GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc5073

Network Working Group J.P. Vasseur, Ed. Request for Comments: 5073 Cisco Systems, Inc. Category: Standards Track J.L. Le Roux, Ed.

                                                        France Telecom
                                                         December 2007
                IGP Routing Protocol Extensions for
         Discovery of Traffic Engineering Node Capabilities

Status of This Memo

 This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
 Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
 improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
 Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
 and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

 It is highly 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, for 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.

Vasseur & Le Roux Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 5073 IGP Ext for Discovery of TE Node Cap December 2007

Table of Contents

 1. Introduction.....................................................2
 2. Terminology......................................................3
 3. TE Node Capability Descriptor ...................................3
    3.1. Description ................................................3
    3.2. Required Information .......................................3
 4. TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV Formats .......................4
    4.1. OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV Format ..............4
    4.2. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV format .........5
 5. Elements of Procedure ...........................................6
    5.1. OSPF .......................................................6
    5.2. IS-IS ......................................................7
 6. Backward Compatibility ..........................................8
 7. Security Considerations .........................................8
 8. IANA Considerations .............................................8
    8.1. OSPF TLV ...................................................8
    8.2. ISIS sub-TLV ...............................................8
    8.3. Capability Registry ........................................9
 9. Acknowledgments .................................................9
 10. References ....................................................10
    10.1. Normative References .....................................10
    10.2. Informative References ...................................11

1. 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 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

Vasseur & Le Roux Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 5073 IGP Ext for Discovery of TE Node Cap December 2007

 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, 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 ([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 ([RFC4971]).

2. 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].

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., trigger LSP hierarchy to
 support a legacy transit LSR on a P2MP LSP (see [RFC4875])).

3.2. Required Information

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

Vasseur & Le Roux Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 5073 IGP Ext for Discovery of TE Node Cap December 2007

 Five TE Node Capabilities are defined in this document:
  1. B bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act

as a branch node on a P2MP LSP (see [RFC4461]);

  1. E bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act

as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e., an LSR that is both

             transit and egress (see [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 ([RFC4875]).
 Note that new capability bits may be added in the future if required.

4. TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV Formats

4.1. OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV 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, which is defined in [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, and a value field.
 The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV has the following format:
    TYPE:     5 (see Section 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.

Vasseur & Le Roux Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 5073 IGP Ext for Discovery of TE Node Cap December 2007

 The following bits are defined:
 Bit       Capabilities
 0      B bit: P2MP Branch Node capability: When 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., an
        LSR that is both transit and egress [RFC4461].
 2      M bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports MPLS-TE
        signaling ([RFC3209]).
 3      G bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports GMPLS
        signaling ([RFC3473]).
 4      P bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports P2MP
        MPLS-TE signaling ([RFC4875]).
 5-31   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 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
 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, which is defined in [RFC4971].
 The format of the IS-IS TE Node Capability sub-TLV is the same as the
 sub-TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to IS-IS
 [RFC3784].  That is, the sub-TLV is composed of 1 octet for the type,
 1 octet specifying the length of the value field.
 The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV has the following
 format:
    TYPE:   1 (see Section 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.

Vasseur & Le Roux Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 5073 IGP Ext for Discovery of TE Node Cap December 2007

 The following bits are defined:
 Bit       Capabilities
  0      B bit: P2MP Branch Node capability: When 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., an
         LSR that is both transit and egress [RFC4461].
  2      M bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports MPLS-TE
         signaling ([RFC3209]).
  3      G bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports GMPLS
         signaling ([RFC3473]).
  4      P bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports P2MP
         MPLS-TE signaling ([RFC4875]).
  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

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), which are
 defined in [RFC4970].  As such, elements of procedure are inherited
 from those defined in [RFC2328], [RFC2740], and [RFC4970].
 The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV advertises capabilities that
 may be taken into account as constraints during path selection.
 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)).

Vasseur & Le Roux Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 5073 IGP Ext for Discovery of TE Node Cap December 2007

 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
 others MUST be ignored.
 When an OSPF Router Information LSA does not contain any TE Node
 Capability Descriptor TLV, this means that the TE node capabilities
 of that LSR are unknown.
 Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger
 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 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 [RFC4971].  As such, elements of procedure are
 inherited from those defined in [RFC4971].
 The TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV advertises capabilities
 that may be taken into account as constraints during path selection.
 Hence, its flooding is area-local, and it 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 Descriptor
 sub-TLV, this means that the TE node 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.

Vasseur & Le Roux Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 5073 IGP Ext for Discovery of TE Node Cap December 2007

6. Backward Compatibility

 The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLVs defined in this document do
 not introduce any interoperability issues.  For OSPF, a router not
 supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV will just silently
 ignore the TLV, as specified in [RFC4970].  For IS-IS, a router not
 supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV will just
 silently ignore the sub-TLV, as specified in [RFC4971].
 When the TE Node 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 IS-IS and 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 IS-IS Link
 State PDUs [RFC3567], OSPF LSAs [RFC2154], and their TLVs can be used
 to secure this TLV as well.

8. IANA Considerations

8.1. OSPF TLV

 [RFC4970] defines a new codepoint registry for TLVs carried in the
 Router Information LSA defined in [RFC4970].
 IANA 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 is 5.  See
 Section 4.1 of this document.

8.2. ISIS sub-TLV

 IANA has defined a registry for sub-TLVs of the IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV
 defined in [RFC4971].
 IANA 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 is 1.  See Section
 4.2 of this document.

Vasseur & Le Roux Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 5073 IGP Ext for Discovery of TE Node Cap December 2007

8.3. Capability Registry

 IANA 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.  A new base
 registry has been created to cover IGP-TE registries that apply to
 both OSPF and IS-IS, and the new registry requested by this document
 is a sub-registry of this new base registry.
 Bits in the new registry should be numbered in the usual IETF
 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 has made assignments for the five TE node capabilities defined
 in this document (see Sections 8.1 and 8.2) using the following
 values:
 Bit No.  Name                                    Reference
 --------+---------------------------------------+---------------
 0        B bit: P2MP Branch LSR capability       [RFC5073]
 1        E bit: P2MP Bud LSR capability          [RFC5073]
 2        M bit: MPLS-TE support                  [RFC5073]
 3        G bit: GMPLS support                    [RFC5073]
 4        P bit: P2MP RSVP-TE support             [RFC5073]
 5-7      Unassigned                              [RFC5073]

9. Acknowledgments

 We would like to thank Benoit Fondeviole, Adrian Farrel, Dimitri
 Papadimitriou, Acee Lindem, and David Ward for their useful comments
 and suggestions.
 We would also like to thank authors of [RFC4420] and [RFC4970] by
 which some text of this document has been inspired.
 Adrian Farrel prepared the final version of this document for
 submission to the IESG.

Vasseur & Le Roux Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 5073 IGP Ext for Discovery of TE Node Cap December 2007

10. References

10.1. Normative 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., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan,
              V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
 [RFC3473]    Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
              Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
              Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
              3473, January 2003.
 [RFC3630]    Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic
              Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC
              3630, September 2003.
 [RFC3784]    Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to Intermediate
              System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic 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.
 [RFC4971]    Vasseur, JP., Ed., Shen, N., Ed., and R. Aggarwal, Ed.,
              "Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)
              Extensions for Advertising Router Information", RFC
              4971, July 2007.

Vasseur & Le Roux Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 5073 IGP Ext for Discovery of TE Node Cap December 2007

 [RFC4970]    Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R.,
              and S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising
              Optional Router Capabilities", RFC 4970, July 2007.
 [RFC4875]    Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
              Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
              Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-
              Multipoint TE 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, Ed., "OSPF Extensions
              in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.
 [RFC4205]    Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Intermediate
              System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions in
              Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS)", RFC 4205, October 2005.
 [RFC4420]    Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, J.-P., and
              A. Ayyangar, "Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol
              Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP)
              Establishment Using Resource ReserVation Protocol-
              Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4420, February 2006.
 [RFC4461]    Yasukawa, S., Ed., "Signaling Requirements for Point-
              to-Multipoint Traffic-Engineered MPLS Label Switched
              Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4461, April 2006.
 [OSPFv3-TE]  Ishiguro K., Manral V., Davey A., and Lindem A.,
              "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF version 3", Work
              in Progress.

Vasseur & Le Roux Standards Track [Page 11] RFC 5073 IGP Ext for Discovery of TE Node Cap December 2007

Contributors' Addresses

 Seisho Yasukawa
 NTT
 3-9-11 Midori-cho,
 Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan
 EMail: s.yasukawa@hco.ntt.co.jp
 Stefano Previdi
 Cisco Systems, Inc
 Via Del Serafico 200
 Roma, 00142
 Italy
 EMail: sprevidi@cisco.com
 Peter Psenak
 Cisco Systems, Inc
 Pegasus Park DE Kleetlaan 6A
 Diegmen, 1831
 BELGIUM
 EMail: ppsenak@cisco.com
 Paul Mabbey
 Comcast
 USA

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

Vasseur & Le Roux Standards Track [Page 12] RFC 5073 IGP Ext for Discovery of TE Node Cap December 2007

Full Copyright Statement

 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.
 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

 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.

Vasseur & Le Roux Standards Track [Page 13]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc5073.txt · Last modified: 2007/12/08 01:27 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki