wdiff draft-ietf-nemo-requirements-00.txt draft-ietf-nemo-requirements-01.txt

NEMO Working Group Thierry Ernst, Editor
Internet-Draft INRIA and WIDE
February, and INRIA
May, 2003

"Network Mobility Support Goals and Requirements"
<draft-ietf-nemo-requirements-00.txt>
<draft-ietf-nemo-requirements-01.txt>

Status of This Memo

This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

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.

Abstract

Network mobility arises when a router connecting an entire network to
the Internet dynamically changes its point of attachment to the
Internet and thus its therefrom causing the reachability of the entire network to
be changed in the topology.
The mobile Such kind of network is viewed referred to as a unit
mobile network. Without appropriate mechanisms, sessions established
between nodes in the mobile network and is connected to the global Internet by one or more cannot be
maintained while the mobile routers. In contrast with host
mobility router changes its point of attachment.
The required support which aims at providing continuous Internet
connectivity mechanisms will be provided in two phases. The
first phase, referred to mobile hosts only, network mobility support as NEMO Basic Support is to provide continuous Internet sessions not only to the mobile router
connecting the mobile network to session
continuity while the global Internet, but also necessary optimizations mechanims referred to
nodes behind the mobile router. The purpose of this as
NEMO Extended Support might be provided later. This document is to
list outlines
the goals expected from network mobility support and defines the
requirements that must be met by network mobility support
solutions in IPv6. NEMO Basic Support solutions.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

2. Terminology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

3. Network Mobility NEMO Working Group Goals and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . 04

4. General Purpose Guidelines for the Solutions NEMO Support Design Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05

5. NEMO Basic Support One-liner Requirements for Basic NEMO Support. . . . . . . . . . 09

6. Changes From Previous Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

A. Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

B. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12

C. Editors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

D. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 13

Conventions used in this document

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].

1. Introduction

Network mobility support is concerned with managing the mobility of
an entire network, viewed as a single unit, which changes its point
of attachment to the Internet and thus its reachability in the
Internet topology. Such kind of network is referred to as a mobile
network and includes one or more mobile routers (MRs) which connect
it to the global Internet. Nodes behind the MR(s) (MNNs) are both
fixed (keeping the same address on the mobile network at all times), (LFNs) and mobile (entering and leaving the mobile network as they roam with
respect to it). (VMNs or LMNs). In most cases, the internal
structure of the mobile network will in effect be relatively stable
(no dynamic change of the topology), but this is not a general
assumption.

Cases of mobile networks include for instance:

- networks attached to people (Personal Area Networks or PANs): a
cell-phone with one cellular interface and one Bluetooth interface
together with a Bluetooth-enabled PDA constitute a very simple
instance of a mobile network. The cell-phone is the mobile router
while the PDA is used for web browsing or runs a personal web
server.

- networks of sensors and computers deployed in vehicles: vehicles
are more and more embedded with a number of processing units for
safety and ease of driving reasons, as advocated by ITS
(Intelligent Transportation Systems) applications.

- access networks deployed in public transportation (buses,
trains, taxis, aircrafts): they provide Internet access to IP
devices carried by passengers (laptop, camera, mobile phone: host
mobility within network mobility or PANs: network mobility within
network mobility, i.e. nested mobility).

- ad-hoc networks connected to the Internet via a MR: for instance
students in a train that both need to set up an ad-hoc network
among themselves and to get Internet connectivity through the MR
connecting the train to the Internet.

Traditional work conducted so far on mobility support was to provide
continuous Internet connectivity to mobile hosts only (host mobility
support). In contrast with host mobility support, network mobility
support is to provide continuous Internet sessions not only to the
mobile router connecting the mobile network to the global Internet,
but also to nodes behind the mobile router.

Mobility of networks does not cause MNNs to change their own physical
point of attachment, however they happen to change their topological
location with respect to the global Internet which results in lack Internet. If network mobility is
not explicitly supported by some mechanisms, the mobility of the MR
results into MNNs losing Internet access and broken breaking ongoing
sessions if no supporting mechanisms are
deployed. entertained between arbitrary correspondent node (CNs) in
the global Internet and those MNNs located within the mobile network.
In addition, the communication path between a MNN MNNs and an arbitrary
Correspondent Node
correspondent nodes (CN) may result in becomes sub-optimal, whereas multiple levels
of mobility will cause extremely suboptimal paths,
particularly when mobile networks are nested or when the CN is itself
mobile. sub-optimal routing.

The mechanisms required for handling such mobility issues are
currently lacking within the IETF standards. Traditional work
conducted on mobility support (particularly in the Mobile IP working
group) is to provide continuous Internet connectivity and optimal
routing to mobile hosts only (host mobility support) and are unable
to support network mobility. The NEMO working group has therefore
been set up to deal with those. issues specific to network mobility. The
purpose of this document is thus to detail the methodology that will
be followed by the NEMO working group group, its goals, and to list define
requirements for network mobility support.

This document is structured as follows: first, section 2 introduces
the terminology for network mobility. In in section 3, we define the
goals and methodology of the NEMO working group and we emphasize the
stepwise approach the working group has decided to follow. A number
of guidelines desirable design goals are listed in section 4 and are used in section 5 4. Those design goals
serve as guidelines to edict the requirements for basic network
mobility support.

2. Terminology

Terms

Mobility-related terms used in this document are taken from [MIPv6] and [MOBILITY-
TERMS]. Additional defined in
[MOBILITY-TERMS] whereas terms pertaining to network mobility
specifically are defined in [NEMO-TERMS].

[NOTE FROM THE EDITOR: parts from draft [NEMO-TERMS] will probably be
moved to [MOBILITY-TERMS] whereas the remaining terms would then be
pasted in this present document. THIS IS TO BE DISCUSSED]

3. Network Mobility NEMO Working Group Goals and Methodology

The primary goal of the NEMO work is to specify a solution which
allows mobile network nodes (MNNs) to remain connected to the
Internet and continuously reachable at all times while the mobile
network they are attached to changes its point of attachment.
Secondary goals of the work is to investigate the effects of network
mobility on various aspects of internet communication such as routing
protocol changes, implications of realtime traffic and fast
handovers, optimizations. These should all support the primary goal
of reachability for mobile network nodes. Security is an important
consideration too, and efforts should be made to use existing
solutions if they are appropriate. Although a well-designed solution
may include security inherent in other protocols, mobile networks
also introduce new challenges.

For doing so, the NEMO working group has decided to take a stepwise
approach by standardizing a basic solution to preserve session
continuity (basic network mobility support), (NEMO Basic Support), and at the same time study the
possible approaches and issues with providing more optimal routing
with potentially nested mobile networks (extended network
mobility support). (NEMO Extended Support).
However, the working group is not chartered to actually standardize a
solution to such route optimization at this point in time.

For basic NEMO support, Basic Support, the working group will assume that none of
the nodes behind the MR will be aware of the network's mobility, thus
the network's movement needs to be completely transparent to the
nodes inside the mobile network. This assumption will be made to
accommodate nodes inside the network that are not generally aware of
mobility.

The efforts of the Mobile IP working group have resulted in the
Mobile IPv4 [7] and Mobile IPv6 [6] protocols, which have already solved the
issue of host mobility support. Since challenges to enabling mobile
networks are vastly reduced by this work, basic network mobility
support will adopt the methods for host mobility support used in
Mobile IP, and extend them in the simplest way possible to achieve
its goals. The basic support solution is for each MR to have a Home
Agent, and use bidirectional tunneling between the MR and HA to
preserve session continuity while the MR moves. The MR will acquire a
Care-of-address from its attachment point much like what is done for
mobile nodes (MN) using Mobile IP. This approach allows nested mobile
networks, since each MR will appear to its attachment point as a
single node.

4. General Purpose Guidelines for the Solutions NEMO Suppport Design Goals

This section lists a number of guidelines which are used details the fundamental design goals the solutions will
tend to achieve. Those design goals will serve to edict and
understand the requirements that MUST or SHOULD be met by defined for forthcoming network
mobility support solutions, solutions. Actual
requirements for both basic NEMO support and extended Basic Support are in the next section, whereas
NEMO support. Extended Support has not yet been considered.

- Migration Transparency: a permanent connectivity to the Internet
MUST
has to be provided to all MNNs while continuous sessions MUST are
expected to be maintained as the mobile router changes its point
of attachment. For doing so, MNNs will are expected to be reachable via
their permanent IP addresses.

- Performance Transparency (Seamless Mobility): and Seamless Mobility: NEMO support
SHOULD provide is
expected to be provided with limited signaling overhead and ideally SHOULD to
minimize the impact of handover on over applications, in terms of
packet loss or delay. Variable However, although variable delays of
transmission and losses between MNNs and their respective CNs
could be perceived as the network is moving are displaced, it would not be
considered a lack of performance transparency.

- Network Mobility Support Transparency: MNNs behind the MR(s)
don't change their own physical point of attachment as a result of
the mobile network's displacement in the Internet topology.
Consequently, NEMO support is better expected to be performed by the sole
MR(s) and specific support functions on any other nodes node than the
MR(s)
SHOULD would better be avoided.

- Operational Transparency: NEMO support MUST is to be implemented at
the IP layer level. It MUST is expected to be transparent to any upper layer
layers so that any upper layer protocol can run unchanged on top
of an IP layer extended with NEMO support.

- Arbitrary Configurations: The formation of a mobile network can
exist in various levels of complexity. In the simplest case, a
mobile network contains just a mobile router and a host. In the
most complicated case, a mobile network is multi-homed and is
itself a multi-level aggregation of mobile networks with
collectively thousands of mobile routers and hosts. While the list
of potential configurations of mobile networks cannot be limited,
at least the following configurations are desirable:

o mobile networks of any size, ranging from a sole subnet with
a few IP devices to a collection of subnets with a large
number of IP devices,

o multi-homed nodes that change their point of attachment within the mobile network (see definition in [NEMO-TERMS].
network,

o foreign mobile nodes that attach to the mobile network. network,

o nodes that change their point of attachment within multi-homed mobile network either when a single MR has
multiple attachments to the internet, or when the mobile
network.
network is attached to the Internet by means of multiple
MRs (see definition in [NEMO-TERMS]),

o nested mobile networks (see (mobile networks attaching to other
mobile networks, see definition in [NEMO-TERMS].

o mobile Although the
complexity requirements of those nested networks displaced within a domain boundary (local
mobility) or between domain boundaries (global mobility). is not
clear, it is desirable to support arbitrary levels of
recursive networks, and only in the case where this is
impractical and protocol concerns preclude this support
should the solution impose restrictions on nesting
(e.g. path MTU),

o distinct mobility frequencies. frequencies,

o distinct access medium.

In order to keep complexity minimal, transit networks are excluded
from this list. A transit network is one in which data would be
forwarded between two endpoints outside of the network, so that
the network itself simply serves as a transitional conduit for
packet forwarding. A stub network (leaf network), on the other
hand, does not serve as a data forwarding path. Data on a stub
network is either sent by or addressed to a node located within
that network.

- Administration: the solution MUST not prevent Local Mobility and Global Mobility: mobile networks and mobile
nodes owned by administratively different entities are expected to
attach
be displaced within a domain boundary or between domain
boundaries. Multihoming, vertical and horizontal handoffs, and
access control mechanisms are desirable to any part of the Internet topology achieve this goal. Such
mobility type is not expected to be limited for any consideration
other
considerations than administrative and security policies (both
global mobility and local-mobility are desirable). policies.

- Scalability: NEMO support signaling and processing MUST is expected
to scale to a potentially large number of mobile networks
irrespective of their configuration, mobility frequency, size and
number of CNs.

- Backward Compatibility: NEMO support MUST be able will have to co-exist
and not interfere with
existing IPv6 standards. The solution MUST
reuse standards without interfering with them. Standards
defined in other IETF working groups have to be reused as much as
possible and MAY extended only
extend them if deemed necessary. For instance, the
following mechanisms defined by other working groups MUST still function: are expected
to function without modidications:

o Address allocation and configuration mechanism. mechanisms

o Host mobility support: the solution MUST not prevent mobile nodes and correspondent nodes,
either located within or outside the mobile network, network are
expected to keep operating protocols defined by the Mobile IP
working group. This include mechanisms for host mobility
support (Mobile IPv6) and seamless mobility (FMIPv6).

o Multicast support: the solution MUST maintain ongoing
multicast sessions of support entertained by MNNs as are expected to be
maintained while the mobile router changes its point of
attachment. Group membership is currently gathered
by MLD.

o Access control protocols and mechanisms: NEMO support MUST
not disallow protocols and mechanisms used by visiting
mobile hosts and routers to be authenticated and authorized
to gain access to the Internet via the mobile network
infrastructure (MRs).

o Security protocols and mechanisms

o Routing protocols and mechanisms: Mechanisms performed by routers deployed both in mobile
networks may be routers like the others visited
networks and therefrom are
expected to run in some situations a number of protocols such
as a routing protocol, mobile networks (routing protocols, Neighbor
Discovery, ICMP, Router
Renumbering and others. NEMO support MUST thus not prevent
usual routing protocols and mechanisms to keep working within
the mobile network and to interact with the global Internet
(home network only in the case of basic NEMO support) when
necessary.

o Seamless Mobility: the solutions MUST be compatible with
FMIPv6 Renumbering, ...).

- Security: Secure Signaling: NEMO support MUST will have to comply with usual
IETF security policies and recommendations and MUST is expected to have
its specific security issues fully addressed. In practice, all
NEMO support control messages transmitted in the network MUST will have
to ensure an acceptable level of security to prevent intruders to
usurp identities. identities and forge data. Specifically, the following
issues have to be addressed: considered:

o Authentication of the sender to prevent identity usurpation.

o Authorization, to make sure the sender is granted permission
to perform the operation as indicated in the control message.

o Confidentiality of the data contained in the control message.

- Location Privacy: means to hide the actual location of MNNS to
third parties other than the HA if are desired.

5. One-liner Requirements In which extend this
has to be enforced is not clear since it is always possible to
determine the topological location by analysing IPv6 headers. It
would thus require some kind of encryption of the IPv6 header to
prevent third parties to monitor IPv6 addresses between the MR and
the HA. On the other hand, it is at the very least desirable to
provide means for Basic MNNs to hide their real topological location to
their CNs.

- IPv4 and NAT traversal: IPv4 clouds and NAT are likely to co-
exist with IPv6 for a long time, so it is desirable to ensure
mechanisms developped for NEMO will be able to traverse such
clouds.

5. NEMO Basic Support One-liner Requirements

The NEMO WG will specify a unified and unique solution for "Basic
Network Mobility Support". The solution will allow all nodes in the
mobile network to be reachable via permanent IP addresses, as well as
maintain ongoing sessions as the MR changes its point of attachment
to the Internet topology. This will be done by maintaining a
bidirectional tunnel between the a MR and its Home Agent. The Working
Group will investigate reusing the existing Mobile IPv6 mechanisms
for the tunnel management, or extend it if deemed necessary.

The following requirements are placed on the Basic NEMO support Basic Support
solution, hereafter referred to as "the solution":

R01: The solution MUST be implemented at the IP layer level.

R02: The solution MUST set up a bi-directional tunnel between a
MR and MR's its Home Agent.

R03: All traffic exchanged between a MNN and a CN in the global
Internet MUST transit through the bidirectional tunnel.

R04: MNNs MUST be reachable at a permanent IP address and name.

R05: The solution MUST maintain continuous sessions (both unicast
and multicast) between MNNs and arbitrary CNs after IP
handover of (one of) the MR.

R06: The solution MUST not require modifications to any node other
than MRs and HAs.

R07: The solution MUST support fixed nodes, mobile hosts and mobile
routers in the mobile network.

R08: The solution MUST allow MIPv6-enabled MNNs to use a mobile
network link as either a home link or a foreign link.

R09: The solution MUST not prevent the proper operation of Mobile
IPv6 (i.e. the solution MUST support MIPv6-enabled MNNs and
MUST also allow MIPv6-enabled MNNs to receive and process Binding Updates
from arbitrary Mobile Nodes.) operate
either the CN, HA, or MN operations defined in [MIPv6])
[SHOULD BE MOVED UNDER R17]

R10: The solution MUST treat all the potential configurations the
same way (whatever the number of subnets, MNNs, nested levels
of MRs, egress interfaces, ...)

R11: The solution MUST support mobile networks attaching to other
mobile networks (nested mobile networks). Although it is not
fully clear how many layers of topology MUST be supported, or
the complexity requirements at least 2 levels of those nested mobile
networks, the goal
is to support while, in principle, arbitrary levels of recursive networks, and only
in the case where this is impractical and protocol concerns
preclude this support should the solution impose restrictions on
nesting (e.g. path MTU).
mobile networks SHOULD be supported.

R12: The solution MUST function for multi-homed multihomed MR and multihomed
mobile networks.
More precisely:

R13.1: networks as defined in [NEMO-TERMS]). Particularly:

R12.1: The solution MUST support function for multi-MR mobile networks with
multiple MRs,

R13.2:

R12.2: The solution MUST support MR with multiple interfaces,

R13.3: function for multi-egress
interfaces

R12.3: The solution must support MUST function for MR with multiple global
addresses on an egress interface.

[I PROPOSE TO REMOVE R12.1, 2 and 3 BECAUSE THIS IS
CONTAINED IN THE DEFINITION IN [NEMO-TERMS]].

R13: NEMO Support signaling over the bidirectional MUST be minimized
[NEW REQUIREMENT PROPOSED BY EDITOR]

R14: Signaling messages between the HA and the MR MUST be secured:

R14.1: The receiver MUST be able to authenticate the sender

R14.2: The function performed by the sender MUST be authorized
for the content carried

R14.3: Anti-replay MUST be provided

R14.4: The signaling messages SHOULD be encrypted [ACCORDING TO
DISCUSSION AT IETF56, SHALL BE REMOVED or SOFTENED TO
"MAY" (?)]

R15: The solution MUST ensure transparent continuation of routing and
management operations over the bi-directional tunnel when the MR
is away from home. (this includes e.g. routing protocols, router
renumbering, DHCPv6, etc)

R16: The solution MUST not impact on the routing fabric neither on
the Internet addressing architecture architecture. [ACCORDING TO IETF56
minutes, SHOULD BE REMOVED]

R17: The solution MUST ensure backward compatibility with other
standards defined by the IETF. IETF [SPECIFIC PROTOCOLS SHOULD BE
EXPLICITLY LISTED: MLD, ... etc. PLEASE CONTRIBUTE THE NAMES OF
PROTOCOLS TO BE INCLUDED ON THE MAILING LIST. MAYBE MIPV6 COULD
BE INCLUDED HERE INSTEAD OF R09.] Particularly:

R18: The solution SHOULD preserve sessions established through
another egress interface when one fails [PROPOSED BY EDITOR OF
THIS DOCUMENT AT THE IETF56 MEETING. TO BE DISCUSSED ON THE
MAILING LIST]

6. Changes since last version

- title of documents: included the word "goals"

- entire document: some rewording

- section 4: changed title of section to "NEMO Design Goals".

- section 4: removed "MUST" and "MAY"

- section 4: more text about location privacy

- section 4: changed "Administration" paragraph to "Local and
Global Mobility". Text enhanced.

- section 5:

R02: replace "between MR and MR's HA" with "a MR and its HA"

R11: specified at least 2 levels

R12: replaced "support" with "function" and add "multihomed MR"

R13.x renumbered to R12.x since part of R12 (editing mistake)

R13 and R18: new requirements proposed by editor

and minor changes in the formulation of other Requirements

A. Acknowledgments

The material presented in this document takes most of its text from
discussions and previous documents submitted to the NEMO working
group. This includes initial contributions from Motorola, INRIA,
Ericsson and Nokia. We are particularly grateful to Hesham Soliman
(Ericsson) and the IETF ADs (Erik Nordmark and Thomas Narten) who
highly helped to set up the NEMO working group. We are also grateful
to all the following people whose comments highly contributed to the
present document: TJ Kniveton (Nokia), Alexandru Petrescu (Motorola),
Christophe Janneteau (Motorola), Pascal Thubert (CISCO), Hong-Yon
Lach (Motorola), Mattias Petterson (Ericsson) and all the others
people who have expressed their opinions on the NEMO (formely MONET)
mailing list. Thierry Ernst wish to personally grant support to its
previous employers, INRIA, and Motorola for their support and
direction in bringing this topic up to the IETF, particularly Claude
Castelluccia (INRIA) and Hong-Yon Lach (Motorola).

B. References

[IPv6-NODE] John Loughney
"IPv6 Node Requirements"
draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-01.txt
July 2002,
draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements.txt
Work in progress.

[MIPv6]

[MobileIPv4] Charles Perkins
"IP Mobility Support"
RFC 2002, IETF, October 1996.

[MobileIPv6] David B. Johnson and C. Perkins.
"Mobility Support in IPv6"
draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-20.txt,
January 2002.
draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6.txt,
Work in progress.

[MOBILITY-TERMS] J. Manner
"Mobility Related Terminology
<draft-ietf-seamoby-mobility-terminology-00.txt>
August 2002.
<draft-ietf-seamoby-mobility-terminology.txt>
Work in progress progress.

[NEMO-TERMS] Thierry Ernst and Hong-Yon Lach
"Terminology for Network Mobility Support",
draft-ernst-nemo-terminology.txt.
draft-ietf-nemo-terminology.txt
Work in progress.

[RFC1122] R. Braden (editor).
"Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication
Layers". IETF RFC 1122, October 1989.

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

[RFC2460] S. Deering and R. Hinden.
"Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification"
IETF RFC 2460, December 1998.

C. Editors's Addresses

Questions about this document can be directed to the NEMO working
group chairs:

Thierry Ernst,
Keio University.
5322 Endo, Fujisawa-shi,
Kanagawa 252-8520, Japan.
Phone : +81-466-49-1100
Fax : +81-466-49-1395
Email : ernst@sfc.wide.ad.jp

T. J. Kniveton
Communications Systems Lab
Nokia Research Center
313 Fairchild Drive
Mountain View, California 94043, USA
Phone : +1 650 625-2025
Fax : +1 650 625-2502
EMail : Timothy.Kniveton@Nokia.com

D. Full Copyright Statement

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing
Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined
in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to
translate it into languages other than English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.

Funding for the RFC editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.