draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors-05.txt   draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors-06.txt 
PCE Working Group H. Pouyllau PCE Working Group H. Pouyllau
Internet-Draft Alcatel-Lucent Internet-Draft Alcatel-Lucent
Updates: 5440 (if approved) R. Theillaud Updates: 5440 (if approved) R. Theillaud
Intended status: Standards Track Marben Products Intended status: Standards Track Marben Products
Expires: August 19, 2019 J. Meuric Expires: February 16, 2020 J. Meuric
France Telecom Orange Orange
H. Zheng (Editor) H. Zheng (Editor)
X. Zhang X. Zhang
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
February 15, 2019 August 15, 2019
Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol for Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol for
Enhanced Errors and Notifications Enhanced Errors and Notifications
draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors-05.txt draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors-06.txt
Abstract Abstract
This document defines new error and notification TLVs for the PCE This document defines new error and notification TLVs for the PCE
Communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440]. It identifies the possible Communication Protocol (PCEP) specified in RFC5440, and will update
PCEP behaviors in case of error or notification. Thus, this draft it. It identifies the possible PCEP behaviors in case of error or
defines types of errors and how they are disclosed to other PCEs in notification. Thus, this draft defines types of errors and how they
order to support predefined PCEP behaviors. are disclosed to other PCEs in order to support predefined PCEP
behaviors.
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
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://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 August 19, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 16, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://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 32 skipping to change at page 2, line 35
4.2. PCEP Behaviors in Case of Notification . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. PCEP Behaviors in Case of Notification . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. PCE Peer Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.3. PCE Peer Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. PCEP Extensions for Error and Notification Handling . . . . . 7 5. PCEP Extensions for Error and Notification Handling . . . . . 7
5.1. Propagation TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. Propagation TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Error-criticality TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2. Error-criticality TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. Behaviors and TLV combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.3. Behaviors and TLV combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4. Propagation Restrictions TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.4. Propagation Restrictions TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4.1. Time-To-Live (TTL) TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.4.1. Time-To-Live (TTL) TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4.2. DIFFUSION-LIST TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.4.2. DIFFUSION-LIST TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4.3. Rules Applied to Existing Errors and Notifications . . . 11 5.4.3. Rules Applied to Existing Errors and Notifications . . . 11
6. Future Extension Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. Future Extension Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Backward Compatibility Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7. Backward Compatibility Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Error and Notification Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8. Error and Notification Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1. Error Behavior Type 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.1. Error Behavior Type 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.2. Error Behavior Type 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.2. Error Behavior Type 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.3. Error Behavior Type 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.3. Error Behavior Type 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.4. Error Behavior Type 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.4. Error Behavior Type 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 10.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.2. New DIFFUSION-LIST TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 10.2. New DIFFUSION-LIST TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 11.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1. Terminology 1. Terminology
PCE terminology is defined in [RFC4655]. PCE terminology is defined in [RFC4655].
PCEP Peer: An element involved in a PCEP session (i.e. a PCC or a PCEP Peer: An element involved in a PCEP session (i.e. a PCC or a
PCE). PCE).
Source PCC: the PCC, for a given path computation query, initiating Source PCC: the PCC, for a given path computation query, initiating
the first PCEP request, which may then trigger a chain of successive the first PCEP request, which may then trigger a chain of successive
skipping to change at page 11, line 21 skipping to change at page 11, line 21
Explicit eXclusion Route Sub-object (EXRS) of the Diffusion-List for Explicit eXclusion Route Sub-object (EXRS) of the Diffusion-List for
any forwarded messages. Hence, a PCE SHOULD avoid forwarding the any forwarded messages. Hence, a PCE SHOULD avoid forwarding the
same message repeated to the same set of peers. Finally, when an same message repeated to the same set of peers. Finally, when an
address is loose, the forwarding SHOULD be restrained indicating what address is loose, the forwarding SHOULD be restrained indicating what
type of PCEP peers are targeted (i.e. PCE and/or PCC). type of PCEP peers are targeted (i.e. PCE and/or PCC).
5.4.3. Rules Applied to Existing Errors and Notifications 5.4.3. Rules Applied to Existing Errors and Notifications
Many existing normative references states on error definitions (see Many existing normative references states on error definitions (see
for instance [RFC5440], [RFC5441],[RFC5455], [RFC5521], [RFC5557], for instance [RFC5440], [RFC5441],[RFC5455], [RFC5521], [RFC5557],
[RFC5886], [RFC6006], [RFC8231], [RFC8232],[RFC8253], [RFC8281], [RFC5886], [RFC8231], [RFC8232],[RFC8253], [RFC8281], [RFC8306],
[RFC8306], [RFC8408], [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]). This [RFC8408], [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]). This section provides
section provides processing rules for existing error types handling, processing rules for existing error types handling, as a
as a recommendation. According to the definitions provided in this recommendation. According to the definitions provided in this
document, the follwoing rules are applicable: document, the follwoing rules are applicable:
Error-type 1, described in [RFC5440], relates to PCEP session Error-type 1, described in [RFC5440], relates to PCEP session
establishement failures. All errors of this type are local and establishement failures. All errors of this type are local and
not propagated. Hence, if a "Propagation" TLV is added to the not propagated. Hence, if a "Propagation" TLV is added to the
error message it is recommended to be set to value 0. Error- error message it is recommended to be set to value 0. Error-
values 1,2,6,7 have a high level of criticality. Hence, if the values 1,2,6,7 have a high level of criticality. Hence, if the
"Error-criticality" TLV is included within a PCErr message of type "Error-criticality" TLV is included within a PCErr message of type
1 and value 1,2,6 or 7, it is recommended to have a value of 2. 1 and value 1,2,6 or 7, it is recommended to have a value of 2.
skipping to change at page 11, line 48 skipping to change at page 11, line 48
Their level of criticality is defined as leading to cancel the Their level of criticality is defined as leading to cancel the
path computation request [RFC5440]. Hence, if the "Error- path computation request [RFC5440]. Hence, if the "Error-
criticality" TLV is included, it usually have a value of 1. The criticality" TLV is included, it usually have a value of 1. The
error-value 4 of error-type 4 ("Unsupported parameter") associated error-value 4 of error-type 4 ("Unsupported parameter") associated
to the BRPC procedure [RFC5441] is suggested to contain the to the BRPC procedure [RFC5441] is suggested to contain the
"Propagation" TLV with a DIFFUSION-LIST requesting a propagation "Propagation" TLV with a DIFFUSION-LIST requesting a propagation
to the PCC at the origin of the request. to the PCC at the origin of the request.
Error-type 5 refers to "Policy violation", error values for this Error-type 5 refers to "Policy violation", error values for this
type have been defined in [RFC5440], [RFC5541], [RFC5557], type have been defined in [RFC5440], [RFC5541], [RFC5557],
[RFC5886] and [RFC6006]. In [RFC5440], it is specified that the [RFC5886] and [RFC8306]. In [RFC5440], it is specified that the
path computation request MUST be cancelled when an error of type 5 path computation request MUST be cancelled when an error of type 5
occurs. Hence, if the "Error-criticality" TLV is included, it occurs. Hence, if the "Error-criticality" TLV is included, it
usually have a value of 1. As such errors might be conveyed to usually have a value of 1. As such errors might be conveyed to
several PCEs, the "Propagation" TLV MAY be used. several PCEs, the "Propagation" TLV MAY be used.
Error-type 6 described as "Mandatory object missing" in [RFC5440], Error-type 6 described as "Mandatory object missing" in [RFC5440],
leads to the cancellation of the path computation request. Hence, leads to the cancellation of the path computation request. Hence,
if the "Error-criticality" TLV is included, it usually have a if the "Error-criticality" TLV is included, it usually have a
value of 1. The "Propagation" TLV MAY be used with such errors. value of 1. The "Propagation" TLV MAY be used with such errors.
The error-value of 4 for Monitoring object missing defined in The error-value of 4 for Monitoring object missing defined in
skipping to change at page 13, line 24 skipping to change at page 13, line 24
VSPT objects. Thus, the "Error-criticality" TLV MAY be used with VSPT objects. Thus, the "Error-criticality" TLV MAY be used with
any value depending on the expected behavior. any value depending on the expected behavior.
Error-type 15 refers to "Global Concurrent Optimization Error" Error-type 15 refers to "Global Concurrent Optimization Error"
defined in [RFC5557]. [RFC5557] states that the corresponding defined in [RFC5557]. [RFC5557] states that the corresponding
global concurrent path optimization MUST be cancelled at the PCC. global concurrent path optimization MUST be cancelled at the PCC.
Hence, if the "Error-criticality" TLV is included, it usually have Hence, if the "Error-criticality" TLV is included, it usually have
a value of 1. The "Propagation" TLV MAY be used with such errors. a value of 1. The "Propagation" TLV MAY be used with such errors.
Error-type 16 relates to "P2MP Capability Error" defined in Error-type 16 relates to "P2MP Capability Error" defined in
[RFC6006]. Such errors lead to the cancellation of the path [RFC8306]. Such errors lead to the cancellation of the path
computation request. Hence, if the "Error-criticality" TLV is computation request. Hence, if the "Error-criticality" TLV is
included, it usually have a value of 1. The "Propagation" TLV MAY included, it usually have a value of 1. The "Propagation" TLV MAY
be used with such errors. be used with such errors.
Error-type 17, titled "P2MP END-POINTS Error" is defined Error-type 17, titled "P2MP END-POINTS Error" is defined
[RFC6006]. Such errors are thrown when a PCE tries to add or [RFC8306]. Such errors are thrown when a PCE tries to add or
prune nodes to or from a P2MP Tree. [RFC6006] does not specify if prune nodes to or from a P2MP Tree. [RFC8306] does not specify if
such errors lead to cancel the path computation request. Hence, such errors lead to cancel the path computation request. Hence,
the "Error-criticality" and "Propagation" TLVs MAY be used with the "Error-criticality" and "Propagation" TLVs MAY be used with
this type of error with any value depending on the expected this type of error with any value depending on the expected
behavior. behavior.
Error-type 18 of "P2MP Fragmentation Error" is described [RFC6006] Error-type 18 of "P2MP Fragmentation Error" is described [RFC8306]
which does not specify whether the path computation request should which does not specify whether the path computation request should
be cancelled. But, as messages are fragmented, it is natural to be cancelled. But, as messages are fragmented, it is natural to
think that the PCE should wait at least a bit for further think that the PCE should wait at least a bit for further
messages. The "Error-criticality" TLV MAY be included in such messages. The "Error-criticality" TLV MAY be included in such
error messages and is particularly adapted to differ the semantic error messages and is particularly adapted to differ the semantic
of the same error-type message: if it is included with a value of of the same error-type message: if it is included with a value of
0 then the PCE will still wait for further fragmented messages, 0 then the PCE will still wait for further fragmented messages,
when this waiting time ends, the TLV can be included with a value when this waiting time ends, the TLV can be included with a value
of 1 in order to finally cancel the request. The "Propagation" of 1 in order to finally cancel the request. The "Propagation"
TLV MAY also be used with such errors. TLV MAY also be used with such errors.
skipping to change at page 15, line 5 skipping to change at page 15, line 5
MAY also be used with such errors, depending on the detailed MAY also be used with such errors, depending on the detailed
security conditions. security conditions.
Error-type 26 of "Association Error " is described in Error-type 26 of "Association Error " is described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] . Such errors occur when there is [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] . Such errors occur when there is
problem for LSP association. In this case, the "Error- problem for LSP association. In this case, the "Error-
criticality" TLV should be set to either 0 or 1 to indicate criticality" TLV should be set to either 0 or 1 to indicate
whether the request is still valid, with the PCEP session open. whether the request is still valid, with the PCEP session open.
The "Propagation" TLV MAY also be used with such errors. The "Propagation" TLV MAY also be used with such errors.
6. Future Extension Consideration 6. Future Extension Guidelines
The procedures specified in this work applies to all the existing Error and Notification handling in this document should be considered
error types. For future PCE protocol extension who gives new error in PCE documents that include new errors and notifications. A
types, it is requested to provide description on the applicability of requirement for the authors of these drafts is to evaluate the
"Propagation" TLV and "Error-criticality" TLV. applicability of the procedure in this document and provide details
about the "Error-criticality" TLV and "Propagation" TLV for errors
and notifications defined in the draft. Examples of this can be
found in section 5.4.3 of this document.
7. Backward Compatibility Consideration 7. Backward Compatibility Consideration
There would be backward compatibility issue if there are multiple There would be backward compatibility issue if there are multiple
PCEs with different level understanding of error message. In a PCEs with different level understanding of error message. In a
scenario that PCE(i) propagate the error message to PCE (i+1), it is scenario that PCE(i) propagate the error message to PCE (i+1), it is
possible that PCE (i+1) is not capable to extract the message possible that PCE (i+1) is not capable to extract the message
correctly, then such error message would be ignored and not be correctly, then such error message would be ignored and not be
further propagated. further propagated.
skipping to change at page 19, line 33 skipping to change at page 19, line 33
7 IS-IS Area ID this document 7 IS-IS Area ID this document
32: Autonomous system number this document 32: Autonomous system number this document
33: Explicit Exclusion Route subobject (EXRS) this document 33: Explicit Exclusion Route subobject (EXRS) this document
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]
Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H., Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H.,
Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "PCEP Extensions for Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "Path Computation Element
Establishing Relationships Between Sets of LSPs", draft- Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Establishing
ietf-pce-association-group-07 (work in progress), December Relationships Between Sets of Label Switched Paths
2018. (LSPs)", draft-ietf-pce-association-group-10 (work in
progress), August 2019.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce]
Dhody, D., Lee, Y., Ceccarelli, D., Shin, J., King, D.,
and O. Dios, "Hierarchical Stateful Path Computation
Element (PCE).", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-06 (work in
progress), October 2018.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
skipping to change at page 20, line 45 skipping to change at page 20, line 40
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Requirements and Protocol Extensions in Support of Global Requirements and Protocol Extensions in Support of Global
Concurrent Optimization", RFC 5557, DOI 10.17487/RFC5557, Concurrent Optimization", RFC 5557, DOI 10.17487/RFC5557,
July 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5557>. July 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5557>.
[RFC5886] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Le Roux, JL., and Y. Ikejiri, "A Set of [RFC5886] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Le Roux, JL., and Y. Ikejiri, "A Set of
Monitoring Tools for Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Monitoring Tools for Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based
Architecture", RFC 5886, DOI 10.17487/RFC5886, June 2010, Architecture", RFC 5886, DOI 10.17487/RFC5886, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5886>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5886>.
[RFC6006] Zhao, Q., Ed., King, D., Ed., Verhaeghe, F., Takeda, T.,
Ali, Z., and J. Meuric, "Extensions to the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched
Paths", RFC 6006, DOI 10.17487/RFC6006, September 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6006>.
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path [RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231, Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[RFC8232] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., Varga, R., Zhang, X., [RFC8232] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., Varga, R., Zhang, X.,
and D. Dhody, "Optimizations of Label Switched Path State and D. Dhody, "Optimizations of Label Switched Path State
Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE", RFC 8232, Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE", RFC 8232,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8232, September 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8232, September 2017,
skipping to change at page 21, line 43 skipping to change at page 21, line 31
DOI 10.17487/RFC8306, November 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8306, November 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8306>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8306>.
[RFC8408] Sivabalan, S., Tantsura, J., Minei, I., Varga, R., and J. [RFC8408] Sivabalan, S., Tantsura, J., Minei, I., Varga, R., and J.
Hardwick, "Conveying Path Setup Type in PCE Communication Hardwick, "Conveying Path Setup Type in PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Messages", RFC 8408, DOI 10.17487/RFC8408, Protocol (PCEP) Messages", RFC 8408, DOI 10.17487/RFC8408,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8408>. July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8408>.
11.2. Informational References 11.2. Informational References
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce]
Dhody, D., Lee, Y., Ceccarelli, D., Shin, J., and D. King,
"Hierarchical Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE).",
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-11 (work in progress), July
2019.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC7470] Zhang, F. and A. Farrel, "Conveying Vendor-Specific [RFC7470] Zhang, F. and A. Farrel, "Conveying Vendor-Specific
Constraints in the Path Computation Element Communication Constraints in the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol", RFC 7470, DOI 10.17487/RFC7470, March 2015, Protocol", RFC 7470, DOI 10.17487/RFC7470, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7470>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7470>.
skipping to change at page 22, line 26 skipping to change at page 22, line 23
Remi Theillaud Remi Theillaud
Marben Products Marben Products
176 rue Jean Jaures 176 rue Jean Jaures
Puteaux 92800 Puteaux 92800
FRANCE FRANCE
Phone: + 33 (0)1 79 62 10 22 Phone: + 33 (0)1 79 62 10 22
Email: remi.theillaud@marben-products.com Email: remi.theillaud@marben-products.com
Julien Meuric Julien Meuric
France Telecom Orange Orange
2, avenue Pierre Marzin 2, avenue Pierre Marzin
Lannion 22307 Lannion 22307
FRANCE FRANCE
Email: julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com Email: julien.meuric@orange.com
Haomian Zheng (Editor) Haomian Zheng (Editor)
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
H1-1-A043S Huawei Industrial Base, Songshanhu H1-1-A043S Huawei Industrial Base, Songshanhu
Dongguan, Guangdong 523808 Dongguan, Guangdong 523808
P.R.China P.R.China
Email: zhenghaomian@huawei.com Email: zhenghaomian@huawei.com
Xian Zhang Xian Zhang
 End of changes. 19 change blocks. 
44 lines changed or deleted 42 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/