draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05.txt		draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06.txt
	Internet Engineering Task Force F. Maino, Ed.		Internet Engineering Task Force F. Maino, Ed.
	Internet-Draft Cisco		Internet-Draft Cisco
	Intended status: Standards Track J. Lemon		Intended status: Standards Track J. Lemon
	Expires: February 16, 2019 Broadcom		Expires: March 24, 2019 Broadcom
	P. Agarwal		P. Agarwal
	Innovium		Innovium
	D. Lewis		D. Lewis
	M. Smith		M. Smith
	Cisco		Cisco
	August 15, 2018		September 20, 2018
	LISP Generic Protocol Extension		LISP Generic Protocol Extension
	draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05		draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document describes extentions to the Locator/ID Separation		This document describes extentions to the Locator/ID Separation
	Protocol (LISP) Data-Plane, via changes to the LISP header, to		Protocol (LISP) Data-Plane, via changes to the LISP header, to
	support multi-protocol encapsulation.		support multi-protocol encapsulation.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	skipping to change at page 1, line 38 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 38 ¶
	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 February 16, 2019.		This Internet-Draft will expire on March 24, 2019.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2018 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 15 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 15 ¶
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	1.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-GPE) . . . . . . . 3		3. Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-GPE) . . . . . . . 4
	4. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.1. Payload Specific Transport Interactions . . . . . . . . . 6
			3.1.1. Payload Specific Transport Interactions for Ethernet
			Encapsulated Payloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
			3.1.2. Payload Specific Transport Interactions for NSH
			Encapsulated Payloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
			4. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4.1. Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR		4.1. Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR
	Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4.2. Type of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	4.3. VLAN Identifier (VID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		5.1. LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		5.2. Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap Registry . . . 8
	5.1. LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	5.2. Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap Registry . . . 7		7. Acknowledgements and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	7. Acknowledgements and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The LISP Data-Plane is defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. It		The LISP Data-Plane is defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. It
	specifies an encapsulation format that carries IPv4 or IPv6 packets		specifies an encapsulation format that carries IPv4 or IPv6 packets
	(henceforth jointly referred to as IP) in a LISP header and outer		(henceforth jointly referred to as IP) in a LISP header and outer
	UDP/IP transport.		UDP/IP transport.
	The LISP Data-Plane header does not specify the protocol being		The LISP Data-Plane header does not specify the protocol being
	encapsulated and therefore is currently limited to encapsulating only		encapsulated and therefore is currently limited to encapsulating only
	skipping to change at page 3, line 8 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 11 ¶
	[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], to indicate the inner protocol, enabling		[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], to indicate the inner protocol, enabling
	the encapsulation of Ethernet, IP or any other desired protocol all		the encapsulation of Ethernet, IP or any other desired protocol all
	the while ensuring compatibility with existing LISP deployments.		the while ensuring compatibility with existing LISP deployments.
	A flag in the LISP header, called the P-bit, is used to signal the		A flag in the LISP header, called the P-bit, is used to signal the
	presence of the 8-bit Next Protocol field. The Next Protocol field,		presence of the 8-bit Next Protocol field. The Next Protocol field,
	when present, uses 8 bits of the field allocated to the echo-noncing		when present, uses 8 bits of the field allocated to the echo-noncing
	and map-versioning features. The two features are still available,		and map-versioning features. The two features are still available,
	albeit with a reduced length of Nonce and Map-Version.		albeit with a reduced length of Nonce and Map-Version.
			LISP-GPE MAY also be used to extend the LISP Data-Plane header, that
			has allocated all by defining a Next Protocol "shim" header that
			implements new data plane functions not supported in the LISP header.
			As an example, the use of the Network Service Header (NSH) with LISP-
			GPE, can be considered an extension to add support in the Data-Plane
			for Network Service Chaining functionalities.
	1.1. Conventions		1.1. Conventions
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
	"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP		"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
	14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all		14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
	capitals, as shown here.		capitals, as shown here.
	1.2. Definition of Terms		1.2. Definition of Terms
	skipping to change at page 5, line 31 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 5 ¶
	0x2 : IPv6		0x2 : IPv6
	0x3 : Ethernet		0x3 : Ethernet
	0x4 : Network Service Header (NSH) [RFC8300]		0x4 : Network Service Header (NSH) [RFC8300]
	The values are tracked in an IANA registry as described in		The values are tracked in an IANA registry as described in
	Section 5.1.		Section 5.1.
			3.1. Payload Specific Transport Interactions
			To ensure that protocols that are encapsulated in LISP-GPE will work
			well from a transport interaction perspective, the specification of a
			new encapsulated payload MUST contain an analysis of how LISP-GPE
			SHOULD deal with outer UDP Checksum, DSCP mapping, and Explicit
			Congestion Notification (ECN) bits whenever they apply to the new
			encapsulated payload.
			For IP payloads, section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] specifies
			how to handle UDP Checksums encouraging implementors to consider UDP
			checksum usage guidelines in section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when it is
			desirable to protect UDP and LISP headers against corruption. Each
			new encapsulated payloads, when registered with LISP-GPE, MUST be
			accompanied by a similar analysis.
			Encapsulated payloads may have a priority field that may or may not
			be mapped to the DSCP field of the outer IP header (part of Type of
			Service in IPv4 or Traffic Class in IPv6). Such new encapsulated
			payloads, when registered with LISP-GPE, MUST be accompanied by an
			analysis similar to the one performed in Section 3.1.1 of this
			document for Ethernet payloads.
			Encapsulated payloads may have Explicit Congestion Notification
			mechanisms that may or may not be mapped to the outer IP header ECN
			field. Such new encapsulated payolads, when registered with LISP-
			GPE, MUST be accompanied by a set of guidelines derived from
			[RFC6040].
			The rest of this section specifies payload specific transport
			interactions considerations for the two new LISP-GPE encapsulated
			payloads specified in this document: Ethernet and NSH.
			3.1.1. Payload Specific Transport Interactions for Ethernet
			Encapsulated Payloads
			The UDP Checksum considerations specified in section 5.3 of
			[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] apply to Ethernet Encapsulated Payloads.
			Implementors are encouraged to consider the UDP checksum usage
			guidelines in section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when it is desirable to
			protect UDP, LISP and Ethernet headers against corruption.
			When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
			802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] priority code point (PCP) field MAY be
			mapped from the encapsulated frame to the Type of Service field in
			the outer IPv4 header, or in the case of IPv6 the 'Traffic Class'
			field.
			When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
			header 802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] VLAN Identifier (VID) MAY be mapped
			to, or used to determine the LISP Instance IDentifier (IID) field.
			3.1.2. Payload Specific Transport Interactions for NSH Encapsulated
			Payloads
			The UDP Checksum considerations specified in section 5.3 of
			[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] apply to NSH Encapsulated Payloads.
			Implementors are encouraged to consider the UDP checksum usage
			guidelines in section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when it is desirable to
			protect UDP, LISP, and NSH headers against corruption.
			When a LISP-GPE router performs an NSH encapsulation, DSCP and ECN
			values MAY be mapped as specified for the Next Protocol encapsulated
			by NSH (namely IPv4, IPv6 and Ethernet).
	4. Backward Compatibility		4. Backward Compatibility
	LISP-GPE uses the same UDP destination port (4341) allocated to LISP.		LISP-GPE uses the same UDP destination port (4341) allocated to LISP.
	The next Section describes a method to determine the Data-Plane		The next Section describes a method to determine the Data-Plane
	capabilities of a LISP ETR, based on the use of the "Multiple Data-		capabilities of a LISP ETR, based on the use of the "Multiple Data-
	Planes" LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) type defined in		Planes" LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) type defined in
	[RFC8060]. Other mechanisms can be used, including static ETR/ITR		[RFC8060]. Other mechanisms can be used, including static ETR/ITR
	(xTR) configuration, but are out of the scope of this document.		(xTR) configuration, but are out of the scope of this document.
	When encapsulating IP packets to a non LISP-GPE capable router the		When encapsulating IP packets to a non LISP-GPE capable router the
	P-bit MUST be set to 0. That is, the encapsulation format defined in		P-bit MUST be set to 0. That is, the encapsulation format defined in
	this document MUST NOT be sent to a router that has not indicated		this document MUST NOT be sent to a router that has not indicated
	that it supports this specification because such a router would		that it supports this specification because such a router would
	ignore the P-bit (as described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]) and so		ignore the P-bit (as described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]) and so
	would misinterpret the other LISP header fields possibly causing		would misinterpret the other LISP header fields possibly causing
	significant errors.		significant errors.
	A LISP-GPE router MUST NOT encapsulate non-IP packets to a non LISP-		A LISP-GPE router MUST NOT encapsulate non-IP packets (that have the
	GPE capable router.		P-bit set to 1) to a non-LISP-GPE capable router.
	4.1. Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR Capabilities		4.1. Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR Capabilities
	LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] defines the "Multiple		LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] defines the "Multiple
	Data-Planes" LCAF type, that can be included by an ETR in a Map-Reply		Data-Planes" LCAF type, that can be included by an ETR in a Map-Reply
	to encode the encapsulation formats supported by a given RLOC. In		to encode the encapsulation formats supported by a given RLOC. In
	this way an ITR can be made aware of the capability to support LISP-		this way an ITR can be made aware of the capability to support LISP-
	GPE, as well as other encapsulations, on a given RLOC of that ETR.		GPE, as well as other encapsulations, on a given RLOC of that ETR.
	The 3rd 32-bit word of the "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF type, as		The 3rd 32-bit word of the "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF type, as
	skipping to change at page 6, line 29 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 15 ¶
	tracked in an IANA registry as described in Section 5.2.		tracked in an IANA registry as described in Section 5.2.
	This document defines bit 24 in the third 32-bit word of the		This document defines bit 24 in the third 32-bit word of the
	"Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF as:		"Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF as:
	g-Bit: The RLOCs listed in the Address Family Identifier (AFI)		g-Bit: The RLOCs listed in the Address Family Identifier (AFI)
	encoded addresses in the next longword can accept LISP-GPE		encoded addresses in the next longword can accept LISP-GPE
	(Generic Protocol Extension) encapsulation using destination UDP		(Generic Protocol Extension) encapsulation using destination UDP
	port 4341		port 4341
	4.2. Type of Service
	When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
	802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] priority code point (PCP) field MAY be
	mapped from the encapsulated frame to the Type of Service field in
	the outer IPv4 header, or in the case of IPv6 the 'Traffic Class'
	field
	4.3. VLAN Identifier (VID)
	When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
	header 802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] VLAN Identifier (VID) MAY be mapped
	to, or used to determine the LISP Instance IDentifier (IID) field.
	5. IANA Considerations		5. IANA Considerations
	5.1. LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry		5.1. LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry
	IANA is requested to set up a registry of LISP-GPE "Next Protocol".		IANA is requested to set up a registry of LISP-GPE "Next Protocol".
	These are 8-bit values. Next Protocol values in the table below are		These are 8-bit values. Next Protocol values in the table below are
	defined in this document. New values are assigned via Standards		defined in this document. New values are assigned via Standards
	Action [RFC8126]. The protocols that are being assigned values do		Action [RFC8126]. The protocols that are being assigned values do
	not themselves need to be IETF standards track protocols.		not themselves need to be IETF standards track protocols.
	skipping to change at page 8, line 10 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 31 ¶
	| 30 | l | Layer 2 LISP (LISP-L2) | [RFC8060] |		| 30 | l | Layer 2 LISP (LISP-L2) | [RFC8060] |
	| 31 | L | Locator/ID Separation Protocol | [RFC8060] |		| 31 | L | Locator/ID Separation Protocol | [RFC8060] |
	| | | (LISP) | |		| | | (LISP) | |
	+----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+		+----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+
	6. Security Considerations		6. Security Considerations
	LISP-GPE security considerations are similar to the LISP security		LISP-GPE security considerations are similar to the LISP security
	considerations and mitigation techniques documented in [RFC7835].		considerations and mitigation techniques documented in [RFC7835].
			The Echo Nonce Algorithm described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
			relies on the nonce to detect reachability from ITR to ETR. In LISP-
			GPE the use of a 16-bit nonce, compared with the 24-bit nonce used in
			LISP, increases the probability of an off-path attacker to correctly
			guess the nonce and force the ITR to believe that a non-reachable
			RLOC is reachable. However, the use of common anti-spoofing
			mechanisms such as uRPF prevents this form of attack.
			LISP-GPE, as many encapsulations that use optional extensions, is
			subject to on-path adversaries that by manipulating the g-Bit and the
			packet itself can remove part of the payload. Typical integrity
			protection mechanisms (such as IPsec) SHOULD be used in combination
			with LISP-GPE by those protocol extensions that want to protect from
			on-path attackers.
	With LISP-GPE, issues such as data-plane spoofing, flooding, and		With LISP-GPE, issues such as data-plane spoofing, flooding, and
	traffic redirection may depend on the particular protocol payload		traffic redirection may depend on the particular protocol payload
	encapsulated.		encapsulated.
	7. Acknowledgements and Contributors		7. Acknowledgements and Contributors
	A special thank you goes to Dino Farinacci for his guidance and		A special thank you goes to Dino Farinacci for his guidance and
	detailed review.		detailed review.
	This Workking Group (WG) document originated as draft-lewis-lisp-gpe;		This Workking Group (WG) document originated as draft-lewis-lisp-gpe;
	skipping to change at page 8, line 49 ¶		skipping to change at page 10, line 40 ¶
	o Puneet Agarwal, Innovium		o Puneet Agarwal, Innovium
	8. References		8. References
	8.1. Normative References		8.1. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis]		[I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis]
	Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID		Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
	Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", draft-ietf-		Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", draft-ietf-
	lisp-6834bis-00 (work in progress), July 2018.		lisp-6834bis-02 (work in progress), September 2018.
	[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]		[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
	Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.		Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
	Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol		Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol
	(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 (work in progress),		(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 (work in progress),
	July 2018.		September 2018.
	[IEEE.802.1Q_2014]		[IEEE.802.1Q_2014]
	IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area		IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
	networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE 802.1Q-2014,		networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE 802.1Q-2014,
	DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2014.6991462, December 2014,		DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2014.6991462, December 2014,
	<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/		<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/
	opac?punumber=6991460>.		opac?punumber=6991460>.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-
	editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	8.2. Informative References		8.2. Informative References
			[RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
			Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November
			2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6040>.
	[RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,		[RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
	L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual		L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
	eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for		eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
	Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3		Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
	Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,		Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.
	[RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID		[RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
	Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835,		Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016, <https://www.rfc-		DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016, <https://www.rfc-
	editor.org/info/rfc7835>.		editor.org/info/rfc7835>.
	[RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical		[RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
	Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060,		Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060,
	February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>.		February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>.
			[RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
			Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
			March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.
	[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for		[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
	Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,		Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
	RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,		RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
	[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC		[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
	2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,		2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
	May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.		May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
	[RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,		[RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
End of changes. 15 change blocks.
	37 lines changed or deleted		121 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/