< draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-00.txt		draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-01.txt >
	PCE Working Group E. Crabbe		PCE Working Group E. Crabbe
	Internet-Draft Google, Inc.		Internet-Draft I. Minei
	Intended status: Standards Track I. Minei		Intended status: Standards Track Google, Inc.
	Expires: June 5, 2014 Juniper Networks, Inc.		Expires: December 8, 2014 S. Sivabalan
	S. Sivabalan
	Cisco Systems, Inc.		Cisco Systems, Inc.
	R. Varga		R. Varga
	Pantheon Technologies SRO		Pantheon Technologies SRO
	December 2, 2013		June 6, 2014
	PCEP Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model		PCEP Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model
	draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-00		draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-01
	Abstract		Abstract
	The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides		The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
	mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path		mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
	computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.		computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.
	The extensions described in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] provide		The extensions described in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] provide
	stateful control of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic		stateful control of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic
	Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSP) via PCEP, for a model where		Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSP) via PCEP, for a model where
	the PCC delegates control over one or more locally configured LSPs to		the PCC delegates control over one or more locally configured LSPs to
	the PCE. This document describes the creation and deletion of PCE-		the PCE. This document describes the creation and deletion of PCE-
	initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model.		initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model.
	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].
	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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://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 5, 2014.
			This Internet-Draft will expire on December 8, 2014.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2014 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
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. Architectural Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3. Architectural Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3.2. Operation overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.2. Operation overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	4. Support of PCE-initiated LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		4. Support of PCE-initiated LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4.1. Stateful PCE Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.1. Stateful PCE Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	5. PCE-initiated LSP instantiation and deletion . . . . . . . . . 7		5. PCE-initiated LSP instantiation and deletion . . . . . . . . 6
	5.1. The LSP Initiate Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		5.1. The LSP Initiate Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	5.2. The R flag in the SRP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		5.2. The R flag in the SRP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5.3. LSP instantiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		5.3. LSP instantiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	5.3.1. The Create flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		5.3.1. The Create flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	5.4. LSP deletion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		5.4. LSP deletion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6. LSP delegation and cleanup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		6. LSP delegation and cleanup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	7. Implementation status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		7. Implementation status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		8. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8.1. PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		8.1. PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8.2. LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		8.2. LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8.3. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		8.3. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	9.1. Malicious PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		9.1. Malicious PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	9.2. Malicious PCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		9.2. Malicious PCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol PCEP. PCEP		[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol PCEP. PCEP
	defines the communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and		defines the communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and
	a Path Control Element (PCE), or between PCE and PCE, enabling		a Path Control Element (PCE), or between PCE and PCE, enabling
	computation of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) for Traffic		computation of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) for Traffic
	Engineering Label Switched Path (TE LSP) characteristics.		Engineering Label Switched Path (TE LSP) characteristics.
	Stateful pce [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies a set of		Stateful pce [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies a set of
	extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of TE LSPs between and		extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of TE LSPs between and
	across PCEP sessions in compliance with [RFC4657]. It includes		across PCEP sessions in compliance with [RFC4657]. It includes
	mechanisms to effect LSP state synchronization between PCCs and PCEs,		mechanisms to effect LSP state synchronization between PCCs and PCEs,
	delegation of control of LSPs to PCEs, and PCE control of timing and		delegation of control of LSPs to PCEs, and PCE control of timing and
	sequence of path computations within and across PCEP sessions and		sequence of path computations within and across PCEP sessions and
	focuses on a model where LSPs are configured on the PCC and control		focuses on a model where LSPs are configured on the PCC and control
	over them is delegated to the PCE.		over them is delegated to the PCE.
	This document describes the setup, maintenance and teardown of PCE-		This document describes the setup, maintenance and teardown of PCE-
	initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model, without the need for		initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model, without the need for
	skipping to change at page 9, line 5 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 5 ¶
	(initiation, update, etc) is requested from the PCE. The value of		(initiation, update, etc) is requested from the PCE. The value of
	the SRP-ID-number MUST be echoed back by the PCC in PCErr and PCRpt		the SRP-ID-number MUST be echoed back by the PCC in PCErr and PCRpt
	messages to allow for correlation between requests made by the PCE		messages to allow for correlation between requests made by the PCE
	and errors or state reports generated by the PCC. Details of the SRP		and errors or state reports generated by the PCC. Details of the SRP
	object and its use can be found in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].		object and its use can be found in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].
	5.2. The R flag in the SRP Object		5.2. The R flag in the SRP Object
	The format of the SRP object is shown Figure 2:		The format of the SRP object is shown Figure 2:
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Flags |R|		| Flags |R|
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| SRP-ID-number |		| SRP-ID-number |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| |		| |
	// Optional TLVs //		// Optional TLVs //
	| |		| |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	skipping to change at page 13, line 36 ¶		skipping to change at page 12, line 40 ¶
	and have included the functionality in releases that will be shipping		and have included the functionality in releases that will be shipping
	in the near future. An additional entity is working on implementing		in the near future. An additional entity is working on implementing
	these extensions in the scope of research projects.		these extensions in the scope of research projects.
	8. IANA considerations		8. IANA considerations
	8.1. PCEP Messages		8.1. PCEP Messages
	This document defines the following new PCEP messages:		This document defines the following new PCEP messages:
	Value Meaning Reference		Value Meaning Reference
	12 Initiate This document		12 Initiate This document
	8.2. LSP Object		8.2. LSP Object
	The following values are defined in this document for the Flags field		The following values are defined in this document for the Flags field
	in the LSP Object.		in the LSP Object.
	Bit Description Reference		Bit Description Reference
	24 Create This document		24 Create This document
	8.3. PCEP-Error Object		8.3. PCEP-Error Object
	This document defines new Error-Type and Error-Value for the		This document defines new Error-Type and Error-Value for the
	following new error conditions:		following new error conditions:
	Error-Type Meaning		Error-Type Meaning
	6 Mandatory Object missing		6 Mandatory Object missing
	Error-value=13: LSP cleanup TLV missing		Error-value=13: LSP cleanup TLV missing
	Error-value=14: SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV missing		Error-value=14: SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV missing
	19 Invalid operation		19 Invalid operation
	Error-value=6: PCE-initiated LSP limit reached		Error-value=6: PCE-initiated LSP limit reached
	Error-value=7: Delegation for PCE-initiated LSP cannot		Error-value=7: Delegation for PCE-initiated LSP cannot
	be revoked		be revoked
	Error-value=8: Non-zero PLSP-ID in LSP initiation		Error-value=8: Non-zero PLSP-ID in LSP initiation
	request		request
	23 Bad parameter value		23 Bad parameter value
	Error-value=1: SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME in use		Error-value=1: SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME in use
	24 LSP instantiation error		24 LSP instantiation error
	Error-value=1: Unacceptable instantiation parameters		Error-value=1: Unacceptable instantiation parameters
	Error-value=2: Internal error		Error-value=2: Internal error
	Error-value=3: RSVP signaling error		Error-value=3: RSVP signaling error
	9. Security Considerations		9. Security Considerations
	The security considerations described in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]		The security considerations described in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
	apply to the extensions described in this document. Additional		apply to the extensions described in this document. Additional
	considerations related to a malicious PCE are introduced.		considerations related to a malicious PCE are introduced.
	skipping to change at page 15, line 29 ¶		skipping to change at page 14, line 34 ¶
	We would like to thank Jan Medved, Ambrose Kwong, Ramon Casellas,		We would like to thank Jan Medved, Ambrose Kwong, Ramon Casellas,
	Dhruv Dhody, and Raveendra Trovi for their contributions to this		Dhruv Dhody, and Raveendra Trovi for their contributions to this
	document.		document.
	11. References		11. References
	11.1. Normative References		11.1. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]		[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
	Crabbe, E., Medved, J., Minei, I., and R. Varga, "PCEP		Crabbe, E., Medved, J., Minei, I., and R. Varga, "PCEP
	Extensions for Stateful PCE",		Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
	draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-07 (work in progress),		pce-08 (work in progress), February 2014.
	October 2013.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.		[RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
	Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1		Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
	Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.		Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
	[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,		[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
	and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP		and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
	Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.		Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
	[RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute		[RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute
	Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,		Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, May
	May 2005.		2005.
	[RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,		[RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
	"OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element		"OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element
	(PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008.		(PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008.
	[RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,		[RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
	"IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element		"IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element
	(PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January 2008.		(PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January 2008.
	[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an		[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
	IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,		IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
	May 2008.		May 2008.
	[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element		[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element
	(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,		(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March
	March 2009.		2009.
	[RFC5511] Farrel, A., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax		[RFC5511] Farrel, A., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax
	Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol		Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol
	Specifications", RFC 5511, April 2009.		Specifications", RFC 5511, April 2009.
	11.2. Informative References		11.2. Informative References
	[RFC2702] Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M., and J.		[RFC2702] Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M., and J.
	McManus, "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS",		McManus, "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS",
	RFC 2702, September 1999.		RFC 2702, September 1999.
	[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol		[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
	Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.		Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
	[RFC3346] Boyle, J., Gill, V., Hannan, A., Cooper, D., Awduche, D.,		[RFC3346] Boyle, J., Gill, V., Hannan, A., Cooper, D., Awduche, D.,
	Christian, B., and W. Lai, "Applicability Statement for		Christian, B., and W. Lai, "Applicability Statement for
	Traffic Engineering with MPLS", RFC 3346, August 2002.		Traffic Engineering with MPLS", RFC 3346, August 2002.
	[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering		[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
	(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,		(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September
	September 2003.		2003.
	[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation		[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
	Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.		Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
	[RFC4657] Ash, J. and J. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE)		[RFC4657] Ash, J. and J. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE)
	Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657,		Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657,
	September 2006.		September 2006.
	[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic		[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
	Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.		Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.
	skipping to change at page 17, line 9 ¶		skipping to change at page 16, line 15 ¶
	[RFC5394] Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., Berger, L., and J. Ash,		[RFC5394] Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., Berger, L., and J. Ash,
	"Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework", RFC 5394,		"Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework", RFC 5394,
	December 2008.		December 2008.
	[RFC5557] Lee, Y., Le Roux, JL., King, D., and E. Oki, "Path		[RFC5557] Lee, Y., Le Roux, JL., King, D., and E. Oki, "Path
	Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)		Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
	Requirements and Protocol Extensions in Support of Global		Requirements and Protocol Extensions in Support of Global
	Concurrent Optimization", RFC 5557, July 2009.		Concurrent Optimization", RFC 5557, July 2009.
	[RFC6982] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running		[RFC6982] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
	Code: The Implementation Status Section", RFC 6982,		Code: The Implementation Status Section", RFC 6982, July
	July 2013.		2013.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Edward Crabbe		Edward Crabbe
	Google, Inc.		Google, Inc.
	1600 Amphitheatre Parkway		1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
	Mountain View, CA 94043		Mountain View, CA 94043
	US		US
	Email: edc@google.com		Email: edc@google.com
	Ina Minei		Ina Minei
	Juniper Networks, Inc.		Google, Inc.
	1194 N. Mathilda Ave.		1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
	Sunnyvale, CA 94089		Mountain View, CA 94043
	US		US
	Email: ina@juniper.net		Email: inaminei@google.com
	Siva Sivabalan		Siva Sivabalan
	Cisco Systems, Inc.		Cisco Systems, Inc.
	170 West Tasman Dr.		170 West Tasman Dr.
	San Jose, CA 95134		San Jose, CA 95134
	US		US
	Email: msiva@cisco.com		Email: msiva@cisco.com
	Robert Varga		Robert Varga
	Pantheon Technologies SRO		Pantheon Technologies SRO
	Mlynske Nivy 56		Mlynske Nivy 56
	Bratislava 821 05		Bratislava 821 05
	Slovakia		Slovakia
	Email: robert.varga@pantheon.sk		Email: robert.varga@pantheon.sk
End of changes. 24 change blocks.
	58 lines changed or deleted		60 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/