draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-00.txt		draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-01.txt
	Network Working Group A. Morton		Network Working Group A. Morton
	Internet-Draft AT&T Labs		Internet-Draft AT&T Labs
	Updates: 2330 (if approved) J. Fabini		Updates: 2330 (if approved) J. Fabini
	Intended status: Informational TU Wien		Intended status: Informational TU Wien
	Expires: January 5, 2017 N. Elkins		Expires: September 7, 2017 N. Elkins
	Inside Products, Inc.		Inside Products, Inc.
	M. Ackermann		M. Ackermann
	Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan		Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
	V. Hegde		V. Hegde
	Consultant		Consultant
	July 04, 2016		March 6, 2017
	IPv6 Updates for IPPM's Active Metric Framework		IPv6 Updates for IPPM's Active Metric Framework
	draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-00		draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-01
	Abstract		Abstract
	This memo updates the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework RFC		This memo updates the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework RFC
	2330 with new considerations for measurement methodology and testing.		2330 with new considerations for measurement methodology and testing.
	The memo updates the definition of standard-formed packets in RFC		It updates the definition of standard-formed packets in RFC 2330 to
	2330 to include IPv6 packets. It also augments distinguishing		include IPv6 packets and augments distinguishing aspects of packets,
	aspects of packets, referred to as Type-P for test packets in RFC		referred to as Type-P for test packets in RFC 2330. This memo
	2330.		identifies that IPv4-IPv6 co-existence can challenge measurements
			within the scope of the IPPM Framework. Exemplary use cases include,
	Two points (at least) are worthwhile discussing further: extent of		but are not limited to IPv4-IPv6 translation, NAT, protocol
	coverage for 6LO and IPv6 Header Compression, and the continued need		encapsulation, or IPv6 header compression.
	to define a "minimal standard-formed packet".
	Requirements Language		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", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].		document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	skipping to change at page 2, line 6 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 4 ¶
	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 7, 2017.
	This Internet-Draft will expire on January 5, 2017.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2016 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
	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. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. Packets of Type-P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		3. Packets of Type-P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	4. Standard-Formed Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		4. Standard-Formed Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		5. NAT, IPv4-IPv6 Transition and Compression Techniques . . . . 7
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) working group first created a		The IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) working group first created a
	framework for metric development in [RFC2330]. This framework has		framework for metric development in [RFC2330]. This framework has
	stood the test of time and enabled development of many fundamental		stood the test of time and enabled development of many fundamental
	metrics. It has been updated in the area of metric composition		metrics. It has been updated in the area of metric composition
	[RFC5835], and in several areas related to active stream measurement		[RFC5835], and in several areas related to active stream measurement
	of modern networks with reactive properties [RFC7312].		of modern networks with reactive properties [RFC7312].
	skipping to change at page 4, line 23 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 21 ¶
	of the exact type of traffic being measured.		of the exact type of traffic being measured.
	If the information constituting Type-P at the Source is found to have		If the information constituting Type-P at the Source is found to have
	changed at the Destination (or at a measurement point between the		changed at the Destination (or at a measurement point between the
	Source and Destination, as in [RFC5644]), then the modified values		Source and Destination, as in [RFC5644]), then the modified values
	SHOULD be noted and reported with the results. Some modifications		SHOULD be noted and reported with the results. Some modifications
	occur according to the conditions encountered in transit (such as		occur according to the conditions encountered in transit (such as
	congestion notification) or due to the requirements of segments of		congestion notification) or due to the requirements of segments of
	the Source to Destination path. For example, the packet length will		the Source to Destination path. For example, the packet length will
	change if IP headers are converted to the alternate version/address		change if IP headers are converted to the alternate version/address
	family, or if optional Extension Headers are added or removed. Local		family, or if optional Extension Headers are added or removed. Even
	policies in intermediate nodes based on examination of IPv6 Extension		header fields like TTL/Hop Limit that typically change in transit may
	Headers may affect measurement repeatability. If intermediate nodes		be relevant to specific tests. For example Neighbor Discovery
	follow the recommendations of [RFC7045], repeatability may be		Protocol (NDP) [RFC4861] packets are transmitted with Hop Limit value
	improved to some degree.		set to 255, and the validity test specifies that the Hop Limit must
			have a value of 255 at the receiver, too. So, while other tests may
			intentionally exclude the TTL/Hop Limit value from their Type-P
			definition, for this particular test the correct Hop Limit value is
			of high relevance and must be part of the Type-P definition.
	A Network Address Translator (NAT) on the path can have unpredictable		Local policies in intermediate nodes based on examination of IPv6
	impact on latency measurement (in terms of the amount of additional		Extension Headers may affect measurement repeatability. If
	time added), and possibly other types of measurements. It is not		intermediate nodes follow the recommendations of [RFC7045],
	usually possible to control this impact (as testers may not have any		repeatability may be improved to some degree.
	control of the underlying network or middleboxes). There is a
	possibility that stateful NAT will lead to unstable performance for a
	flow with specific Type-P, since state needs to be created for the
	first packet of a flow, and state may be lost later if the NAT runs
	out of resources. However, this scenario does not invalidate the
	Type-P for testing. The presence of NAT may mean that the measured
	performance of Type-P will change between the source and the
	destination. This can cause an issue when attempting to correlate
	measurements conducted on segments of the path that include or
	exclude the NAT. Thus, it is a factor to be aware of when conducting
	measurements.
	A closely related note: it would be very useful to know if a given		A closely related note: it would be very useful to know if a given
	Internet component (like host, link, or path) treats equally a class		Internet component (like host, link, or path) treats equally a class
	C of different types of packets. If so, then any one of those types		C of different types of packets. If so, then any one of those types
	of packets can be used for subsequent measurement of the component.		of packets can be used for subsequent measurement of the component.
	This suggests we devise a metric or suite of metrics that attempt to		This suggests we devise a metric or suite of metrics that attempt to
	determine C.		determine C.
			Load balancing over parallel paths is one particular example where
			such a class C would be more complex to determine in IPPM
			measurements. Load balancers often use flow identifiers, computed as
			hashes of (specific parts of) the packet header, for deciding among
			the available parallel paths a packet will traverse. Packets with
			identical hashes are assigned to the same flow and forwarded to the
			same resource in the load balancer's pool. The presence of a load
			balancer on the measurement path, as well as the specific headers and
			fields that are used for the forwarding decision, are not known when
			measuring the path as a black-box. Potential assessment scenarios
			include the measurement of one of the parallel paths, and the
			measurement of all available parallel paths that the load balancer
			can use. Knowledge of a load balancer's flow definition
			(alternatively: its class C specific treatment in terms of header
			fields in scope of hash operations) is therefore a prerequisite for
			repeatable measurements. A path may have more than one stage of load
			balancing, adding to class C definition complexity.
	4. Standard-Formed Packets		4. Standard-Formed Packets
	Unless otherwise stated, all metric definitions that concern IP		Unless otherwise stated, all metric definitions that concern IP
	packets include an implicit assumption that the packet is *standard-		packets include an implicit assumption that the packet is *standard-
	formed*. A packet is standard-formed if it meets all of the following		formed*. A packet is standard-formed if it meets all of the following
	criteria:		criteria:
	+ It includes a valid IP header: see below for version-specific		+ It includes a valid IP header: see below for version-specific
	criteria.		criteria.
	skipping to change at page 5, line 46 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 6 ¶
	hop, or it possesses the maximum TTL of 255.		hop, or it possesses the maximum TTL of 255.
	o It does not contain IP options unless explicitly noted.		o It does not contain IP options unless explicitly noted.
	For an IPv6 ([RFC2460] and updates) packet to be standard-formed, the		For an IPv6 ([RFC2460] and updates) packet to be standard-formed, the
	following criteria are required:		following criteria are required:
	o The version field is 6.		o The version field is 6.
	o Its total length corresponds to the size of the IPv6 header (40		o Its total length corresponds to the size of the IPv6 header (40
	octets) plus the length of the payload (including Extension		octets) plus the length of the payload as given in the IPv6
	Headers) as given in the IPv6 header.		header.
			o The payload length value for this packet (including Extension
			Headers) conforms to the IPv6 specifications.
	o Either the packet possesses sufficient Hop Count to travel from		o Either the packet possesses sufficient Hop Count to travel from
	the Source to the Destination if the Hop Count is decremented by		the Source to the Destination if the Hop Count is decremented by
	one at each hop, or it possesses the maximum Hop Count of 255.		one at each hop, or it possesses the maximum Hop Count of 255.
	o Either the packet does not contain IP Extension Headers, or it		o Either the packet does not contain IP Extension Headers, or it
	contains the correct number and type of headers as specified in		contains the correct number and type of headers as specified in
	the packet, and the headers appear in the standard-conforming		the packet, and the headers appear in the standard-conforming
	order (Next Header).		order (Next Header).
	skipping to change at page 7, line 27 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 39 ¶
	+ It contains no options or Extension Headers.		+ It contains no options or Extension Headers.
	(Note that we do not define its protocol field, as different values		(Note that we do not define its protocol field, as different values
	may lead to different treatment by the network.)		may lead to different treatment by the network.)
	When defining IP metrics we keep in mind that no packet smaller or		When defining IP metrics we keep in mind that no packet smaller or
	simpler than this can be transmitted over a correctly operating IP		simpler than this can be transmitted over a correctly operating IP
	network.		network.
	5. Conclusions		5. NAT, IPv4-IPv6 Transition and Compression Techniques
	This memo adds the key considerations for utilizing IPv6 in two		This memo adds the key considerations for utilizing IPv6 in two
	critical conventions of the IPPM Framework. It is RECOMMENDED to		critical conventions of the IPPM Framework, namely packets of Type-P
	adopt these new considerations in measurements involving IPv6.		and standard-formed packets. The need for co-existence of IPv4 and
			IPv6 has originated transitioning standards like the Framework for
			IPv4/IPv6 Translation in [RFC6144] or IP/ICMP Translation Algorithms
			in [RFC6145] and [RFC7757].
			The definition and execution of measurements within the context of
			the IPPM Framework is challenged whenever such translation mechanisms
			are present along the measurement path. In particular use cases like
			IPv4-IPv6 translation, NAT, protocol encapsulation, or IPv6 header
			compression may result in modification of the measurement packet's
			Type-P along the path. All these changes must be reported.
			Exemplary consequences include, but are not limited to:
			o Modification or addition of headers or header field values in
			intermediate nodes. As noted in Section 4 for IPv6 extension
			header manipulation, NAT, IPv4-IPv6 transitioning or IPv6 header
			compression mechanisms may result in changes of the measurement
			packets' Type-P, too. Consequently, hosts along the measurement
			path may treat packets differently because of the Type-P
			modification. Measurements at observation points along the path
			may also need extra context to uniquely identify a packet.
			o Network Address Translators (NAT) on the path can have
			unpredictable impact on latency measurement (in terms of the
			amount of additional time added), and possibly other types of
			measurements. It is not usually possible to control this impact
			(as testers may not have any control of the underlying network or
			middleboxes). There is a possibility that stateful NAT will lead
			to unstable performance for a flow with specific Type-P, since
			state needs to be created for the first packet of a flow, and
			state may be lost later if the NAT runs out of resources.
			However, this scenario does not invalidate the Type-P for testing
			- for example the purpose of a test might be exactly to quantify
			the NAT's impact on delay variation. The presence of NAT may mean
			that the measured performance of Type-P will change between the
			source and the destination. This can cause an issue when
			attempting to correlate measurements conducted on segments of the
			path that include or exclude the NAT. Thus, it is a factor to be
			aware of when conducting measurements.
			o Variable delay due to internal state. One side effect of changes
			due to IPv4-IPv6 transitioning mechanisms is the variable delay
			that intermediate nodes spend for header modifications. Similar
			to NAT the allocation of internal state and establishment of
			context within intermediate nodes may cause variable delays,
			depending on the measurement stream pattern and position of a
			packet within the stream. For example the first packet in a
			stream will typically trigger allocation of internal state in an
			intermediate IPv4-IPv6 transition host. Subsequent packets can
			benefit from lower processing delay due to the existing internal
			state. However, large inter-packet delays in the measurement
			stream may result in the intermediate host deleting the associated
			state and needing to re-establish it on arrival of another stream
			packet. It is worth noting that this variable delay due to
			internal state allocation in intermediate nodes can be an explicit
			use case for measurements.
			o Variable delay due to packet length. IPv4-IPv6 transitioning or
			header compression mechanisms modify the length of measurement
			packets. The modification of the packet size may or may not
			change the way how the measurement path treats the packets.
			Points that are worthwhile discussing further: handling of large
			packets in IPv6 (including fragment extension headers, PMTUD,
			PLMTUD), extent of coverage for 6LO and IPv6 Header Compression, and
			the continued need to define a "minimal standard-formed packet".
			.
	6. Security Considerations		6. Security Considerations
	The security considerations that apply to any active measurement of		The security considerations that apply to any active measurement of
	live paths are relevant here as well. See [RFC4656] and [RFC5357].		live paths are relevant here as well. See [RFC4656] and [RFC5357].
	When considering privacy of those involved in measurement or those		When considering privacy of those involved in measurement or those
	whose traffic is measured, the sensitive information available to		whose traffic is measured, the sensitive information available to
	potential observers is greatly reduced when using active techniques		potential observers is greatly reduced when using active techniques
	which are within this scope of work. Passive observations of user		which are within this scope of work. Passive observations of user
	skipping to change at page 9, line 15 ¶		skipping to change at page 10, line 43 ¶
	[RFC4494] Song, JH., Poovendran, R., and J. Lee, "The AES-CMAC-96		[RFC4494] Song, JH., Poovendran, R., and J. Lee, "The AES-CMAC-96
	Algorithm and Its Use with IPsec", RFC 4494,		Algorithm and Its Use with IPsec", RFC 4494,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4494, June 2006,		DOI 10.17487/RFC4494, June 2006,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4494>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4494>.
	[RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.		[RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
	Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol		Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
	(OWAMP)", RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC4656, September 2006,		(OWAMP)", RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC4656, September 2006,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4656>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4656>.
			[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
			"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
			<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
	[RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.		[RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
	Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",		Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
	RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008,		RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>.
	[RFC5644] Stephan, E., Liang, L., and A. Morton, "IP Performance		[RFC5644] Stephan, E., Liang, L., and A. Morton, "IP Performance
	Metrics (IPPM): Spatial and Multicast", RFC 5644,		Metrics (IPPM): Spatial and Multicast", RFC 5644,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC5644, October 2009,		DOI 10.17487/RFC5644, October 2009,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5644>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5644>.
	[RFC5835] Morton, A., Ed. and S. Van den Berghe, Ed., "Framework for		[RFC5835] Morton, A., Ed. and S. Van den Berghe, Ed., "Framework for
	Metric Composition", RFC 5835, DOI 10.17487/RFC5835, April		Metric Composition", RFC 5835, DOI 10.17487/RFC5835, April
	2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5835>.		2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5835>.
			[RFC6144] Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for
			IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, DOI 10.17487/RFC6144,
			April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6144>.
			[RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation
			Algorithm", RFC 6145, DOI 10.17487/RFC6145, April 2011,
			<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6145>.
	[RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6		[RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
	Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,		Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011,		DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.
	[RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,		[RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
	"IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437,		"IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011,		DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>.
	skipping to change at page 10, line 5 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 47 ¶
	[RFC7045] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing		[RFC7045] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing
	of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045,		of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7045, December 2013,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7045, December 2013,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7045>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7045>.
	[RFC7312] Fabini, J. and A. Morton, "Advanced Stream and Sampling		[RFC7312] Fabini, J. and A. Morton, "Advanced Stream and Sampling
	Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 7312,		Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 7312,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7312, August 2014,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7312, August 2014,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7312>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7312>.
			[RFC7757] Anderson, T. and A. Leiva Popper, "Explicit Address
			Mappings for Stateless IP/ICMP Translation", RFC 7757,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC7757, February 2016,
			<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7757>.
	9.2. Informative References		9.2. Informative References
	[RFC7594] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,		[RFC7594] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
	Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale		Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale
	Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594,		Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7594>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7594>.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
End of changes. 16 change blocks.
	47 lines changed or deleted		144 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/