draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-02.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-03.txt 
MPLS Working Group Z. Ali MPLS Working Group Z. Ali
G. Swallow G. Swallow
Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
R. Aggarwal R. Aggarwal
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standard Track March 05, 2009 Intended status: Standard Track October 26, 2009
Expires: September 04, 2009 Expires: April 25, 2010
Non PHP Behavior and out-of-band mapping for RSVP-TE LSPs Non PHP Behavior and out-of-band mapping for RSVP-TE LSPs
draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-02.txt draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-03.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain
contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or
published or made publicly available before November 10, made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s)
2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have
this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such
to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining
Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright
from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the
materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be
IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it
be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into than English.
languages other than English.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
documents as Internet-Drafts. Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-
Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work
than as "work in progress." in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 04, 2009. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 08, 2009.
Abstract Abstract
There are many deployment scenarios which require Egress LSR to There are many deployment scenarios which require Egress LSR to
receive binding of the RSVP-TE LSP to an application, and payload receive binding of the RSVP-TE LSP to an application, and payload
identification, using some "out-of-band" (OOB) mechanism. This identification, using some "out-of-band" (OOB) mechanism. This
document proposes protocol mechanisms to address this document proposes protocol mechanisms to address this
requirement. The procedures described in this document are requirement. The procedures described in this document are
equally applicable for point-to-point (P2P) and point-to- equally applicable for point-to-point (P2P) and point-to-
multipoint (P2MP) LSPs. multipoint (P2MP) LSPs.
skipping to change at page 2, line 31 skipping to change at page 2, line 31
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
RFC-2119 0. RFC-2119 0.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction...............................................2 1. Introduction...............................................2
2. RSVP-TE signaling extensions...............................3 2. RSVP-TE signaling extensions...............................3
2.1. Signaling non-PHP behavior............................3 2.1. Signaling non-PHP behavior............................3
2.2. Signaling OOB Mapping Indication......................4 2.2. Signaling OOB Mapping Indication......................4
2.3. Relationship between OOB and non-PHP bits.............4 2.3. Relationship between OOB and non-PHP flags............6
2.4. Egress Procedure for label binding....................4 2.4. Egress Procedure for label binding....................6
3. Security Considerations....................................5 3. Security Considerations....................................6
4. IANA Considerations........................................5 4. IANA Considerations........................................6
4.1. Attribute Flags for LSP_ATTRIBUTES object.............5 4.1. Attribute Flags for LSP_ATTRIBUTES object.............6
5. Acknowledgments............................................6 5. Acknowledgments............................................7
6. References.................................................6 6. References.................................................7
6.1. Normative References..................................6 6.1. Normative References..................................7
6.2. Informative References................................6 6.2. Informative References................................8
Author's Addresses............................................7 Copyright Notice..............................................8
Intellectual Property Statement...............................7 Legal.........................................................9
Disclaimer of Validity........................................7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
When RSVP-TE is used for applications like MVPN [MVPN] and VPLS When RSVP-TE is used for applications like MVPN [MVPN] and VPLS
[VPLS], an Egress LSR receives the binding of the RSVP-TE LSP to [VPLS], an Egress LSR receives the binding of the RSVP-TE LSP to
an application, and payload identification, using an "out-of- an application, and payload identification, using an "out-of-
band" (OOB) mechanism (e.g., using BGP). In such cases, the band" (OOB) mechanism (e.g., using BGP). In such cases, the
Egress LSR cannot make correct forwarding decision until such OOB Egress LSR cannot make correct forwarding decision until such OOB
mapping information is received. Furthermore, in order to apply mapping information is received. Furthermore, in order to apply
the binding information, the Egress LSR needs to identify the the binding information, the Egress LSR needs to identify the
incoming LSP. Therefore, non Penultimate Hop Popping (non-PHP) incoming LSP. Therefore, non Penultimate Hop Popping (non-PHP)
behavior is required at the Egress LSR to apply OOB mapping. behavior is required at the Egress LSR to apply OOB mapping.
There are other applications that require non-PHP behavior. When There are other applications that require non-PHP behavior. When
RSVP-TE P2MP LSPs are used to carry IP multicast traffic, non-PHP RSVP-TE P2MP LSPs are used to carry IP multicast traffic non-PHP
behavior enables a leaf LSR to identify the P2MP TE LSP on which behavior enables a leaf LSR to identify the P2MP TE LSP, on which
traffic is received. Hence, the egress LSR can determine whether traffic is received. Hence the egress LSR can determine whether
traffic is received on the expected P2MP LSP and discard traffic traffic is received on the expected P2MP LSP and discard traffic
that is not received on the expected P2MP LSP. Non-PHP behavior that is not received on the expected P2MP LSP. Non-PHP behavior
is also required to determine the context of upstream assigned is also required to determine the context of upstream assigned
labels [UPSTREAM] when the context is a MPLS LSP. labels when the context is a MPLS LSP. Non-PHP behavior may also
be required for MPLS-TP LSPs [MPLS-TP-Framework].
This document defines two new bits in the Attributes Flags TLV of This document defines two new flags in the Attributes Flags TLV
the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object defined in [RFC5420]: one bit for of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object defined in [RFC5420]: one flag for
communication of non-PHP behavior, and one bit to indicate that communication of non-PHP behavior, and one flag to indicate that
the binding of the LSP to an application and payload identifier the binding of the LSP to an application and payload identifier
(payload-Id) needs to be learned via an out-of-band mapping (payload-Id) needs to be learned via an out-of-band mapping
mechanism. mechanism.
The procedures described in this document are equally applicable The procedures described in this document are equally applicable
for P2P and P2MP LSPs. Specification of the OOB communication for P2P and P2MP LSPs. Specification of the OOB communication
mechanism(s) is beyond the scope of the document. mechanism(s) is beyond the scope of this document.
2. RSVP-TE signaling extensions 2. RSVP-TE signaling extensions
This section describes the signaling extensions required to This section describes the signaling extensions required to
address the above-mentioned requirements. address the above-mentioned requirements.
2.1. Signaling non-PHP behavior 2.1. Signaling non-PHP behavior
In order to request non-PHP behavior for RSVP-TE LSP, this In order to request non-PHP behavior for RSVP-TE LSP, this
document defines a new bit in the Attributes Flags TLV of the document defines a new flag in the Attributes Flags TLV of the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object defined in [RFC5420]: LSP_ATTRIBUTES object defined in [RFC5420]:
Bit Number 6 (TBD): non-PHP behavior desired bit. Bit Number 6 (TBD): non-PHP behavior desired flag.
This bit SHOULD be set by Ingress node in the Attributes Flags In order to indicate to the Ingress LSR that the Egress LSR
TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in the Path message for the LSP recognizes the "non-PHP behavior desired flag", the following new
that desires Non-PHP behavior. This bit MUST NOT be modified by bit is defined in the Flags field of the Record Route object
any other nodes in the network. Nodes other than the Egress nodes (RRO) Attributes subobject:
SHOULD ignore this bit.
If an egress node receiving the Path message, supports the Bit Number 6 (TBD): Non-PHP behavior acknowledgement flag.
An Ingress LSR sets the non-PHP behavior desired flag to signal
the egress LSRs SHOULD assign non-NULL label for the LSP being
signaled. This flag MUST NOT be modified by any other LSRs in
the network. LSRs other than the Egress LSRs SHOULD ignore this
flag.
If an egress LSR receiving the Path message, supports the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and the Attributes Flags TLV, and also LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and the Attributes Flags TLV, and also
recognizes the "non-PHP behavior desired bit", it MUST allocate a recognizes the "non-PHP behavior desired flag", it MUST allocate
non-NULL local label. If the egress node supports the a non-NULL local label. The egress LSR MUST also set the "Non-PHP
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object but does not recognize the Attributes Flags behavior acknowledgement flag" in the Flags field of the RRO
TLV, or supports the TLV as well but does not recognize this Attribute subobject.
particular bit, then it SHOULD simply ignore the above request.
An ingress node requesting non-PHP behavior MAY examine the label If the egress LSR supports the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object but does not
value corresponding to the Egress node(s) in the RRO, and MAY recognize the Attributes Flags TLV, or supports the TLV as well
send a Path Tear to the Egress which assigns a Null label value. but does not recognize this particular flag, then it SHOULD
simply ignore the above request.
An ingress LSR requesting non-PHP behavior MAY examine "Non-PHP
behavior acknowledgement flag" in the Flags field of the RRO
Attribute subobject and MAY send a Path Tear if the Egress
has not set the "Non-PHP behavior acknowledgement flag". An
ingress LSR requesting non-PHP behavior MAY also examine the
label value corresponding to the Egress LSR(s) in the RRO, and
MAY send a Path Tear if the Egress has assigns a Null label
value.
2.2. Signaling OOB Mapping Indication 2.2. Signaling OOB Mapping Indication
In order to indicate to the Egress LSR that binding of RSVP-TE This document defines a single flag to indicate that the normal
LSP to an application and payload identification is being binding mechanism of an RSVP session is overridden. The actual
communicated by an OOB mechanism, this document defines a new bit out of band mappings are beyond the scope of this document. The
in the Attributes Flags TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object defined flag is carried in the Attributes Flags TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES
in [RFC5420]: object defined in [RFC5420] and is defined as follows:
Bit Number 7 (TBD): OOB mapping indication bit. Bit Number 7 (TBD): OOB mapping indication flag.
This bit SHOULD be set by Ingress node in the Attributes Flags In order to indicate to the Ingress LSR that the Egress LSR
TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in the Path message for the LSP recognizes the "OOB mapping indication flag", the following new
that desires OOB mapping. This bit MUST NOT be modified by any bit is defined in the Flags field of the Record Route object
other nodes in the network. Nodes other than the Egress nodes (RRO) Attributes subobject:
SHOULD ignore this bit.
If an egress node receiving the Path message, supports the Bit Number 7 (TBD): OOB mapping acknowledgement flag.
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and the Attributes Flags TLV, and also
recognizes the "OOB mapping indication bit", it MUST wait for the
OOB mapping before accepting traffic on the P2MP LSP. This
implies that the egress node MUST NOT setup forwarding state for
the P2MP LSP before it receives the OOB mapping, though it SHOULD
proceed with RSVP-TE signaling and send RESV messages as per
regular RSVP-TE procedures [RFC3209]. It MUST also ignore L3PID
in the Label Request Object [RFC3209]. If the egress node
supports the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object but does not recognize the
Attributes Flags TLV, or supports the TLV as well but does not
recognize this particular bit, then it SHOULD simply ignore the
above request.
2.3. Relationship between OOB and non-PHP bits An Ingress LSR sets the OOB mapping indication flag to signal the
Egress LSR that binding of RSVP-TE LSP to an application and
payload identification is being signaled out of band. This flag
MUST NOT be modified by any other LSRs in the network. LSRs other
than the Egress LSRs SHOULD ignore this flag.
Non-PHP behavior desired and OOB mapping indication bit can When an egress LSR which supports the "OOB mapping indication
flag", receives a Path message with that flag set, the egress LSR
MUST set the "OOB mapping acknowledgement flag" in the Flags
field of the RRO Attribute subobject. The rest of the RSVP
signaling proceeds as normal. However, the LSR MUST have
received the OOB mapping before accepting traffic on the LSP.
This implies that the egress LSR MUST NOT setup forwarding state
for the LSP before it receives the OOB mapping.
Note that the payload information SHOULD be supplied by the OOB
mapping. If the egress LSR receives the payload information from
OOB mapping then the LSR MUST ignore L3PID in the Label Request
Object [RFC3209].
If the egress LSR supports the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object but does not
recognize the Attributes Flags TLV, or supports the TLV as well
but does not recognize this particular flag, then it SHOULD
simply ignore the above request.
An ingress LSR requesting OOB mapping MAY examine "OOB mapping
acknowledgement flag" in the Flags field of the RRO Attribute
subobject and MAY send a Path Tear to the Egress which has not
set the "OOB mapping acknowledgement flag".
In deploying applications where Egress LSR receives the binding
of the RSVP-TE LSP to an application, and payload identification,
using OOB mechanism, it is important to recognize that OOB
mapping is sent asynchronously w.r.t. signaling of RSVP-TE LSP.
Egress LSR only installs forwarding state for the LSP after it
receives the OOB mapping. In deploying applications using OOB
mechanism, ingress LSR may need to know when egress is properly
setup for forwarding (i.e., has received OOB mapping). How
ingress LSR determines that LSR is properly setup for forwarding
at the Egress LSR is beyond the scope of this document.
Nonetheless, if OOB mapping is not received by the egress LSR
within a reasonable time, a procedure to tear down the LSP is
defined in section 2.4.
2.3. Relationship between OOB and non-PHP flags
Non-PHP behavior desired and OOB mapping indication flags can
appear and be processed independently of each other. However, as appear and be processed independently of each other. However, as
mentioned earlier, in the context of application discussed in mentioned earlier, in the context of application discussed in
this draft, OOB mapping require non-PHP behavior. An Ingress node this draft, OOB mapping require non-PHP behavior. An Ingress LSR
requesting OOB mapping MAY also set non-PHP behavior desired bit requesting OOB mapping MAY also set non-PHP behavior desired flag
in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in the Path message. in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in the Path message.
2.4. Egress Procedure for label binding 2.4. Egress Procedure for label binding
RSVP-TE signaling completion and the OOB mapping information RSVP-TE signaling completion and the OOB mapping information
reception happen asynchronously at the Egress. As mentioned in reception happen asynchronously at the Egress. As mentioned in
Section 2, Egress waits for the OOB mapping before accepting Section 2, Egress waits for the OOB mapping before accepting
traffic on the P2MP LSP. traffic on the LSP.
In order to avoid unnecessary use of the resources and possible In order to avoid unnecessary use of the resources and possible
block-holing of traffic, if the OOB mapping information is not block-holing of traffic, if the OOB mapping information is not
received within a reasonable time, Egress MAY trigger a Path received within a reasonable time, Egress MAY trigger a Path
Error message with the error code/sub-code "Notify Error/ no OOB Error message with the error code/sub-code "Notify Error/ no OOB
mapping received" for all affected LSPs. If available, and where mapping received" for all affected LSPs. If available, and where
notify requests were included when the LSPs were initially setup, notify requests were included when the LSPs were initially setup,
Notify message (as defined in [RFC3473]) MAY also be used for Notify messages (as defined in [RFC3473]) MAY also be used for
delivery of this information to the Ingress node. Egress node may delivery of this information to the Ingress LSR. An Egress LSR
implement a cleanup timer for this purpose. The time-out value is MAY implement a cleanup timer for this purpose. The time-out
a local decision at the Egress, with recommended default value is value is a local decision at the Egress, with a RECOMMENDED
to be added later. default value of 60 seconds.
3. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any new security issues above This document does not introduce any new security issues above
those identified in [RFC3209], [RFC5420] and [RSVP-TE-P2MP]. those identified in [RFC3209], [RFC5420] and [RFC4875].
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
4.1. Attribute Flags for LSP_ATTRIBUTES object 4.1. Attribute Flags for LSP_ATTRIBUTES object
The following new bit is being defined for the Attributes Flags The following new flags are being defined for the Attributes
TLV in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object. The numeric value is to be Flags TLV in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object. The numeric values are
assigned by IANA. to be assigned by IANA.
o Non-PHP behavior desired bit - Bit Number 6 (Suggested value). o Non-PHP behavior desired flag - Bit Number 6 (Suggested
value).
o OOB mapping indication bit - Bit Number 7 (Suggested value). o OOB mapping indication flag - Bit Number 7 (Suggested value).
These bits are only to be used in the Attributes Flags TLV on a These flags are only to be used in the Attributes Flags TLV on a
Path message. Path message. These flags have corresponding new flags to be used
in the RRO Attributes subobject. As per RFC5420 [RFC5420], the
bit numbering in the Attribute Flags TLV and the RRO Attributes
subobject is identical. That is, the same attribute is indicated
by the same bit in both places. Specifically, the numeric values
for the corresponding new flags to be used in the RRO Attributes
subobject are to be assigned by IANA.
The following new error sub-code for Error Code = 25 "Notify o OOB mapping acknowledgement flag - Bit Number 6 (Suggested
Error" (see [RFC3209]) is needed. The numeric value for this sub- value).
code is to be assigned by IANA.
o No OOB mapping received. o Non-PHP behavior acknowledgement flag - Bit Number 7
(Suggested value).
For Error Code = 25 "Notify Error" (see [RFC3209]) the following
sub-code is defined.
Sub-code Value
-------- -----
No OOB mapping received 12 (TBD)
5. Acknowledgments 5. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Yakov Rekhter for his suggestions The authors would like to thank Yakov Rekhter for his suggestions
on the draft. on the draft.
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[RFC5420] A. Farrel, D. Papadimitriou, J. P. Vasseur and A. [RFC5420] A. Farrel, D. Papadimitriou, J. P. Vasseur and A.
Ayyangar, "Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Ayyangar, "Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP)
Establishment Using RSVP-TE", RFC 5420. Establishment Using RSVP-TE", RFC 5420, February 2006.
[RFC3209] D. Awduche, L. Berger, D. Gan, T. Li, V. Srinivasan, [RFC3209] D. Awduche, L. Berger, D. Gan, T. Li, V. Srinivasan,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RSVP-TE-P2MP] R. Aggarwal, D. Papadimitriou, S. Yasukawa, et al, [RFC4875] R. Aggarwal, D. Papadimitriou, S. Yasukawa, et al,
"Extensions to RSVP-TE for Point-to-Multipoint TE "Extensions to RSVP-TE for Point-to-Multipoint TE
LSPs", RFC4875. LSPs", RFC 4875.
[RFC3473] L. Berger, Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3473] L. Berger, Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
3473, January 2003. 3473, January 2003.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[MVPN] E. Rosen, R. Aggarwal et al, "Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP [MVPN] E. Rosen, R. Aggarwal et al, "Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
VPNs", draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-07.txt. VPNs", draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-08.txt, work in
progress.
[VPLS] R. Aggarwal, et al, "Propagation of VPLS IP Multicast [VPLS] R. Aggarwal, et al, "Propagation of VPLS IP Multicast
Group Membership Information", draft-raggarwa-l2vpn- Group Membership Information", draft-raggarwa-l2vpn-
vpls-mcast-ctrl-00.txt, work in progress. vpls-mcast-ctrl-00.txt, work in progress.
[UPSTREAM] TBA. [MPLS-TP-Framework] M. Bocci, S. Bryant, et al, "A Framework for
MPLS in Transport Networks",
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-06, work in progress.
Author's Addresses Author's Addresses
Zafar Ali Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: zali@cisco.com Email: zali@cisco.com
George Swallow George Swallow
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: swallow@cisco.com Email: swallow@cisco.com
Rahul Aggarwal Rahul Aggarwal
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
Email: rahul@juniper.net rahul@juniper.net
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
the document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
date of publication of this document publication of this document
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these
documents carefully, as they describe your rights and documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions
restrictions with respect to this document. with respect to this document.
Legal Legal
This documents and the information contained therein are provided This documents and the information contained therein are provided
on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
 End of changes. 43 change blocks. 
125 lines changed or deleted 188 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.37a. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/