draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-08.txt   rfc9025.txt 
DetNet B. Varga, Ed. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Varga, Ed.
Internet-Draft J. Farkas Request for Comments: 9025 J. Farkas
Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson Category: Standards Track Ericsson
Expires: June 17, 2021 L. Berger ISSN: 2070-1721 L. Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
A. Malis A. Malis
Malis Consulting Malis Consulting
S. Bryant S. Bryant
Futurewei Technologies Futurewei Technologies
December 14, 2020 April 2021
DetNet Data Plane: MPLS over UDP/IP Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: MPLS over UDP/IP
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-08
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies the MPLS Deterministic Networking data plane This document specifies the MPLS Deterministic Networking (DetNet)
operation and encapsulation over an IP network. The approach is data plane operation and encapsulation over an IP network. The
based on the operation of MPLS-in-UDP technology. approach is based on the operation of MPLS-over-UDP technology.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 17, 2021. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9025.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology
2.1. Terms Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Terms Used in This Document
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Abbreviations
2.3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3. Requirements Language
3. DetNet MPLS Operation over DetNet 3. DetNet MPLS Operation over DetNet IP PSNs
IP PSNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. DetNet Data Plane Procedures
4. DetNet Data Plane Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Management and Control Information Summary
5. Management and Control Information Summary . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Security Considerations
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. IANA Considerations
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. References
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.1. Normative References
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.2. Informative References
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Acknowledgements
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Contributors
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Deterministic Networking (DetNet) is a service that can be offered by Deterministic Networking (DetNet) is a service that can be offered by
a network to DetNet flows. DetNet provides these flows extremely low a network to DetNet flows. DetNet provides these flows extremely low
packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end delivery latency. packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end delivery latency.
General background and concepts of DetNet can be found in [RFC8655]. General background and concepts of DetNet can be found in [RFC8655].
To carry DetNet MPLS flows with full functionality at the DetNet To carry DetNet MPLS flows with full functionality at the DetNet
layer over an IP network, the following components are required layer over an IP network, the following components are required
(these are a subset of the requirements for MPLS encapsulation listed (these are a subset of the requirements for MPLS encapsulation listed
in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]): in [RFC8964]):
1. A method for identifying DetNet flows to the processing element. 1. A method for identifying DetNet flows to the processing element.
2. A method for carrying the DetNet sequence number. 2. A method for carrying the DetNet sequence number.
3. A method for distinguishing DetNet OAM packets from DetNet data 3. A method for distinguishing DetNet Operations, Administration,
packets. and Maintenance (OAM) packets from DetNet data packets.
4. A method for carrying queueing and forwarding indication. 4. A method for carrying queuing and forwarding indication.
These requirements are satisfied by the DetNet over MPLS These requirements are satisfied by the DetNet over MPLS
Encapsulation described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] and they are partly Encapsulation described in [RFC8964] and they are partly satisfied
satisfied (i.e., IP flows can be identified however no DetNet (i.e., IP flows can be identified; however, no DetNet sequence number
sequence number is carried) by the DetNet IP data plane defined in is carried) by the DetNet IP data plane defined in [RFC8939].
[I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]
This document specifies use of the MPLS DetNet encapsulation over an This document specifies use of the MPLS DetNet encapsulation over an
IP network. The approach is modeled on the operation of MPLS over an IP network. The approach is modeled on the operation of MPLS over an
IP Packet Switched Network (PSN) [RFC7510]. It maps the MPLS data IP Packet Switched Network (PSN) using UDP encapsulation [RFC7510].
plane encapsulation described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] to the DetNet It maps the MPLS data plane encapsulation described in [RFC8964] to
IP data plane defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. the DetNet IP data plane defined in [RFC8939].
As specified in [RFC7510]: "MPLS-in-UDP MUST NOT be used over the [RFC7510] specifies that "MPLS-in-UDP MUST NOT be used over the
general Internet, or over non-cooperating network operators, to carry general Internet, or over non-cooperating network operators, to carry
traffic that is not congestion controlled." This does apply to traffic that is not congestion controlled." This constraint does
DetNet networks as this document focuses on solutions for networks apply to the use of RFC 7510 in a DetNet network because DetNet is
that are under a single administrative control or within a closed constrained to operate within a single administrative control or
group of administrative control. within a closed group of administrative control.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
2.1. Terms Used in This Document 2.1. Terms Used in This Document
This document uses the terminology established in the DetNet This document uses the terminology established in the DetNet
architecture [RFC8655], and the reader is assumed to be familiar with architecture [RFC8655]; the reader is assumed to be familiar with
that document and its terminology. that document and its terminology.
2.2. Abbreviations 2.2. Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this document: The following abbreviations are used in this document:
d-CW A DetNet Control Word (d-CW) is used for sequencing and d-CW A DetNet Control Word (d-CW) is used for sequencing and
identifying duplicate packets of a DetNet flow at the identifying duplicate packets of a DetNet flow at the
DetNet service sub-layer. DetNet service sub-layer.
DetNet Deterministic Networking. DetNet Deterministic Networking
DSCP Differentiated Services Code Point
A-Label A special case of an S-Label, whose properties are A-Label A special case of an S-Label, whose properties are
known only at the aggregation and deaggregation end- known only at the aggregation and deaggregation
points. endpoints.
F-Label A Detnet "forwarding" label that identifies the LSP F-Label A DetNet "forwarding" label that identifies the LSP
used to forward a DetNet flow across an MPLS PSN, e.g., used to forward a DetNet flow across an MPLS PSN, e.g.,
a hop-by-hop label used between label switching a hop-by-hop label used between label-switching
routers. routers.
MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching. MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching
OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance. OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
PEF Packet Elimination Function. PEF Packet Elimination Function
POF Packet Ordering Function. POF Packet Ordering Function
PREOF Packet Replication, Elimination and Ordering Functions. PREOF Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions
PRF Packet Replication Function. PRF Packet Replication Function
PSN Packet Switched Network. PSN Packet Switched Network
S-Label A DetNet "service" label that is used between DetNet S-Label A DetNet "service" label that is used between DetNet
nodes that also implement the DetNet service sub-layer nodes that also implement the DetNet service sub-layer
functions. An S-Label is also used to identify a functions. An S-Label is also used to identify a
DetNet flow at DetNet service sub-layer. DetNet flow at the DetNet service sub-layer.
2.3. Requirements Language 2.3. Requirements 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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
3. DetNet MPLS Operation over DetNet IP PSNs 3. DetNet MPLS Operation over DetNet IP PSNs
This document builds on the specification of MPLS over UDP defined in This document builds on the specification of MPLS over UDP defined in
[RFC7510]. It may replace partly or entirely the F-Label(s) used in [RFC7510]. It may partly or entirely replace the F-Label(s) used in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] with UDP and IP headers. The UDP and IP [RFC8964] with UDP and IP headers. The UDP and IP header information
header information is used to identify DetNet flows, including member is used to identify DetNet flows, including member flows, per
flows, per [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. The resulting encapsulation is [RFC8939]. The resulting encapsulation is shown in Figure 1. There
shown in Figure 1. There may be zero or more F-label(s) between the may be zero or more F-Labels between the S-Label and the UDP header.
S-label and the UDP header.
Note that this encapsulation works equally well with IPv4, IPv6, and Note that this encapsulation works equally well with IPv4, IPv6, and
IPv6-based Segment Routing [RFC8754]. IPv6-based Segment Routing [RFC8754].
+---------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+
| | | |
| DetNet App-Flow | | DetNet App-Flow |
| Payload Packet | | Payload Packet |
| | | |
+---------------------------------+ <--\ +---------------------------------+ <--\
| DetNet Control Word | | | DetNet Control Word | |
+---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet data plane +---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet data plane
| S-Label | | MPLS encapsulation | S-Label | | MPLS encapsulation
+---------------------------------+ | +---------------------------------+ |
| [ F-label(s) ] | | | [ F-Label(s) ] | |
+---------------------------------+ <--+ +---------------------------------+ <--+
| UDP Header | | | UDP Header | |
+---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet data plane +---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet data plane
| IP Header | | IP encapsulation | IP Header | | IP encapsulation
+---------------------------------+ <--/ +---------------------------------+ <--/
| Data-Link | | Data-Link |
+---------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+
| Physical | | Physical |
+---------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+
Figure 1: UDP/IP Encapsulation of DetNet MPLS Figure 1: UDP/IP Encapsulation of DetNet MPLS
S-Labels, A-Labels (when present), d-CW and zero or more F-Labels are S-Labels, A-Labels (when present), d-CW, and zero or more F-Labels
used as defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] and are not modified by are used as defined in [RFC8964] and are not modified by this
this document. document.
4. DetNet Data Plane Procedures 4. DetNet Data Plane Procedures
To support outgoing DetNet MPLS over UDP encapsulation, an To support outgoing DetNet MPLS over UDP encapsulation, an
implementation MUST support the provisioning of UDP and IP header implementation MUST support the provisioning of UDP and IP header
information in addition to or in place of F-Label(s). Note, when PRF information in addition to or in place of F-Label(s). Note, when the
is performed at the MPLS service sub-layer, there will be multiple PRF is performed at the MPLS service sub-layer, there will be
member flows, and each member flow will require the provisioning of multiple member flows, and each member flow will require the
their own UDP and IP header information. The headers for each provisioning of their own UDP and IP header information. The headers
outgoing packet MUST be formatted according to the configuration for each outgoing packet MUST be formatted according to the
information and as defined in [RFC7510], and the UDP Source Port configuration information and as defined in [RFC7510], and the UDP
value MUST be set to uniquely identify the DetNet flow. The packet Source Port value MUST be set to uniquely identify the DetNet flow.
MUST then be handled as a DetNet IP packet, per [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. The packet MUST then be handled as a DetNet IP packet, per [RFC8939].
This includes QoS related traffic treatment. This includes QoS-related traffic treatment.
To support the receive processing defined in this document, an To support the receive processing defined in this document, an
implementation MUST also support the provisioning of received UDP and implementation MUST also support the provisioning of received UDP and
IP header information. The provisioned information MUST be used to IP header information. The provisioned information MUST be used to
identify incoming app-flows based on the combination of S-Label and identify incoming app flows based on the combination of S-Label and
incoming encapsulation header information. Normal receive processing incoming encapsulation header information. Normal receive processing
as defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls], including PEF and POF, can then as defined in [RFC8964], including PEF and POF, can then take place.
take place.
5. Management and Control Information Summary 5. Management and Control Information Summary
The following summarizes the minimum set of information that is The following summarizes the minimum set of information that is
needed to configure DetNet MPLS over UDP/IP: needed to configure DetNet MPLS over UDP/IP:
o Label information (A-labels, S-labels and F-labels) to be mapped * Label information (A-Labels, S-Labels, and F-Labels) to be mapped
to UDP/IP flows. Note that for example, a single S-Label can map to UDP/IP flows. Note that, for example, a single S-Label can map
to multiple sets of UDP/IP information when PREOF is used. to multiple sets of UDP/IP information when PREOF is used.
o IPv4 or IPv6 source address field. * IPv4 or IPv6 source address field
o IPv4 or IPv6 destination address field. * IPv4 or IPv6 destination address field
o DSCP Field in either IPv4 Type of Service or IPv6 Traffic Class * DSCP Field in either IPv4 Type of Service or IPv6 Traffic Class
Fields. Fields
o UDP Source Port. * UDP Source Port
o UDP Destination Port. * UDP Destination Port
o Use/non-use of UDP checksum. * Use/non-use of UDP checksum
This information MUST be provisioned per DetNet flow via This information MUST be provisioned per DetNet flow via
configuration, e.g., via the controller [RFC8655] or management configuration, e.g., via the controller [RFC8655] or management
plane. Not using the UDP checksum has to be evaluated on a case-by- plane. Not using the UDP checksum has to be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis for a given network scenario based on the exception case basis for a given network scenario based on the exception
criteria's defined in [RFC7510], particularly when IPv6 is used. criteria defined in [RFC7510], particularly when IPv6 is used.
It is the responsibility of the DetNet controller plane to properly It is the responsibility of the DetNet Controller Plane to properly
provision both flow identification information and the flow specific provision both flow identification information and the flow-specific
resources needed to provide the traffic treatment needed to meet each resources needed to provide the traffic treatment needed to meet each
flow's service requirements. This applies for aggregated and flow's service requirements. This applies for both aggregated and
individual flows. individual flows.
Note: In the presence of network (and port) address translation | Note: In the presence of network (and port) address translation
devices/functions it would be up to the controller plane to determine | devices/functions, it would be up to the Controller Plane to
the appropriate information to ensure proper mapping at the sender/ | determine the appropriate information to ensure proper mapping
receiver. | at the sender/receiver.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
The solution defined in this document reuses mechanisms specified in The solution defined in this document reuses mechanisms specified in
other documents, and the security considerations in those documents other documents, and the security considerations in those documents
apply equally to this document. Of particular note is [RFC7510], as apply equally to this document. Of particular note is [RFC7510], as
this document is primarily an application of MPLS-in-UDP. this document is primarily an application of MPLS-over-UDP.
Additionally, the security considerations of DetNet in general are Additionally, the security considerations of DetNet in general are
discussed in [RFC8655] and [I-D.ietf-detnet-security]. Finally, MPLS discussed in [RFC8655] and [DETNET-SECURITY]. Finally, MPLS- and IP-
and IP specific security considerations are described in specific security considerations are described in [RFC8964] and
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] and [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. This draft does not [RFC8939]. This document does not have additional security
have additional security considerations. considerations.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This document makes no IANA requests. This document has no IANA actions.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Pat Thaler, Norman Finn, Loa Anderson,
David Black, Rodney Cummings, Ethan Grossman, Tal Mizrahi, David
Mozes, Craig Gunther, George Swallow, Yuanlong Jiang and Carlos J.
Bernardos for their various contributions to this work.
9. Contributors
This document is derived from an earlier draft that was edited by
Jouni Korhonen (jouni.nospam@gmail.com) and as such, he contributed
to and authored text in this document.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-detnet-ip] 8. References
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., and S.
Bryant, "DetNet Data Plane: IP", draft-ietf-detnet-ip-07
(work in progress), July 2020.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] 8.1. Normative References
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., Bryant, S.,
and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS", draft-ietf-
detnet-mpls-13 (work in progress), October 2020.
[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, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7510] Xu, X., Sheth, N., Yong, L., Callon, R., and D. Black, [RFC7510] Xu, X., Sheth, N., Yong, L., Callon, R., and D. Black,
"Encapsulating MPLS in UDP", RFC 7510, "Encapsulating MPLS in UDP", RFC 7510,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7510, April 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7510, April 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7510>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7510>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
10.2. Informative References [RFC8939] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., and S.
Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane:
IP", RFC 8939, DOI 10.17487/RFC8939, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8939>.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-security] [RFC8964] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., Bryant,
Grossman, E., Mizrahi, T., and A. Hacker, "Deterministic S., and J. Korhonen, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet)
Networking (DetNet) Security Considerations", draft-ietf- Data Plane: MPLS", RFC 8964, DOI 10.17487/RFC8964, January
detnet-security-12 (work in progress), October 2020. 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8964>.
8.2. Informative References
[DETNET-SECURITY]
Grossman, E., Ed., Mizrahi, T., and A. J. Hacker,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security
Considerations", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-detnet-security-16, 22 February 2021,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-detnet-security-
16>.
[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, [RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655, "Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019, DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., [RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020, (SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Pat Thaler, Norman Finn, Loa Anderson,
David Black, Rodney Cummings, Ethan Grossman, Tal Mizrahi, David
Mozes, Craig Gunther, George Swallow, Yuanlong Jiang, and Carlos
J. Bernardos for their various contributions to this work.
Contributors
This document is derived from an earlier draft that was edited by
Jouni Korhonen (jouni.nospam@gmail.com), and as such, he contributed
to and authored text in this document.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Balazs Varga (editor) Balázs Varga (editor)
Ericsson Ericsson
Budapest
Magyar Tudosok krt. 11. Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
Budapest 1117 1117
Hungary Hungary
Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com
Janos Farkas János Farkas
Ericsson Ericsson
Budapest
Magyar Tudosok krt. 11. Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
Budapest 1117 1117
Hungary Hungary
Email: janos.farkas@ericsson.com Email: janos.farkas@ericsson.com
Lou Berger Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: lberger@labn.net Email: lberger@labn.net
Andrew G. Malis Andrew G. Malis
Malis Consulting Malis Consulting
Email: agmalis@gmail.com Email: agmalis@gmail.com
Stewart Bryant Stewart Bryant
Futurewei Technologies Futurewei Technologies
Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com Email: sb@stewartbryant.com
 End of changes. 63 change blocks. 
152 lines changed or deleted 151 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/