draft-ietf-sidr-ghostbusters-16.txt   rfc6493.txt 
Network Working Group R. Bush Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Bush
Internet-Draft Internet Initiative Japan Request for Comments: 6493 Internet Initiative Japan
Intended status: Standards Track December 29, 2011 Category: Standards Track February 2012
Expires: July 1, 2012 ISSN: 2070-1721
The RPKI Ghostbusters Record The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Ghostbusters Record
draft-ietf-sidr-ghostbusters-16
Abstract Abstract
In the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), resource In the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), resource
certificates completely obscure names or any other information which certificates completely obscure names or any other information that
might be useful for contacting responsible parties to deal with might be useful for contacting responsible parties to deal with
issues of certificate expiration, maintenance, roll-overs, issues of certificate expiration, maintenance, roll-overs,
compromises, etc. This draft describes the RPKI Ghostbusters Record compromises, etc. This document describes the RPKI Ghostbusters
containing human contact information which may be verified Record containing human contact information that may be verified
(indirectly) by a CA certificate. The data in the record are those (indirectly) by a Certification Authority (CA) certificate. The data
of a severely profiled vCard. in the record are those of a severely profiled vCard.
Requirements Language
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].
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the Status of This Memo
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This is an Internet Standards Track document.
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 1, 2012. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6493.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Suggested Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. RPKI Ghostbusters Record Payload Example . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Suggested Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. vCard Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. RPKI Ghostbusters Record Payload Example . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. CMS Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. vCard Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. CMS Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. OID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. File Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9.1. OID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.3. Media Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9.2. File Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9.3. Media Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
In the operational use of the RPKI it can become necessary to In the operational use of the RPKI, it can become necessary to
contact, human to human, the party responsible for a resource-holding contact, human to human, the party responsible for a resource-holding
CA certificate, AKA the certificate's maintainer, be it the holder of CA certificate, AKA the certificate's maintainer, be it the holder of
the certificate's private key or an administrative person in the the certificate's private key or an administrative person in the
organization, a NOC, etc. An important example is when the operator organization, a NOC, etc. An important example is when the operator
of a prefix described by a Route Origin Authorization (ROA) sees a of a prefix described by a Route Origin Authorization (ROA) sees a
problem, or an impending problem, with a certificate or CRL in the problem, or an impending problem, with a certificate or Certificate
path between the ROA and a trust anchor. E.g., a certificate along Revocation List (CRL) in the path between the ROA and a trust anchor.
that path has expired, is soon to expire, or a CRL associated with a For example, a certificate along that path has expired, is soon to
CA along the path is stale, thus placing the quality of the routing expire, or a CRL associated with a CA along the path is stale, thus
of the address space described by the ROA in jeopardy. placing the quality of the routing of the address space described by
the ROA in jeopardy.
As the names in RPKI certificates are not meaningful to humans, see As the names in RPKI certificates are not meaningful to humans, see
[I-D.ietf-sidr-cp], there is no way to use a certificate itself to [RFC6484], there is no way to use a certificate itself to lead to the
lead to the worrisome certificate's or CRL's maintainer. So, "Who worrisome certificate's or CRL's maintainer. So, "Who you gonna
you gonna call?" call?"
This document specifies the RPKI Ghostbusters Record, an object This document specifies the RPKI Ghostbusters Record, an object
verified via an End Entity (EE) certificate, issued under a CA verified via an end-entity (EE) certificate, issued under a CA
certificate, the maintainer of which may be contacted using the certificate, the maintainer of which may be contacted using the
payload information in the Ghostbusters Record. payload information in the Ghostbusters Record.
The Ghostbusters Record conforms to the syntax defined in The Ghostbusters Record conforms to the syntax defined in [RFC6488].
[I-D.ietf-sidr-signed-object]. The payload of this signed object is The payload of this signed object is a severely profiled vCard.
a severely profiled vCard.
Note that the Ghostbusters Record is not an identity certificate, but Note that the Ghostbusters Record is not an identity certificate, but
rather an attestation to the contact data made by the maintainer of rather an attestation to the contact data made by the maintainer of
the CA certificate issuing the EE certificate whose corresponding the CA certificate issuing the EE certificate whose corresponding
private key signs the Ghostbusters Record. private key signs the Ghostbusters Record.
This record is not meant to supplant or be used as resource registry This record is not meant to supplant or be used as resource registry
whois data. It gives information about an RPKI CA certificate whois data. It gives information about an RPKI CA certificate
maintainer not a resource holder. maintainer, not a resource holder.
The Ghostbusters Record is optional, CA certificates in the RPKI may The Ghostbusters Record is optional; CA certificates in the RPKI can
have zero or more associated Ghostbuster Records. have zero or more associated Ghostbuster Records.
Given a certificate, to find the closest Ghostbuster Record, go up Given a certificate, to find the closest Ghostbuster Record, go up
until a CA certificate is reached, which may be the object itself of until a CA certificate is reached, which may be the object itself of
course. That CA certificate will have an SIA to the publication course. That CA certificate will have Subject Information Access
point where all subsidiary objects (until you hit a down-chain CA (SIA) to the publication point where all subsidiary objects (until
certificate's signed objects) are published. The publication point you hit a down-chain CA certificate's signed objects) are published.
will contain zero or more Ghostbuster Records. The publication point will contain zero or more Ghostbuster Records.
This specification has three main sections. The first, Section 4, is This specification has three main sections. The first, Section 5, is
the format of the contact payload information, a severely profiled the format of the contact payload information, a severely profiled
vCard. The second, Section 5, profiles the packaging of the payload vCard. The second, Section 6, profiles the packaging of the payload
as a profile of the RPKI Signed Object Template specification as a profile of the RPKI Signed Object Template specification
[I-D.ietf-sidr-signed-object]. The third, Section 6, describes the [RFC6488]. The third, Section 7, describes the proper validation of
proper validation of the signed Ghostbusters Record. the signed Ghostbusters Record.
2. Suggested Reading 2. Requirements Language
It is assumed that the reader understands the RPKI, The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
[I-D.ietf-sidr-arch], the RPKI Repository Structure, "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
[I-D.ietf-sidr-repos-struct], Signed RPKI Objects, document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
[I-D.ietf-sidr-signed-object], and vCards [RFC6350].
3. RPKI Ghostbusters Record Payload Example 3. Suggested Reading
It is assumed that the reader understands the RPKI [RFC6480], the
RPKI Repository Structure [RFC6481], Signed RPKI Objects [RFC6488],
and vCards [RFC6350].
4. RPKI Ghostbusters Record Payload Example
An example of an RPKI Ghostbusters Record payload with all properties An example of an RPKI Ghostbusters Record payload with all properties
populated is as follows: populated is as follows:
BEGIN:VCARD BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:4.0 VERSION:4.0
FN:Human's Name FN:Human's Name
ORG:Organizational Entity ORG:Organizational Entity
ADR;TYPE=WORK:;;42 Twisty Passage;Deep Cavern;WA;98666;U.S.A. ADR;TYPE=WORK:;;42 Twisty Passage;Deep Cavern;WA;98666;U.S.A.
TEL;TYPE=VOICE,TEXT,WORK;VALUE=uri:tel:+1-666-555-1212 TEL;TYPE=VOICE,TEXT,WORK;VALUE=uri:tel:+1-666-555-1212
TEL;TYPE=FAX,WORK;VALUE=uri:tel:+1-666-555-1213 TEL;TYPE=FAX,WORK;VALUE=uri:tel:+1-666-555-1213
EMAIL:human@example.com EMAIL:human@example.com
END:VCARD END:VCARD
4. vCard Profile 5. vCard Profile
The goal in profiling the vCard is not to include as much information The goal in profiling the vCard is not to include as much information
as possible, but rather to include as few properties as possible as possible, but rather to include as few properties as possible
while providing the minimal necessary data to enable one to contact while providing the minimal necessary data to enable one to contact
the maintainer of the RPKI data which threatens the ROA[s] of the maintainer of the RPKI data that threatens the ROA[s] of concern.
concern.
The Ghostbusters vCard payload is a minimalist subset of the vCard as The Ghostbusters vCard payload is a minimalist subset of the vCard as
described in [RFC6350]. described in [RFC6350].
BEGIN - pro forma packaging which MUST be the first line in the BEGIN - pro forma packaging that MUST be the first line in the vCard
vCard and MUST have the value "BEGIN:VCARD" as described in and MUST have the value "BEGIN:VCARD" as described in [RFC6350].
[RFC6350].
VERSION - pro forma packaging which MUST be the second line in the VERSION - pro forma packaging that MUST be the second line in the
vCard and MUST have the value "VERSION:4.0" as described in 3.7.9 vCard and MUST have the value "VERSION:4.0" as described in
of [RFC6350]. Section 3.7.9 of [RFC6350].
FN - the name, as described in 6.2.1 of [RFC6350], of a contactable FN - the name, as described in Section 6.2.1 of [RFC6350], of a
person or role who is responsible for the CA certificate. contactable person or role who is responsible for the CA
certificate.
ORG - an organization as described in 6.6.4 of [RFC6350]. ORG - an organization as described in Section 6.6.4 of [RFC6350].
ADR - a postal address as described in 6.3 of [RFC6350]. ADR - a postal address as described in Section 6.3 of [RFC6350].
TEL - a voice and/or fax phone as described in 6.4.1 of [RFC6350]. TEL - a voice and/or fax phone as described in Section 6.4.1 of
[RFC6350].
EMAIL - an Email address as described in 6.4.2 of [RFC6350] EMAIL - an Email address as described in Section 6.4.2 of [RFC6350]
END - pro forma packaging which MUST be the last line in the vCard END - pro forma packaging that MUST be the last line in the vCard
and MUST have the value "END:VCARD" as described in [RFC6350]. and MUST have the value "END:VCARD" as described in [RFC6350].
Per [RFC6350], the BEGIN, VERSION, FN, and END properties MUST be Per [RFC6350], the BEGIN, VERSION, FN, and END properties MUST be
included in a record. To be useful, zero or more of ADR, TEL, and included in a record. To be useful, at least one of ADR, TEL, and
EMAIL MUST be included. Other properties MUST NOT be included. EMAIL MUST be included. Other properties MUST NOT be included.
5. CMS Packaging 6. CMS Packaging
The Ghostbusters Record is a CMS signed-data object conforming to the The Ghostbusters Record is a CMS signed-data object conforming to the
Signed Object Template for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure, "Signed Object Template for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure
[I-D.ietf-sidr-signed-object]. (RPKI)", [RFC6488].
The ContentType of a Ghostbusters Record is defined as id-ct- The content-type of a Ghostbusters Record is defined as id-ct-
rpkiGhostbusters, and has the numerical value of rpkiGhostbusters, and has the numerical value of
1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.35. This OID MUST appear both within the 1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.35. This OID MUST appear both within the
eContentType in the encapContentInfo object as well as the eContentType in the encapContentInfo object as well as the content-
ContentType signed attribute in the signerInfo object. See type signed attribute in the signerInfo object. See [RFC6488].
[I-D.ietf-sidr-signed-object].
eContent: The content of a Ghostbusters Record is described above in eContent: The content of a Ghostbusters Record is described in
Section 4 above. Section 5.
Similarly to a ROA, a Ghostbusters Record is verified using an EE Similarly to a ROA, a Ghostbusters Record is verified using an EE
certificate issued by the resource-holding CA certificate whose certificate issued by the resource-holding CA certificate whose
maintainer is described in the vCard. maintainer is described in the vCard.
The EE certificate used to verify the Ghostbusters Record is the one The EE certificate used to verify the Ghostbusters Record is the one
that appears in the CMS data structure which contains the payload that appears in the CMS data structure that contains the payload
defined above. defined above.
This EE certificate MUST describe its internet number resources using This EE certificate MUST describe its Internet Number Resources using
the "inherit" attribute, rather than explicit description of a the "inherit" attribute, rather than explicit description of a
resource set, see [RFC3779]. resource set; see [RFC3779].
6. Validation 7. Validation
The validation procedure defined in Section 3 of The validation procedure defined in Section 3 of [RFC6488] is applied
[I-D.ietf-sidr-signed-object] is applied to a Ghostbusters Record. to a Ghostbusters Record. After this procedure has been performed,
After this procedure has been performed, the Version number type the Version number type within the payload is checked, and the OCTET
within the payload is checked, and the OCTET STRING containing the STRING containing the vCard data is extracted. These data are
vCard data is extracted. These data are checked against the profile checked against the profile defined in Section 5 of this document.
defined in Section 4 of this document. Only if all of these checks Only if all of these checks pass is the Ghostbusters payload deemed
pass is the Ghostbusters payload deemed valid and made available to valid and made available to the application that requested the
the application that requested the payload. payload.
7. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
Though there is no on-the-wire protocol in this specification, there Though there is no on-the-wire protocol in this specification, there
are attacks which could abuse the data described. As the data, to be are attacks that could abuse the data described. As the data, to be
useful, need to be public, little can be done to avoid this exposure. useful, need to be public, little can be done to avoid this exposure.
Phone Numbers: The vCards may contain real world telephone numbers Phone Numbers: The vCards may contain real world telephone numbers,
which could be abused for telemarketing, abusive calls, etc. which could be abused for telemarketing, abusive calls, etc.
Email Addresses: The vCards may contain Email addresses which could Email Addresses: The vCards may contain Email addresses, which could
be abused for purposes of spam. be abused for purposes of spam.
Relying parties are hereby warned that the data in a Ghostbusters Relying parties are hereby warned that the data in a Ghostbusters
Record are self-asserted. These data have not been verified by the Record are self-asserted. These data have not been verified by the
CA that issued the CA certificate to the entity that issued the EE CA that issued the CA certificate to the entity that issued the EE
certificate used to validate the Ghostbusters Record. certificate used to validate the Ghostbusters Record.
8. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
8.1. OID 9.1. OID
The IANA is requested to register the OID for the Ghostbusters Record The IANA has registered the OID for the Ghostbusters Record in the
in the registry created by [I-D.ietf-sidr-signed-object] as follows: registry created by [RFC6488] as follows:
Name OID Specification Name OID Specification
----------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------
Ghostbusters 1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.35 [ This document ] Ghostbusters 1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.35 [RFC6493]
8.2. File Extension 9.2. File Extension
Realizing the deep issues raised by [RFC5513], the IANA is requested Realizing the deep issues raised by [RFC5513], the IANA has added an
to add an item for the Ghostbusters Record file extension to the RPKI item for the Ghostbusters Record file extension to the "RPKI
Repository Name Scheme created by [I-D.ietf-sidr-repos-struct] as Repository Name Scheme" created by [RFC6481] as follows:
follows:
Filename Extension RPKI Object Reference Filename Extension RPKI Object Reference
----------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------
.gbr Ghostbusters Record [ This document ] .gbr Ghostbusters Record [RFC6493]
8.3. Media Type 9.3. Media Type
The IANA is requested to register the media type application/ The IANA has registered the media type application/rpki-ghostbusters
rpki-ghostbusters as follows as follows:
Type name: application Type name: application
Subtype name: rpki-ghostbusters Subtype name: rpki-ghostbusters
Required parameters: None Required parameters: None
Optional parameters: None Optional parameters: None
Encoding considerations: binary Encoding considerations: binary
Security considerations: Carries an RPKI Ghostbusters Record Security considerations: Carries an RPKI Ghostbusters Record
[this document]. [RFC6493].
Interoperability considerations: None Interoperability considerations: None
Published specification: This document. Published specification: This document.
Applications that use this media type: RPKI administrators. Applications that use this media type: RPKI administrators.
Additional information: Additional information:
Content: This media type is a signed object, as defined Content: This media type is a signed object, as defined
in [I-D.ietf-sidr-signed-object], which contains a payload in [RFC6488], which contains a payload
of a profiled vCard as defined above in this document. of a profiled vCard as defined above in this document.
Magic number(s): None Magic number(s): None
File extension(s): .gbr File extension(s): .gbr
Macintosh file type code(s): Macintosh file type code(s):
Person & email address to contact for further information: Person & email address to contact for further information:
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Intended usage: COMMON Intended usage: COMMON
Restrictions on usage: None Restrictions on usage: None
Author: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Author: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Change controller: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Change controller: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
9. Acknowledgments 10. Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Russ Housley, the authors of
[I-D.ietf-sidr-repos-struct], Stephen Kent, Sandy Murphy, Rob
Austein, Michael Elkins, and Barry Leiba for their contributions.
10. References
10.1. Normative References The author wishes to thank Russ Housley, the authors of [RFC6481],
Stephen Kent, Sandy Murphy, Rob Austein, Michael Elkins, and Barry
Leiba for their contributions.
[I-D.ietf-sidr-repos-struct] 11. References
Huston, G., Loomans, R., and G. Michaelson, "A Profile for
Resource Certificate Repository Structure",
draft-ietf-sidr-repos-struct-09 (work in progress),
July 2011.
[I-D.ietf-sidr-signed-object] 11.1. Normative References
Lepinski, M., Chi, A., and S. Kent, "Signed Object
Template for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure",
draft-ietf-sidr-signed-object-04 (work in progress),
May 2011.
[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, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3779] Lynn, C., Kent, S., and K. Seo, "X.509 Extensions for IP [RFC3779] Lynn, C., Kent, S., and K. Seo, "X.509 Extensions for IP
Addresses and AS Identifiers", RFC 3779, June 2004. Addresses and AS Identifiers", RFC 3779, June 2004.
[RFC6350] Perreault, S., "vCard Format Specification", RFC 6350, [RFC6350] Perreault, S., "vCard Format Specification", RFC 6350,
August 2011. August 2011.
10.2. Informative References [RFC6481] Huston, G., Loomans, R., and G. Michaelson, "A Profile for
Resource Certificate Repository Structure", RFC 6481,
February 2012.
[I-D.ietf-sidr-arch] [RFC6488] Lepinski, M., Chi, A., and S. Kent, "Signed Object
Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support Template for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure
Secure Internet Routing", draft-ietf-sidr-arch-13 (work in (RPKI)", RFC 6488, February 2012.
progress), May 2011.
[I-D.ietf-sidr-cp] 11.2. Informative References
Kent, S., Kong, D., Seo, K., and R. Watro, "Certificate
Policy (CP) for the Resource PKI (RPKI",
draft-ietf-sidr-cp-17 (work in progress), April 2011.
[RFC5513] Farrel, A., "IANA Considerations for Three Letter [RFC5513] Farrel, A., "IANA Considerations for Three Letter
Acronyms", RFC 5513, April 1 2009. Acronyms", RFC 5513, April 1 2009.
[RFC6480] Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support
Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, February 2012.
[RFC6484] Kent, S., Kong, D., Seo, K., and R. Watro, "Certificate
Policy (CP) for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure
(RPKI)"", RFC 6484, February 2012.
Author's Address Author's Address
Randy Bush Randy Bush
Internet Initiative Japan Internet Initiative Japan
5147 Crystal Springs 5147 Crystal Springs
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110 Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110
US US
Phone: +1 206 780 0431 x1 Phone: +1 206 780 0431 x1
Email: randy@psg.com EMail: randy@psg.com
 End of changes. 69 change blocks. 
161 lines changed or deleted 147 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/