One document matched: draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd-01.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd-00.txt
PWE3 T. Nadeau, Ed.
Internet-Draft BT
Intended status: Standards Track C. Pignataro, Ed.
Expires: August 27, 2008 Cisco Systems, Inc.
February 24, 2008
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual
Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)
draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd-01
Status of 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 the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
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 of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 27, 2008.
Abstract
This document describes new Connectivity Verification (CV) types
using Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) with Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV). VCCV provides a control channel
that is associated with a Pseudowire (PW), as well as the
corresponding operations and management functions such as
connectivity verification to be used over that control channel.
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires August 27, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BFD VCCV February 2008
Table of Contents
1. Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection Connectivity
Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. BFD CV Type Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. BFD Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. CV Types for BFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Capability Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. MPLS CV Types for the VCCV Interface Parameters Sub-TLV . 8
5.2. PW Associated Channel Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. L2TPv3 CV Types for the VCCV Capability AVP . . . . . . . 9
6. Congestion Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Pending Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 13
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires August 27, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BFD VCCV February 2008
1. Specification of Requirements
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 [RFC2119].
The reader is expected to be familiar with the terminology and
abbreviations defined in [RFC5085].
2. Introduction
This document describes new Connectivity Verification (CV) types
using Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) with Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV). VCCV [RFC5085] provides a control
channel that is associated with a Pseudowire (PW), as well as the
corresponding operations and management functions such as
connectivity/fault verification to be used over that control channel.
Some BFD CV Types can additionally carry fault status between the
endpoints of the pseudowire. Furthermore, this information can then
be translated into the native OAM status codes used by the native
access technologies, such as ATM, Frame-Relay or Ethernet. The
specific details of such status interworking are out of the scope of
this document, and are only noted here to illustrate the utility of
BFD over VCCV for such purposes. Those details can be found in
[I-D.ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map].
The new BFD CV Types are PW Demultiplexer-agnostic, and hence
applicable for both MPLS and L2TPv3 Pseudowire Demultiplexers. This
document concerns itself with the BFD VCCV operation over Single-
Segment Pseudowires (SS-PW).
3. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection Connectivity Verification
VCCV can support several Connectivity Verification (CV) types. This
section defines new CV Types for use when BFD is used as the VCCV
payload.
The CV Type is defined as a bitmask field used to indicate the
specific CV Type or types (i.e., none, one or more) of VCCV packets
that may be sent on the VCCV control channel. The values shown below
augment those already defined in [RFC5085]. They represent the
numerical value corresponding to the actual bit being set in the CV
Type bitfield.
BFD CV Types:
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires August 27, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BFD VCCV February 2008
The defined values for the different BFD CV Types for MPLS and
L2TPv3 PWs are:
Bit (Value) Description
============ ==========================================
Bit 2 (0x04) - BFD for PW Fault Detection Only.
Bit 3 (0x08) - BFD for PW Fault Detection and AC/PW Fault
Status Signaling.
Bit 4 (0x10) - BFD for PW Fault Detection Only, carrying BFD
payload without IP/UDP headers.
Bit 5 (0x20) - BFD for PW Fault Detection and AC/PW Fault
Status Signaling, carrying BFD payload without
IP/UDP headers.
It should be noted that four BFD CV Types have been defined by
permutation of their encapsulation and functionality, see
Section 3.3.
3.1. BFD CV Type Operation
When heart-beat indication is necessary for one or more PWs, the
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [I-D.ietf-bfd-base] provides
a means of continuous monitoring of the PW data path and, in some
operational modes, propagation of forward and reverse defect
indications.
In order to use BFD, both ends of the PW connection need to agree on
the BFD CV Type to use:
For statically provisioned pseudowires, both ends need to be
statically configured to use the same BFD CV Type (in addition to
be statically configured for VCCV with the same CC Type).
For dynamically established pseudowires, both ends of the PW must
have signaled the existence of a control channel and the ability
to run BFD on it (see Section 3.3 and Section 4).
Once a node has selected a valid BFD CV Type to use (either
statically provisioned or selected dynamically after the node has
both signaled and received signaling from its peer of these
capabilities), it begins sending BFD control packets.
The BFD packets are sent on the VCCV control channel. The use of the
VCCV control channel provides the context required to bind and
bootstrap the BFD session, since discriminator values are not
exchanged; the pseudowire demultiplexer field (e.g., MPLS PW Label or
L2TPv3 Session ID) provides the context to demultiplex the first BFD
control packet, and thus single-hop BFD initialization procedures are
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires August 27, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BFD VCCV February 2008
followed (see Section 3 of [I-D.ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop] and Section 6 of
[I-D.ietf-bfd-generic]). A single BFD session exists per-pseudowire.
Both PW endpoints take the Active role sending initial BFD Control
packets with a "Your Discriminator" field of zero, and BFD packets
received with a "Your Discriminator" field of zero are associated to
the BFD session bound to the PW. BFD MUST be run in asynchronous
mode (see [I-D.ietf-bfd-base]).
When the downstream PE (D-PE) does not receive BFD control messages
from its upstream peer PE (U-PE) during a certain number of
transmission intervals (a number provisioned by the operator as
Detect Mult), D-PE declares that the PW in its receive direction is
down. In other words, D-PE enters the "forward defect" state for
this PW. After this calculated Detection Time, D-PE declares the
session Down, and signals this to the remote end via the State (Sta)
with Diagnostic code 1 (Control Detection Time Expired). In turn,
U-PE declares the PW is down in its transmit direction setting the
State to Down, and it using Diagnostic code 3 (Neighbor signaled
session down) in its control messages to D-PE. U-PE enters the
"reverse defect" state for this PW. If needed, how it further
processes this error condition, and conveys this status to the
attachment circuits is out of the scope of this specification, and is
instead defined in [I-D.ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map].
The VCCV message comprises a BFD packet [I-D.ietf-bfd-base]
encapsulated as specified by the CV Type (see Section 3.2).
3.2. BFD Encapsulation
There are two ways in which a BFD connectivity verification packet
may be encapsulated over the VCCV control channel. This document
defines four BFD CV Types (see Section 3), which can be grouped into
two pairs of BFD CV Types from an encapsulation point of view.
Table 1 in Section 3.3 summarizes the BFD CV Types.
In the first method, the VCCV encapsulation of BFD includes the IP/
UDP headers as defined in Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop]. The
IP Protocol Number and UDP Port numbers discriminate among the
possible VCCV payloads (i.e., differentiate among ICMP Ping and LSP
Ping defined in [RFC5085] and BFD). In this case, the BFD CV Type
used in signaling (if used) is either 0x04 or 0x08.
In the second method, a BFD packet is encapsulated directly in the
VCCV control channel (see Sections 6 and 8 of [I-D.ietf-bfd-generic])
and the IP/UDP headers are omitted from the BFD encapsulation.
Therefore, to utilize this encapsulation, a pseudowire MUST use a
Control Word (CW) or Layer-2 Specific Sublayer (L2SS) that can take
the PW Associated Channel Header (PW-ACH) Control Word format. In
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires August 27, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BFD VCCV February 2008
this encapsulation, a BFD packet follows directly the PW-ACH. The PW
Associated Channel (PW-AC) is defined in Section 5 of [RFC4385], and
its Channel Type field is used as a payload type identifier to
discriminate the VCCV payload types. The usage of the PW-AC for VCCV
is specified in Sections 5.1.1, 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 of [RFC5085]. When
VCCV carries raw BFD, the Pseudowire CW's or L2SS' Channel Type MUST
be set to 0x0007 to indicate "BFD Without IP/UDP Headers" (see
Section 5.2), to allow the identification of the encased BFD payload
when demultiplexing the VCCV control channel. In this case, the BFD
CV Type employed in signaling (if used) is either 0x10 or 0x20.
In summary, for the BFD encapsulation with IP/UDP headers, if a PW
Associated Channel Header is used, the Channel Type can indicate IPv4
(0x0021) or IPv6 (0x0057). For the BFD encapsulation without IP/UDP
headers, the PW Associated Channel Header MUST be used and indicates
BFD (0x0007).
3.3. CV Types for BFD
Four CV Types are defined for BFD. Table 1 summarizes the BFD CV
Types, grouping them by encapsulation (i.e., with and without IP/UDP
headers) and by functionality (i.e., fault detection only, or fault
detection and status signaling).
+---------------------+-----------------+---------------------------+
| | Fault Detection | Fault Detection and |
| | Only | Status Signaling |
+---------------------+-----------------+---------------------------+
| BFD with IP/UDP | 0x04 | 0x08 |
| Headers | | |
| | | |
| BFD without IP/UDP | 0x10 | 0x20 |
| Headers | | |
+---------------------+-----------------+---------------------------+
Table 1: Bitmask Values for BFD CV Types
Given the bidirectional nature of BFD, before selecting a given BFD
CV Type capability to be used in dynamically established pseudowires,
there MUST be common CV Types in the VCCV capability advertised and
received. That is, only BFD CV Types that were both advertised and
received are available to be selected. Additionally, only one BFD CV
Type can be used (selecting a BFD CV Type excludes all the remaining
BFD CV Types).
The following list enumerates rules, restrictions and clarifications
on the usage of BFD CV Types:
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires August 27, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BFD VCCV February 2008
1. BFD CV Types used for fault detection and status signaling (i.e.,
CV Types 0x08 and 0x20) SHOULD NOT be used when a control
protocol such as LDP [RFC4447] or L2TPV3 [RFC3931] is available
that can signal the AC/PW status to the remote endpoint of the
PW. More details can be found in [I-D.ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map].
2. BFD CV Types used for fault detection only (i.e., CV Types 0x04
and 0x10) can be used whether a protocol that can signal AC/PW
status is available or not. This includes both statically
provisioned and dynamically signaled pseudowires.
A. In this case, BFD is used exclusively to detect faults on the
PW; if it is desired to convey AC/PW fault status, some means
other than BFD are to be used. Examples include using LDP
status messages when using MPLS as a transport (see Section
5.4 of [RFC4447]), and the Circuit Status AVP in an L2TPv3
SLI message for L2TPv3 (see Section 5.4.5 of [RFC3931]).
3. Pseudowires that do not use a CW or L2SS using the PW Associated
Channel Header MUST NOT use the BFD CV Types 0x10 or 0x20 (i.e.,
encapsulation of BFD without IP/UDP headers).
A. PWs that use a PW-ACH include CC Type 1 (for both MPLS and
L2TPv3 as defined in Sections 5.1.1 and 6.1 of [RFC5085]),
and MPLS CC Types 2 and 3 when using a Control Word (as
specified in Sections 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 of [RFC5085]). This
restriction stems from the fact that the PW-ACH contains a
Protocol Identification (PID) field, the Channel Type.
B. PWs that do not use a PW-ACH can use the VCCV BFD
encapsulation with IP/UDP headers, including its concurrent
use along with another CV Type that uses an encapsulation
with IP headers (e.g., ICMP Ping or LSP Ping).
4. Only a single BFD CV Type can be selected and used. All BFD CV
Types are mutually exclusive with the rest, after selecting a BFD
CV Type, a node MUST NOT use any of the other three BFD CV Types.
4. Capability Selection
The precedence rules for selection of various CC and CV Types is
clearly outlined in Section 7 of [RFC5085]. This section augments
these rules when the BFD CV Types defined herein are supported. The
selection of a specific BFD CV Type to use out of the four available
CV Types defined is tied to multiple factors, as hinted in
Section 3.3. Given that BFD is bidirectional in nature, only CV
Types that are both received and sent in VCCV capability signaling
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires August 27, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BFD VCCV February 2008
advertisement can be selected.
There may be more than one CV Type available for selection after
considering the intersection of advertised and received BFD CV Types,
and applying the rules in Section 3.3. For these cases were multiple
BFD CV Types are available for selection, the following precedence
order applies when choosing the single BFD CV Type to use. The
lowest numbered item (where both ends have set the indicated flag and
such flag is allowed by the rules above) is used:
1. 0x20 - BFD for PW Fault Detection and AC/PW Fault Status
Signaling, carrying BFD payload without IP/UDP headers.
2. 0x10 - BFD for PW Fault Detection Only, carrying BFD payload
without IP/UDP headers.
3. 0x08 - BFD for PW Fault Detection and AC/PW Fault Status
Signaling.
4. 0x04 - BFD for PW Fault Detection Only.
This precedence order prioritizes superset of functionality and
simplicity of encapsulation.
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. MPLS CV Types for the VCCV Interface Parameters Sub-TLV
The VCCV Interface Parameters Sub-TLV codepoint is defined in
[RFC4446], and the VCCV CV Types registry is defined in [RFC5085].
This section lists the new BFD CV Types.
IANA is requested to augment the "VCCV Connectivity Verification
Types" registry in the Pseudo Wires Name Spaces, reachable from
[IANA.pwe3-parameters]. These are bitfield values. CV Type values
0x04 0x08, 0x10 and 0x20 are specified in Section 3.
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires August 27, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BFD VCCV February 2008
MPLS Connectivity Verification (CV) Types:
Bit (Value) Description
============ ==========================================
Bit 2 (0x04) - BFD for PW Fault Detection Only.
Bit 3 (0x08) - BFD for PW Fault Detection and AC/PW Fault Status
Signaling.
Bit 4 (0x10) - BFD for PW Fault Detection Only, carrying BFD
payload without IP/UDP headers.
Bit 5 (0x20) - BFD for PW Fault Detection and AC/PW Fault Status
Signaling, carrying BFD payload without IP/UDP
headers.
5.2. PW Associated Channel Type
The PW Associated Channel Types used by VCCV rely on previously
allocated numbers from the Pseudowire Associated Channel Types
Registry [RFC4385] in the Pseudo Wires Name Spaces reachable from
[IANA.pwe3-parameters]. In particular, 0x21 (Internet Protocol
version 4) is used whenever an IPv4 payload follows the Pseudowire
Associated Channel Header, or 0x57 is used when an IPv6 payload
follows the Pseudowire Associated Channel Header.
In cases where raw BFD follows the Pseudowire Associated Channel as
specified in Section 3.2 (i.e., when the IP/UDP encapsulation as
specified in [I-D.ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop] is be present), a new
Pseudowire Associated Channel Types Registry [RFC4385] entry of 0x07
is used. IANA is requested to reserve a new Pseudowire Associated
Channel Type value as follows:
Value (in hex) Protocol Name Reference
-------------- ------------------------------- ---------
0x0007 BFD Without IP/UDP Headers [This document]
5.3. L2TPv3 CV Types for the VCCV Capability AVP
This section lists the new BFD CV Types to be added to the existing
"VCCV Capability AVP" registry in the L2TP name spaces. The Layer
Two Tunneling Protocol "L2TP" Name Spaces are reachable from
[IANA.l2tp-parameters].
IANA is requested to reserve the following L2TPv3 Connectivity
Verification (CV) Types in the VCCV Capability AVP Values registry.
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires August 27, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BFD VCCV February 2008
VCCV Capability AVP (Attribute Type AVP-TBD) Values
---------------------------------------------------
L2TPv3 Connectivity Verification (CV) Types:
Bit (Value) Description
============ ==========================================
Bit 2 (0x04) - BFD for PW Fault Detection Only.
Bit 3 (0x08) - BFD for PW Fault Detection and AC/PW Fault
Status Signaling.
Bit 4 (0x10) - BFD for PW Fault Detection Only, carrying BFD
payload without IP/UDP headers.
Bit 5 (0x20) - BFD for PW Fault Detection and AC/PW Fault
Status Signaling, carrying BFD payload without
IP/UDP headers.
6. Congestion Considerations
The congestion considerations that apply to [RFC5085] apply to this
mode of operation as well.
7. Security Considerations
Routers that implement the additional CV Types defined herein are
subject to the same security considerations as defined in [RFC5085],
[I-D.ietf-bfd-base], and [I-D.ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop]. This
specification does not raise any additional security issues beyond
these.
8. Acknowledgements
This work forks from a previous revision of the PWE3 WG document that
resulted in [RFC5085], to which a number of people contributed,
including Rahul Aggarwal, Peter B. Busschbach, Yuichi Ikejiri, Kenji
Kumaki, Luca Martini, Monique Morrow, George Swallow, and others.
Stewart Bryant, Luca Martini, Pankil Shah, and George Swallow
provided useful feedback and valuable comments and suggestions on the
newer versions of this document.
9. References
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires August 27, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft BFD VCCV February 2008
9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-bfd-base]
Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection", draft-ietf-bfd-base-07 (work in progress),
January 2008.
[I-D.ietf-bfd-generic]
Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Generic Application of BFD",
draft-ietf-bfd-generic-04 (work in progress),
January 2008.
[I-D.ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop]
Katz, D. and D. Ward, "BFD for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single
Hop)", draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-07 (work in progress),
January 2008.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006.
[RFC5085] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for
Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map]
Nadeau, T., "Pseudo Wire (PW) OAM Message Mapping",
draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-06 (work in progress),
February 2008.
[IANA.l2tp-parameters]
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Layer Two Tunneling
Protocol "L2TP"", April 2007,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/l2tp-parameters>.
[IANA.pwe3-parameters]
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Pseudo Wires Name
Spaces", June 2007,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters>.
[RFC3931] Lau, J., Townsley, M., and I. Goyret, "Layer Two Tunneling
Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3)", RFC 3931, March 2005.
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires August 27, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft BFD VCCV February 2008
[RFC4446] Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge
Emulation (PWE3)", BCP 116, RFC 4446, April 2006.
[RFC4447] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G.
Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label
Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.
Appendix A. Pending Items
BFD Echo - Need PW-ACH Channel Type for BFD Echo (and make 0x0007
"BFD Control")? BFD Echo is not explicitly allowed / disallowed, but
if allowed, need PID for the sans IP/UDP encap.
Authors' Addresses
Thomas D. Nadeau (editor)
BT
BT Centre
81 Newgate Street
London, EC1A 7AJ
United Kingdom
Email: tom.nadeau@bt.com
Carlos Pignataro (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200 Kit Creek Road
PO Box 14987
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
USA
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires August 27, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft BFD VCCV February 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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.
Nadeau & Pignataro Expires August 27, 2008 [Page 13]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-21 22:24:40 |