CCAMP Working Group J.P. Lang (Rincon)
Internet Draft J. Drake (Calient)
Expiration Date: August 2003 D. Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
February 2003
Control Channel Bootstrap for Link Management Protocol
draft-lang-ccamp-lmp-bootstrap-03.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [1].
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
The Link Management Protocol (LMP) requires that a bi-directional
control channel is established to form an LMP adjacency. The control
channel may be transmitted either in-band with the data links or
out-of-band over a separate wavelength, fiber, or IP network. This
draft specifies a simple procedure to dynamically bootstrap LMP
control channels and exchange interface mappings using a new LMP
message that is transmitted in-band over the data links.
This memo also details how this mechanism is used in implementing
Layer Adjacency Discovery as described in [G.7714.1].
J.P.Lang et al. Internet Draft - Expires August 2003 1
draft-lang-ccamp-lmp-bootstrap-03.txt February 2003
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 RFC-2119.
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology in [LMP],
[LMP-SONET-SDH], [G.707], and [T1.105]. The following abbreviations
are used in this document:
DCC: Data communications channel.
LOH: Line Overhead.
LOVC: Lower order virtual container
HOVC: Higher order virtual container
MS: Multiplex section.
MSOH: Multiplex section overhead.
POH: Path overhead.
RS: Regenerator section.
RSOH: Regenerator section overhead.
SDH: Synchronous digital hierarchy.
SOH: Section overhead.
SONET: Synchronous Optical Network.
STM(-N): Synchronous Transport Module (-N) (SDH).
STS(-N): Synchronous Transport Signal-Level N (SONET).
TCP: Termination Connection Point.
TCP-ID: Termination Connection Point Identifier
VC-n: Virtual Container-n (SDH).
VTn: Virtual Tributary-n (SONET).
3. Summary for Sub-IP Area
3.1. Summary
This document specifies LMP extensions to dynamically bootstrap out-
of-band control channels and exchange interface mappings using an
in-band message transmitted over the data links.
3.2 Where does it fit in the Picture of the Sub-IP Work
This work fits squarely in the CCAMP box.
3.3 Why is it Targeted at this WG
This draft is targeted at the CCAMP WG because this draft specifies
an extension to the Link Management Protocol (LMP).
3.4 Justification
The WG should consider this document as it specifies the extensions
to the link management protocol in support auto-discovery of control
channel endpoint addresses for out-of-band signaling. This falls in
the category of multiple physical path and tunnel technologies.
J.P.Lang et al. Internet Draft - Expires August 2003 2
draft-lang-ccamp-lmp-bootstrap-03.txt February 2003
4. Introduction
The Link Management Protocol (LMP) [LMP] is run between a pair of
nodes and is used to manage traffic engineering (TE) links. This
includes discovering the local/remote interface mappings and
exchanging the TE link properties. LMP requires that a bi-
directional control channel is established to form an LMP adjacency.
This control channel may be in-band with the data links or out-of-
band, possibly over a separate wavelength, fiber, or IP network.
Control channel bootstrapping is the procedure of automatically
discovering the neighboring node (i.e., learning the address of the
node) and the IP address(es) of the neighborÆs control channel
endpoints. Once these are learned, normal LMP procedures (i.e.,
Config message exchange as described in [LMP]) can be used to bring
up one or more LMP control channels and establish the LMP adjacency.
Either node can initiate these procedures if both nodes know the
addresses of the control channel endpoints.
Automatic discovery of the local/remote interface mappings can be
done by sending in-band messages that contain the local interface
identifiers. For example, this functionality is provided in LMP
using the Link Verification procedure. To support interfaces with
multiple termination capabilities (i.e., encoding type, transport
mechanism, bandwidth, wavelength, etc.), a negotiation phase is used
to agree upon the parameters of the Test procedure. This is done in
LMP by first establishing a control channel, and then discovering
the data port connectivity according to the negotiated parameters.
When the control channel is in-band, the existing LMP Config message
exchange can be used to bootstrap the control channel as well as
exchange the local interface mappings.
Currently there is no LMP mechanism to bootstrap out-of-band control
channels and discover the interface mappings before establishing a
control channel. In this draft, a simple mechanism is provided to do
both (i.e., dynamically bootstrap out-of-band control channels as
well as exchange the local Interface_Ids). This mechanism does not
raise any backward compatibility issues with respect to [LMP].
Once the control channel is established and the Interface_Ids are
learned, the LMP Link Property Correlation procedure (Section 4 of
[LMP]) can be used to (a) check that both ends of a TE link have a
consistent view of mapping data links into TE links, and (b)
exchange link identifiers for the TE links.
This draft (see Section 6) also describes LMP message extensions in
delivering Layer Adjacency Discovery as specified in [G.7714.1]
which delivers similar capability.
5. LMP Bootstrap message
J.P.Lang et al. Internet Draft - Expires August 2003 3
draft-lang-ccamp-lmp-bootstrap-03.txt February 2003
In this section, we define a new LMP bootstrap message (Msg Type =
TBA by IANA). This message is transmitted in-band over a data link
and identifies the Node_Id of the sender, the Interface_Id of the
data link, and one or more IP addresses of the control channel
endpoints. The format of the Bootstrap message is as follows:
<Bootstrap Message> ::= <Common Header> <LOCAL_INTERFACE_ID>
<LOCAL_NODE_ID> [<LOCAL_CONTROL_ADDRESS>...]
If the Bootstrap Message does not include a LOCAL_CONTROL_ADDRESS,
then the LOCAL_NODE_ID MUST be a routable address (i.e., the address
MUST be reachable via normal IP routing) and SHOULD be used to
establish the LMP control channel.
Multiple LOCAL_CONTROL_ADDRESS objects may be included in a single
Bootstrap message. In this case each Control Address MUST be unique.
If a Bootstrap Message is received with multiple LOCAL_CONTROL
ADDRESS objects with the same Control Address, only one control
channel SHOULD be established; the duplicate objects SHOULD be
ignored. The selection of the local control address is a local
matter.
The LMP Common Header, LOCAL_INTERFACE_ID object, and LOCAL_NODE_ID
object are defined in [LMP]. The LOCAL_CONTROL_ADDRESS object is
defined in Section 5.2.
This message SHOULD be sent to the Multicast address (224.0.0.1).
5.1 Procedures
The process of bootstrapping the control channel(s) requires
periodic transmission of the LMP Bootstrap message over the data
link(s) until (1) A Config message is received for each (distinct)
address specified in the LOCAL_CONTROL_ADDRESS object or (2) a
timeout expires and no Config message has been received for all of
the addresses specified in the LOCAL_CONTROL_ADDRESS objects of the
Bootstrap message. The default value for the retransmission interval
is 500ms. The default value for the timeout is 5 minutes.
Note that some restrictions on applicability of the procedure are
dictated by the encoding type of the data link(s). In particular,
for SONET/SDH encoding type, the applicability may be limited to the
data link(s) that have not yet been put "in-service".
When the Bootstrap message is received, the received Interface_Id is
recorded and mapped to the local Interface_Id for that data link.
The received Node_Id is recorded to identify the neighbor associated
with the data link. The Control Address(es) SHOULD be used for
establishing the out-of-band LMP control channel(s). If a
LOCAL_CONTROL_ADDRESS is included in the Bootstrap message, then the
LMP Config message SHOULD be sent to that address. If a
LOCAL_CONTROL_ADDRESS is not included in the Bootstrap message, then
the LMP Config message SHOULD be sent to the Node_Id.
J.P.Lang et al. Internet Draft - Expires August 2003 4
draft-lang-ccamp-lmp-bootstrap-03.txt February 2003
It is possible that Bootstrap messages are received over several
data links. If the Control Addresses are the same, or if they
correspond to a control channel that is already established or in
the process of being established, then duplicate Control Addresses
should be ignored. The received Interface_Ids should still be
recorded and mapped to the local Interface_Id.
5.2 CONTROL_ADDRESS Class
Class = TBA by IANA
o C-Type = 1, IPv4 LOCAL_CONTROL_ADDRESS
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Control Address (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o C-Type = 2, IPv6 LOCAL_CONTROL ADDRESS
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Control Address (16 bytes) +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Control Address:
This identifies the address to be used for establishing an LMP
control channel.
5.3 LMP Bootstrap transport
In this section, we define the transport mechanism for the LMP
Bootstrap message when the data link encoding is SONET/SDH. Based on
the termination capabilities of the nodes and the links connecting
the nodes, the following different transport mechanisms are defined:
J0-16: 16 byte J0 Bootstrap message
The Bootstrap message is transmitted using J0 overhead bytes
with string length of 16 bytes (with CRC-7). See table 9-1 of
ITU G.707 [G.707] for the 16-byte J0 definition. The definition
of CRC-7 is found in Annex B of ITU G.707.
J.P.Lang et al. Internet Draft - Expires August 2003 5
draft-lang-ccamp-lmp-bootstrap-03.txt February 2003
Note that due to the byte limitation, the Bootstrap message
is NOT sent as a normal LMP packet and as such, no layer 2
encapsulation is used. A special Bootstrap message format is
defined as follows (using 80 bits as suggested in [G.7714.1]):
The first usable 4 bits are reserved. These bits MUST be sent
as zero and ignored on receipt.
The next usable 2 bits are used to identify the message type.
For the Bootstrap message, this value is 1.
The next usable 1 bit is used to determine the address type of
the Interface_Id. For IPv4, this value is 0. For unnumbered,
this value is 1.
The next usable 1 bit is used to determine the address type of
the Control Address. For IPv4, this value is 0. Note that for
unnumbered interfaces, the Node_Id can correspond to the
Control_Address.
The next usable 32 bits MUST be the Interface_Id.
The next usable 32 bits MUST be the Control Address.
The remaining 8 bits are reserved and should be sent as zero
and ignored on receipt.
Note that this Bootstrap Message format is only valid when the
Interface_Id is either IPv4 or unnumbered. Furthermore, only
one single IPv4 Control Address can be included.
DCCS: Bootstrap Message over the Section/RS DCC
The Bootstrap message is transmitted using the DCC Section/RS
Overhead bytes with bit-oriented HDLC framing format [RFC1662].
The Bootstrap message is by default sent as a normal LMP packet
as defined in [LMP]. This message MAY be sent using the format
defined above for J0-16.
DCCL: Bootstrap Message over the Line/MS DCC
The Bootstrap message is transmitted using the DCC Line/MS
Overhead bytes with bit-oriented HDLC framing format [RFC1662].
The Bootstrap message is by default sent as a normal LMP packet
as defined in [LMP]. This message MAY be sent using the format
defined above for J0-16.
J1-16: 16 byte J1 Bootstrap Message
The Bootstrap message is transmitted using the SDH HOVC J1
Path Trace byte (frame length of 16 bytes with CRC-7), see
J.P.Lang et al. Internet Draft - Expires August 2003 6
draft-lang-ccamp-lmp-bootstrap-03.txt February 2003
[G.707].
Note that due to the byte limitation, the Bootstrap message is
NOT sent as a normal LMP packet and as such, no layer 2
encapsulation is used. The Bootstrap message format defined
above for J0-16 is used.
Note that this Bootstrap Message format is only valid when the
Interface_Id is either IPv4 or unnumbered. Furthermore, only
one Control Address can be included.
J2-16: 16 byte J2 Bootstrap Message
The Bootstrap message is transmitted using the SONET/SDH VT
SPE/LOVC J2 Path Trace byte (frame length of 16 bytes with
CRC-7), see [T1.105] and [G.707].
Note that due to the byte limitation, the Bootstrap message
is NOT sent as a normal LMP packet and as such, no layer 2
encapsulation is used. The Bootstrap message format defined
above for J0-16 is used.
Note that this Bootstrap Message format is only valid when
the Interface_Id is either IPv4 or unnumbered. Furthermore,
only one Control Address can be included.
6. Layer Adjacency Discovery
This section details the LMP implementation of the Layer Adjacency
Discovery as described by the ITU-T G.7714.1 recommendation.
6.1 Scope
For this purpose, we consider here the "DA DCN-ID (In-band)
Discovery Message" format of the In-band Discovery message (as
defined in Sections 8.1.2 and 8.1.3 of [G.7714.1]) as printable
Bootstrap message. The bi-directional LMP control channel between
the involved parties must be established and available before
exchanging the "Discovery Response Message" (as defined in Section
11 of [G.7714.1]). The bi-directional LMP control channel
establishment and maintenance mechanisms as well as the
corresponding Config and Hello message exchanges are detailed in
[LMP]. In addition, it is assumed that a given Termination
Connection Point Identifier (TCP-ID) represents both transmitter and
receiver i.e. the identifier of the TCP where the (received) TCP-ID
is received corresponds to the sent TCP-ID.
In this context, when using 16 byte J0, the local/remote TCP-ID is
equivalent to an Interface Index, and referenced as an unnumbered
LOCAL/REMOTE INTERFACE_ID, respectively. When using 16 Byte J1/J2,
the local/remote TCP-ID is semantically equivalent to an SDH
timeslot (at both end-points) that can be referenced as an
unnumbered LOCAL/REMOTE INTERFACE_ID, respectively.
J.P.Lang et al. Internet Draft - Expires August 2003 7
draft-lang-ccamp-lmp-bootstrap-03.txt February 2003
The Local/Remote Discovery Agent (DA) DCN-ID corresponds to the IPv4
LOCAL/REMOTE_CONTROL_ADDRESS of the local/remote LMP Node_Id or
simply Node_Id, respectively (see also [LMP]).
6.2 Procedure
Upon reception of the Bootstrap message referred in G.7714.1 to as
the In-band Discovery message, an out-of-band Extended_TraceMonitor
message (see also [LMP-SONET-SDH]) referred in G.7714.1 to as the
Discovery Response message is sent back to the sender. This, after
establishment of the bi-directional LMP control channel (see [LMP])
using the IPv4 LOCAL_CONTROL_ADDRESS information included in the
received Bootstrap message.
Note that if upon reception a control channel has already been
established between the two nodes this information is simply ignored
and only the interface identifier information is considered.
Here also, once the control channel is established and the
Interface_Ids are learned, the LMP Link Property Correlation
procedure (Section 4 of [LMP]) can be used to (a) check that both
ends of a TE link have a consistent view of mapping data links into
TE links, and (b) exchange link identifiers for the TE links.
6.3 Messages
6.3.1 Extended_TraceMonitor Message
The newly defined Extended_TraceMonitor message (MsgType = TBA by
IANA) includes the following information elements (i.e. objects):
The format of this message is as follows:
<Ext_TraceMonitor Message> ::= <Common Header> <MESSAGE_ID>
<LOCAL_INTERFACE_ID> <TRACE>
<REMOTE_TRACE>
The above transmission order SHOULD be followed. The local <TRACE>
object is defined in [LMP-SONET-SDH]. The REMOTE_TRACE object (Class
= TBA by IANA, C-Type = 2) is defined similarly and contains as the
TRACE object, a Trace Type, a Trace Length and a Trace Message
field:
- The Trace Type (16 bits): indicates the type of the trace byte
(i.e. J0, J1 or J2) used by the local/remote Bootstrap message.
- The Trace Length (16 Bits): indicates the length in bytes of the
Trace Message.
- The Trace message contains among other the unnumbered LOCAL/
REMOTE_INTERFACE_ID and the local/remote Control Address
information.
J.P.Lang et al. Internet Draft - Expires August 2003 8
draft-lang-ccamp-lmp-bootstrap-03.txt February 2003
6.3.2 Extended_TraceMonitorAck Message
Upon reception of the Extended_TraceMonitor message, an Extended_
TraceMonitorAck message (MsgType = TBA) is sent back to acknowledge
its reception and indicate that the TRACE *and* the REMOTE_TRACE
Objects in the Extended_Trace Monitor message have been received and
processed correctly i.e. no (discovery) Trace mismatch.
The format of this message is as follows:
<Ext_TraceMonitorAck Message> ::= <Common Header> <MESSAGE_ID_ACK>
The MESSAGE_ID_ACK object is defined in [LMP]. The contents of the
MESSAGE_ID_ACK object MUST be obtained from the Extended_Trace
Monitor message being acknowledged.
6.3.3 Extended_TraceMonitorNack Message
The Extended_TraceMonitorNack message is used to acknowledge receipt
of the Extended_TraceMonitor message (MsgType = TBA) and indicate
that the TRACE or REMOTE_TRACE object in the Extended_TraceMonitor
message was not processed correctly i.e. (discovery) Trace mismatch.
The format of this message is as follows:
<Ext_TraceMonitorNack Message> ::= <Common Header> <MESSAGE_ID_ACK>
<ERROR_CODE>
The MESSAGE_ID_ACK and ERROR_CODE objects are defined in [LMP]. The
contents of the MESSAGE_ID_ACK object MUST be obtained from the
Extended_TraceMonitor message being acknowledged.
If the TRACE object was not equal to the value received in the In-
band Discovery Message, the ERROR_CODE MUST indicate, "Invalid Trace
Message".
If the REMOTE TRACE object was not equal to the value sent in the
In-band Discovery Message, the ERROR_CODE MUST indicate, "Invalid
Remote Trace Message".
7. Discussion
The LMP bootstrap procedure is based on the assumption that the data
link encoding type, transport mechanism, transmission rate, and
transmission wavelength are either (a) known, (b) agreed upon in
advance, or (c) able to be dynamically detected at the time the
procedure is run. Furthermore, the addresses of the control channel
endpoints are assumed to be reachable via normal IP routing. If the
control channel is provided through a VPN, either IP-based VPN
(e.g., [RFC2547], IP tunneling (GRE or IP in IP), etc.), or a sub-IP
based VPN (e.g., MPLS, FR, ATM, etc.), further configuration may be
needed.
J.P.Lang et al. Internet Draft - Expires August 2003 9
draft-lang-ccamp-lmp-bootstrap-03.txt February 2003
8. Security Considerations
Security considerations are left for future study.
9. Intellectual Property Considerations
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication 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 Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
10. IANA Considerations
LMP defines the following name spaces that require management:
- LMP Message Type.
- LMP Object Class.
- LMP Object Class type (C-Type) unique within the Object Class.
- LMP Sub-object Class type (Type) unique within the Object Class.
This memo introduces two new Message Types:
LMP Message Type name space
o Bootstrap message (Message type = TBA)
o Extended_TraceMonitor message (Message type = TBA)
o Extended_TraceMonitorAck message (Message type = TBA)
o Extended_TraceMonitorNack message (Message type = TBA)
This memo introduces two new Object Classes:
CONTROL_ADDRESS Class name (Class = TBA)
- IPv4 CONTROL ADDRESS (suggested C-Type = 1)
- IPv6 CONTROL ADDRESS (suggested C-Type = 2)
REMOTE_TRACE Class name (Class = TBA)
- Type-1 (suggested C-Type = 1)
J.P.Lang et al. Internet Draft - Expires August 2003 10
draft-lang-ccamp-lmp-bootstrap-03.txt February 2003
11. References
11.1 Normative References
[G.707] ITU-T G.707, "Network node interface for the
synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH)," March 1996.
[G.7714.1] ITU-T Recommendation G.7714.1, "Layer Adjacency
Discovery for ASON Networks," January 2003.
[LMP] J.P. Lang (Editor), "The Link Management Protocol
(LMP)," Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft-ietf-
ccamp-lmp-07.txt, October 2002.
[LMP-SONET-SDH] J.P. Lang and D. Papadimitriou, "SONET/SDH
Encoding for Link Management Protocol (LMP) Test
messages", Internet Draft, Work in Progress, draft-
ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh-01.txt, February 2003.
[RFC1662] W. Simpson (Editor), "PPP in HDLC-like Framing", IETF
RFC 1662, STD 51, July 1994.
[RFC2026] S. Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3," BCP 9, IETF RFC 2026, October 1996.
[T1.105] T1.105, "Revised Draft T105 SONET Base Standard,"
January 2001.
11.2 Informative References
[RFC2547] E. Rosen and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS VPNs," IETF RFC
2547, March 1999.
12. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank George Swallow for originally
suggesting this idea. The authors would also like to thank Yakov
Rekhter for his comments and suggestions on the draft. This draft is
based on earlier work on control channel bootstrapping originally
submitted as contribution oif2000.289.0 in the Optical
Internetworking Forum (OIF).
Thanks also to Razdan Rajender (G.7714.1 Editor) for its revision
effort.
13. Author's Addresses
Jonathan P. Lang (Rincon Networks)
110, El Paso
Goleta, CA 93101
Email: jplang@ieee.org
J.P.Lang et al. Internet Draft - Expires August 2003 11
draft-lang-ccamp-lmp-bootstrap-03.txt February 2003
John Drake (Calient)
5853 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138
Email: jdrake@calient.net
Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
Francis Wellesplein 1
B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Email: dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
J.P.Lang et al. Internet Draft - Expires August 2003 12
draft-lang-ccamp-lmp-bootstrap-03.txt February 2003
Full Copyright Statement
"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
J.P.Lang et al. Internet Draft - Expires August 2003 13