draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-02.txt   draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-03.txt 
PCE Working Group U. Palle PCE Working Group U. Palle
Internet-Draft D. Dhody Internet-Draft D. Dhody
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: September 13, 2017 Y. Tanaka Expires: November 14, 2017 Y. Tanaka
NTT Communications NTT Communications
V. Beeram V. Beeram
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
March 12, 2017 May 13, 2017
Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol Extensions for Stateful PCE Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol Extensions for Stateful PCE
usage for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths usage for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-02 draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-03
Abstract Abstract
The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been identified as an The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been identified as an
appropriate technology for the determination of the paths of point- appropriate technology for the determination of the paths of point-
to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs. This document provides extensions to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs. This document provides extensions
required for Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) required for Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP)
so as to enable the usage of a stateful PCE capability in supporting so as to enable the usage of a stateful PCE capability in supporting
P2MP TE LSPs. P2MP TE LSPs.
skipping to change at page 1, line 40 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 13, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 14, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 16 skipping to change at page 3, line 16
10. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11.1. PCE Capabilities in IGP Advertisements . . . . . . . . . 25 11.1. PCE Capabilities in IGP Advertisements . . . . . . . . . 25
11.2. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11.2. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11.3. Extension of LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11.3. LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11.4. Extension of PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11.4. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11.5. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 11.5. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11.6. PCEP object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 11.6. PCEP object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11.7. S2LS object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 11.7. S2LS object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
13. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 13. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
As per [RFC4655], the Path Computation Element (PCE) is an entity As per [RFC4655], the Path Computation Element (PCE) is an entity
skipping to change at page 11, line 15 skipping to change at page 11, line 15
<PCRpt Message> ::= <Common Header> <PCRpt Message> ::= <Common Header>
<state-report-list> <state-report-list>
Where: Where:
<state-report-list> ::= <state-report> <state-report-list> ::= <state-report>
[<state-report-list>] [<state-report-list>]
<state-report> ::= [<SRP>] <state-report> ::= [<SRP>]
<LSP> <LSP>
<end-point-intended-path-pair-list> <end-point-intended-path-pair-list>
[<actual_attribute_list> [<actual-attribute-list>
<end-point-actual-path-pair-list>] <end-point-actual-path-pair-list>]
<intended-attribute-list> <intended-attribute-list>
Where: Where:
<end-point-intended-path-pair-list>::= <end-point-intended-path-pair-list>::=
[<END-POINTS>] [<END-POINTS>]
[<S2LS>] [<S2LS>]
<intended_path> <intended-path>
[<end-point-intended-path-pair-list>] [<end-point-intended-path-pair-list>]
<end-point-actual-path-pair-list>::= <end-point-actual-path-pair-list>::=
[<END-POINTS>] [<END-POINTS>]
<actual_path> <actual-path>
[<end-point-actual-path-pair-list>] [<end-point-actual-path-pair-list>]
<intended_path> ::= (<ERO>|<SERO>) <intended-path> ::= (<ERO>|<SERO>)
[<intended_path>] [<intended-path>]
<actual_path> ::= (<RRO>|<SRRO>) <actual-path> ::= (<RRO>|<SRRO>)
[<actual_path>] [<actual-path>]
<intended_attribute_list> is defined in [RFC5440] and <intended-attribute-list> is defined in [RFC5440] and
extended by PCEP extensions. extended by PCEP extensions.
<actual_attribute_list> consists of the actual computed and <actual-attribute-list> consists of the actual computed and
signaled values of the <BANDWIDTH> and <metric-lists> signaled values of the <BANDWIDTH> and <metric-lists>
objects defined in [RFC5440]. objects defined in [RFC5440].
The P2MP END-POINTS object defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis] is The P2MP END-POINTS object defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis] is
mandatory for specifying address of P2MP leaves grouped based on leaf mandatory for specifying address of P2MP leaves grouped based on leaf
types. types.
o New leaves to add (leaf type = 1) o New leaves to add (leaf type = 1)
o Old leaves to remove (leaf type = 2) o Old leaves to remove (leaf type = 2)
skipping to change at page 13, line 22 skipping to change at page 13, line 22
<update-request> ::= <SRP> <update-request> ::= <SRP>
<LSP> <LSP>
<end-point-path-pair-list> <end-point-path-pair-list>
<attribute-list> <attribute-list>
Where: Where:
<end-point-path-pair-list>::= <end-point-path-pair-list>::=
[<END-POINTS>] [<END-POINTS>]
<intended_path> <intended-path>
[<end-point-path-pair-list>] [<end-point-path-pair-list>]
<intended_path> ::= (<ERO>|<SERO>) <intended-path> ::= (<ERO>|<SERO>)
[<intended_path>] [<intended-path>]
<attribute-list> is defined in [RFC5440] and <attribute-list> is defined in [RFC5440] and
extended by PCEP extensions. extended by PCEP extensions.
Note that we preserve compatibility with the Note that we preserve compatibility with the
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] definition of <update-request>. [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] definition of <update-request>.
The PCC MAY use the make-before-break or sub-group-based procedures The PCC MAY use the make-before-break or sub-group-based procedures
described in [RFC4875] based on a local policy decision. described in [RFC4875] based on a local policy decision.
skipping to change at page 16, line 27 skipping to change at page 16, line 27
<end-point-path-pair-list> <end-point-path-pair-list>
[<attribute-list>] [<attribute-list>]
<PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion> ::= <SRP> <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion> ::= <SRP>
<LSP> <LSP>
Where: Where:
<end-point-path-pair-list>::= <end-point-path-pair-list>::=
[<END-POINTS>] [<END-POINTS>]
<intended_path> <intended-path>
[<end-point-path-pair-list>] [<end-point-path-pair-list>]
<intended_path> ::= (<ERO>|<SERO>) <intended-path> ::= (<ERO>|<SERO>)
[<intended_path>] [<intended-path>]
<attribute-list> is defined in [RFC5440] and extended <attribute-list> is defined in [RFC5440] and extended
by PCEP extensions. by PCEP extensions.
The PCInitiate message with an LSP object with N bit (P2MP) set is The PCInitiate message with an LSP object with N bit (P2MP) set is
used to convey operation on a P2MP TE LSP. The SRP object is used to used to convey operation on a P2MP TE LSP. The SRP object is used to
correlate between initiation requests sent by the PCE and the error correlate between initiation requests sent by the PCE and the error
reports and state reports sent by the PCC as described in reports and state reports sent by the PCC as described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].
skipping to change at page 25, line 39 skipping to change at page 25, line 39
Stateful PCE feature for P2MP LSP would help with network operations. Stateful PCE feature for P2MP LSP would help with network operations.
11. IANA Considerations 11. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA actions to allocate code points for the This document requests IANA actions to allocate code points for the
protocol elements defined in this document. protocol elements defined in this document.
11.1. PCE Capabilities in IGP Advertisements 11.1. PCE Capabilities in IGP Advertisements
IANA is requested to allocate new bits in "PCE Capability Flags" IANA is requested to allocate new bits in the OSPF Parameters "PCE
registry for stateful PCE with P2MP capability as follows: Capability Flags" registry, as follows:
Bit Meaning Reference Bit Meaning Reference
TBD1 Active Stateful [This I-D] TBD1 Active Stateful [This I-D]
PCE with P2MP PCE with P2MP
TBD2 Passive Stateful [This I-D] TBD2 Passive Stateful [This I-D]
PCE with P2MP PCE with P2MP
TBD3 Stateful PCE [This I-D] TBD3 Stateful PCE [This I-D]
Initiation with P2MP Initiation with P2MP
11.2. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV 11.2. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV
The STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is defined in The STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and a registry is requested to be [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and a registry is requested to be
created to manage the flags in the TLV. IANA is requested to make created to manage the flags in the TLV. IANA is requested to make
the following allocation in the aforementioned registry. the following allocations in the aforementioned registry.
Bit Description Reference Bit Description Reference
TBD4 P2MP-CAPABILITY [This.I-D] TBD4 P2MP-CAPABILITY [This I-D]
TBD5 P2MP-LSP-UPDATE- [This.I-D] TBD5 P2MP-LSP-UPDATE- [This I-D]
CAPABILITY CAPABILITY
TBD6 P2MP-LSP- [This.I-D] TBD6 P2MP-LSP- [This I-D]
INSTANTIATION- INSTANTIATION-
CAPABILITY CAPABILITY
11.3. Extension of LSP Object 11.3. LSP Object
This document requests that a registry is created to manage the Flags
field of the LSP object (defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]).
New values are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC5226]. Each
bit should be tracked with the following qualities:
o Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
o Capability description
o Defining RFC The LSP object is defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and a
registry is created to manage the Flags field of the LSP object.
The following values are defined in this document: IANA is requested to make the following allocations in the
aforementioned registry.
Bit Description Reference Bit Description Reference
TBD7 P2MP [This.I-D] TBD7 P2MP [This I-D]
TBD8 Fragmentation [This.I-D] TBD8 Fragmentation [This I-D]
11.4. Extension of PCEP-Error Object 11.4. PCEP-Error Object
A new 19 (recommended values) defined in section 8.5 of IANA is requested to allocate new error values within the "PCEP-ERROR
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. The error-type 6 is defined in Object Error Types and Values" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers
[RFC5440] and error-type 18 in [I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis]. This registry, as follows:
document extend the new Error-Values for those error types for the
following error conditions:
Error-Type Meaning Error-Type Meaning
6 Mandatory Object missing 6 Mandatory Object missing [RFC5440]
Error-value=TBD11: S2LS object missing Error-value=TBD11: S2LS object missing
Error-value=TBD12: P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV missing Error-value=TBD12: P2MP-LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV missing
18 P2MP Fragmentation Error 18 P2MP Fragmentation Error [I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis]
Error-value= TBD13. Fragmented Report Error-value= TBD13. Fragmented Report
failure failure
Error-value= TBD14. Fragmented Update Error-value= TBD14. Fragmented Update
failure failure
Error-value= TBD15. Fragmented Instantiation Error-value= TBD15. Fragmented Instantiation
failure failure
19 Invalid Operation 19 Invalid Operation [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
Error-value= TBD16. Attempted LSP State Report Error-value= TBD16. Attempted LSP State Report
for P2MP if stateful PCE capability for P2MP if stateful PCE capability
for P2MP was not advertised for P2MP was not advertised
Error-value= TBD17. Attempted LSP Update Request Error-value= TBD17. Attempted LSP Update Request
for P2MP if active stateful PCE capability for P2MP if active stateful PCE capability
for P2MP was not advertised for P2MP was not advertised
Error-value= TBD18. Attempted LSP Instantiation Error-value= TBD18. Attempted LSP Instantiation
Request for P2MP if stateful PCE Request for P2MP if stateful PCE
instantiation capability for P2MP was not instantiation capability for P2MP was not
advertised advertised
Referece for all Error-Value above is [This.I-D]. Referece for all new Error-Value above is [This I-D].
Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the
assignment of a new error value for the existing "PCEP-ERROR Object
Error Types and Values" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-error-object.
11.5. PCEP TLV Type Indicators 11.5. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the IANA is requested to make the assignment of a new value for the
assignment of a new value for the existing "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" existing "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" registry as follows:
registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/
pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-indicators. This document defines the
following new PCEP TLVs:
Value Meaning Reference Value Meaning Reference
TBD9 P2MP-IPV4-LSP-IDENTIFIERS [This.I-D] TBD9 P2MP-IPV4-LSP-IDENTIFIERS [This I-D]
TBD10 P2MP-IPV6-LSP-IDENTIFIERS [This.I-D] TBD10 P2MP-IPV6-LSP-IDENTIFIERS [This I-D]
11.6. PCEP object 11.6. PCEP object
IANA is requested to allocate new object-class values and object IANA is requested to allocate new object-class values and object
types within the "PCEP Objects" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers types within the "PCEP Objects" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers
registry, as follows. registry, as follows.
Object-Class Value Name Reference Object-Class Value Name Reference
TBD19 S2LS [This.I-D] TBD19 S2LS [This.I-D]
skipping to change at page 30, line 14 skipping to change at page 29, line 48
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful- Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
pce-18 (work in progress), December 2016. pce-18 (work in progress), December 2016.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations] [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., Varga, R., Zhang, X., Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., Varga, R., Zhang, X.,
and D. Dhody, "Optimizations of Label Switched Path State and D. Dhody, "Optimizations of Label Switched Path State
Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE", draft- Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE", draft-
ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-09 (work in ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-10 (work in
progress), February 2017. progress), March 2017.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-09 (work in Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-09 (work in
progress), March 2017. progress), March 2017.
[I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis] [I-D.ietf-pce-rfc6006bis]
Zhao, Q., Dhody, D., Palleti, R., King, D., Verhaeghe, F., Zhao, Q., Dhody, D., Palleti, R., and D. King, "Extensions
Takeda, T., and J. Meuric, "Extensions to the Path to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label
Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Switched Paths", draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-02 (work in
Paths", draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-00 (work in progress), progress), April 2017.
March 2017.
14.2. Informative References 14.2. Informative References
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC4857] Fogelstroem, E., Jonsson, A., and C. Perkins, "Mobile IPv4 [RFC4857] Fogelstroem, E., Jonsson, A., and C. Perkins, "Mobile IPv4
Regional Registration", RFC 4857, DOI 10.17487/RFC4857, Regional Registration", RFC 4857, DOI 10.17487/RFC4857,
skipping to change at page 31, line 17 skipping to change at page 31, line 6
(P2MP) MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 5671, (P2MP) MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 5671,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5671, October 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5671, October 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5671>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5671>.
[RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a [RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a
Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051, Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pceps] [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps]
Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, W., and D. Dhody, "Secure Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody, "Secure
Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps-11 (work in Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps-12 (work in
progress), January 2017. progress), April 2017.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and j. Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and j.
jefftant@gmail.com, "A YANG Data Model for Path jefftant@gmail.com, "A YANG Data Model for Path
Computation Element Communications Protocol (PCEP)", Computation Element Communications Protocol (PCEP)",
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-02 (work in progress), March draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-02 (work in progress), March
2017. 2017.
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses Appendix A. Contributor Addresses
skipping to change at page 32, line 24 skipping to change at page 32, line 24
EMail: y.kamite@ntt.com EMail: y.kamite@ntt.com
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Udayasree Palle Udayasree Palle
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India India
EMail: udayasree.palle@huawei.com EMail: udayasreereddy@gmail.com
Dhruv Dhody Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Yosuke Tanaka Yosuke Tanaka
 End of changes. 38 change blocks. 
77 lines changed or deleted 59 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/