draft-psarkar-idr-bgp-ls-node-admin-tag-extension-04.txt   draft-psarkar-idr-bgp-ls-node-admin-tag-extension-05.txt 
Inter-Domain Routing P. Sarkar, Ed. Inter-Domain Routing P. Sarkar, Ed.
Internet-Draft H. Gredler Internet-Draft Individual Contributor
Intended status: Standards Track Individual Contributor Intended status: Standards Track H. Gredler
Expires: November 14, 2016 S. Litkowski Expires: May 18, 2017 RtBrick, Inc.
S. Litkowski
Orange Orange
May 13, 2016 November 14, 2016
Advertising Node Admin Tags in BGP Link-State Advertisements Advertising Node Admin Tags in BGP Link-State Advertisements
draft-psarkar-idr-bgp-ls-node-admin-tag-extension-04 draft-psarkar-idr-bgp-ls-node-admin-tag-extension-05
Abstract Abstract
This document describes the protocol extensions to collect node This document describes the protocol extensions to collect node
administrative tags adevertised in IGP Link State advertisements and administrative tags adevertised in IGP Link State advertisements and
disseminate the same in BGP Link-State advertisement protocol, to disseminate the same in BGP Link-State advertisement protocol, to
facilitate inter-AS TE applications that may need the same node facilitate inter-AS TE applications that may need the same node
administrative tags to associate a subset of network devices spanning administrative tags to associate a subset of network devices spanning
across more than one AS with a specific functionality. across more than one AS with a specific functionality.
skipping to change at page 1, line 43 skipping to change at page 1, line 44
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 November 14, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 18, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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
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
2. Per-Node Administrative Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Per-Node Administrative Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. BGP-LS Extensions for Per-Node Administrative Tags . . . . . 4 3. BGP-LS Extensions for Per-Node Administrative Tags . . . . . 5
3.1. Node Admin Tag TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Node Admin Tag TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.1. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1.1. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.1.1. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. TLV/Sub-TLV Code Points Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. TLV/Sub-TLV Code Points Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Advertising Node Administrative Tags in Link State protocols like IS- Advertising Node Administrative Tags in Link State protocols like IS-
IS [I-D.ietf-isis-node-admin-tag] and OSPF IS [RFC7917] and OSPF [RFC7777] allows adding an optional operational
[I-D.ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag] allows adding an optional operational
capability, that allows tagging and grouping of the nodes in a IGP capability, that allows tagging and grouping of the nodes in a IGP
domain. This, among other applications, allows simple management and domain. This, among other applications, allows simple management and
easy control over route and path selection, based on local configured easy control over route and path selection, based on local configured
policies. However node administrative tags advertised in IGP policies. However node administrative tags advertised in IGP
advertisements let network operators associate nodes within a single advertisements let network operators associate nodes within a single
AS (if not a single area). This limits the use of such node AS (if not a single area). This limits the use of such node
administrative tags and applications that need to associate a subset administrative tags and applications that need to associate a subset
of network devices spanning across multiple AS with a specific of network devices spanning across multiple AS with a specific
functionality cannot use them. functionality cannot use them.
To address the need for applications that require visibility into To address the need for applications that require visibility into
LSDB across IGP areas, or even across ASes, the BGP-LS address- LSDB across IGP areas, or even across ASes, the BGP-LS address-
family/sub-address-family have been defined that allows BGP to carry family/sub-address-family have been defined that allows BGP to carry
LSDB information. The BGP Network Layer Reachability Information LSDB information. The BGP Network Layer Reachability Information
(NLRI) encoding format for BGP-LS and a new BGP Path Attribute called (NLRI) encoding format for BGP-LS and a new BGP Path Attribute called
BGP-LS attribute are defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]. The BGP-LS attribute are defined in [RFC7752]. The identifying key of
identifying key of each LSDB object, namely a node, a link or a each LSDB object, namely a node, a link or a prefix, is encoded in
prefix, is encoded in the NLRI and the properties of the object are the NLRI and the properties of the object are encoded in the BGP-LS
encoded in the BGP-LS attribute. Figure 1 describes a typical attribute. Figure 1 describes a typical deployment scenario. In
deployment scenario. In each IGP area, one or more nodes are each IGP area, one or more nodes are configured with BGP-LS. These
configured with BGP-LS. These BGP speakers form an IBGP mesh by BGP speakers form an IBGP mesh by connecting to one or more route-
connecting to one or more route-reflectors. This way, all BGP reflectors. This way, all BGP speakers - specifically the route-
speakers - specifically the route-reflectors - obtain LSDB reflectors - obtain LSDB information from all IGP areas (and from
information from all IGP areas (and from other ASes from EBGP peers). other ASes from EBGP peers). An external component connects to the
An external component connects to the route-reflector to obtain this route-reflector to obtain this information (perhaps moderated by a
information (perhaps moderated by a policy regarding what information policy regarding what information is sent to the external component,
is sent to the external component, and what information isn't). and what information isn't).
+------------+ +------------+
| Consumer | | Consumer |
+------------+ +------------+
^ ^
| |
v v
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| BGP Speaker | +-----------+ | BGP Speaker | +-----------+
| (Route-Reflector) | | Consumer | | (Route-Reflector) | | Consumer |
skipping to change at page 3, line 48 skipping to change at page 4, line 5
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
| | | | | |
IGP IGP IGP IGP IGP IGP
Figure 1: Link State info collection Figure 1: Link State info collection
For the purpose of advertising node administrative tags within BGP For the purpose of advertising node administrative tags within BGP
Link-State advertisements, a new Node Attribute TLV to be carried in Link-State advertisements, a new Node Attribute TLV to be carried in
the corresponding BGP-LS Node NLRI is proposed. For more details on the corresponding BGP-LS Node NLRI is proposed. For more details on
the Node Attribute TLVs please refer to section 3.3.1 in the Node Attribute TLVs please refer to section 3.3.1 in [RFC7752]
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]
2. Per-Node Administrative Tag 2. Per-Node Administrative Tag
An administrative Tag is a 32-bit integer value that can be used to An administrative Tag is a 32-bit integer value that can be used to
identify a group of nodes in the entire routing domain. The new sub- identify a group of nodes in the entire routing domain. The new sub-
TLV specifies one or more administrative tag values. A BGP Link- TLV specifies one or more administrative tag values. A BGP Link-
State speaker that also participates in the IGP link state State speaker that also participates in the IGP link state
advertisements exchange may learn one or more node administrative advertisements exchange may learn one or more node administrative
tags advertised by another router in the same IGP domain. Such BGP- tags advertised by another router in the same IGP domain. Such BGP-
LS speaker shall encode the same set of node administrative tags in LS speaker shall encode the same set of node administrative tags in
skipping to change at page 4, line 44 skipping to change at page 4, line 46
To be able to distinguish between the significance of a per-area(or To be able to distinguish between the significance of a per-area(or
level) administrative tag learnt in one area, from that advertised in level) administrative tag learnt in one area, from that advertised in
another area, or another AS, any applications receiving such a BGP-LS another area, or another AS, any applications receiving such a BGP-LS
advertisements MUST consider the scope associated with each node advertisements MUST consider the scope associated with each node
administrative tag with 'per-area (or per-level) along with the administrative tag with 'per-area (or per-level) along with the
area(or level in IS-IS) associated with corresponding IGP link state area(or level in IS-IS) associated with corresponding IGP link state
advertisement and the AS number associated with the originating node. advertisement and the AS number associated with the originating node.
The area(or level) associated with corresponding IGP link state The area(or level) associated with corresponding IGP link state
advertisement and the AS number associated with the originating node advertisement and the AS number associated with the originating node
can be derived from appropriate node attributes (already defined in can be derived from appropriate node attributes (already defined in
BGP-LS [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]) attached with the BGP-LS [RFC7752]) attached with the corresponding Node NLRI.
corresponding Node NLRI.
3. BGP-LS Extensions for Per-Node Administrative Tags 3. BGP-LS Extensions for Per-Node Administrative Tags
The BGP-LS NLRI can be a node NLRI, a link NLRI or a prefix NLRI. The BGP-LS NLRI can be a node NLRI, a link NLRI or a prefix NLRI.
The corresponding BGP-LS attribute is a node attribute, a link The corresponding BGP-LS attribute is a node attribute, a link
attribute or a prefix attribute. BGP-LS attribute or a prefix attribute. BGP-LS [RFC7752] defines the TLVs
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] defines the TLVs that map link-state that map link-state information to BGP-LS NLRI and BGP-LS attribute.
information to BGP-LS NLRI and BGP-LS attribute. This document adds This document adds an new Node Attribute TLV called 'Node Admin Tag
an new Node Attribute TLV called 'Node Admin Tag TLV' to encode node TLV' to encode node administrative tags information.
administrative tags information.
[I-D.ietf-isis-node-admin-tag] defines the 'Node Admin Tag' sub-TLV [RFC7917] defines the 'Node Admin Tag' sub-TLV in the Router
in the Router Capability TLV (type 242) in IS-IS Link State PDUs to Capability TLV (type 242) in IS-IS Link State PDUs to encode node
encode node administrative tags. Similarly administrative tags. Similarly [RFC7917] defines the 'Node
[I-D.ietf-isis-node-admin-tag] defines the 'Node Administrative Tag' Administrative Tag' TLV in OSPF Router Information LSAs to encode
TLV in OSPF Router Information LSAs to encode node administrative node administrative tags in OSPF Link State update packets. The node
tags in OSPF Link State update packets. The node administrative tags administrative tags TLVs learnt from the IGP link state
TLVs learnt from the IGP link state advertisements of a specific node advertisements of a specific node will all be inserted in a new Node
will all be inserted in a new Node Admin Tag TLV and added to the Admin Tag TLV and added to the corresponding Node are mapped to the
corresponding Node are mapped to the corresponding BGP-LS Node NLRI. corresponding BGP-LS Node NLRI. Node administrative tags from IGP
Node administrative tags from IGP advertisements are mapped to the advertisements are mapped to the corresponding Node Admin Tag TLV in
corresponding Node Admin Tag TLV in the following way. the following way.
+----------+---------------+----------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------+----------+---------------+-------------+
| TLV Code | Description | Length | IS-IS TLV | OSPF | | TLV Code | Description | Length | IS-IS TLV | OSPF |
| Point | | | /sub-TLV | LSA/TLV | | Point | | | /sub-TLV | LSA/TLV |
+----------+---------------+----------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------+----------+---------------+-------------+
| TBD | Node Admin | Variable | 242/TBD [1] | RI-LSA/TBD | | TBD | Node Admin | Variable | 242/TBD [1] | RI-LSA/TBD |
| | Tag TLV | | | [2] | | | Tag TLV | | | [2] |
+----------+---------------+----------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------+----------+---------------+-------------+
Table 1: Node Admin Tag TLV Mapping from IGP Table 1: Node Admin Tag TLV Mapping from IGP
skipping to change at page 8, line 13 skipping to change at page 8, line 13
carried by the Node Admin Tag TLV SHOULD be used to indicate a carried by the Node Admin Tag TLV SHOULD be used to indicate a
independent characteristics of the node in IGP domain that originated independent characteristics of the node in IGP domain that originated
it. The TLV SHOULD be considered as an unordered list. Whilst it. The TLV SHOULD be considered as an unordered list. Whilst
policies may be implemented based on the presence of multiple tags policies may be implemented based on the presence of multiple tags
(e.g., if tag A AND tag B are present), they MUST NOT be reliant upon (e.g., if tag A AND tag B are present), they MUST NOT be reliant upon
the order of the tags (i.e., all policies should be considered the order of the tags (i.e., all policies should be considered
commutative operations, such that tag A preceding or following tag B commutative operations, such that tag A preceding or following tag B
does not change their outcome). does not change their outcome).
For more details on guidance on usage of node administrative tags For more details on guidance on usage of node administrative tags
please refer to section 4 [3] in [I-D.ietf-isis-node-admin-tag]. please refer to section 4 [3] in [RFC7917].
5. Applications 5. Applications
[I-D.ietf-isis-node-admin-tag] and [I-D.ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag] [RFC7917] and [RFC7777] present some applications of node
present some applications of node administrative tags. administrative tags.
The policy-based Explicit routing use case can be extended to inter- The Policy-based Explicit routing use case can be extended to inter-
area or inter-AS scenarios where an end to end path needs to avoid or area or inter-AS scenarios where an end to end path needs to avoid or
include nodes that have particular properties. Following are some include nodes that have particular properties. Following are some
examples. examples.
1. Geopolitical routing : preventing traffic from country A to 1. Geopolitical routing : preventing traffic from country A to
country B to cross country C. In this case, we may use node country B to cross country C. In this case, we may use node
administrative tags to encode geographical information (country). administrative tags to encode geographical information (country).
Path computation will be required to take into account node Path computation will be required to take into account node
administrative tag to permit avoidance of nodes belonging to administrative tag to permit avoidance of nodes belonging to
country C. country C.
skipping to change at page 8, line 44 skipping to change at page 8, line 44
in the network. For example, legacy nodes may not be carrier in the network. For example, legacy nodes may not be carrier
class (no high availability), and service provider wants to class (no high availability), and service provider wants to
ensure that critical traffic only uses nodes that are providing ensure that critical traffic only uses nodes that are providing
high availability. high availability.
In case of inter-AS Traffic-Engineering applications, different ASes In case of inter-AS Traffic-Engineering applications, different ASes
SHOULD share their administrative tag policies. They MAY also need SHOULD share their administrative tag policies. They MAY also need
to agree upon some common tagging policy for specific applications. to agree upon some common tagging policy for specific applications.
For more details on some possible applications with node For more details on some possible applications with node
administrative tags please refer to section 5 [4] in administrative tags please refer to section 3 [4] in [RFC7777].
[I-D.ietf-isis-node-admin-tag].
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This document requests assigning code-points from the registry for This document requests assigning code-points from the registry for
BGP-LS attribute TLVs based on table Table 2. BGP-LS attribute TLVs based on table Table 2.
7. Manageability Considerations 7. Manageability Considerations
This section is structured as recommended in [RFC5706]. This section is structured as recommended in [RFC5706].
skipping to change at page 9, line 38 skipping to change at page 9, line 38
9. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not
affect the BGP security model. See the 'Security Considerations' affect the BGP security model. See the 'Security Considerations'
section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. Also refer to section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. Also refer to
[RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analysis of security issues for BGP. [RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analysis of security issues for BGP.
10. Acknowledgements 10. Acknowledgements
TBD. TBA.
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]
Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S.
Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE
Information using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-13
(work in progress), October 2015.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
11.2. Informative References [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
[I-D.ietf-isis-node-admin-tag] Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
Sarkar, P., Gredler, H., Hegde, S., Litkowski, S., DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
Decraene, B., Li, Z., Aries, E., Rodriguez, R., and H. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
Raghuveer, "Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS",
draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-00 (work in progress),
December 2014.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag] 11.2. Informative References
Hegde, S., Raghuveer, H., Gredler, H., Shakir, R.,
Smirnov, A., Li, Z., and B. Decraene, "Advertising per-
node administrative tags in OSPF", draft-ietf-ospf-node-
admin-tag-00 (work in progress), October 2014.
[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", [RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006, RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.
[RFC5706] Harrington, D., "Guidelines for Considering Operations and [RFC5706] Harrington, D., "Guidelines for Considering Operations and
Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions", Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions",
RFC 5706, DOI 10.17487/RFC5706, November 2009, RFC 5706, DOI 10.17487/RFC5706, November 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5706>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5706>.
[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of [RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying
and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design
Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013, Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
[RFC7777] Hegde, S., Shakir, R., Smirnov, A., Li, Z., and B.
Decraene, "Advertising Node Administrative Tags in OSPF",
RFC 7777, DOI 10.17487/RFC7777, March 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7777>.
[RFC7917] Sarkar, P., Ed., Gredler, H., Hegde, S., Litkowski, S.,
and B. Decraene, "Advertising Node Administrative Tags in
IS-IS", RFC 7917, DOI 10.17487/RFC7917, July 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7917>.
11.3. URIs 11.3. URIs
[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag- [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7917#section-3.1
00#section-3.1
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag- [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7777#section-2.1
00#section-4.1
[3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag- [3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7917#section-4
00#section-4
[4] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag- [4] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7777#section-3
00#section-5
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Pushpasis Sarkar (editor) Pushpasis Sarkar (editor)
Individual Contributor Individual Contributor
Email: pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com Email: pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com
Hannes Gredler Hannes Gredler
Individual Contributor RtBrick, Inc.
Email: hannes@gredler.at Email: hannes@rtbrick.com
Stephane Litkowski Stephane Litkowski
Orange Orange
Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
 End of changes. 28 change blocks. 
79 lines changed or deleted 67 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/