< draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-02.txt		draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-03.txt >
	MPLS Working Group A. Malis		MPLS Working Group A. Malis
	Internet-Draft S. Bryant		Internet-Draft S. Bryant
	Intended status: Informational Huawei Technologies		Intended status: Informational Huawei Technologies
	Expires: June 14, 2019 J. Halpern		Expires: September 1, 2019 J. Halpern
	Ericsson		Ericsson
	W. Henderickx		W. Henderickx
	Nokia		Nokia
	December 11, 2018		February 28, 2019
	MPLS Encapsulation For The SFC NSH		MPLS Transport Encapsulation For The SFC NSH
	draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-02		draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-03
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document describes how to use a Service Function Forwarder (SFF)		This document describes how to use a Service Function Forwarder (SFF)
	Label (similar to a pseudowire label or VPN label) to indicate the		Label (similar to a pseudowire label or VPN label) to indicate the
	presence of a Service Function Chaining (SFC) Network Service Header		presence of a Service Function Chaining (SFC) Network Service Header
	(NSH) between an MPLS label stack and the packet payload. This		(NSH) between an MPLS label stack and the packet original packet/
	allows SFC packets using the NSH to be forwarded between SFFs over an		frame. This allows SFC packets using the NSH to be forwarded between
	MPLS network, and to select one of multiple SFFs in the destination		SFFs over an MPLS network, and to select one of multiple SFFs in the
	MPLS node.		destination MPLS node.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on June 14, 2019.		This Internet-Draft will expire on September 1, 2019.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
			1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. MPLS Encapsulation Using an SFF Label . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. MPLS Encapsulation Using an SFF Label . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.1. MPLS Label Stack Construction at the Sending Node . . . . 3		2.1. MPLS Label Stack Construction at the Sending Node . . . . 4
	2.2. SFF Label Processing at the Destination Node . . . . . . 4		2.2. SFF Label Processing at the Destination Node . . . . . . 5
	3. Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) Considerations . . . . . . . . . 4		3. Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) Considerations . . . . . . . . . 5
	4. Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)		4. Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
	Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	As discussed in [RFC8300], a number of transport encapsulations for		As discussed in [RFC8300], a number of transport encapsulations for
	the Service Function Chaining (SFC) Network Service Header (NSH)		the Service Function Chaining (SFC) Network Service Header (NSH)
	already exist, such as Ethernet, UDP, GRE, and others.		already exist, such as Ethernet, UDP, GRE, and others.
	This document describes an MPLS transport encapsulation for the NSH		This document describes an MPLS transport encapsulation for the NSH
	and how to use a Service Function Forwarder (SFF) [RFC7665] Label to		and how to use a Service Function Forwarder (SFF) [RFC7665] Label to
	indicate the presence of the NSH in the MPLS packet payload. This		indicate the presence of the NSH in the MPLS packet payload. This
	allows SFC packets using the NSH to be forwarded between SFFs in an		allows SFC packets using the NSH to be forwarded between SFFs in an
	MPLS transport network, where MPLS is used to interconnect the		MPLS transport network, where MPLS is used to interconnect the
	network nodes that contain one or more SFFs. The label is also used		network nodes that contain one or more SFFs. The label is also used
	to select between multiple SFFs in the destination MPLS node.		to select between multiple SFFs in the destination MPLS node.
			This encapsulation is equivalent from an SFC perspective to other
			transport encapsulations of packets using the NSH. This can be
			illustrated by adding an additional line to the example of a next-hop
			SPI/SI-to-network overlay network locator mapping in Table 1 of
			[RFC8300]:
			+------+------+---------------------+-------------------------+
			| SPI | SI | Next Hop(s) | Transport Encapsulation |
			+------+------+---------------------+-------------------------+
			| 25 | 220 | Label 5467 | MPLS |
			+------+------+---------------------+-------------------------+
			Table 1: Extension to RFC 8300 Table 1
	SFF Labels are similar to other service labels at the bottom of an		SFF Labels are similar to other service labels at the bottom of an
	MPLS label stack that denote the contents of the MPLS payload being		MPLS label stack that denote the contents of the MPLS payload being
	other than IP, such as a layer 2 pseudowire, an IP packet that is		other than a normally routed IP packet, such as a layer 2 pseudowire,
	routed in a VPN context with a private address, or an Ethernet		an IP packet that is routed in a VPN context with a private address,
	virtual private wire service.		or an Ethernet virtual private wire service.
	This informational document follows well-established MPLS procedures		This informational document follows well-established MPLS procedures
	and does not require any actions by IANA or any new protocol		and does not require any actions by IANA or any new protocol
	extensions.		extensions.
	Note that using the MPLS label stack as a replacement for the SFC		Note that using the MPLS label stack as a replacement for the SFC
	NSH, covering use cases that do not require per-packet metadata, is		NSH, covering use cases that do not require per-packet metadata, is
	described elsewhere [I-D.ietf-mpls-sfc].		described elsewhere [I-D.ietf-mpls-sfc].
			1.1. Terminology
			The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
			"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
			"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
			14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
			capitals, as shown here.
	2. MPLS Encapsulation Using an SFF Label		2. MPLS Encapsulation Using an SFF Label
	The encapsulation is a standard MPLS label stack [RFC3032] with an		The encapsulation is a standard MPLS label stack [RFC3032] with an
	SFF Label at the bottom of the stack, followed by a NSH as defined by		SFF Label at the bottom of the stack, followed by a NSH as defined by
	[RFC8300] and the NSH payload.		[RFC8300] and the NSH original packet/frame.
	Much like a pseudowire label, an SFF Label is allocated by the		Much like a pseudowire label, an SFF Label MUST be allocated by the
	downstream receiver of the NSH from its per-platform label space.		downstream receiver of the NSH from its per-platform label space,
			since the meaning of the label is identical independent of which
			incoming interface it is received [RFC3031].
	If a receiving node supports more than one SFF (i.e, more than one		If a receiving node supports more than one SFF (i.e., more than one
	SFC forwarding instance), then the SFF Label can be used to select		SFC forwarding instance), then the SFF Label can be used to select
	the proper SFF, by having the receiving node advertise more than one		the proper SFF, by having the receiving node advertise more than one
	SFF Label to its upstream sending nodes as appropriate.		SFF Label to its upstream sending nodes as appropriate.
	The method used by the downstream receiving node to advertise SFF		The method used by the downstream receiving node to advertise SFF
	Labels to the upstream sending node is out of scope of this document.		Labels to the upstream sending node is out of scope of this document.
	That said, a number of methods are possible, such as via a protocol		That said, a number of methods are possible, such as via a protocol
	exchange, or via a controller that manages both the sender and the		exchange, or via a controller that manages both the sender and the
	receiver using NETCONF/YANG, BGP, PCEP, etc. These are meant as		receiver using NETCONF/YANG, BGP, PCEP, etc. One such BGP-based
	possible examples and not to constrain the future definition of such		method has already been defined, and is documented in
	advertisement methods.		[I-D.ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane]. This does not constrain the
			further definition of other such advertisement methods in the future.
	While the SFF label will usually be at the bottom of the label stack,		While the SFF label will usually be at the bottom of the label stack,
	there may be cases where there are additional label stack entries		there may be cases where there are additional label stack entries
	beneath it. For example, when an ACH is carried that applies to the		beneath it. For example, when an Associated Channel Header (ACH) is
	SFF, a GAL [RFC5586] will be in the label stack below the SFF.		carried that applies to the SFF, a Generic Associated Channel Label
	Similarly, an Entropy Label Indicator/Entropy Label (ELI/EL)		(GAL) [RFC5586] will be in the label stack below the SFF. Similarly,
	[RFC6790] may be carried below the SFF in the label stack. This is		an Entropy Label Indicator/Entropy Label (ELI/EL) [RFC6790] may be
	identical to the situation with VPN labels.		carried below the SFF in the label stack. This is identical to the
			situation with VPN labels.
			This document does not define a use for the Traffic Class (TC) field
			[RFC5462] (formerly known as the Experimental Use (EXP) bits
			[RFC3032]) in the SFF Label.
	2.1. MPLS Label Stack Construction at the Sending Node		2.1. MPLS Label Stack Construction at the Sending Node
	When one SFF wishes to send an SFC packet with a NSH to another SFF		When one SFF wishes to send an SFC packet with a NSH to another SFF
	over an MPLS transport network, a label stack needs to be constructed		over an MPLS transport network, a label stack needs to be constructed
	by the MPLS node that contains the sending SFF in order to transport		by the MPLS node that contains the sending SFF in order to transport
	the packet to the destination MPLS node that contains the receiving		the packet to the destination MPLS node that contains the receiving
	SFF. The label stack is constructed as follows:		SFF. The label stack is constructed as follows:
	1. Push zero or more labels that are interpreted by the destination		1. Push zero or more labels that are interpreted by the destination
	MPLS node on to the packet, such as the Generic Associated		MPLS node on to the packet, such as the Generic Associated
	Channel [RFC5586] label (see Section 4).		Channel [RFC5586] label (see Section 4). The TTL For these
			labels is set according to the relevant standards that define
			these labels.
	2. Push the SFF Label to identify the desired SFF in the receiving		2. Push the SFF Label to identify the desired SFF in the receiving
	MPLS node.		MPLS node. The TTL For this MPLS label MUST be set to one to
			avoid mis-forwarding.
	3. Push zero or more additional labels such that (a) the resulting		3. Push zero or more additional labels such that (a) the resulting
	label stack will cause the packet to be transported to the		label stack will cause the packet to be transported to the
	destination MPLS node, and (b) when the packet arrives at the		destination MPLS node, and (b) when the packet arrives at the
	destination node, either:		destination node, either:
	* the SFF Label will be at the top of the label stack (this is		* the SFF Label will be at the top of the label stack (this is
	typically the case when penultimate hop popping is used at the		typically the case when penultimate hop popping is used at the
	penultimate node, or the source and destination nodes are		penultimate node, or the source and destination nodes are
	direct neighbors), or		direct neighbors), or
	* as a part of normal MPLS processing, the SFF Label becomes the		* as a part of normal MPLS processing, the SFF Label becomes the
	top label in the stack before the packet is forwarded to		top label in the stack before the packet is forwarded to
	another node and before the packet is dispatched to a higher		another node and before the packet is dispatched to a higher
	layer.		layer.
			The TTL for these labels is set by configuration, or set to the
			defaults for normal MPLS operation in the network.
	2.2. SFF Label Processing at the Destination Node		2.2. SFF Label Processing at the Destination Node
	The destination MPLS node performs a lookup on the SFF label to		The destination MPLS node performs a lookup on the SFF label to
	retrieve the next-hop context between the SFF and SF, e.g. to		retrieve the next-hop context between the SFF and SF, e.g. to
	retrieve the destination MAC address in the case where native		retrieve the destination MAC address in the case where native
	Ethernet encapsulation is used between SFF and SF. How the next-hop		Ethernet encapsulation is used between SFF and SF. How the next-hop
	context is populated is out of the scope of this document.		context is populated is out of the scope of this document.
			The receiving SFF SHOULD check that the received SFF label has a TTL
			of 1 upon receipt. Any other values indicate a likely error
			condition and SHOULD result in discarding the packet.
	The receiving MPLS node then pops the SFF Label (and any labels		The receiving MPLS node then pops the SFF Label (and any labels
	beneath it) so that the destination SFF receives the SFC packet with		beneath it) so that the destination SFF receives the SFC packet with
	the NSH is at the top of the packet.		the NSH is at the top of the packet.
	3. Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) Considerations		3. Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) Considerations
	As discussed in [RFC4928] and [RFC7325], there are ECMP		As discussed in [RFC4928] and [RFC7325], there are ECMP
	considerations for payloads carried by MPLS.		considerations for payloads carried by MPLS.
	Many existing routers use deep packet inspection to examine the		Many existing routers use deep packet inspection to examine the
	skipping to change at page 5, line 11 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 9 ¶
	If ECMP is desired when SFC is used with an MPLS transport network,		If ECMP is desired when SFC is used with an MPLS transport network,
	there are two possible options, Entropy [RFC6790] and Flow-Aware		there are two possible options, Entropy [RFC6790] and Flow-Aware
	Transport [RFC6391] labels. A recommendation between these options,		Transport [RFC6391] labels. A recommendation between these options,
	and their proper placement in the label stack, is for future study.		and their proper placement in the label stack, is for future study.
	4. Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Considerations		4. Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Considerations
	OAM at the SFC Layer is handled by SFC-defined mechanisms [RFC8300].		OAM at the SFC Layer is handled by SFC-defined mechanisms [RFC8300].
	However, OAM may be required at the MPLS transport layer. If so,		However, OAM may be required at the MPLS transport layer. If so,
	then standard MPLS-layer OAM mechanisms such as the Generic		then standard MPLS-layer OAM mechanisms may be used at the transport
	Associated Channel [RFC5586] label may be used.		label layer (the labels above the SFF label).
	5. IANA Considerations		5. IANA Considerations
	This document does not request any actions from IANA.		This document does not request any actions from IANA.
	Editorial note to RFC Editor: This section may be removed at your		Editorial note to RFC Editor: This section may be removed at your
	discretion.		discretion.
	6. Security Considerations		6. Security Considerations
	skipping to change at page 6, line 11 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 9 ¶
	network's control and management planes and a way to inject packets		network's control and management planes and a way to inject packets
	into internal interfaces. This is compared to, for example, NSH over		into internal interfaces. This is compared to, for example, NSH over
	UDP over IP, which could be injected into any external interface in a		UDP over IP, which could be injected into any external interface in a
	network that was not properly configured to filter out such packets		network that was not properly configured to filter out such packets
	at the ingress.		at the ingress.
	7. Acknowledgements		7. Acknowledgements
	The authors would like to thank Jim Guichard, Eric Rosen, Med		The authors would like to thank Jim Guichard, Eric Rosen, Med
	Boucadair, Sasha Vainshtein, Jeff Tantsura, Anoop Ghanwani, John		Boucadair, Sasha Vainshtein, Jeff Tantsura, Anoop Ghanwani, John
	Drake, and Loa Andersson for their reviews and comments.		Drake, Loa Andersson, Carlos Pignataro, and Christian Hopps for their
			reviews and comments.
	8. References		8. References
	8.1. Normative References		8.1. Normative References
			[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
			Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
			[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
			Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
	[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,		[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
	Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack		Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
	Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,		Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
			[RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
			(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
			Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February
			2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>.
			[RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
			Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.
			[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
			2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
			May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
	[RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,		[RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
	"Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300,		"Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018,		DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8300>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8300>.
	8.2. Informative References		8.2. Informative References
			[I-D.ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane]
			Farrel, A., Drake, J., Rosen, E., Uttaro, J., and L.
			Jalil, "BGP Control Plane for NSH SFC", draft-ietf-bess-
			nsh-bgp-control-plane-07 (work in progress), February
			2019.
	[I-D.ietf-mpls-sfc]		[I-D.ietf-mpls-sfc]
	Farrel, A., Bryant, S., and J. Drake, "An MPLS-Based		Farrel, A., Bryant, S., and J. Drake, "An MPLS-Based
	Forwarding Plane for Service Function Chaining", draft-		Forwarding Plane for Service Function Chaining", draft-
	ietf-mpls-sfc-04 (work in progress), November 2018.		ietf-mpls-sfc-05 (work in progress), February 2019.
	[RFC4928] Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal		[RFC4928] Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal
	Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128,		Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128,
	RFC 4928, DOI 10.17487/RFC4928, June 2007,		RFC 4928, DOI 10.17487/RFC4928, June 2007,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4928>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4928>.
	[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,		[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,
	"MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586,		"MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009,		DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>.
	skipping to change at page 7, line 15 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 44 ¶
	[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and		[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
	L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",		L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
	RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,		RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
	[RFC7325] Villamizar, C., Ed., Kompella, K., Amante, S., Malis, A.,		[RFC7325] Villamizar, C., Ed., Kompella, K., Amante, S., Malis, A.,
	and C. Pignataro, "MPLS Forwarding Compliance and		and C. Pignataro, "MPLS Forwarding Compliance and
	Performance Requirements", RFC 7325, DOI 10.17487/RFC7325,		Performance Requirements", RFC 7325, DOI 10.17487/RFC7325,
	August 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7325>.		August 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7325>.
	[RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
	Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Andrew G. Malis		Andrew G. Malis
	Huawei Technologies		Huawei Technologies
	Email: agmalis@gmail.com		Email: agmalis@gmail.com
	Stewart Bryant		Stewart Bryant
	Huawei Technologies		Huawei Technologies
	Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com		Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com
	Joel M. Halpern		Joel M. Halpern
	Ericsson		Ericsson
	Email: joel.halpern@ericsson.com		Email: joel.halpern@ericsson.com
End of changes. 30 change blocks.
	48 lines changed or deleted		115 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/