< draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfsdirect-06.txt		draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfsdirect-07.txt >
	NFSv4 Working Group Tom Talpey		NFSv4 Working Group Tom Talpey
	Internet-Draft Network Appliance, Inc.		Internet-Draft NetApp
	Intended status: Standards Track Brent Callaghan		Intended status: Standards Track Brent Callaghan
	Expires: January 1, 2008 Apple Computer, Inc.		Expires: August 23, 2008 Apple
	July 1, 2007		February 22, 2008
	NFS Direct Data Placement		NFS Direct Data Placement
	draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfsdirect-06		draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfsdirect-07
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any		By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
	applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware		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		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.		aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that		Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
	skipping to change at page 1, line 38 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 38 ¶
	progress."		progress."
	The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at		The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt		http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
	The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at		The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.		http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
	Abstract		Abstract
	The RDMA transport for ONC RPC provides direct data placement for NFS		This draft defines the bindings of the various Network File System
	data. Direct data placement not only reduces the amount of data that		(NFS) versions to the Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) operations
	needs to be copied in an NFS call, but allows much of the data		supported by the RPC/RDMA transport protocol. It describes the use
	movement over the network to be implemented in RDMA hardware. This		of direct data placement by means of server-initiated RDMA operations
	draft describes the use of direct data placement by means of server-		into client-supplied buffers for implementations of NFS versions 2,
	initiated RDMA operations into client-supplied buffers in a Chunk		3, 4 and 4.1 over such an RDMA transport.
	list for implementations of NFS versions 2, 3, and 4 over an RDMA
	transport.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2. Transfers from NFS Client to NFS Server . . . . . . . . . . 2		2. Transfers from NFS Client to NFS Server . . . . . . . . . . 2
	3. Transfers from NFS Server to NFS Client . . . . . . . . . . 3		3. Transfers from NFS Server to NFS Client . . . . . . . . . . 3
	4. NFS Versions 2 and 3 Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		4. NFS Versions 2 and 3 Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	5. NFS Version 4 Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		5. NFS Version 4 Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	6. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		5.1. NFS Version 4 Callbacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
			7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	11. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		11. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	12. Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . 9		12. Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . 10
	Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	Requirements Language		Requirements Language
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].		document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The RDMA Transport for ONC RPC [RPCRDMA] allows an RPC client		The Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) Transport for Remote Procedure
	application to post buffers in a Chunk list for specific arguments		Calls (RPC) [RPCRDMA] allows an RPC client application to post
	and results from an RPC call. The RDMA transport header conveys this		buffers in a Chunk list for specific arguments and results from an
	list of client buffer addresses to the server where the application		RPC call. The RDMA transport header conveys this list of client
	can associate them with client data and use RDMA operations to		buffer addresses to the server where the application can associate
	transfer the results directly to and from the posted buffers on the		them with client data and use RDMA operations to transfer the results
	client. The client and server must agree on a consistent mapping of		directly to and from the posted buffers on the client. The client
	posted buffers to RPC. This document details the mapping for each		and server must agree on a consistent mapping of posted buffers to
	version of the NFS protocol [RFC1094] [RFC1813] [RFC3530] [NFSv4.1].		RPC. This document details the mapping for each version of the NFS
			protocol [RFC1094] [RFC1813] [RFC3530] [NFSv4.1].
	2. Transfers from NFS Client to NFS Server		2. Transfers from NFS Client to NFS Server
	The RDMA Read list, in the RDMA transport header, allows an RPC		The RDMA Read list, in the RDMA transport header, allows an RPC
	client to marshal RPC call data selectively. Large chunks of data,		client to marshal RPC call data selectively. Large chunks of data,
	such as the file data of an NFS WRITE request, MAY be referenced by		such as the file data of an NFS WRITE request, MAY be referenced by
	an RDMA Read list and be moved efficiently and directly-placed by an		an RDMA Read list and be moved efficiently and directly-placed by an
	RDMA READ operation initiated by the server.		RDMA READ operation initiated by the server.
	The process of identifying these chunks for the RDMA Read list can be		The process of identifying these chunks for the RDMA Read list can be
	skipping to change at page 4, line 8 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 10 ¶
	The sum of the segment lengths yields the total size of the buffer,		The sum of the segment lengths yields the total size of the buffer,
	which MUST be large enough to accept the result. If the buffer is		which MUST be large enough to accept the result. If the buffer is
	too small, the server MUST return an XDR encode error. The server		too small, the server MUST return an XDR encode error. The server
	MUST return the result data for a posted buffer by progressively		MUST return the result data for a posted buffer by progressively
	filling its segments, perhaps leaving some trailing segments unfilled		filling its segments, perhaps leaving some trailing segments unfilled
	or partially full if the size of the result is less than the total		or partially full if the size of the result is less than the total
	size of the buffer segments.		size of the buffer segments.
	The server returns the RDMA Write list to the client with the segment		The server returns the RDMA Write list to the client with the segment
	length fields overwritten to indicate the amount of data RDMA Written		length fields overwritten to indicate the amount of data RDMA Written
	to each segment. Results returned by direct placement MUST not be		to each segment. Results returned by direct placement MUST NOT be
	returned by other methods, e.g., by read chunk list or inline. If no		returned by other methods, e.g., by read chunk list or inline. If no
	result data at all is returned for the element, the server places no		result data at all is returned for the element, the server places no
	data in the buffer(s), but does return zeroes in the segment length		data in the buffer(s), but does return zeroes in the segment length
	fields corresponding to the result.		fields corresponding to the result.
	The RDMA Write list allows the client to provide multiple result		The RDMA Write list allows the client to provide multiple result
	buffers - each buffer maps to a specific result in the reply. The NFS		buffers - each buffer maps to a specific result in the reply. The NFS
	client and server implementations agree by specifying the mapping of		client and server implementations agree by specifying the mapping of
	results to buffers for each RPC procedure. The following sections		results to buffers for each RPC procedure. The following sections
	describe this mapping for versions of the NFS protocol.		describe this mapping for versions of the NFS protocol.
	skipping to change at page 5, line 49 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 4 ¶
	padding which may be desirable for certain servers when RDMA Read is		padding which may be desirable for certain servers when RDMA Read is
	impractical.		impractical.
	5. NFS Version 4 Mapping		5. NFS Version 4 Mapping
	This specification applies to the first minor version of NFS version		This specification applies to the first minor version of NFS version
	4 (NFSv4.0) and any subsequent minor versions that do not override		4 (NFSv4.0) and any subsequent minor versions that do not override
	this mapping.		this mapping.
	The Write list MUST be considered only for the COMPOUND procedure.		The Write list MUST be considered only for the COMPOUND procedure.
	This procedure returns results from a sequence of operations. Only		This procedure returns results from a sequence of operations. Only
	the opaque file data from an NFS READ operation, and the pathname		the opaque file data from an NFS READ operation, and the pathname
	from a READLINK operation MUST utilize entries from the Write list.		from a READLINK operation MUST utilize entries from the Write list.
	If there is no Write list, i.e., the list is null, then any READ or		If there is no Write list, i.e., the list is null, then any READ or
	READLINK operations in the COMPOUND MUST return their data inline.		READLINK operations in the COMPOUND MUST return their data inline.
	The NFSv4.0 client MUST ensure that any result of its READ and		The NFSv4.0 client MUST ensure in this case that any result of its
	READLINK requests fits within its receive buffers, lest an RDMA		READ and READLINK requests will fit within its receive buffers, in
	transport error result upon transfer.		order to avoid a resulting RDMA transport error upon transfer. The
			server is not required to detect this.
	The first entry in the Write list MUST be used by the first READ or		The first entry in the Write list MUST be used by the first READ or
	READLINK in the COMPOUND request. The next Write list entry by the		READLINK in the COMPOUND request. The next Write list entry by the
	by the next READ or READLINK, and so on. If there are more READ or		by the next READ or READLINK, and so on. If there are more READ or
	READLINK operations than Write list entries, then any remaining		READLINK operations than Write list entries, then any remaining
	operations MUST return their results inline.		operations MUST return their results inline.
	If a Write list entry is presented, then the corresponding READ or		If a Write list entry is presented, then the corresponding READ or
	READLINK MUST return its data via an RDMA WRITE to the buffer		READLINK MUST return its data via an RDMA WRITE to the buffer
	indicated by the Write list entry. If the Write list entry has zero		indicated by the Write list entry. If the Write list entry has zero
	skipping to change at page 7, line 16 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 20 ¶
	Non-RDMA (inline) WRITE transfers MAY OPTIONALLY employ the		Non-RDMA (inline) WRITE transfers MAY OPTIONALLY employ the
	"RDMA_MSGP" padding method described in the RPC/RDMA protocol, if the		"RDMA_MSGP" padding method described in the RPC/RDMA protocol, if the
	appropriate value for the server is known to the client. Padding		appropriate value for the server is known to the client. Padding
	allows the opaque file data to arrive at the server in an aligned		allows the opaque file data to arrive at the server in an aligned
	fashion, which may improve server performance. In order to ensure		fashion, which may improve server performance. In order to ensure
	accurate alignment for all data, it is likely that the client will		accurate alignment for all data, it is likely that the client will
	restrict its use of OPTIONAL padding to COMPOUND requests containing		restrict its use of OPTIONAL padding to COMPOUND requests containing
	only a single WRITE operation.		only a single WRITE operation.
	Unlike NFS versions 2 and 3, the maximum size of an NFS version 4		Unlike NFS versions 2 and 3, the maximum size of an NFS version 4
	COMPOUND is unbounded, even when RDMA chunks are in use. While it		COMPOUND is not bounded, even when RDMA chunks are in use. While it
	might appear that a configuration protocol exchange (such as the one		might appear that a configuration protocol exchange (such as the one
	described in [RPCRDMA]) would help, in fact the layering issues		described in [RPCRDMA]) would help, in fact the layering issues
	involved in building COMPOUNDs by NFS make such a mechanism		involved in building COMPOUNDs by NFS make such a mechanism
	unworkable.		unworkable.
	However, typical NFS version 4 clients rarely issue such problematic		However, typical NFS version 4 clients rarely issue such problematic
	requests. In practice, they behave in much more predictable ways, in		requests. In practice, they behave in much more predictable ways, in
	fact most still support the traditional rsize/wsize mount parameters.		fact most still support the traditional rsize/wsize mount parameters.
	Therefore, most NFS version 4 clients function over RPC/RDMA in the		Therefore, most NFS version 4 clients function over RPC/RDMA in the
	same way as NFS versions 2 and 3, operationally.		same way as NFS versions 2 and 3, operationally.
	There are however advantages to allowing both client and server to		There are however advantages to allowing both client and server to
	operate with prearranged size constraints, for example use of the		operate with prearranged size constraints, for example use of the
	sizes to better manage the server's response cache. An extension to		sizes to better manage the server's response cache. An extension to
	NFS version 4 supporting a more comprehensive exchange of upper layer		NFS version 4 supporting a more comprehensive exchange of upper layer
	parameters is part of [NFSv4.1].		parameters is part of [NFSv4.1].
	6. Security		5.1. NFS Version 4 Callbacks
	The RDMA transport for ONC RPC supports RPCSEC_GSS security as well		The NFS version 4 protocols support server-initiated callbacks to
	as link-level security. The use of RDMA Write to return RPC results		selected clients, in order to notify them of events such as recalled
	does not affect ONC RPC security.		delegations, etc. These callbacks present no particular issue to
			being framed over RPC/RDMA, since such callbacks do not carry bulk
			data such as read or write. They MAY be transmitted inline via
			RDMA_MSG, or if the callback message or its reply overflow the
			negotiated buffer sizes for a callback connection, they MAY be
			transferred via the RDMA_NOMSG method as described above for other
			exchanges.
			One special case is noteworthy: in NFS version 4.1, the callback
			channel is optionally negotiated to be on the same connection as one
			used for client requests. In this case, and because the XID is
			present in the RPC/RDMA header, the client MUST ascertain whether the
			message is in fact an RPC REPLY, and therefore a reply to a prior
			request and carrying its XID, before processing it as such. By the
			same token, the server MUST ascertain whether an incoming message on
			such a callback-eligible connection is an RPC CALL, before optionally
			processing the XID.
			In the callback case, the XID present in the RPC/RDMA header will
			potentially have any value which may (or may not) collide with an XID
			used by the client for a previous or future request. The client and
			server MUST inspect the RPC component of the message to determine its
			potential disposition as either an RPC CALL or RPC REPLY, prior to
			processing this XID, and MUST NOT reject or accept it without also
			determining the proper context.
			6. Security Considerations
			The RDMA transport for RPC [RPCRDMA] supports all RPC [RFC1831bis]
			security models, including RPCSEC_GSS [RFC2203] security and link-
			level security. The choice of RDMA Read and RDMA Write to return RPC
			argument and results, respectively, does not affect this, since it
			only changes the method of data transfer. Specifically, the
			requirements of [RPCRDMA] ensure that this choice does not introduce
			new vulnerabilities.
			Because this document defines only the binding of the NFS protocols
			atop [RPCRDMA], all relevant security considerations are therefore to
			be described at that layer.
	7. IANA Considerations		7. IANA Considerations
	NFS use of direct data placement introduces a need for an additional		NFS use of direct data placement introduces a need for an additional
	NFS port number assignment for networks which share traditional UDP		NFS port number assignment for networks which share traditional UDP
	and TCP port spaces with RDMA services. The iWARP [DDP] [RDMAP]		and TCP port spaces with RDMA services. The iWARP [RFC5041]
	protocol is such an example (Infiniband is not).		[RFC5040] protocol is such an example (Infiniband is not).
	NFS servers for versions 2 and 3 [RFC1094] [RFC1813] traditionally		NFS servers for versions 2 and 3 [RFC1094] [RFC1813] traditionally
	listen for clients on UDP and TCP port 2049, and additionally, they		listen for clients on UDP and TCP port 2049, and additionally, they
	register these with the portmapper and/or rpcbind [RFC1833] service.		register these with the portmapper and/or rpcbind [RFC1833] service.
	However, NFS servers for version 4 [RFC3530] are required by that		However, [RFC3530] requires NFS servers for version 4 to listen on
	specification to listen on TCP port 2049, and are not required to		TCP port 2049, and they are not required to register.
	register.
	An NFS version 2 or version 3 server supporting RPC/RDMA on such a		An NFS version 2 or version 3 server supporting RPC/RDMA on such a
	network and registering itself with the RPC portmapper MAY choose an		network and registering itself with the RPC portmapper MAY choose an
	arbitrary port, or MAY use the alternative well-known port number for		arbitrary port, or MAY use the alternative well-known port number for
	its RPC/RDMA service by IANA. The chosen port MAY be registered with		its RPC/RDMA service. The chosen port MAY be registered with the RPC
	the RPC portmapper under the netid assigned by the requirement in		portmapper under the netid assigned by the requirement in [RPCRDMA].
	[RPCRDMA].
	An NFS version 4 server supporting RPC/RDMA on such a network MUST		An NFS version 4 server supporting RPC/RDMA on such a network MUST
	use the alternative well-known port number for its RPC/RDMA service		use the alternative well-known port number for its RPC/RDMA service.
	by IANA. Clients SHOULD connect to this well-known port without		Clients SHOULD connect to this well-known port without consulting the
	consulting the RPC portmapper (as for NFSv4/TCP). The port number		RPC portmapper (as for NFSv4/TCP).
	assigned to an NFS service over an RPC/RDMA transport is available
	from the IANA port registry [RFC3232].		The port number assigned to an NFS service over an RPC/RDMA transport
			is available from the IANA port registry [RFC3232].
	8. Acknowledgements		8. Acknowledgements
	The authors would like to thank Dave Noveck and Chet Juszczak for		The authors would like to thank Dave Noveck and Chet Juszczak for
	their contributions to this document.		their contributions to this document.
	9. Normative References		9. Normative References
	[RFC2119]		[RFC2119]
	S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement		S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
	Levels",		Levels",
	Best Current Practice,		Best Current Practice,
	BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC1094]		[RFC1094]
	"NFS: Network File System Protocol Specification",		"NFS: Network File System Protocol Specification",
	(NFS version 2) Informational RFC,		(NFS version 2) Informational RFC,
	http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1094.txt		http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1094.txt
			[RFC1831bis]
			R. Thurlow, Ed., "RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol
			Specification Version 2",
			Standards Track RFC
	[RFC1813]		[RFC1813]
	B. Callaghan, B. Pawlowski, P. Staubach, "NFS Version 3 Protocol		B. Callaghan, B. Pawlowski, P. Staubach, "NFS Version 3 Protocol
	Specification",		Specification",
	Informational RFC,		Informational RFC,
	http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1813.txt		http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1813.txt
	[RFC1833]		[RFC1833]
	R. Srinivasan, "Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2",		R. Srinivasan, "Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2",
	Standards Track RFC,		Standards Track RFC,
	http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1833.txt		http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1833.txt
	[RFC3530]		[RFC3530]
	S. Shepler, B. Callaghan, D. Robinson, R. Thurlow, C. Beame, M.		S. Shepler, et al., "NFS version 4 Protocol",
	Eisler, D. Noveck, "NFS version 4 Protocol",
	Standards Track RFC,		Standards Track RFC,
	http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3530.txt		http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3530.txt
			[NFSv4.1]
			S. Shepler et al., ed., "NFSv4 Minor Version 1"
			Internet Draft Work in Progress,
			draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1
			[RFC2203]
			M. Eisler, A. Chiu, L. Ling, "RPCSEC_GSS Protocol Specification",
			Standards Track RFC,
			http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2203.txt
	10. Informative References		10. Informative References
	[RFC3232]		[RFC3232]
	Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA),		Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA),
	Port Registry database,		Port Registry database,
	http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3232.txt		http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3232.txt
	http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers		http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
	[RPCRDMA]		[RPCRDMA]
	T. Talpey, B. Callaghan, "RDMA Transport for ONC RPC"		T. Talpey, B. Callaghan, "Remote Direct Memory Access Transport
			for Remote Procedure Call"
	Internet Draft Work in Progress,		Internet Draft Work in Progress,
	draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma		draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma
	[NFSv4.1]		[RFC5041]
	S. Shepler et al., ed., "NFSv4 Minor Version 1"
	Internet Draft Work in Progress,
	draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1
	[DDP]
	H. Shah et al., "Direct Data Placement over Reliable Transports",		H. Shah et al., "Direct Data Placement over Reliable Transports",
	Standards Track RFC,		Standards Track RFC
	draft-ietf-rddp-ddp
	[RDMAP]		[RFC5040]
	R. Recio et al., "An RDMA Protocol Specification",		R. Recio et al., "A Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol
	Standards Track RFC,		Specification",
	draft-ietf-rddp-rdmap		Standards Track RFC
	11. Authors' Addresses		11. Authors' Addresses
	Tom Talpey		Tom Talpey
	Network Appliance, Inc.		Network Appliance, Inc.
	375 Totten Pond Road		1601 Trapelo Road, #16
	Waltham, MA 02451 USA		Waltham, MA 02451 USA
	Phone: +1 781 768 5329		Phone: +1 781 768 5329
	EMail: thomas.talpey@netapp.com		EMail: thomas.talpey@netapp.com
	Brent Callaghan		Brent Callaghan
	Apple Computer, Inc.		Apple Computer, Inc.
	MS: 302-4K		MS: 302-4K
	2 Infinite Loop		2 Infinite Loop
	Cupertino, CA 95014 USA		Cupertino, CA 95014 USA
	EMail: brentc@apple.com		EMail: brentc@apple.com
	12. Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements		12. Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements
	Full Copyright Statement		Full Copyright Statement
	Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).		Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
	This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions		This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
	contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors		contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
	retain all their rights.		retain all their rights.
	This document and the information contained herein are provided on		This document and the information contained herein are provided on
	an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE		an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
	REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE		REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
	IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL		IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
	WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY		WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
End of changes. 26 change blocks.
	67 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/