Data Channel Status Confirmation Extensions for the Link Management Protocol
draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09
The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 5818.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Julien Meuric , Snigdho Bardalai , Diego Caviglia , Huiying Xu , Dan Li | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 (Latest revision 2009-12-13) | ||
| Replaces | draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 5818 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Adrian Farrel | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09
Network Working Group D. Li
Internet Draft H. Xu
Category: Standards Track Huawei
S. Bardalai
Fujitsu
J. Meuric
France Telecom
D. Caviglia
Ericsson
Expires: June 2010 December 14, 2009
Data Channel Status Confirmation Extensions
for the Link Management Protocol
draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
This document defines simple additions to the Link Management
Protocol (LMP) to provide a control plane tool that can assist in
the location of stranded resources by allowing adjacent Label-
Switching Routers (LSRs) to confirm data channel statuses, and
provides triggers for notifying the management plane if any
discrepancies are found. As LMP is already used to verify data plane
Li Expires June 2010 [Page 1]
draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt December 2009
connectivity, it is considered to be an appropriate candidate to
support this feature.
Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.................................................2
2. Problem Explanation..........................................4
2.1. Mismatch Caused by Manual Configuration.................4
2.2. Mismatch Caused by LSP Deletion.........................5
2.3. Failed Resources........................................6
3. Motivation...................................................6
4. Extensions to LMP............................................7
4.1. Confirm Data Channel Status Messages....................7
4.1.1. ConfirmDataChannelStatus Messages..................7
4.1.2. ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck Messages...............8
4.1.3. ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack Messages..............8
4.2. Data Channel Status Subobject...........................9
4.3. Message Construction...................................10
4.4. Backward Compatibility.................................10
5. Procedures..................................................10
6. Security Considerations.....................................12
7. IANA Considerations.........................................12
7.1. LMP Message Types......................................12
7.2. LMP Data Link Object Subobject.........................12
8. Acknowledgments.............................................13
9. References..................................................13
9.1. Normative References...................................13
9.2. Informative References.................................13
10. Authors' Addresses.........................................14
11. Full Copyright Statement...................................15
12. Intellectual Property Statement............................15
13. Disclaimer of Validity.....................................16
1. Introduction
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks are
constructed from Traffic Engineering (TE) links connecting Label
Switching Routers (LSRs). The TE links are constructed from a set of
data channels. In this context, a data channel corresponds to a
Li Expires June 2010 [Page 2]
draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt December 2009
resource label in a non-packet technology (such as a timeslot or a
lambda).
A data channel status mismatch exists if the LSR at one end of a TE
link believes that the data channel is assigned to carry data, but
the LSR at the other end does not. The term "ready to carry data"
means cross-connected or bound to an end-point for the receipt or
delivery of data.
Data channel mismatches cannot be detected from the TE information
advertised by the routing protocols [RFC4203], [RFC5307]. The
existence of some data channel mismatch problems may be detected by
a mismatch in the advertised bandwidths where bidirectional TE links
and bidirectional services are in use, but where unidirectional
services exist, or where multiple data channel mismatches occur, it
is not possible to detect such errors through the routing protocol-
advertised TE information. In any case, there is no mechanism to
isolate the mismatches by determining which data channels are at
fault.
If a data channel mismatch exists, any attempt to use the data
channel for a new Label Switched Path (LSP) will fail. One end of
the TE link may attempt to assign the TE link for use, but the other
end will report the data channel as unavailable when the control
plane or management plane attempts to assign it to an LSP.
Although such a situation can be resolved through the use of the
Acceptable Label Set object in GMPLS signaling [RFC3473], such a
procedure is inefficient since it may require an additional
signaling exchange for each LSP that is set up. When many LSPs are
to be set up, and when there are many data channel mismatches, such
inefficiencies become significant. It is desirable to avoid the
additional signaling overhead, and to report the problems to the
management plane so that they can be resolved to improve the
efficiency of LSP setup.
Correspondingly, such a mismatch situation may give rise to
misconnections in the data plane especially when LSPs are set up
using management plane operations.
Resources (data channels) that are in a mismatched state are often
described as "stranded resources". They are not in use for any LSP,
but they cannot be assigned for use by a new LSP because they appear
to be in use. Although it is theoretically possible for management
plane applications to audit all network resources to locate stranded
resources and to release them, this process is rarely performed
because of the difficulty of coordinating different Element
Li Expires June 2010 [Page 3]
draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt December 2009
Management Systems (EMSs), and the associated risks of accidentally
releasing in-use resources. It is desirable to have a control plane
mechanism that detects and reports stranded resources.
This document defines simple additions to the Link Management
Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204] to provide a control plane tool that can
assist in the location of stranded resources by allowing adjacent
LSRs to confirm data channel statuses, and provides triggers for
notifying the management plane if any discrepancies are found. As LMP
is already used to verify data plane connectivity, it is considered
to be an appropriate candidate to support this feature.
2. Problem Explanation
Examples of data channel mismatches are described in the following
three scenarios.
In all of the scenarios, the specific channel resource of a data link
will be unavailable because of the data channel status mismatch, and
this channel resource will be wasted. Furthermore, a data channel
status mismatch may reduce the possibility of successful LSP
establishment, because a data channel status mismatch may result in
failure when establishing an LSP.
So it is desirable to confirm the data channel statuses as early as
possible.
2.1. Mismatch Caused by Manual Configuration
The operator may have configured a cross-connect at only one end of
a TE link using an EMS. The resource at one end of the data channel
is allocated, but the corresponding resource is still available at
the other end of the same data channel. In this case, the data
channel may appear to be available for use by the control plane when
viewed from one end of the TE link, but will be considered to be
unavailable by the other end of the TE link. Alternatively, the
available end of the data channel may be cross-connected by the
management plane and a misconnection may result from the fact that
the other end of the data channel is already cross-connected.
Figure 1 shows a data channel between nodes A and B. The resource at
A's end of the TE link is allocated through manual configuration,
while the resource at B's end of the TE link available, so the data
channel status is mismatched.
allocated available
Li Expires June 2010 [Page 4]
draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt December 2009
+-+------------+-+
A |x| | | B
+-+------------+-+
data channel
Figure 1. Mismatch caused by manual configuration
2.2. Mismatch Caused by LSP Deletion
The channel status of a data link may become mismatched during the
LSP deletion process. If the LSP deletion process is aborted in the
middle of the process (perhaps because of a temporary control plane
failure), the cross-connect at the upstream node may be removed while
the downstream node still keeps its cross-connect, if the LSP
deletion was initiated by the source node.
For example, in Figure 2 an LSP traverses nodes A, B, and C. Node B
resets abnormally when the LSP is being deleted. This results in the
cross-connects of node A and C being removed, but the cross-connect
of node B still being in use. So the data channel statuses between
nodes A and B, and between nodes B and C are both mismatched.
<---------LSP--------->
+-+-------+-+-------+-+
| | |X| | |
+-+-------+-+-------+-+
A B C
Figure 2. Mismatch caused by LSP deletion
In [RFC2205] and [RFC3209], a soft state mechanism was defined to
prevent state discrepancies between LSRs. Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) restart processes ([RFC3473],
[RFC5063]) have been defined: adjacent LSRs may resynchronize their
control plane state to reinstate information about LSPs that have
persisted in the data plane. Both mechanisms aim at keeping state
consistency among nodes and allow LSRs to detect mismatched data
plane states. The data plane handling of such mismatched state can be
treated as a local policy decision. Some deployments may decide to
automatically clean up the data plane state so it matches the control
plane state, but others may choose to raise an alert to the
management plane and leave the data plane untouched just in case it
is in use.
In such cases, data channel mismatches may arise after restart and
might not be cleared up by the restart procedures.
Li Expires June 2010 [Page 5]
draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt December 2009
2.3. Failed Resources
Even if the situation is not common, it might happen that a
termination point of a TE-link is seen as failed by one end, while
on the other end it is seen as OK. This problem may arise due to
some failure either in the hardware or in the status detection of
the termination point.
This mismatch in the termination point status can lead to failure
in case of bidirectional LSP set-up.
Good Failed
+-+------------+-+
A | | |X| B
+-+------------+-+
data channel
Path Message with Upstream Label---->
Figure 3. Mismatch caused by resource failure
In this case upstream node chooses to use termination point A in
order to receive traffic from downstream node. From the upstream
node's point of view, the resource is available thus usable; however,
in the downstream node, the corresponding termination point (resource
B) is broken. This leads to a set-up failure.
3. Motivation
The requirement does not come from a lack in GMPLS specifications
themselves but rather from operational concerns because, in most
cases, GMPLS-controlled networks will co-exist with legacy networks
and legacy procedures.
The protocol extensions defined in this document are intended to
detect data plane problems resulting from mis-use or mis-
configurations triggered by user error, or resulting from failure to
clean up the data plane after control plane disconnection. It is
anticipated that human mistake is probably the major source of errors
to deal with. It is not the intention to provide a protocol mechanism
to deal with broken implementations.
The procedures defined in this document are designed to be operated
on a periodic or on-demand basis. It is NOT RECOMMENDED that the
procedures be used to provide a continuous and on-line monitoring
process.
Li Expires June 2010 [Page 6]
draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt December 2009
As LMP is already used to verify data plane connectivity, it is
considered to be an appropriate candidate to support this feature.
4. Extensions to LMP
A control plane tool to detect and isolate data channel mismatches is
provided in this document by simple additions to the Link Management
Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204]. It can assist in the location of stranded
resources by allowing adjacent LSRs to confirm data channel statuses.
Outline procedures are described in this section. More detailed
procedures are found in Section 5.
The message formats in the sections that follow use Backus-Naur Form
(BNF) encoding as defined in [RFC5511].
4.1. Confirm Data Channel Status Messages
Extensions to LMP to confirm a data channel status are described
below. In order to confirm a data channel status, the new LMP
messages are sent between adjacent nodes periodically or driven by
some event (such as an operator command, a configurable timer, or the
rejection of an LSP setup message because of an unavailable resource).
The new LMP messages run over the control channel, encapsulated in
UDP with an LMP port number and IP addressing as defined in Link
Management Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204].
Three new messages are defined to check data channel status:
ConfirmDataChannelStatus, ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck,
ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack, which are described in detail in the
following sections. Message Type numbers are found in Section 7.1.
4.1.1. ConfirmDataChannelStatus Messages
The ConfirmDataChannelStatus message is used to tell the remote end
of the data channel what the status of the local end of the data
channel is, and to ask the remote end to report its data channel. The
message may report on (and request information about) more than one
data channel.
<ConfirmDataChannelStatus Message> ::= <Common Header>
<LOCAL_LINK_ID>
<MESSAGE_ID>
<DATA_LINK>[<DATA_LINK>...]
When a node receives the ConfirmDataChannelStatus message, and the
data channel status confirmation procedure is supported at the node,
Li Expires June 2010 [Page 7]
draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt December 2009
the node compares its own data channel statuses with all of the data
channel statuses sent by the remote end in the
ConfirmDataChannelStatus message. If a data channel status mismatch
is found, this mismatch result is expected to be reported to the
management plane for further action. Management plane reporting
procedures and actions are outside the scope of this document.
If the message is a Confirm Data Channel Status message, and the
Message_Id value is less than the largest Message_Id value previously
received from the sender for the specified TE link, then the message
SHOULD be treated as being out-of-order.
4.1.2. ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck Messages
The ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck message is sent back to the node
which originated the ConfirmDataChannelStatus message to return the
requested data channel statuses.
When the ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck message is received, the node
compares the received data channel statuses at the remote end with
those at the local end (the same operation as performed by the
receiver of the ConfirmDataChannelStatus message). If a data channel
status mismatch is found, the mismatch result is expected to be
reported to the management plane for further action.
<ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck Message> ::= <Common Header>
<MESSAGE_ID_ACK>
<DATA_LINK>[<DATA_LINK>...]
The contents of the MESSAGE_ID_ACK objects MUST be obtained from the
ConfirmDataChannelStatus message being acknowledged.
Note that the ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck message is used both when
the data channel statuses match and when they do not match.
4.1.3. ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack Messages
When a node receives the ConfirmDataChannelStatus message, if the
data channel status confirmation procedure is not supported but the
message is recognized, a ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack message
containing an ERROR_CODE indicating "Channel Status Confirmation
Procedure not supported" MUST be sent.
If the data channel status confirmation procedure is supported, but
the node is unable to begin the procedure, a
ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack message containing an ERROR_CODE
Li Expires June 2010 [Page 8]
draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt December 2009
indicating "Unwilling to Confirm" MUST be sent. If a
ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack message is received with such an
ERROR_CODE, the node which originated the ConfirmDataChannelStatus
message MAY schedule the ConfirmDataChannelStatus message
retransmission after a configured time. A default value of 10 minutes
is suggested for this timer.
<ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack Message> ::= <Common Header>
[<LOCAL_LINK_ID>]
<MESSAGE_ID_ACK>
<ERROR_CODE>
The contents of the MESSAGE_ID_ACK objects MUST be obtained from the
ConfirmDataChannelStatus message being rejected.
4.2. Data Channel Status Subobject
A new Data Channel Status subobject type is introduced to the DATA
LINK object to hold the data channel status and Data Channel
Identification.
See Section 7.2 for the Subobject Type value.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Data Channel Status |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Data Channel ID //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Data Channel Status:
This is a series of bit flags to indicate the status of the data
channel. The following values are defined.
0x0000 : The channel is available/free.
0x0001 : The channel is unavailable/in-use.
Data Channel ID
This identifies the data channel. The length of this field can be
deduced from the Length field in the subobject. Note that all
subobjects must be padded to a four byte boundary with trailing zeros.
Li Expires June 2010 [Page 9]
draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt December 2009
If such padding is required, the Length field MUST indicate the
length of the subobject up to, but not including, the first byte of
padding. Thus, the amount of padding is deduced and not represented
in the Length field.
Note that the Data Channel ID is given in the context of the sender
of the ConfirmChannelStatus message.
The data-channel ID must be encoded as a label value. Based on the
type of signal e.g. SONET/SDH, Lambda etc. the encoding methodology
used will be different. For SONET/SDH the label value is encoded as
per [RFC4606].
4.3. Message Construction
Data_Link Class is included in ConfirmDataChannelStatus and
ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck messages, which is defined in section
13.12 in [RFC4204].
The status of the TE link end MUST be carried by the Data Channel
Status subobject which is defined in section 4.2 of this document.
The new subobject MUST be part of Data_Link Class.
In the case of SDH/SONET, DATA Channel ID in the new subobject SHOULD
be used to identify each timeslot of the data link.
4.4. Backward Compatibility
Some nodes running in the network may only support the LMP Message
Types, which are already defined in [RFC4204]. The three new types of
LMP message defined in this document can not be recognized by these
nodes. The unknown message behavior is not being specified in
[RFC4204], it's suggested to discard the unknown message silently.
The mechanism defined in this document presumes a certain non-
standard behavior of existing/non-document supporting nodes. To use
this mechanism all nodes MUST have the extensions described in this
document for compatibility.
5. Procedures
Adjacent nodes MAY send data channel status confirmation related LMP
messages. Periodical timers or some other events requesting the
confirmation of channel status for the data link may trigger these
messages. It's a local policy decision to start the data channel
status confirmation process. The procedure is described below:
Li Expires June 2010 [Page 10]
draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt December 2009
. Initially, the SENDER constructs a ConfirmDataChannelStatus
message which MUST contain one or more DATA_LINK objects.
DATA_LINK object is defined in [RFC4204]. Each DATA_LINK object
MUST contain one or more Data Channel Status subobjects. The Data
Channel ID field in the Data Channel Status subobject MUST
indicate which data channel needs to be confirmed, and MUST report
the data channel status at the SENDER. The
ConfirmDataChannelStatus message is sent to the RECEIVER.
. Upon reception of a ConfirmDataChannelStatus message, the RECEIVER
MUST extract the data channel statuses from the
ConfirmDataChannelStatus message, and SHOULD compare these with
its data channel statuses for the reported data channels. If a
data channel status mismatch is found, the mismatch result SHOULD
be reported to the management plane for further action. The
RECEIVER also SHOULD send the ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck message
which MUST carry all the local end statuses of the requested data
channels to the SENDER.
. If the RECEIVER is not able to support or to begin the
confirmation procedure, the ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack message
MUST be responded with the ERROR_CODE which indicates the reason
of rejection.
. Upon reception of a ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck message, the
SENDER MUST compare the received data channel statuses at the
remote end with the data channel statuses at the local end. If a
data channel status mismatch is found, the mismatch result SHOULD
be reported to the management plane for further action.
The data channel status mismatch issue identified by LMP may be
automatically resolved by RSVP restart. For example, the restarting
node may also have damaged its data plane. This leaves the data
channels mismatched. But RSVP restart will re-install the data plane
state in the restarting node. The issue may also be resolved via RSVP
soft state timeout.
If the ConfirmDataChannelStatus message is not recognized by the
RECEIVER, the RECEIVER ignores this message, and will not send out an
acknowledgment message to the SENDER.
Due to message loss problem, the SENDER may not be able to receive
the acknowledgment message.
ConfirmDataChannelStatus SHOULD be sent using LMP [RFC4204] reliable
transmission mechanisms. If after the retry limit is reached, a
ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck message or a ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack
Li Expires June 2010 [Page 11]
draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt December 2009
message is not received by the SENDER, the SENDER SHOULD terminate
the data channel confirmation procedure.
6. Security Considerations
[RFC4204] describes how LMP messages between peers can be secured,
and these measures are equally applicable to the new messages defined
in this document.
The operation of the procedures described in this document does not
of themselves constitute a security risk since they do not cause any
change in network state. It would be possible, if the messages were
intercepted or spoofed to cause bogus alerts in the management plane
and so the use of the LMP security measures are RECOMMENDED.
Note that operating the procedures described in this document may
provide a useful additional security measure to verify that data
channels have not been illicitly modified.
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. LMP Message Types
IANA maintains the "Link Management Protocol (LMP)" registry which
has a subregistry called "LMP Message Type". IANA is requested to
make three new allocations from this registry as follows. The message
type values are suggested and to be confirmed by IANA.
Value Description
------ ---------------------------------
32 ConfirmDataChannelStatus
33 ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck
34 ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack
7.2. LMP Data Link Object Subobject
IANA maintains the "Link Management Protocol (LMP)" registry which
has a subregistry called "LMP Object Class name space and Class type
(C-Type)". This subregistry has an entry for the DATA_LINK object,
and there is a further embedded registry called "DATA_LINK Sub-object
Class name space". IANA is requested to make the following allocation
from this embedded registry. The value shown is suggested and to be
confirmed by IANA.
Li Expires June 2010 [Page 12]
draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt December 2009
Value Description
------ ---------------------------------
9 Data Channel Status
8. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Dimitri Papadimitriou, Lou
Berger for their useful comments.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4204] J. Lang, Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC 4204,
October 2005.
[RFC5511] A. Farrel, Ed., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A
Syntax Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing
Protocol Specifications", RFC 5511, April 2009.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC2205] R. Braden, Ed., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) --
Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September
1997
[RFC3209] D. Awduche, L. Berger, D. Gan, T. Li, V. Srinivasan, G.
Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels",
RFC 3209, December 2001
[RFC3473] L. Berger, Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
3473, January 2003
[RFC5063] A. Satyanarayana, R. Rahman, "Extensions to GMPLS RSVP
Graceful Restart", RFC 5063, September 2007
[RFC4203] K. Kompella, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in Support of
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC
4203, October 2005
Li Expires June 2010 [Page 13]
draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt December 2009
[RFC4606] E. Mannie, Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical
Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH)
Control", RFC 4606, August 2006
[RFC5307] K. Kompella, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions in Support of
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC
5307, October 2008
10. Authors' Addresses
Dan Li
Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base,
Shenzhen 518129 China
Phone: +86 755-289-70230
Email: danli@huawei.com
Huiying Xu
Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base,
Shenzhen 518129 China
Phone: +86 755-289-72910
Email: xuhuiying@huawei.com
Fatai Zhang
Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base,
Shenzhen 518129 China
Phone: +86 755-289-72912
Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com
Snigdho C. Bardalai
Fujitsu Network Communications
2801 Telecom Parkway,
Richardson, Texas 75082, USA
Phone: +1 972 479 2951
Email: snigdho.bardalai@us.fujitsu.com
Li Expires June 2010 [Page 14]
draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt December 2009
Julien Meuric
France Telecom Orange Labs
2, avenue Pierre Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex, France
Phone: +33 2 96 05 28 28
Email: julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com
Diego Caviglia
Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A 16153
Genoa Italy
Phone: +39 010 600 3736
Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com
11. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10,
2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
12. Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope of
any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be
claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
described in any IETF Document or the extent to which any license
Li Expires June 2010 [Page 15]
draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt December 2009
under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
such rights.
Copies of Intellectual Property disclosures made to the IETF
Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or
the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or
permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or
users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR
repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please
address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
13. Disclaimer of Validity
All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are provided
on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in
effect on the date of publication of this document
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document.
Li Expires June 2010 [Page 16]