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-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 http:// The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
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 December 6, 2004. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 18, 2005.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies an application protocol mapping for the This document specifies an application protocol mapping for the
NETCONF protocol over the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP). NETCONF protocol over the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP).
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Why BEEP? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1 Why BEEP? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. BEEP Transport Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. BEEP Transport Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 NETCONF Session Initiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 NETCONF Session Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 NETCONF RPC Execution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2 Capabilities Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3 NETCONF Session Teardown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3 NETCONF Session Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4 BEEP Profile for NETCONF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.4 NETCONF Session Teardown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4.1 Operations Channel Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.5 BEEP Profile for NETCONF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4.2 Notification Channel Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.5.1 BEEP Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 14 A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The NETCONF protocol [1] defines a simple mechanism through which a The NETCONF protocol [1] defines a simple mechanism through which a
network device can be managed. NETCONF is designed to be usable over network device can be managed. NETCONF is designed to be usable over
a variety of application protocols. This document specifies an a variety of application protocols. This document specifies an
application protocol mapping for NETCONF over the Blocks Extensible application protocol mapping for NETCONF over the Blocks Extensible
Exchange Protocol (BEEP) [2] . Exchange Protocol (BEEP) [2] .
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 [3]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [4].
1.1 Why BEEP? 1.1 Why BEEP?
Use of BEEP is natural as an application protocol for transport of Use of BEEP is natural as an application protocol for transport of
XML. As a peer to peer protocol, BEEP provides an easy way to XML. As a peer to peer protocol, BEEP provides an easy way to
implement NETCONF, no matter which side of the connection was the implement NETCONF, no matter which side of the connection was the
initiator. This "bidirectionality" allows for either side to play initiator. This "bidirectionality" allows for either side to play
the role of the manager with no protocol changes. Either side can the role of the manager with no protocol changes. Either side can
open a channel. Either side could initiate an RPC. This is open a channel. Either side could initiate an RPC. This is
particularly important to support operational models that involve particularly important to support operational models that involve
skipping to change at page 4, line 10 skipping to change at page 4, line 10
The SASL profile used by BEEP allows for a simple and direct mapping The SASL profile used by BEEP allows for a simple and direct mapping
to the existing security model for CLI, while TLS provides a strong to the existing security model for CLI, while TLS provides a strong
well tested encryption mechanism with either server or server and well tested encryption mechanism with either server or server and
client-side authentication. client-side authentication.
2. BEEP Transport Mapping 2. BEEP Transport Mapping
All NETCONF over BEEP implementations MUST implement the profile and All NETCONF over BEEP implementations MUST implement the profile and
functional mapping between NETCONF and BEEP as described below. functional mapping between NETCONF and BEEP as described below.
2.1 NETCONF Session Initiation 2.1 NETCONF Session Establishment
Managers may be either BEEP listeners or initiators. Similarly, Managers may be either BEEP listeners or initiators. Similarly,
agents may be either listeners or initiators. Thus the initial agents may be either listeners or initiators. Thus the initial
exchange takes place without regard to whether a manager or the agent exchange takes place without regard to whether a manager or the agent
is the initiator. After the transport connection is established, as is the initiator. After the transport connection is established, as
greetings are exchanged, they should each announce their support for greetings are exchanged, they should each announce their support for
TLS [5] and optionally SASL [4] (see below), as well as for the TLS [6] and optionally SASL [5] (see below), as well as for the
SYSLOG profile [6]. Once greetings are exchanged, if TLS is to be SYSLOG profile [7]. Once greetings are exchanged, if TLS is to be
used and available by both parties, the listener STARTs a channel used and available by both parties, the listener STARTs a channel
with the TLS profile. with the TLS profile.
Once TLS has been started, a new greeting is sent by both initiator Once TLS has been started, a new greeting is sent by both initiator
and listener, as required by the BEEP RFC. and listener, as required by the BEEP RFC.
At this point, if SASL is desired, the initiator starts BEEP channel At this point, if SASL is desired, the initiator starts BEEP channel
1 to perform a SASL exchange to authenticate itself. When SASL is 1 to perform a SASL exchange to authenticate itself. When SASL is
completed, the channel MUST be closed. completed, the channel MUST be closed.
Once authentication has occurred, there is no need to distinguish Once authentication has occurred, there is no need to distinguish
between initiator and listener. We now distinguish between manager between initiator and listener. We now distinguish between manager
and agent. and agent.
The manager now establishes an NETCONF a new 2.2 Capabilities Exchange
&dquot;operational&dquot; channel for capabilitiesexchange and
requests and responses. As initiators assign odd channels and The manager now establishes an NETCONF a new channel. As initiators
listeners assign even channels, this next channel is BEEP channel 1 assign odd channels and listeners assign even channels, this next
or 2, depending on whether the manager is the initiator or the channel is BEEP channel 1 or 2, depending on whether the manager is
listener. the initiator or the listener.
Certain NETCONF capabilities may require additional BEEP channels. Certain NETCONF capabilities may require additional BEEP channels.
When such capabilities are defined, a BEEP mapping must be defined as When such capabilities are defined, a BEEP mapping must be defined as
well. well.
At this point, the NETCONF session is established. At this point, the NETCONF session is established, and capabilities
have been exchanged.
2.2 NETCONF RPC Execution 2.3 NETCONF Session Usage
To issue an RPC, the manager transmits on the operational channel a Nearly all NETCONF operations are executed through the <RPC> tag. To
BEEP MSG containing the RPC and its arguments. In accordance with issue an RPC, the manager transmits on the operational channel a BEEP
the BEEP standard, RPC requests may be split across multiple BEEP MSG containing the RPC and its arguments. In accordance with the
frames. BEEP standard, RPC requests may be split across multiple BEEP frames.
Once received and processed, the agent responds with BEEP RPYs on the Once received and processed, the agent responds with BEEP RPYs on the
same channel with the response to the RPC. In accordance with the same channel with the response to the RPC. In accordance with the
BEEP standard, responses may be split across multiple BEEP frames. BEEP standard, responses may be split across multiple BEEP frames.
2.3 NETCONF Session Teardown 2.4 NETCONF Session Teardown
Either side may initiate the termination of an NETCONF session. In Upon receipt of <close-session> from the manager, once the agent has
This is done by issuing a BEEP close on channel 0 after the current completed all RPCs, it will close BEEP channel 0. When an agent
RPC has completed. Having sent or received a BEEP close, a manager needs to initiate a close it will do so by closing BEEP channel 0.
MUST NOT send further requests, and an agent MUST NOT send additional Although not required to do so, the agent should allow for a
responses. If there are additional activities due to expanded reasonable period for a manager to release an existing lock prior to
capabilities, these MUST cease in an orderly manner, and should be initiating a close. Once the agent has closed channel 0, all locks
properly described in the capability mapping. are released, and each side follows tear down procedures as specified
in [3]. Having received a BEEP close or having sent <close-session>,
a manager MUST NOT send further requests. If there are additional
activities due to expanded capabilities, these MUST cease in an
orderly manner, and should be properly described in the capability
mapping.
2.4 BEEP Profile for NETCONF 2.5 BEEP Profile for NETCONF
The operations channel will have two commands, <rpc> and <rpc-reply>. There are three commands in the BEEP profile. <rpc> and <rpc-reply>.
2.4.1 Operations Channel Profile 2.5.1 BEEP Profile
<!-- DTD for netconf operations over BEEP <!-- DTD for netconf operations over BEEP
Refer to this DTD as: Refer to this DTD as:
<!ENTITY % NETCONF PUBLIC "netconf/Operation/1.0" ""> <!ENTITY % NETCONF PUBLIC "netconf/Operation/1.0" "">
%NETCONF; %NETCONF;
--> -->
<!-- Contents <!-- Contents
skipping to change at page 5, line 47 skipping to change at page 6, line 4
Includes Includes
Profile Summaries Profile Summaries
Entity Definitions Entity Definitions
Operations Operations
rpc rpc
rpc-reply rpc-reply
--> -->
<!-- Overview NETCONF operation channel --> <!-- Overview NETCONF operation channel -->
<!-- Includes --> <!-- Includes -->
<!ENTITY % BEEP PUBLIC "-//Blocks//DTD BEEP//EN" <!ENTITY % BEEP PUBLIC "-//Blocks//DTD BEEP//EN"
""> "">
%BEEP; %BEEP;
<!-- Profile summaries <!-- Profile summaries
BEEP profile NETCONF-MANAGEMENT BEEP profile NETCONF
role MSG RPY ERR role MSG RPY ERR
==== === === === ==== === === ===
I or L rpc ok error I or L rpc ok error
I or L rpc-reply ok error I or L rpc-reply ok error
--> -->
<!-- <!--
Entity Definitions Entity Definitions
entity syntax/reference example entity syntax/reference example
====== ================ ======= ====== ================ =======
a PRC a RPC
RPC-DATA Alpha RPC-DATA Alpha
a RPC reply number a RPC reply number
RPC-REPLY 1*3DIGIT RPC-REPLY 1*3DIGIT
--> -->
<!ENTITY % RPC-REPLY "CDATA"> <!ENTITY % RPC-REPLY "CDATA">
<!ENTITY % RPC-DATA "CDATA"> <!ENTITY % RPC-DATA "CDATA">
--> -->
<!-- <!--
RPC command RPC command
--> -->
skipping to change at page 7, line 4 skipping to change at page 7, line 7
RPC-DATA %RPC_DATA; #REQUIRED> RPC-DATA %RPC_DATA; #REQUIRED>
<!-- <!--
Result of RPC. Result of RPC.
--> -->
<!ELEMENT RPC-REPLY (#PCDATA)> <!ELEMENT RPC-REPLY (#PCDATA)>
<!ATTLIST RPC-REPLY <!ATTLIST RPC-REPLY
RPC-REPLY %RPC-REPLY; #REQUIRED RPC-REPLY %RPC-REPLY; #REQUIRED
RPC-DATA %RPC-DATA #REQUIRED> RPC-DATA %RPC-DATA #REQUIRED>
<!-- End of DTD -->
2.4.2 Notification Channel Profile <!-- End of DTD -->
The NETCONF notification channel profile is defined in RFC 3195 [6].
3. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
Configuration information is by its very nature sensitive. Its Configuration information is by its very nature sensitive. Its
transmission in the clear and without integrity checking leaves transmission in the clear and without integrity checking leaves
devices open to classic so-called "person in the middle" attacks. devices open to classic so-called "person in the middle" attacks.
Configuration information often times contains passwords, user names, Configuration information often times contains passwords, user names,
service descriptions, and topological information, all of which are service descriptions, and topological information, all of which are
sensitive. A NETCONF application protocol, therefore, must minimally sensitive. A NETCONF application protocol, therefore, must minimally
support options for both confidentiality and authentication. support options for both confidentiality and authentication.
BEEP makes use of both transport layer security and SASL. We require BEEP makes use of both transport layer security and SASL. We require
that TLS be used in BEEP as described by the BEEP standard. that TLS be used in BEEP as described by the BEEP standard.
Client-side certificates are strongly desirable, but an SASL Client-side certificates are strongly desirable, but an SASL
authentication is the bare minimum. SASL allows for the use of authentication is the bare minimum. SASL allows for the use of
protocols such as RADIUS [9], so that authentication can occur off protocols such as RADIUS [10], so that authentication can occur off
the box. the box.
SASL authentication will occur on the first channel creation, and SASL authentication will occur on the first channel creation, and
prior to issuance of any protocol operations. No further prior to issuance of any protocol operations. No further
authentication may occur during the same session. This avoids a authentication may occur during the same session. This avoids a
situation where rights are different between different channels. If situation where rights are different between different channels. If
an implementation wishes to support multiple accesses by different an implementation wishes to support multiple accesses by different
individuals with different rights, then multiple sessions are individuals with different rights, then multiple sessions are
required. required.
Different environments may well allow different rights prior to and Different environments may well allow different rights prior to and
then after authentication. Thus, an authorization model is not then after authentication. An authorization model is not specified
specified in this document. When an operation is not properly in this document. When an operation is not properly authorized then
authorized then a simple "permission denied" is sufficient. Note that a simple "permission denied" is sufficient. Note that authorization
authorization information may be exchanged in the form of information may be exchanged in the form of configuration
configuration information, which is all the more reason to ensure the information, which is all the more reason to ensure the security of
security of the connection. the connection.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
The IANA will assign a TCP port for NETCONF. The IANA will assign a TCP port for NETCONF.
5. Acknowledgments 5. Acknowledgments
This work is the product of the NETCONF IETF working group, and many This work is the product of the NETCONF IETF working group, and many
people have contributed to the NETCONF discussion. Most notably, Rob people have contributed to the NETCONF discussion. Most notably, Rob
Ens, Phil Schafer, Andy Bierman, Wes Hardiger, Ted Goddard, and Ens, Phil Schafer, Andy Bierman, Wes Hardiger, Ted Goddard, and
Margaret Wasserman all contributed in some fashion to this work, Margaret Wasserman all contributed in some fashion to this work,
which was originally to be found in the NETCONF base protocol which was originally to be found in the NETCONF base protocol
specification. Thanks also to Weijing Chen, Keith Allen, Juergen specification. Thanks also to Weijing Chen, Keith Allen, Juergen
Schoenwaelder, and Eamon O'Tuathail for their very constructive Schoenwaelder, and Eamon O'Tuathail for their very constructive
participation. participation.
Normative References 6. References
6.1 Normative References
[1] Enns, R., "NETCONF Configuration Protocol", [1] Enns, R., "NETCONF Configuration Protocol",
draft-ietf-netconf-prot-01 (work in progress), October 2003. draft-ietf-netconf-prot-03 (work in progress), June 2004.
[2] Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core", RFC [2] Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core", RFC
3080, March 2001. 3080, March 2001.
[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement [3] Rose, M., "Mapping the BEEP Core onto TCP", RFC 3081, March
2001.
[4] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[4] Myers, J., "Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)", [5] Myers, J., "Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)",
RFC 2222, October 1997. RFC 2222, October 1997.
[5] Dierks, T., Allen, C., Treese, W., Karlton, P., Freier, A. and [6] Dierks, T., Allen, C., Treese, W., Karlton, P., Freier, A. and
P. Kocher, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", RFC 2246, January P. Kocher, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", RFC 2246, January
1999. 1999.
[6] New, D. and M. Rose, "Reliable Delivery for syslog", RFC 3195, [7] New, D. and M. Rose, "Reliable Delivery for syslog", RFC 3195,
November 2001. November 2001.
Informative References 6.2 Informative References
[7] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. and E. Maler, [8] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. and E. Maler,
"Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second Edition)", W3C REC "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second Edition)", W3C
REC-xml-20001006, October 2000. REC REC-xml-20001006, October 2000.
[8] Hollenbeck, S., Rose, M. and L. Masinter, "Guidelines for the [9] Hollenbeck, S., Rose, M. and L. Masinter, "Guidelines for the
Use of Extensible Markup Language (XML) within IETF Protocols", Use of Extensible Markup Language (XML) within IETF Protocols",
BCP 70, RFC 3470, January 2003. BCP 70, RFC 3470, January 2003.
[9] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A. and W. Simpson, "Remote [10] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A. and W. Simpson, "Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865, June Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865, June
2000. 2000.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Eliot Lear Eliot Lear
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Dr. Glatt-com
San Jose, CA 95134-1706 Glattzentrum, Zurich 8301
US CH
EMail: lear@cisco.com EMail: lear@cisco.com
Ken Crozier Ken Crozier
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Dr. 170 W. Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134-1706 San Jose, CA 95134-1706
US US
EMail: kcrozier@cisco.com EMail: kcrozier@cisco.com
Appendix A. Change Log Appendix A. Change Log
Removed management channel, rpc-status, rpc-abort, and associated 02: added comments about locking
01: Removed management channel, rpc-status, rpc-abort, and associated
profile changes. profile changes.
Intellectual Property Statement 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 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; neither does it represent that it might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. 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 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 which may cover technology that may be required to practice rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
Director. ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer of Validity
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
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 Copyright Statement
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
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.
Acknowledgment Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society. Internet Society.
 End of changes. 

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