< draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09.txt		draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-10.txt >
	Network Working Group C. Filsfils, Ed.		Network Working Group C. Filsfils, Ed.
	Internet-Draft S. Previdi, Ed.		Internet-Draft S. Previdi, Ed.
	Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.		Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
	Expires: January 5, 2017 B. Decraene		Expires: May 23, 2017 B. Decraene
	S. Litkowski		S. Litkowski
	Orange		Orange
	R. Shakir		R. Shakir
	Jive Communications		Google
	July 4, 2016		November 19, 2016
	Segment Routing Architecture		Segment Routing Architecture
	draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09		draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-10
	Abstract		Abstract
	Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm. A node		Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm. A node
	steers a packet through an ordered list of instructions, called		steers a packet through an ordered list of instructions, called
	segments. A segment can represent any instruction, topological or		segments. A segment can represent any instruction, topological or
	service-based. A segment can have a local semantic to an SR node or		service-based. A segment can have a local semantic to an SR node or
	global within an SR domain. SR allows to enforce a flow through any		global within an SR domain. SR allows to enforce a flow through any
	topological path and service chain while maintaining per-flow state		topological path and service chain while maintaining per-flow state
	only at the ingress node to the SR domain.		only at the ingress node to the SR domain.
	skipping to change at page 2, line 15 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 15 ¶
	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 January 5, 2017.		This Internet-Draft will expire on May 23, 2017.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2016 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
	skipping to change at page 2, line 41 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 41 ¶
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.1. Companion Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1.1. Companion Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3. Link-State IGP Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		3. Link-State IGP Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3.1. IGP Segment, IGP SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		3.1. IGP Segment, IGP SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3.2. IGP-Prefix Segment, Prefix-SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		3.2. IGP-Prefix Segment, Prefix-SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3.2.1. Prefix-SID Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		3.2.1. Prefix-SID Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3.2.2. MPLS Dataplane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		3.2.2. MPLS Dataplane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	3.2.3. IPv6 Dataplane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		3.2.3. IPv6 Dataplane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	3.3. IGP-Node Segment, Node-SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		3.3. IGP-Node Segment, Node-SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	3.4. IGP-Anycast Segment, Anycast SID . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		3.4. IGP-Anycast Segment, Anycast SID . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	3.5. IGP-Adjacency Segment, Adj-SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		3.5. IGP-Adjacency Segment, Adj-SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	3.5.1. Parallel Adjacencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		3.5.1. Parallel Adjacencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	3.5.2. LAN Adjacency Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		3.5.2. LAN Adjacency Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	3.6. Binding Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		3.6. Binding Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	3.6.1. Mapping Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		3.6.1. Mapping Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	3.6.2. Tunnel Headend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		3.6.2. Tunnel Headend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	3.7. Inter-Area Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		3.7. Inter-Area Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	skipping to change at page 6, line 31 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 31 ¶
	(hence, the segment is known only by the local node).		(hence, the segment is known only by the local node).
	IGP Segment: the generic name for a segment attached to a piece of		IGP Segment: the generic name for a segment attached to a piece of
	information advertised by a link-state IGP, e.g. an IGP prefix or an		information advertised by a link-state IGP, e.g. an IGP prefix or an
	IGP adjacency.		IGP adjacency.
	IGP-prefix Segment, Prefix-SID: an IGP-Prefix Segment is an IGP		IGP-prefix Segment, Prefix-SID: an IGP-Prefix Segment is an IGP
	segment attached to an IGP prefix. An IGP-Prefix Segment is global		segment attached to an IGP prefix. An IGP-Prefix Segment is global
	(unless explicitly advertised otherwise) within the SR IGP instance/		(unless explicitly advertised otherwise) within the SR IGP instance/
	topology and identifies an instruction to forward the packet along		topology and identifies an instruction to forward the packet along
	the path computed using the algorithm field, in the topology and the		the path computed using the routing algorithm specified in the
	IGP instance where it is advertised. The Prefix-SID is the SID of		algorithm field, in the topology and the IGP instance where it is
	the IGP-Prefix Segment.		advertised. The Prefix-SID is the SID of the IGP-Prefix Segment.
	IGP-Anycast: an IGP-Anycast Segment is an IGP-prefix segment which		IGP-Anycast: an IGP-Anycast Segment is an IGP-prefix segment which
	does not identify a specific router, but a set of routers. The terms		does not identify a specific router, but a set of routers. The terms
	"Anycast Segment" or "Anycast-SID" are often used as an abbreviation.		"Anycast Segment" or "Anycast-SID" are often used as an abbreviation.
	IGP-Adjacency: an IGP-Adjacency Segment is an IGP segment attached to		IGP-Adjacency: an IGP-Adjacency Segment is an IGP segment attached to
	an unidirectional adjacency or a set of unidirectional adjacencies.		an unidirectional adjacency or a set of unidirectional adjacencies.
	By default, an IGP-Adjacency Segment is local (unless explicitly		By default, an IGP-Adjacency Segment is local (unless explicitly
	advertised otherwise) to the node that advertises it.		advertised otherwise) to the node that advertises it.
	skipping to change at page 8, line 33 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 33 ¶
	An IGP-Prefix Segment identifies the path, to the related prefix,		An IGP-Prefix Segment identifies the path, to the related prefix,
	along the path computed as per the algorithm field.		along the path computed as per the algorithm field.
	A packet injected anywhere within the SR/IGP domain with an active		A packet injected anywhere within the SR/IGP domain with an active
	Prefix-SID will be forwarded along path computed by the algorithm		Prefix-SID will be forwarded along path computed by the algorithm
	expressed in the algorithm field.		expressed in the algorithm field.
	The ingress node of an SR domain validates that the path to a prefix,		The ingress node of an SR domain validates that the path to a prefix,
	advertised with a given algorithm, includes nodes all supporting the		advertised with a given algorithm, includes nodes all supporting the
	advertised algorithm. In other words, when computing paths for a		advertised algorithm. As a consequence, if a node on the path does
	given algorithm, the transit nodes MUST compute the algorithm X on
	the IGP topology, regardless of the support of the algorithm X by the
	nodes in that topology. As a consequence, if a node on the path does
	not support algorithm X, the IGP-Prefix segment will be interrupted		not support algorithm X, the IGP-Prefix segment will be interrupted
	and will drop packet on that node. It's the responsibility of the		and will drop packet on that node. It's the responsibility of the
	ingress node using a segment to check that all downstream nodes		ingress node using a segment to check that all downstream nodes
	support the algorithm of the segment.		support the algorithm of the segment.
			A router MUST NOT forward any SR traffic associated with the SR
			algorithm to the adjacent router, if the adjacent router has not
			advertised support for such SR algorithm.
			It has to be noted that Fast Reroute (FRR) mechanisms, such as the
			one described in [I-D.francois-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa], that
			are based on post-convergence SPF, are still compliant to the Strict-
			SPF algorithm definition.
	Details of the two defined algorithms are defined in		Details of the two defined algorithms are defined in
	[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions],		[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions],
	[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and		[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and
	[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions].		[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions].
	3.2.2. MPLS Dataplane		3.2.2. MPLS Dataplane
	When SR is used over the MPLS dataplane:		When SR is used over the MPLS dataplane:
	o the IGP signaling extension for IGP-Prefix segment includes the		o the IGP signaling extension for IGP-Prefix segment includes the
	skipping to change at page 25, line 33 ¶		skipping to change at page 25, line 33 ¶
	[RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)		[RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
	Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching		Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
	(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206,		(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4206, October 2005,		DOI 10.17487/RFC4206, October 2005,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4206>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4206>.
	12.2. Informative References		12.2. Informative References
	[I-D.filsfils-spring-large-scale-interconnect]		[I-D.filsfils-spring-large-scale-interconnect]
	Filsfils, C., Cai, D., Previdi, S., Henderickx, W.,		Filsfils, C., Cai, D., Previdi, S., Henderickx, W.,
	Shakir, R., Cooper, D., Ferguson, F., Lin, S., Laberge,		Cooper, D., Ferguson, F., Laberge, T., Lin, S., Decraene,
	T., Decraene, B., Jalil, L., and J. Tantsura,		B., Jalil, L., jefftant@gmail.com, j., and R. Shakir,
	"Interconnecting Millions Of Endpoints With Segment		"Interconnecting Millions Of Endpoints With Segment
	Routing", draft-filsfils-spring-large-scale-		Routing", draft-filsfils-spring-large-scale-
	interconnect-02 (work in progress), April 2016.		interconnect-04 (work in progress), October 2016.
	[I-D.francois-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]		[I-D.francois-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]
	Francois, P., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., and B. Decraene,		Francois, P., Bashandy, A., and C. Filsfils, "Abstract",
	"Topology Independent Fast Reroute using Segment Routing",		draft-francois-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-02 (work in
	draft-francois-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01 (work in		progress), November 2016.
	progress), May 2016.
	[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]		[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]
	Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Field, B., Leung, I., Linkova,		Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Field, B., Leung, I., Linkova,
	J., Aries, E., Kosugi, T., Vyncke, E., and D. Lebrun,		J., Aries, E., Kosugi, T., Vyncke, E., and D. Lebrun,
	"IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-		"IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-
	segment-routing-header-01 (work in progress), March 2016.		segment-routing-header-02 (work in progress), September
			2016.
	[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]		[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
	Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H.,		Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H.,
	Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and J. Tantsura, "IS-IS		Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and j. jefftant@gmail.com,
	Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-segment-		"IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-
	routing-extensions-07 (work in progress), June 2016.		segment-routing-extensions-09 (work in progress), October
			2016.
	[I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping]		[I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping]
	Kumar, N., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Akiya, N., Kini,		Kumar, N., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Akiya, N., Kini,
	S., Gredler, H., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP)		S., Gredler, H., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP)
	Ping/Trace for Segment Routing Networks Using MPLS		Ping/Trace for Segment Routing Networks Using MPLS
	Dataplane", draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-00 (work in		Dataplane", draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-01 (work in
	progress), May 2016.		progress), October 2016.
	[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]		[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]
	Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,		Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
	Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPFv3		Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPFv3
	Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-		Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-
	segment-routing-extensions-05 (work in progress), March		segment-routing-extensions-07 (work in progress), October
	2016.		2016.
	[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]		[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]
	Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,		Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
	Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF		Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
	Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-		Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-
	routing-extensions-08 (work in progress), April 2016.		routing-extensions-10 (work in progress), October 2016.
	[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]		[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]
	Sivabalan, S., Medved, J., Filsfils, C., Crabbe, E.,		Sivabalan, S., Medved, J., Filsfils, C., Crabbe, E.,
	Lopez, V., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., and J. Hardwick,		Raszuk, R., Lopez, V., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., and
	"PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-pce-		J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-
	segment-routing-07 (work in progress), March 2016.		ietf-pce-segment-routing-08 (work in progress), October
			2016.
	[I-D.ietf-spring-conflict-resolution]		[I-D.ietf-spring-conflict-resolution]
	Ginsberg, L., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., and M. Pilka,		Ginsberg, L., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., and M. Pilka,
	"Segment Routing Conflict Resolution", draft-ietf-spring-		"Segment Routing Conflict Resolution", draft-ietf-spring-
	conflict-resolution-01 (work in progress), June 2016.		conflict-resolution-02 (work in progress), October 2016.
	[I-D.ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases]		[I-D.ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases]
	Brzozowski, J., Leddy, J., Leung, I., Previdi, S.,		Brzozowski, J., Leddy, J., Townsley, W., Filsfils, C., and
	Townsley, W., Martin, C., Filsfils, C., and R. Maglione,		R. Maglione, "IPv6 SPRING Use Cases", draft-ietf-spring-
	"IPv6 SPRING Use Cases", draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-		ipv6-use-cases-07 (work in progress), July 2016.
	cases-06 (work in progress), March 2016.
	[I-D.ietf-spring-oam-usecase]		[I-D.ietf-spring-oam-usecase]
	Geib, R., Filsfils, C., Pignataro, C., and N. Kumar, "A		Geib, R., Filsfils, C., Pignataro, C., and N. Kumar, "A
	Scalable and Topology-Aware MPLS Dataplane Monitoring		Scalable and Topology-Aware MPLS Dataplane Monitoring
	System", draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-03 (work in		System", draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-04 (work in
	progress), April 2016.		progress), October 2016.
	[I-D.ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases]		[I-D.ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases]
	Francois, P., Filsfils, C., Decraene, B., and R. Shakir,		Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., and R. Shakir,
	"Use-cases for Resiliency in SPRING", draft-ietf-spring-		"Resiliency use cases in SPRING networks", draft-ietf-
	resiliency-use-cases-03 (work in progress), April 2016.		spring-resiliency-use-cases-08 (work in progress), October
			2016.
	[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe]		[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe]
	Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Aries, E., Ginsburg, D., and D.		Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Aries, E., Ginsburg, D., and D.
	Afanasiev, "Segment Routing Centralized BGP Peer		Afanasiev, "Segment Routing Centralized BGP Peer
	Engineering", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-		Engineering", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-
	epe-01 (work in progress), March 2016.		epe-02 (work in progress), September 2016.
	[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]		[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]
	Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., and		Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., and
	S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing interworking with LDP",		S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing interworking with LDP",
	draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-04 (work in		draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-04 (work in
	progress), July 2016.		progress), July 2016.
	[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]		[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
	Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,		Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
	Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Shakir, R., Tantsura, J.,		Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Shakir, R.,
	and E. Crabbe, "Segment Routing with MPLS data plane",		jefftant@gmail.com, j., and E. Crabbe, "Segment Routing
	draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-04 (work in		with MPLS data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-
	progress), March 2016.		mpls-05 (work in progress), July 2016.
	[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc]		[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc]
	Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Mitchell, J., Aries, E., and P.		Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Mitchell, J., Aries, E., and P.
	Lapukhov, "BGP-Prefix Segment in large-scale data		Lapukhov, "BGP-Prefix Segment in large-scale data
	centers", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-01 (work		centers", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-02 (work
	in progress), April 2016.		in progress), October 2016.
	[I-D.ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement]		[I-D.ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement]
	Kumar, N., Pignataro, C., Akiya, N., Geib, R., Mirsky, G.,		Kumar, N., Pignataro, C., Akiya, N., Geib, R., Mirsky, G.,
	and S. Litkowski, "OAM Requirements for Segment Routing		and S. Litkowski, "OAM Requirements for Segment Routing
	Network", draft-ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement-02 (work in		Network", draft-ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement-02 (work in
	progress), July 2016.		progress), July 2016.
	[I-D.ietf-spring-sr-yang]		[I-D.ietf-spring-sr-yang]
	Litkowski, S., Qu, Y., and J. Tantsura, "YANG Data Model		Litkowski, S., Qu, Y., Sarkar, P., and J. Tantsura, "YANG
	for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-02 (work		Data Model for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-spring-sr-
	in progress), March 2016.		yang-05 (work in progress), October 2016.
	[RFC4381] Behringer, M., "Analysis of the Security of BGP/MPLS IP		[RFC4381] Behringer, M., "Analysis of the Security of BGP/MPLS IP
	Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4381,		Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4381,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4381, February 2006,		DOI 10.17487/RFC4381, February 2006,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4381>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4381>.
	[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.		[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
	Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",		Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
	RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,		RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.
	skipping to change at page 29, line 35 ¶		skipping to change at page 29, line 41 ¶
	Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com		Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
	Stephane Litkowski		Stephane Litkowski
	Orange		Orange
	FR		FR
	Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com		Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
	Rob Shakir		Rob Shakir
	Jive Communications, Inc.		Google, Inc.
	1275 West 1600 North, Suite 100		1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
	Orem, UT 84057		Mountain View, CA 94043
	Email: rjs@rob.sh		Email: robjs@google.com
End of changes. 27 change blocks.
	54 lines changed or deleted		62 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/