Network Working Group Igor Bryskin Category: Informational Independent Consultant Expires: September 2005 Adrian Farrel Old Dog Consulting March 2005 A Lexicography for the Interpretation of Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Terminology within The Context of the ITU-T's Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) Architecture draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-lexicography-01.txt Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of Section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. 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 Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) has been developed by the IETF to facilitate the establishment of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in a variety of physical technologies and across several architectural models. The ITU-T has specified an architecture for the management of Automatically Switched Optical Networks (ASON). This document provides a lexicography for the interpretation of GMPLS terminology within the context of the ASON architecture. It is important to note that GMPLS is applicable in a far wider set of contexts than just ASON. Thus the definitions presented in this document do not provide exclusive or complete interpretations of the GMPLS concepts. The intention of this document is simply to allow the GMPLS terms to be applied within the ASON context. Bryskin and Farrel Page 1 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-lexicography-01.txt March 2005 1. Introduction Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) has been developed by the IETF to facilitate the establishment of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in a variety of physical technologies such as Packet Switching Capable (PSC), Layer Two Switching Capable (L2SC), Time Division Multiplexing (TDM), Lambda Switching Capable (LSC). and Fiber Switching Capable (FSC). GMPLS is deliberately specified to allow it to be applicable in several key architectures including the Integrated Model, the Overlay Model, and the Augmented Model. More information on these architectural models and on GMPLS can be found in [RFC3945]. The ITU-T has specified an architecture for the management of Automatically Switched Optical Networks (ASON). This architecture forms the basis of many recommendations within the ITU-T. Because the GMPLS and ASON architectures were developed by different people in different standards bodies, and because the architectures have very different historic backgrounds (the Internet, and telephone and transport networks respectively), the terminology used is different. In order to demonstrate that GMPLS is a suitable technology to satisfy the requirements of the ASON architecture it is necessary to examine the terminology and provide a mapping between GMPLS and ASON terms. This document provides a lexicography for the interpretation of GMPLS terminology within the context of the ASON architecture. It does not provide wider definitions of the GMPLS terms which can already be found in existing RFCs. Thus the definitions presented in this document do not provide exclusive or complete interpretations of the GMPLS concepts. The intention of this document is simply to allow the GMPLS terms to be applied within the ASON context. Note that the limitation of GMPLS to the ASON architecture in this document is in no sense intended to imply that GMPLS applicability is limited to the ASON architecture, nor that the ASON model is preferable to any other model that can be supported by GMPLS. Bryskin and Farrel Page 2 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-lexicography-01.txt March 2005 2. Terminology Sources 2.1. GMPLS Terminology Sources GMPLS Terminology is principally defined in [RFC3945]. Other documents provide further key definitions including [GMPLS-RTG], [BUNDLE], [LSP-HIER] and [LMP]. The reader should be familiar with these other documents before attempting to use this document to provide a mapping to between GMPLS and ASON. For details of GMPLS signaling please refer to [RFC3471] and [RFC3473]. For details of GMPLS routing, please refer to [GMPLS-OSPF] and [GMPLS-ISIS]. 2.2. ASON Terminology Sources The ASON architecture is specified in ITU-T Recommendation G.8080 [G-8080]. This is developed from generic functional architectures and requirements specified in [G-805], [G-807] and [G-872]. The reader must be familiar with these documents before attempting to apply the lexicography set out here. 2.3. Common Terminology Sources The work in this document builds on the shared view of ASON requirements and requirements expressed in [ASON-SIG], [ASON-RTG] and [TRANSPORT-LMP]. 3. Lexicography 3.1. Network Presences Transport node [Data Plane] is a logical network device that is capable of originating and/or terminating of a data flow and/or switching it on the route to its destination. Network controller (controller) [Control Plane] is a logical entity that models all control plane intelligence (routing, TE and signaling protocols, path computation, etc). A single controller can manage one or several transport nodes. Node [Control & Data Planes] is an association of a transport node and a controller that manages the transport node. Bryskin and Farrel Page 3 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-lexicography-01.txt March 2005 Control plane network [Control Plane] is an IP network used for delivery of control plane (protocol) messages exchanged by controllers. The ITU term for the control plane network is Data Connection Network (DCN). 3.2. Resources Non-packet based resource [Data Plane] is a channel of certain bandwidth that could be allocated in a network data plane of a particular technology for the purpose of user traffic delivery. Examples of non-packet based resources are timeslots, lambda channels, etc. Packet based resource [Data Plane] is an abstraction hiding means related to delivery of traffic with particular parameters (most importantly, bandwidth) with particular QoS over PSC media. Examples of packet based resources are forwarding queues, schedulers, etc. Layer Resource (Resource) [Data Plane]. A non-packet based data plane technology may yield resources in different network layers. For example, some TDM devices can operate with VC-12 timeslots, some with VC-4 timeslots and some with VC4-4c timeslots. There are also multiple layers of packet based resources (i.e. one per label in the label stack). Therefore, we define layer resource (or simply resource) irrespective of underlying data plane technology as a basic data plane construct. It is defined by a combination of a particular data encoding type and switching/terminating bandwidth granularity. All other definitions provided in this memo are tightly bound to the resource. Examples of layer resources are: PSC1, PSC4, ATM VP, ATM VC, Ethernet, VC-12, VC-4, Lambda 10G, Lambda 40G. ITU-T terms for resource: - Connection point (cp) in the context of link discovery and resource management (allocation, binding into cross-connects, etc.); - Link connection or trail termination in the context of routing, path computation and signaling. 3.3. Labels Label [Control Plane] is an abstraction that represents a resource in the control plane. In ITU terms a label is the portion of an SNP name that follows the SNPP name. A label represents a subnetwork point (SNP) in the context of a subnetwork point pool (SNPP). Generally, a label Bryskin and Farrel Page 4 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-lexicography-01.txt March 2005 identifies a client layer SNP within an SNPP supported by a single server layer access point. In some cases, for example SONET/SDH labels, there may be multiple layers between the SNPP and the single access point. 3.4. Data Links Unidirectional data link end [Data Plane] is a set of resources of a particular layer that belong to the same transport node and could be allocated for transfer of traffic in this layer to the same neighbor in the same direction. In ITU-T terminology a unidirectional data link end is a collection of the same client layer connection points supported by a single trail termination (access point). Bidirectional data link end [Data Plane] is an association of two unidirectional data link ends of a particular layer that belong to the same transport node and could be used for transfer of traffic in this layer to/from the same neighbor in both directions. Unidirectional data link [Data Plane] is an association of two unidirectional data link ends of a particular layer belonging to two transport nodes adjacent in this layer that could be used for transfer of traffic between the two transport nodes in one direction. The ITU term for a unidirectional data link is unidirectional link. Bidirectional data link [Data Plane] is an association of two bidirectional data link ends of a particular layer belonging to two transport nodes adjacent in this layer that could be used for transfer of traffic between the two transport nodes in both directions. The ITU term for a bidirectional data link is bidirectional link. In the ITU ASON architecture a unidirectional/bidirectional data link is supported by a single unidirectional/bidirectional trail 3.5. Link interfaces Unidirectional link interface [Data Plane] is an abstraction that connects a transport node to a unidirectional data link end and represents (hides) the data plane intelligence like switching, termination and adaptation in one direction. In GMPLS, link interfaces are often referred to as "GMPLS interfaces" and it should be understood that these are data plane interfaces and the term does not refer to the ability of a control plane interface to handle GMPLS protocols. Bryskin and Farrel Page 5 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-lexicography-01.txt March 2005 A single unidirectional data link end could be connected to a transport node by multiple link interfaces with some of them, for example, realizing switching function, while others realize the function of termination/adaptation. In ITU terminology, a unidirectional link interface is a switching function provided by matrix, and/or a trail termination function bound to an adaptation function for which adapted client layer connection points are bound to a matrix. The link interface type may be identified by the cross-connected client layer, or by the adapted client layer, or by the terminated server layer, or by a combination of these depending on the context. In some cases, a unidirectional link interface comprises a set of trail termination and adaptation pairs, for which some connection points are bound to trail terminations and others to matrices. Bidirectional link interface [Data Plane] is an association of two or more unidirectional link interfaces that connects a transport node to a bi-directional data link end and represents the data plane intelligence like switching, termination and adaptation in both directions. 3.6. Connections Unidirectional connection (LSP) [Data Plane] is a single resource or a set of cross-connected resources of a particular layer that could deliver traffic in this layer between a pair of transport nodes in one direction Bidirectional connection (LSP) [Data Plane] is an association of two unidirectional connections that could simultaneously deliver traffic in a particular layer between a pair of transport nodes in opposite directions. In the context of GMPLS both unidirectional constituents of a bidirectional connection (LSP) take identical paths in terms of data links and could be provisioned concurrently. The ITU term for a connection is connection. The ITU term for a connection end is connection point (cp). Connection (LSP) segment [Data Plane] is a single resource or a set of cross-connected resources that constitutes a segment of a connection. The ITU term for a connection segment is connection. The ITU does not distinguish between connection and connection segment. Bryskin and Farrel Page 6 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-lexicography-01.txt March 2005 3.7. Layers Layer [Data Plane] is a set of resources of the same type that could be used for establishing a connection or used for connectionless data delivery. Using ITU terminology, a layer is a set of (related) networking technologies, each of which is defined by its distinct characteristic information. Note. In GMPLS, the existence of non-blocking switching function in a transport node in a particular layer is modeled explicitly as one of the functions of link interfaces connecting the transport node to its data links, while in ITU-T the switching function is modeled explicitly as subnetwork. 3.8. Switching, Termination and Adaptation Capabilities Switching capability [Data Plane] is a property of a link interface that connects a particular data link to a transport node. This property characterizes the interface's ability to cooperate with other link interfaces connecting data links within the same layer to the same transport node for the purpose of binding resources in cross-connects. Switching capability is advertised as an attribute of the TE link local end associated with the link interface. Termination capability [Data Plane] is a property of a link interface that connects a particular data link to a transport node. This property characterizes the interface's ability to terminate connections within the layer the data link belongs to. Adaptation capability [Data Plane] is a property of a link interface that connects a particular data link to a transport node. This property characterizes the interface's ability to perform a nesting function - to use a locally terminated connection that belongs to one layer as a data link for some other layer(s). The need for advertisement of adaptation and termination capabilities within GMPLS has been recognized and work is in progress to determine how these will be advertised. It is likely that they will be advertised as a single combined or separate attributes of the TE link local end associated with the link interface. In the ITU ASON architecture switching capability is modeled as a matrix, and termination and adaptation capabilities are modeled as the termination and adaptation functions respectively accessible from a particular link. Bryskin and Farrel Page 7 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-lexicography-01.txt March 2005 3.9. TE Links and FAs TE link end [Control Plane] is a grouping for the purpose of advertising and routing of labels representing resources of a particular layer. The ITU term for a TE link end is SNP pool (SNPP). Such a grouping allows for decoupling of path selection from resource assignment. Specifically, a path could be selected in a centralized way in terms of TE link ends, while the resource assignment (resource reservation and label allocation) could be performed in a distributed way during the connection setup. A TE link end may reflect zero, one or several data link ends in the data plane. A TE link end is associated with exactly one switching capability or, in other words, with exactly one layer. TE link [Control Plane] is a grouping of two TE link ends associated with two neighboring transport nodes in a particular layer. In contrast to data link, which provides network flexibility in a particular layer and, therefore, is a "real" topological element, TE link is a logical routing element. For example, an LSP path is computed in terms of TE links (or more precisely, in terms of TE link ends), while the LSP is provisioned over (that is, resources are allocated from) data links. The ITU term for a TE link is SNPP link. Virtual TE link is a TE link associated with zero data links. TE link end advertising [Control Plane]. A controller managing a particular transport node advertises local TE link ends. Any controller in the TE domain makes a TE link available for its local path computation if it receives consistent advertisements of both TE link ends. Strictly speaking, there is no such a thing as TE link advertising - only TE link end advertising. TE link end advertising may contain information about multiple switching capabilities. This, however, should not be interpreted as advertising of a multi-layer TE link end, rather, as joint advertisement of ends of multiple parallel TE links, each representing resources in separate layers. The advertisement may contain attributes shared by all TE links in the group (examples: protection capabilities, SRLGs, etc), separate information related to each TE link (examples: switching capability, data encoding, unreserved bandwidth, etc) as well as information related to inter-layer relationships of the advertised resources (example: termination and adaptation capabilities) should the control plane decide to use them as termination of higher layer data links. These higher layer data links, however, are not real yet - they are Bryskin and Farrel Page 8 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-lexicography-01.txt March 2005 abstract until the underlying connections are established in lower layers. LSPs created in lower layers for the purpose of providing data links (extra network flexibility) in higher layers are called hierarchical connections/LSPs or simply hierarchies. LSPs created for the purpose of providing data links in the same layer are called stitching segments. Hierarchies and stitching segments could, but do not have to be advertised as TE links. Naturally, if they are advertised as TE links, they are made available for path computations performed on any controller within the TE domain into which they are advertised. Hierarchies and stitching segments could be advertised either individually or in TE bundles. A hierarchy or a stitching segment could be advertised as a TE link either into the same or a separate TE domain compared to the one within which it was provisioned. A set of hierarchical LSPs that are and/or could be created in a particular layer to provide network flexibility (data links) in other layer(s) is called Virtual network topology (VNT). The ITU term for a hierarchical LSP/hierarchy is trail. Forwarding Adjacency (FA) [Control Plane] is a TE link that does not require a direct routing adjacency (peering) between controllers managing either of its ends in order to guarantee control plane connectivity (control channel) between the controllers. An example of an FA is a hierarchy or stitching segment advertised as a TE link into the same TE domain within which it was dynamically provisioned. In such cases, the control plane connectivity between the controllers at the ends of hierarchy/stitching segment is guaranteed by the concatenation of control channels interconnecting the ends of each of its constituents. In contrast, a hierarchy or stitching segment advertised as a TE link into a different TE domain compared to one where it was provisioned, generally requires a direct routing adjacency to be established within the TE domain where the TE link is advertised in order to guarantee control plane connectivity between the TE link ends, and, therefore, is not an FA. 3.10. TE Domain TE link attribute is a parameter of the set of resources associated with a TE link end that is significant in the context of path computation. Full TE visibility is a situation when a controller receives all unmodified TE advertisements from any other controller from a particular set of controllers. Bryskin and Farrel Page 9 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-lexicography-01.txt March 2005 Limited TE visibility is a situation when a controller receives summarized TE information or does not receive one at all from some of controllers on the network. TE domain is a set of controllers each of which has full TE visibility within the set. TE database (TED) is a memory structure within a controller that contains all TE advertisements generated by all controllers within a particular TE domain. Virtual network integration is a set of collaborative mechanisms within a single node driving multiple (at least two) layers and the adaptation between the layers. Horizontal network integration is a set of collaborative mechanisms within a single instance of the control plane driving multiple (at least two) TE domains or between different instances of the control plane. 3.11. Component Links and Bundles Component link end [Control Plane] is a grouping of labels representing resources of a particular layer that is not advertised as an individual TE link end. A component link end could represent one or more data link ends or any subset of resources that belong to one or more data link ends. Component link ends may be discovered through means other than TE routing protocols (LMP, local configuration, management plane automated tools, etc.). In all other respects, a component link end is equivalent to a TE link end. Component link [Control Plane] is a grouping of two or more component link ends associated with neighboring transport nodes (that is, directly interconnected by one or more data links) in a particular layer. Component links are equivalent to TE links except that the component link ends are not advertised. TE bundle [Control Plane] is an association of several parallel (that is, connecting the same pair of transport nodes) component links whose attributes are identical or whose differences sufficiently negligible that the TE domain can view the entire association as a single TE link. A TE bundle is advertised in the same way as a TE link, that is, by representing the associated component link ends as a single TE link end (TE bundle end) which is advertised. Bryskin and Farrel Page 10 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-lexicography-01.txt March 2005 3.12. Regions TE region [Control Plane] is a set of one or more layers that are associated with the same type of data plane technology. Examples of regions are: IP, ATM, TDM, photonic, fiber switching, etc. Regions and region boundaries are significant for the signaling sub-system of the control plane because LSPs are signaled substantially differently (i.e. use different signaling object formats and semantics) in different regions. Furthermore, advertising, routing and path computation could be performed differently in different regions. For example, computation of paths across photonic regions requires a wider set of constraints (e.g. optical impairments, wavelength continuity, etc) and needs to be performed in different terms (e.g. in terms of individual resources - lambda channels, rather than in terms of TE links) compared to path computation in other regions like IP or TDM. 4. Guidance on the Application of this Lexicography As discussed in the introduction to this document, this lexicography is intended to bring the concepts and terms associated with GMPLS into the context of the ITU's ASON architecture. Thus, it should help those familiar with ASON to see how they may use the features and functions of GMPLS in order to meet the requirements of an ASON system. For example, a service provider wishing to establish a protected end-to-end service, might read [SEG-PROT] and [E2E-PROT] and wish to understand how the GMPLS terms used relate to the ASON architecture so that he can confirm that he will satisfy his requirements. This document is not a substitute for obtaining a clear understanding of GMPLS. It should not be assumed that a deep knowledge of the ASON architecture combined with this document will allow the reader to comprehend GMPLS. Rather, this lexicography will enable a reader who is familiar with the ASON architecture to make a rapid transition to GMPLS within the ASON context. This lexicography should not be used in order to obtain or derive definitive definitions of GMPLS terms because GMPLS is applicable in a wider context than just the ASON architecture. To obtain definitions of GMPLS terms that are applicable across all GMPLS architectural models, the reader should refer to the RFCs listed in the references sections of this document. [RFC3945] provides an overview of the GMPLS architecture and should be read first. 5. IANA Considerations This informational document defines no new code points and requires no action by IANA. Bryskin and Farrel Page 11 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-lexicography-01.txt March 2005 6. Management Considerations Both GMPLS and ASON networks require management. Both GMPLS and ASON specifications include considerable efforts to provide operator control and monitoring, as well as OAM functionality. These concepts are, however, out of scope of this document. 7. Security Considerations Security is also a significant requirement of both GMPLS and ASON architectures. Again, however, this informational document is intended only to provide a lexicography, and the security concerns are, therefore, out of scope. 8. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank participants in the IETF's CCAMP working group and the ITU-T's Study Group 15 for their help in producing this document. In particular, all those who attended the Study Group 15 Question 14 Interim Meeting in Holmdel, New Jersey during January 2005. Many thanks to Ichiro Inoue of NTT for his useful review and input, and to Scott Brim and Dimitri Papadimitriou for lengthy and constructive discussions. Ben Mack-Crane and Jonathan Sadler provided very help reviews and discussions of ASON terms. 9. Intellectual Property Consideration The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. Bryskin and Farrel Page 12 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-lexicography-01.txt March 2005 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- ipr@ietf.org. 10. Normative References [RFC3945] E. Mannie (Ed.). "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. [GMPLS-RTG] Kompella, K. and Rekhter, Y., "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching", , work in progress. [BUNDLE] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and Berger, L., "Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering", , work in progress. [LSP-HIER] Kompella, K. and Rekhter, Y., "LSP Hierarchy with Generalized MPLS TE", , work in progress. [LMP] J. Lang (Ed.), "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", , work in progress. 11. Informational References [RFC3471] L. Berger (Ed.), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. [RFC3473] L. Berger (Ed.), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3471, January 2003. [GMPLS-OSPF] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y. (Ed.), "OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", , work in progress. [GMPLS-ISIS] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y. (Ed.), "IS-IS Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", , work in progress. Bryskin and Farrel Page 13 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-lexicography-01.txt March 2005 [ASON-SIG] Papadimitriou, D., Drake, J., Ash, J., Farrel, A., and Ong, L., "Requirements for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Signaling Usage and Extensions for Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)", , work in progress. [ASON-RTG] D. Brungard (Ed.), "Requirements for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Routing for Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)", , work in progress. [TRANSPORT-LMP] Fedyk, D., Aboul-Magd, O., Brungard, D., Lang, J., Papadimitriou, D., "A Transport Network View of LMP" , work in progress. [E2E-PROT] Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and Papadimitriou, D. (Eds.), "RSVP-TE Extensions in support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-based Recovery", , work in progress. [SEG-PROT] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and Farrel, A., "GMPLS Based Segment Recovery", , work in progress. For information on the availability of the following documents, please see http://www.itu.int. [G-8080] ITU-T Recommendation G.8080/Y.1304, Architecture for the automatically switched optical network (ASON). [G-805] ITU-T Recommendation G.805 (2000), Generic functional architecture of transport networks. [G-807] ITU-T Recommendation G.807/Y.1302 (2001), Requirements for the automatic switched transport network (ASTN). [G-872] ITU-T Recommendation G.872 (2001), Architecture of optical transport networks. 12. Authors' Addresses Igor Bryskin Independent Consultant EMail: i_bryskin@yahoo.com Bryskin and Farrel Page 14 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-lexicography-01.txt March 2005 Adrian Farrel Old Dog Consulting Phone: +44 (0) 1978 860944 EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk 13. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 14. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Bryskin and Farrel Page 15