wdiff rfc5073.original rfc5073.txt

INTERNET-DRAFT J.P. Vasseur (Editor)
Network Working Group J.P. Vasseur, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5073 Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended Status: Proposed Standard
Category: Standards Track J.L. Le Roux (Editor) Roux, Ed.
France Telecom
Expires: October 2007
April
November 2007

IGP Routing Protocol Extensions for Discovery of Traffic Engineering
Node Capabilities

draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-05.txt

Status of this This Memo

By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of

This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, community, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid requests discussion and suggestions for a maximum
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of six months the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

The list status of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

The list this protocol. Distribution of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

It is highly desired desired, in several cases, to take into account Traffic
Engineering (TE) node capabilities during Multi Protocol Label
Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineered
Label Switched Path (TE-LSP) selection, such as as, for instance instance, the
capability to act as a branch Label Switching Router (LSR) of a
Point-To-MultiPoint (P2MP) LSP. This requires advertising these
capabilities within the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP). For that
purpose, this document specifies Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and
Intermediate System-Intermediate System (IS-IS) traffic engineering
extensions for the advertisement of control plane and data plane
traffic engineering node capabilities.

Table of Contents

1. Terminology.................................................3 Introduction.....................................................2
2. Introduction................................................3 Terminology......................................................3
3. TE Node Capability Descriptor...............................4 Descriptor ...................................3
3.1. Description.................................................4 Description ................................................3
3.2. Required Information........................................4 Information .......................................3
4. TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV formats...................5 Formats .......................4
4.1. OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format...............5 Format ..............4
4.2. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV format..........6 format .........5
5. Elements of procedure.......................................7 Procedure ...........................................6
5.1. OSPF........................................................7 OSPF .......................................................6
5.2. IS-IS.......................................................8 IS-IS ......................................................7
6. Backward compatibility......................................8 Compatibility ..........................................8
7. Security Considerations.....................................9 Considerations .........................................8
8. IANA considerations.........................................9 Considerations .............................................8
8.1. OSPF TLV....................................................9 TLV ...................................................8
8.2. ISIS sub-TLV................................................9 sub-TLV ...............................................8
8.3. Capability Registry.........................................9 Registry ........................................9
9. Acknowledgments............................................10 Acknowledgments .................................................9
10. References.................................................10 References ....................................................10
10.1. Normative references.......................................10 References .....................................10
10.2. Informative References.....................................11
11. Editors' Addresses.........................................11
12. Contributors' Addresses....................................11
13. Intellectual Property Statement............................12 References ...................................11

1. Terminology

This document uses terminologies defined in [RFC3031], [RFC3209] and
[RFC4461].

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2. Introduction

Multi Protocol Label Switching-Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) routing
([RFC3784], [RFC3630], [OSPFv3-TE]) relies on extensions to link
state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) ([IS-IS], [RFC1195],
[RFC2328], [RFC2740]) in order to advertise Traffic Engineering (TE)
link information used for constraint based constraint-based routing. Further
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) related routing extensions are defined in
[RFC4205] and [RFC4203].

It is desired to complement these routing extensions in order to
advertise TE node capabilities, in addition to TE link information.
These TE node capabilities will be taken into account as constraints
during path selection.

Indeed, it is useful to advertise data plane TE node capabilities,
such as the capability for a Label Switching Router (LSR) to be a
branch LSR or a bud-LSR of a Point-To-MultiPoint (P2MP) Label
Switched Path (LSP). These capabilities can then be taken into
account as constraints when computing the route of TE LSPs.

It is also useful to advertise control plane TE node capabilities
such as the capability to support GMPLS signaling for a packet LSR,
or the capability to support P2MP (Point to Multipoint) TE LSP
signaling. This allows selecting a path that avoids nodes that do
not support a given control plane feature, or triggering a mechanism
to support such nodes on a path. Hence Hence, this facilitates backward
compatibility.

For that purpose, this document specifies IGP (OSPF and IS-IS)
extensions in order to advertise data plane and control plane
capabilities of a node.

A new TLV is defined for OSPF, the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV,
to be carried within the Router Information LSA ([OSPF-CAP]). ([RFC4970]). A new
sub-TLV is defined for IS-IS, the TE Node Capability Descriptor
sub-TLV, to be carried within the IS-IS Capability TLV ([IS-IS-CAP]). ([RFC4971]).

2. Terminology

This document uses terminologies defined in [RFC3031], [RFC3209], and
[RFC4461].

3. TE Node Capability Descriptor

3.1. Description

LSRs in a network may have distinct control plane and data plane
Traffic Engineering capabilities. The TE Node Capability Descriptor
information defined in this document describes data and control plane
capabilities of an LSR. Such information can be used during path
computation so as to avoid nodes that do not support a given TE
feature either in the control or data plane, or to trigger procedures
to handle these nodes along the path (e.g, (e.g., trigger LSP hierarchy to
support a legacy transit LSR on a P2MP LSP (see [RSVP-P2MP])). [RFC4875])).

3.2. Required Information

The TE Node Capability Descriptor contains a variable length variable-length set of
bit flags, where each bit corresponds to a given TE node capability.

Five TE Node Capabilities are defined in this document:

- B bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act
as a branch node on a P2MP LSP (see [RFC4461]);
- E bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act
as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. i.e., an LSR that is both
transit and egress (see [RFC4461]). [RFC4461]);
- M bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports
MPLS-TE signaling ([RFC3209]);
- G bit: when set this flag indicates that the LSR supports
GMPLS signaling ([RFC3473]);
- P bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports
P2MP MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]). ([RFC4875]).

Note that new capability bits may be added in the future if required.

4. TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV formats Formats

4.1. OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format Format

The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is a variable length TLV
that contains a series of bit flags, where each bit correspond to a
TE node capability. The bit-field MAY be extended with additional
32-bit words if more bit flags need to be assigned. Any unknown bit
flags shall be treated as Reserved bits.

The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried within an OSPF
Router Information LSA LSA, which is defined in [OSPF-CAP]. [RFC4970].

The format of the OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is the same
as the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF
[RFC3630]. That is, the TLV is composed of 2 octets for the type, 2
octets specifying the length of the value field field, and a value field.

The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV has the following format:

TYPE: Assigned by IANA - see 5 (see Section 8.1. 8.1)
LENGTH: Variable (multiple of 4).
VALUE: Array of units of 32 flags numbered from the most
significant bit as bit zero, where each bit represents
a TE node capability.

The following bits are defined:

Bit Capabilities

0 B bit: P2MP Branch Node capability: When set set, this indicates
that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP
[RFC4461].
1 E bit: P2MP Bud-LSR capability: When set, this indicates
that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. i.e., an
LSR that is both transit and egress [RFC4461].
2 M bit: If set set, this indicates that the LSR supports MPLS-TE
signaling ([RFC3209]).
3 G bit: If set set, this indicates that the LSR supports GMPLS
signaling ([RFC3473]).
4 P bit: If set set, this indicates that the LSR supports P2MP
MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]). ([RFC4875]).

5-31 Reserved for future assignments by IANA.

4.2. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV format

The

Reserved bits MUST be set to zero on transmission, and MUST be
ignored on reception. If the length field is greater than 4,
implying that there are more than 32 bits in the value field, then
any additional bits (i.e., not yet assigned) are reserved.

4.2. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV format

The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV is a variable length
sub-TLV that contains a series of bit flags, where each bit
correspond
corresponds to a TE node capability. The bit-field MAY be extended
with additional bytes if more bit flags need to be assigned. Any
unknown bit flags shall be treated as Reserved bits.

The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV is carried within an
IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV TLV, which is defined in [IS-IS-CAP]. [RFC4971].

The format of the IS-IS TE Node Capability sub-TLV is the same as the
TLV
sub-TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to IS-IS
[RFC3784]. That is, the TLV sub-TLV is composed of 1 octet for the type,
1 octet specifying the TLV length length, and a value field.

The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV has the following
format:

TYPE: Assigned by IANA - see 1 (see Section 8.2. 8.2)
LENGTH: Variable
VALUE: Array of units of 8 flags numbered from the most
significant bit as bit zero, where each bit represents
a TE node capability.

The following bits are defined:

Bit Capabilities

5-7 Reserved for future assignments by IANA.

Reserved bits MUST be set to zero on transmission, and MUST be
ignored on reception. If the length field is great than 1, implying
that there are more than 8 bits in the value field, then any
additional bits (i.e., not yet assigned) are reserved.

5. Elements of procedure Procedure

5.1. OSPF

The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is advertised, within an OSPFv2
Router Information LSA (Opaque type of 4 and Opaque ID of 0) or an
OSPFv3 Router Information LSA (function code of 12) 12), which are
defined in [OSPF-CAP]. [RFC4970]. As such, elements of procedure are inherited
from those defined in [RFC2328], [RFC2740], and [OSPF-CAP]. [RFC4970].

The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV advertises capabilities that
may be taken into account as constraints during path selection. Hence
Hence, its flooding scope is area-local, and it MUST be carried
within an OSPFv2 type 10 Router Information LSA (as defined in
[RFC2370]) or an OSPFv3 Router Information LSA with the S1 bit set
and the S2 bit cleared (as defined in [RFC2740]).

A router MUST originate a new OSPF router information LSA whenever
the content of the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV changes or
whenever required by the regular OSPF procedure (LSA refresh (every
LSRefreshTime)).

The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST NOT appear
more than once in an OSPF Router Information LSA. If a TE Node
Capability Descriptor TLV appears more than once in an OSPF Router
Information LSA, only the first occurrence MUST be processed and
other
others MUST be ignored.

When an OSPF LSA does not contain any TE Node capability Capability Descriptor
TLV, this means that the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown.

Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger CSPF
Constrained Shortest Path First (CSPF) computation, but MUST NOT
trigger normal SPF computation.

Note also that TE node capabilities are expected to be fairly static.
They may change as the result of configuration change, change or software
upgrade. This is expected not to appear more than once a day.

5.2. IS-IS

The TE Node Capability sub-TLV is carried within an IS-IS CAPABILITY
TLV defined in [IS-IS-CAP]. [RFC4971]. As such, elements of procedure are
inherited from those defined in [IS-IS-CAP]. [RFC4971].

The TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV advertises capabilities
that may be taken into account as constraints during path selection.
Hence
Hence, its flooding is area-local, and MUST be carried within an
IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV having the S flag cleared.

An IS-IS router MUST originate a new IS-IS LSP whenever the content
of any of the TE Node Capability sub-TLV changes or whenever required
by the regular IS-IS procedure (LSP refresh).

The TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST NOT
appear more than once in an ISIS Router Capability TLV.

When an IS-IS LSP does not contain any TE Node capability Capability Descriptor
sub-TLV, this means that the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown.

Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger CSPF
computation, but MUST NOT trigger normal SPF computation.

Note also that TE node capabilities are expected to be fairly static.
They may change as the result of configuration change, or software
upgrade. This is expected not to appear more than once a day.

6. Backward Compatibility

The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLVs defined in this document do
not introduce any interoperability issue. issues. For OSPF, a router not
supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV will just silently
ignore the TLV TLV, as specified in [OSPF-CAP]. [RFC4970]. For IS-IS IS-IS, a router not
supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV will just
silently ignore the sub-TLV sub-TLV, as specified in [IS-IS-CAP]. [RFC4971].

When the TE Node capability Capability Descriptor TLV is absent, this means that
the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown.

The absence of a word of capability flags in OSPF or an octet of
capability flags in IS-IS means that these capabilities are unknown.

7. Security Considerations

This document specifies the content of the TE Node Capability
Descriptor TLV in ISIS IS-IS and OSPF, OSPF to be used for (G)MPLS-TE path
computation. As this TLV is not used for SPF computation or normal
routing, the extensions specified here have no direct effect on IP
routing. Tampering with this TLV may have an effect on Traffic
Engineering computation. Mechanisms defined to secure ISIS Link
State PDUs [RFC3567], OSPF LSAs [RFC2154], and their TLVs, TLVs can be used
to secure this TLV as well.

8. IANA considerations Considerations

8.1. OSPF TLV

[OSPF-CAP]

[RFC4970] defines a new code point codepoint registry for TLVs carried in the
Router Information LSA defined in [OSPF-CAP]. [RFC4970].

IANA is requested to make has made a new codepoint assignment from that registry for the
TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV defined in this document and
carried within the Router Information LSA. The value 1 is suggested. 5. See
Section 4.1 of this document.

8.2. ISIS sub-TLV

[IS-IS-CAP] defines

IANA has defined a new code point registry for sub-TLVs carried in of the ISIS IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV
defined in [IS-IS-CAP]. [RFC4971].

IANA is requested to make has made a new codepoint assignment from that registry for the
TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV defined in this document, and
carried within the ISIS CAPABILITY TLV. The value
1 is suggested. 1. See Section
4.2 of this document.

8.3. Capability Registry

IANA is requested to create has created a new registry to manage the space of capability bit
flags carried within the OSPF and ISIS TE Node Capability Descriptor.

A single registry must be defined for both protocols. It is suggested
that a A new base
registry be has been created to cover IGP-TE registries that apply to
both OSPF and ISIS, IS-IS, and that the new registry requested by this document should be
is a sub-registry of this new bas base registry.

Bits in the new regstry registry should be numbered in the usual IETF notation
notation, starting with the most significant bit as bit zero.

New bit numbers may be allocated only by an IETF Consensus action.

Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:
- Bit number
- Defining RFC
- Name of bit

IANA is requested to make has made assignments for the five TE node capabilities defined
in this document (see Sections 8.1 and 8.2) using the following suggested
values:

Bit No. Name Reference
--------+---------------------------------------+-----------
1
--------+---------------------------------------+---------------
0 B bit: P2MP Branch LSR capability [This.I-D]
2 [RFC5073]
1 E bit: P2MP Bud LSR capability [This.I-D]
3 [RFC5073]
2 M bit: MPLS-TE support [This.I-D]
4 [RFC5073]
3 G bit: GMPLS support [This.I-D]
5 [RFC5073]
4 P bit: P2MP RSVP-TE support [This.I-D] [RFC5073]
5-7 Unassigned [RFC5073]

9. Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Benoit Fondeviole, Adrian Farrel, Dimitri
Papadimitriou, Acee Lindem Lindem, and David Ward for their useful comments
and suggestions.

We would also like to thank authors of [RFC4420] and [OSPF-CAP] [RFC4970] by
which some text of this document has been inspired.

Adrian Farrel prpeared prepared the final version of this document for
submission to the IESG.

10. References

10.1. Normative references References

[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.

[RFC2370] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370, July
1998.

[RFC2740] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6",
RFC 2740, December 1999.

[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon,
"Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
January 2001.

[RFC3209] Awduche, D., et. al., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan,
V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
tunnels",
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

[RFC3473] Berger, L, et. al., "GMPLS L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling RSVP-TE extensions", Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
3473, January 2003.

[RFC3630] Katz, D., Yeung, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic
Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC
3630, September 2003.

[RFC3784] Li, T., Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to Intermediate
System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", Engineering (TE)",
RFC 3784, June 2004.

[IS-IS] "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain
Routeing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with
the Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode
Network Service (ISO 8473)", ISO 10589.

[IS-IS-CAP]

[RFC4971] Vasseur, J.P. et al., "IS-IS extensions JP., Ed., Shen, N., Ed., and R. Aggarwal, Ed.,
"Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)
Extensions for advertising
router information", draft-ietf-isis-caps, work in
progress.

[OSPF-CAP] Advertising Router Information", RFC
4971, July 2007.

[RFC4970] Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R.,
and S. Shaffer, S., Vasseur,
J.P., "Extensions to OSPF for advertising Advertising
Optional Router Capabilities", draft-ietf-ospf-cap, work in progress.

[RSVP-P2MP] RFC 4970, July 2007.

[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
Yasukawa, et. al. Ed., "Extensions to
RSVP-TE Resource Reservation
Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for point-to-multipoint Point-to-
Multipoint TE LSPs", draft-ietf-mpls-
rsvp-te-p2mp, work in progress. Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875,
May 2007.

10.2. Informative References

[RFC2154] Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with
Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, June 1997.

[RFC3567] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 3567, July 2003.

[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Y., Ed., "OSPF extensions Extensions
in support Support of Generalized Multi-protocol Multi-Protocol Label Switching", RFC4203, Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.

[RFC4205] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Y., "IS-IS extensions Ed., "Intermediate
System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions in support
Support of Generalized Multi-protocol Multi-Protocol Label Switching", RFC4205, Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4205, October 2005.

[RFC4420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, J.-P., and al.,
A. Ayyangar, "Encoding of attributes Attributes for MPLS LSPs
establishment Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP)
Establishment Using RSVP-TE", RFC4420, Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4420, February 2006.

[RFC4461] Yasukawa, S., et. al., Ed., "Signaling Requirements for Point to
Multipoint Traffic Engineered Point-
to-Multipoint Traffic-Engineered MPLS LSPs", RFC4461, Label Switched
Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4461, April 2006.

[OSPFv3-TE] Ishiguro K., Manral V., Davey A., and Lindem A. A.,
"Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF version 3", draft-ietf-ospf-
ospfv3-traffic, work Work
in progress.

11. Editors' Addresses

Jean-Philippe Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough , MA - 01719
USA
Email: jpv@cisco.com

Jean-Louis Le Roux
France Telecom
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex
FRANCE
Email: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com

12. Progress.

Contributors' Addresses

Seisho Yasukawa
NTT
3-9-11 Midori-cho,
Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan
Email:
EMail: s.yasukawa@hco.ntt.co.jp

Stefano Previdi
Cisco Systems, Inc
Via Del Serafico 200
Roma, 00142
Italy
Email:
EMail: sprevidi@cisco.com

Peter Psenak
Cisco Systems, Inc
Pegasus Park DE Kleetlaan 6A
Diegmen, 1831
BELGIUM
Email:
EMail: ppsenak@cisco.com

Paul Mabbey
Comcast
USA

13.

Editors' Addresses

Jean-Philippe Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA, 01719
USA
EMail: jpv@cisco.com

Jean-Louis Le Roux
France Telecom
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex
FRANCE
EMail: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com

Full Copyright Statement

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property Statement

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Disclaimer of Validity

This document and the information contained herein are provided
on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). This document is subject to the
rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as
set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.