idnits 2.17.1 draft-deleuze-cdnp-dnsmap-peer-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 4 characters in excess of 72. == There are 6 instances of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the document. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (November 20, 2000) is 8555 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2616 (ref. '3') (Obsoleted by RFC 7230, RFC 7231, RFC 7232, RFC 7233, RFC 7234, RFC 7235) == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-day-cdnp-model-03 -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. '4' -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. '5' == Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of draft-green-cdnp-gen-arch-01 -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. '6' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2065 (ref. '7') (Obsoleted by RFC 2535) Summary: 6 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 5 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group C. Deleuze 2 Internet-Draft L. Gautier 3 Expires: May 21, 2001 ActiVia Networks 4 M. Hallgren 5 Teleglobe France 6 November 20, 2000 8 A DNS Based Mapping Peering System for Peering CDNs 9 draft-deleuze-cdnp-dnsmap-peer-00.txt 11 Status of this Memo 13 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 14 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 16 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 17 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 18 other groups may also distribute working documents as 19 Internet-Drafts. 21 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 22 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 23 at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 24 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 26 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 27 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 29 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 21, 2001. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. 38 Discussion List & Archives 40 This document and related documents are discussed on the cdn mailing 41 list. To join the list, send mail to cdn-request@ops.ietf.org. To 42 contribute to the discussion, send mail to cdn@ops.ietf.org. The 43 archives are at ftp://ops.ietf.org/pub/lists/cdn.*. 45 Abstract 47 There is an increasing interest in interconnecting Content Delivery 48 Networks (CDNs) via peering systems. This memo proposes a DNS-based 49 solution for peering request mapping systems. This solution uses 50 delivery-aware domain names under the current DNS. It describes an 51 architecture for peering delivery-aware CDNs. This affects the 52 methods used to interconnect multiple CDNs. 54 Table of Contents 56 1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 3. Mapping System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 4. Mapping Peering System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 60 4.1 Basic Peering Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 4.2 Delivery-Aware Peering Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 62 4.3 External Naming Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 63 5. Delivery Awareness Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 64 5.1 Criteria Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 65 5.1.1 Publisher criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 66 5.1.1.1 Delivery Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 67 5.1.1.2 Delivery Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 68 5.1.1.3 Delivery Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 69 5.1.1.4 Delivery Footprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 70 5.1.2 Delivery Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 71 5.2 Default Delivery Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 72 5.2.1 Delivery Name Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 73 5.2.2 Delivery Name Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 74 5.2.2.1 Publisher Delivery Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 75 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 76 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 77 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 78 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 79 Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 81 1. Conventions 83 This memo assumes that the reader is familiar with DNS concepts [1] 84 and specifications [2]. Following practice in the CDNP mailing 85 list, we use the term "DNS name" rather than "domain name". "tld" 86 stands for "top level domain". 88 "Delivery-aware" is used here to indicate that there are multiple 89 possibilities to deliver content depending on a variety of criteria. 90 For example, consider the footprint criteria, the content must be 91 delivered only to a subset of peered CDN surrogates. 93 "DNS-MS" stands for DNS-based Mapping System. 95 "PMT" stands for "Peering Mapping Table", i.e. the set of DNS 96 records involved in the DNS-MS peering process. 98 "PMT Manager" stands for the peering mechanism that builds the PMT 99 (either an administrator or a protocol). 101 2. Introduction 103 The Domain Name System (DNS) was designed primarily to identify 104 network resources. Today, many CDNs use the current DNS to map a 105 request to the suitable surrogate [4]. 107 During the DNS mapping process only the DNS names are visible to the 108 DNS mapping system. A problem occurs when a CDN wants to publish 109 content on a specific delivery area. This area can be a subset of 110 CDN servers running a specific application, or servers that cover 111 only a part of the total CDN footprint. To make this delivery 112 information available to the mapping process, it has to be coded in 113 the DNS name space. 115 The need for delivery awareness can easily be shown with this 116 example: 118 A Microsoft Windows Media Stream is published with an URI such as: 119 "mms://foo.bar.com/file.foo". This URI is interpreted at the user 120 agent and is not visible for the mapping system. The only part of 121 the URI that can be used for request mapping is the DNS name. 122 Hence, all relevant information for the mapping decision has to be 123 encoded in the DNS name. 125 Since only DNS names are visible during the DNS-based peering, 126 information about a desired footprint, delivery area or similar 127 information has to be integrated in the DNS name. To peer with a 128 limited zone inside a CDN, this zone has to be defined between the 129 peering partners and encoded in the DNS name. For example, this is 130 already used by CNN with its "www.cnn.com" and "europe.cnn.com" DNS 131 names. 133 This memo addresses specifically the issues raised in the context of 134 CDN peering. The scope of this work is limited to DNS-based 135 peering, but does not restrict the mapping mechanisms inside each 136 individual CDN. For the purpose of this document we consider the 137 internal mapping mechanisms of CDNs as black boxes (e.g., a CDN can 138 use URI-based mapping internally). 140 This memo presents a solution for delivery aware mapping. At the 141 core of this solution is the use of the delivery-aware naming at the 142 DNS level. Consult [5] for a description of object coding in the DNS 143 name space. The present memo proposes a more general approach 144 towards DNS-based request mapping using delivery-aware DNS names. 146 3. Mapping System 148 The component of a CDN that maps user requests to an appropriate 149 surrogate is called the "mapping system". Similarly to the routing 150 of IP datagrams, it actually contains two distinct processes: 152 o "forwarding" is the process that uses the "routing table" to 153 determine the next hop to the appropriate surrogate. 155 o "routing" is the process that builds the routing table according 156 to various metrics and policies. 158 In this memo, only the "forwarding" part is addressed. 160 Conceptually, mapping systems can make use of three (possibly 161 combined) categories of mechanisms (see [5] for details): 163 o DNS-based 165 o transport-layer 167 o application-layer (URI-based) 169 DNS-based mapping is always available whatever the content (it does 170 not require usage of proxies or application level redirection 171 mechanisms). The interpretation of an URI is hierarchical: first, 172 the DNS name is resolved, then a protocol is chosen according to the 173 scheme and a connection is established; URI pathname and arguments 174 are made available to the server which processes them. Hence, 175 DNS-based mapping can always be used as the first step of a general 176 URI based mapping mechanism. 178 Other motivations for the use of DNS-based mapping are the 179 following: 181 o Independence of the application-level protocols: The DNS-based 182 mapping acts before these protocols so that they are not aware of 183 the mapping. 185 o Compatibility with whatever URI utilization: The DNS-based 186 mapping does not rely on URI analysis, so URI can be used 187 exclusively on user agents, encrypted over the network or used 188 many times after the mapping (as HTTP1.1 [3] recommends). 190 4. Mapping Peering System 192 In the case of peering CDNs, mapping systems must be tied together 193 by mapping CPGs (content peering gateways) to form a hierarchical 194 mapping peering system [6]. Each CDN has only one mapping system. 196 A parent mapping system is a mapping system, authoritative or not, 197 which decides that a child mapping system can handle the user 198 request or can delegate the mapping to a lower mapping system in the 199 hierarchy, in order to find the best suitable surrogate among each 200 peering CDN surrogates. 202 The first step of the URI mapping mechanism is the DNS-based mapping 203 as explained above. It is handled by a DNS based Mapping System 204 (DNS-MS). 206 The most common mechanisms used for DNS redirection are based on NS 207 and CNAME records [5]. The DNS-MS described below is based on CNAME 208 records, but can be adapted to one using NS records, with the known 209 drawbacks described in [5]. The set of CNAME records involved in 210 the DNS-MS peering process is defined as the peering mapping table 211 (PMT). This table contains one CNAME record per entry. The PMT is 212 built by the Peering Mapping Table Manager (PMT Manager). This 213 entity can be a DNS-MS administrator which manually updates the 214 table, or a peering protocol (not addressed here) that performs this 215 task automatically. 217 4.1 Basic Peering Mechanism 219 Here, each DNS-MS is described by only one DNS name. Therefore, the 220 peering mechanism is not delivery-aware. For the sake of clarity, 221 the unique DNS name of a DNS-MS "X" can be seen as: 222 ".X_domain.tld". 224 When a parent DNS-MS decides to delegate the current resolution of a 225 name ".parent_domain.tld" to a child 226 DNS-MS, it replies to the user's DNS server the only CNAME record 227 with the new DNS name ".child_domain.tld". 228 The user's DNS server then queries the child DNS-MS to resolve this 229 new DNS name. 231 The PMT manager makes the association (i.e. adds the CNAME entry in 232 the PMT) between ".parent_domain.tld" and 233 ".child_domain.tld". This association does 234 not depend on any content or delivery criteria. If the child CDN is 235 not able to distribute the content, the association is suppressed 236 and the peered content distribution is stopped. Since the parent 237 has a unique delivery name, the PMT contains one unique entry per 238 peer DNS-MS. 240 4.2 Delivery-Aware Peering Mechanism 242 The CDN peering architecture [6] defines one mapping tree for each 243 publisher URI. The aggregation of the mapping trees whose URIs use 244 the same publisher DNS name defines a global delivery tree. 246 Each DNS-MS defines its internal delivery trees with the delivery 247 criteria as presented in Section 5. An internal delivery tree is 248 defined by a delivery name. This delivery name is a DNS name 249 ".domain.tld" under the DNS authority of the CDN. This 250 is the name used by the DNS-MS. Other DNS names of the internal 251 delivery tree (used by the internal mapping system) are not exported 252 outside the DNS-MS. 254 As seen before, the basic mechanism implies that each CDN has only 255 one internal delivery tree. All internal delivery trees, one per 256 CDN, build one unique global delivery tree that covers all peering 257 CDNs . Also, parent DNS-MSs have only one CNAME record pointing to 258 the delivery name of the child DNS-MS they are peering with. 260 The delivery-aware mechanism implies that each CDN has one or more 261 internal delivery trees. When multiple CDNs are tied together, all 262 internal delivery trees build several global delivery trees. In 263 order to peer with a given child DNS-MS, the parent DNS-MS uses one 264 CNAME record for each of its internal delivery trees. 266 The general DNS-MS peering architecture is defined as follows. The 267 publisher delegates one of its DNS names to the authoritative DNS-MS 268 via a publisher delivery name. Then, the authoritative DNS-MS links 269 this delivery name to one delivery name in each child DNS-MS. This 270 procedure is repeated recursively between peered DNS-MSs. 272 Therefore, the peering process is defined as follows. When a parent 273 DNS-MS decides to delegate the current resolution of a delivery name 274 ".parent_domain.tld" to a child DNS-MS, the parent 275 replies to the user's DNS server a CNAME record with the new 276 delivery name ".child_domain.tld". The user's DNS 277 server then queries the child DNS-MS to resolve this new delivery 278 name. 280 The PMT manager make the association between 281 ".parent_domain.tld" and ".child_domain.tld". 283 This association must be done accordingly to criteria as presented 284 in Section 5. The PMT contains one set of CNAME records per parent 285 DNS-MS delivery name. A set contains one CNAME record per peer 286 DNS-MS for the delivery name. Note that the PMT manager can change 287 the PMT depending on network measurements or surrogate feedback. 289 Several parent internal delivery trees may be linked to one child 290 internal delivery tree, which becomes a multiplexed delivery tree. 291 However, this kind of internal delivery tree cannot be 292 demultiplexed. For example, if a multiplexed internal delivery tree 293 is composed of HTTP and RTSP delivery, it is not possible to 294 redirect HTTP related DNS requests to one child and RTSP requests to 295 another child (or to another tree in the same child). Therefore, 296 the more internal delivery trees in a CDN, the more it is able to 297 peer with other CDNs in a delivery aware way. 299 4.3 External Naming Issues 301 In our model, a CDN can provide several delivery services (through 302 distinct delivery trees) that are selected through an appropriate 303 DNS name. This memo described how to use those names for CDN 304 peering. Each peering CDN knows how to address the delivery trees of 305 its peering CDNs. Those names are used only between pairs of 306 peering CDNs and are neither visible to users nor to publishers. 308 This section discusses the special case of "peering" between the 309 origin server of the publisher and the authoritative mapping system. 310 The publisher delivery name must match the delivery tree 311 corresponding to the service the publisher bought from the CDN. 313 Let's take the example of the European 'Foo' company, which has a 314 web site in English with parts of it in French. This example is 315 based on footprints, but any other criteria can be used. "Foo" 316 wants the English parts of its web site to be CDN-delivered 317 throughout Europe, and the French parts only in France. Thus, it is 318 necessary that the English parts are associated to a delivery tree 319 providing a European footprint and the French parts are associated 320 to another delivery tree providing a French footprint. 322 Since delivery trees are selected by a DNS name, the parts of the 323 web site need to be identified in the DNS name, e.g. www.foo.com for 324 English parts and www1.foo.com for French parts. 326 This may be achieved by URI rewriting: 328 Static rewriting: It requires the reorganization of the "Foo" web 329 site. 331 Dynamic rewriting: It is performed on the fly, as a document is 332 fetched from the origin server. 334 Note that in this context, URI rewriting does not raise the problems 335 described in [5] (Section 4.2.2.3): 337 1. Rewriting is not client dependent. 339 2. The new DNS name points to a delivery tree, which will then be 340 DNS-based mapped, not a surrogate. 342 3. Rewritten content can be cached in surrogates. 344 The impact on the distribution system of such a scheme is not 345 addressed here. 347 5. Delivery Awareness Criteria 349 In the delivery-aware peering mechanism, the PMT manager make use of 350 a variety of delivery criteria for create/remove/update the CNAME 351 records of the PMT. 353 A set of delivery criteria is associated with each parent and child 354 delivery name. A set of publisher criteria is also associated to 355 the publisher delivery names. Therefore, the PMT manager can 356 decide, on the basis of the criteria sets, which CNAME entry to 357 create/remove/update in the PMT. 359 As mentioned above, the publisher may have to modify its delivery 360 names, in order to match the delivery services needs, possibly using 361 a URI rewriting system. In addition, the PMT manager has to create 362 new delivery names (and corresponding internal delivery trees) to 363 match the need of the publisher or of a peer DNS-MS. 365 Note that it is not mandatory to have one delivery name for each 366 possible combination of criteria. Note also that some of these 367 criteria may not be used in the delivery-aware DNS mapping process 368 described above. However, they can be used in other mapping 369 processes. 371 5.1 Criteria Examples 373 5.1.1 Publisher criteria 375 The following lists are not exhaustive and might grow. In this 376 section, these criteria are presented from a publisher point of 377 view. The DNS-MS point of view is also mentioned when the publisher 378 and delivery criteria differs. 380 5.1.1.1 Delivery Service 382 A publisher may need to deliver different kind of services or 383 sub-services: 385 o web pages 387 * static web pages 389 * dynamically generated web pages (asp, cgi-bin, ...) 391 * web embedded objects (like images) 393 o standard encoded streams 395 o proprietary encoded streams, which can be derived for each 396 encoding 398 5.1.1.2 Delivery Cost 400 The publisher may specify a maximum cost for the delivery. The 401 DNS-MS may specify a cost for the usage of its infrastructure. The 402 definition of these cost criteria depends on business models that 403 are not addressed here. 405 5.1.1.3 Delivery Delay 407 Some contents or type of contents may need to be delivered within a 408 delay bound. For example, this criterion can exclude the use of 409 satellite links. 411 5.1.1.4 Delivery Footprint 413 Contents may require delivery to specific geographical zones: 415 o World 417 o Continents 419 o Countries 421 o States/regions 423 o Cities 425 o Districts 427 o Internet Point of Presence (PoP) 429 or any combination of those. 431 5.1.2 Delivery Criteria 433 Each publisher criteria is also a delivery criteria. In addition, 434 varieties of metrics based on network measurements, DNS-MS feedback 435 or surrogate feedback are added. These metrics are discussed in [5]. 437 5.2 Default Delivery Names 439 One or more delivery criteria must be encoded in a delivery name to 440 define it uniquely. E.g., the web and RTSP service types can be 441 encoded as follows: 443 o www.domain.tld for static html pages 444 o rtsp.domain.tld for RTSP compatible stream content 446 or with a unique identifier (which may be a hash key) 448 o one.domain.tld 450 o two.domain.tld 452 This section gives some recommendations to create delivery names but 453 does not intend to impose a unique delivery name space. 455 The delivery trees start with the delivery names of the publisher. 456 Hence, one publisher delivery name has to be defined for each 457 delivery tree required either by the publisher or by the global DNS 458 mapping system. As seen before, the publisher delivery names can be 459 created with URI rewriting systems. Since the publisher delivery 460 names may be visible to the users, they should be expressed with 461 understandable names. 463 5.2.1 Delivery Name Key 465 The publisher delivery name should be composed of a delivery key 466 followed by the publisher domain or subdomain referred as 467 "domain.tld". The delivery key is composed of one or more DNS 468 labels. The publisher may choose the delivery key. 470 The recommended delivery key is composed of only one DNS label: 472 ::= [ ] 474 ::= | 476 ::= | 478 ::= any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z in upper 479 case and a through z in lower case 481 ::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9 483 Note that while upper and lower case letters are allowed in delivery 484 key, no significance is attached to the case. This is, two delivery 485 keys with the same spelling but different case are to be treated as 486 if identical. 488 Since delivery keys are DNS labels, they must be 63 characters or 489 less. Moreover, since CNAME records are appended during DNS 490 resolution, it is wise to choose short delivery names in order to 491 fit the whole answer in a single UDP DNS message. If this is not 492 the case, the requests would be be restarted with TCP, impacting 493 performance. 495 The text label represents one or more delivery services. The 496 following are defined, others may be used: 498 o "www" for web pages 500 o "ftp" for ftp delivery service 502 o "rtsp" for standard stream delivery 504 o "mms" for Microsoft Windows Media delivery 506 The key label is used to differentiate delivery keys having the same 507 text label. If only one delivery key uses a text label, it does not 508 contain a key label. When several delivery keys use the same text 509 label, the most used (from a user point of view) do not contain a 510 key label. Hence, the web service may have a "www" delivery key and 511 the associated "www.domain.tld" delivery name which is already 512 commonly used. 514 Other delivery keys having the same text label must have a delivery 515 key numbered incrementally and consecutively from 1. 517 5.2.2 Delivery Name Example 519 A publisher "domain.com" has three delivery requirements, R1 to R3: 521 o R1 criteria: 523 * service: dynamically generated web (HTML and images) 525 * footprint: World 527 o R2 criteria: 529 * service: dynamically generated web (HTML and images) 531 * footprint: France and Germany 533 o R3 criteria: 535 * service: RTSP streaming 537 * footprint: France and Germany 539 5.2.2.1 Publisher Delivery Name 541 The publisher delivery names would be the following. 543 R1 and R2 have the same delivery service: www. The publisher 544 delivery names have to be identified with key labels. As R1 is the 545 primary requirement of the publisher, the delivery key has no 546 key-label field. It is "www.domain.com". Contrary, R2 needs a key 547 label to be differentiated from R1. It is "www1.domain.com". 549 R2 and R3 have the same delivery footprint, but different delivery 550 service. Thus, R3 is differentiated from R2 by the delivery service. 551 The naming is then: "rtsp.domain.com". 553 6. Security Considerations 555 Specific security issues will be considered later. However, the 556 architecture will use and adopt existing DNS security standards [7]. 558 7. Acknowledgements 559 References 561 [1] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities", RFC 562 1034, November 1987. 564 [2] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and 565 Specification", RFC 1035, November 1987. 567 [3] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H., Masinter, L., 568 Leach, P. and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- 569 HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. 571 [4] Day, M., Cain, B. and G. Tomlinson, "A Model for CDN Peering", 572 Internet draft, draft-day-cdnp-model-03.txt (work in progress), 573 November 2000. 575 [5] Cain, B., Douglis, F., Green, M., Hofmann, M., Nair, R. and D. 576 Potter, "Known CDN Request Mapping Mechanisms", Internet draft, 577 draft-cain-cdnp-known-req-map-00.txt (work in progress), 578 November 2000. 580 [6] Green, M., Cain, B. and G. Tomlinson, "CDN Peering 581 Architectural Overview", Internet draft, 582 draft-green-cdnp-gen-arch-01.txt (work in progress), October 583 2000. 585 [7] Eastlake, D. and C. Kaufman, "Domain Name System Security 586 Extensions", RFC 2065, January 1997. 588 Authors' Addresses 590 Christophe L. Deleuze 591 ActiVia Networks 592 Space Antipolis 5 593 Parc de Sophia Antipolis 594 2323 Chemin St Bernard 595 06225 Vallauris, Cedex 596 FRANCE 598 Phone: +33 4 97 23 46 66 599 EMail: Christophe.Deleuze@activia.net 600 URI: http://www.activia.net/ 601 Laurent G. Gautier 602 ActiVia Networks 603 Space Antipolis 5 604 Parc de Sophia Antipolis 605 2323 Chemin St Bernard 606 06225 Vallauris, Cedex 607 FRANCE 609 Phone: +33 4 97 23 46 46 610 EMail: Laurent.Gautier@activia.net 611 URI: http://www.activia.net/ 613 Michael Hallgren 614 Teleglobe France 615 Washington Plaza 616 44, rue Washington 617 75408 PARIS, 618 FRANCE 620 Phone: +33 1 56 59 87 44 621 EMail: michael.hallgren@teleglobe.com 622 URI: http://www.teleglobe.com/ 624 Full Copyright Statement 626 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. 628 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 629 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 630 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 631 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 632 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph 633 are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 634 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 635 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 636 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 637 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 638 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 639 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 640 English. 642 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 643 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 645 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 646 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 647 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 648 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 649 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 650 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 652 Acknowledgement 654 Funding for the RFC editor function is currently provided by the 655 Internet Society.