< draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-05.txt		draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-06.txt >
	Internet Engineering Task Force D. Katz		Internet Engineering Task Force D. Katz
	Internet-Draft Juniper Networks		Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
	Intended status: Standards Track D. Ward		Intended status: Standards Track D. Ward
	Expires: June 14, 2018 Cisco Systems		Expires: June 18, 2018 Cisco Systems
	S. Pallagatti, Ed.		S. Pallagatti, Ed.
	Individual Contributor		Individual Contributor
	December 11, 2017		G. Mirsky, Ed.
			ZTE Corp.
			December 15, 2017
	BFD Multipoint Active Tails.		BFD Multipoint Active Tails.
	draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-05		draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-06
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document describes active tail extensions to the Bidirectional		This document describes active tail extensions to the Bidirectional
	Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol for multipoint and multicast		Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol for multipoint and multicast
	networks. Comments on this draft should be directed to rtg-		networks.
	bfd@ietf.org.
	Requirements Language		Requirements Language
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
	document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].		"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
			14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
			capitals, as shown here.
	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 June 14, 2018.		This Internet-Draft will expire on June 18, 2018.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2017 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 21 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 26 ¶
	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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. Protocol Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3. Protocol Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3.1. Multipoint Client Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3.1. Multipoint Client Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3.2. Multipoint Client Session Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3.2. Multipoint Client Session Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.3. State Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.3. State Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.3.1. New State Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.3.1. New State Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.3.2. State Variable Initialization and Maintenance . . . . 6		3.3.2. State Variable Initialization and Maintenance . . . . 6
	3.4. Controlling Multipoint BFD Options . . . . . . . . . . . 7		3.4. Controlling Multipoint BFD Options . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3.5. State Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		3.5. State Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	3.6. Session Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		3.6. Session Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	3.7. Discriminators and Packet Demultiplexing . . . . . . . . 8		3.7. Discriminators and Packet Demultiplexing . . . . . . . . 8
	3.8. Controlling Tail Packet Transmission . . . . . . . . . . 8		3.8. Controlling Tail Packet Transmission . . . . . . . . . . 8
	3.9. Soliciting the Tails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		3.9. Soliciting the Tails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	3.10. Verifying Connectivity to Specific Tails . . . . . . . . 9		3.10. Verifying Connectivity to Specific Tails . . . . . . . . 9
	3.11. Detection Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		3.11. Detection Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	3.12. MultipointClient Down/AdminDown Sessions . . . . . . . . 10		3.12. MultipointClient Down/AdminDown Sessions . . . . . . . . 11
	3.13. Base Specification Text Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . 11		3.13. Base BFD Specification Text Replacement . . . . . . . . . 11
	3.13.1. Reception of BFD Control Packets . . . . . . . . . . 11		3.13.1. Reception of BFD Control Packets . . . . . . . . . . 11
	3.13.2. Demultiplexing BFD Control Packets . . . . . . . . . 11		3.13.2. Demultiplexing BFD Control Packets . . . . . . . . . 12
	3.13.3. Transmitting BFD Control Packets . . . . . . . . . . 12		3.13.3. Transmitting BFD Control Packets . . . . . . . . . . 12
	4. Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		4. Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	5. Operational Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		5. Operational Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	5.1. No Head Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		5.1. No Head Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	5.2. Unreliable Head Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		5.2. Unreliable Head Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	5.3. Semi-reliable Head Notification and Tail Solicitation . . 14		5.3. Semi-reliable Head Notification and Tail Solicitation . . 14
	5.4. Reliable Head Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		5.4. Reliable Head Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	This application of BFD is an extension to Multipoint BFD		This application of BFD is an extension to Multipoint BFD
	[I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] which allows tail to unreliably notify the		[I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint], which allows tail to unreliably notify the
	head of the lack of multipoint connectivity. As a further option,		head of the lack of multipoint connectivity. As a further option,
	this notification can be made reliable. Notification to the head can		this notification can be made reliable. Notification to the head can
	be enabled for all tails, or for only a subset of the tails.		be enabled for all tails, or for only a subset of the tails.
	Multipoint BFD base document [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] describes		Multipoint BFD base document [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] describes
	procedures to verify only the head-to-tail connectivity over the		procedures to verify only the head-to-tail connectivity over the
	multipoint path. Although it may use unicast paths in both		multipoint path. Although it may use unicast paths in both
	directions, Multipoint BFD does not verify those paths (and in fact		directions, Multipoint BFD does not verify those paths (and in fact
	it is preferable if unicast paths share as little fate with the		it is preferable if unicast paths share as little fate with the
	multipoint path as is feasible.)		multipoint path as is feasible.)
	Goal of this application is for the head to reasonably rapidly have		Goal of this application is for the head to reasonably rapidly have
	knowledge of tails that have lost connectivity from the head.		knowledge of tails that have lost connectivity from the head.
	Since scaling is a primary concern (particularly state implosion		Since scaling is a primary concern (particularly state implosion
	toward the head), it is a required that the head be in control of all		toward the head), it is required that the head be in control of all
	timing aspects of the mechanism, and that BFD packets from the tails		timing aspects of the mechanism, and that BFD packets from the tails
	to the head not be synchronized.		to the head not be synchronized.
			Throughout this document, the term "multipoint" is defined as a
			mechanism by which one or more systems receive packets sent by a
			single sender. This specifically includes such things as IP
			multicast and point-to-multipoint MPLS.
			Term "connectivity" in this document is not being used in context of
			connectivity verification in transport network but as an alternative
			to "continuity", i.e. existence of a path between the sender and the
			receiver.
	This document effectively modifies and adds to the base BFD		This document effectively modifies and adds to the base BFD
	specification and base BFD multipoint document.		specification [RFC5880] and base BFD multipoint document
			[I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint].
	2. Overview		2. Overview
	Head may wish to be alerted to the tails' connectivity (or lack		Head may wish to be alerted to the tails' connectivity (or lack
	thereof), there are a number of options. First, if all that is		thereof), there are a number of options. First, if all that is
	needed is an unreliable failure notification, the head can direct the		needed is an unreliable failure notification, the head can direct the
	tails to transmit unicast BFD Control packets back to the head when		tails to transmit unicast BFD Control packets back to the head when
	the path fails.		the path fails.
	If the head wishes to know the identity of the tails on the		If the head wishes to know the identity of the tails on the
	skipping to change at page 4, line 24 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 39 ¶
	Individual tails may be configured so that they never send BFD		Individual tails may be configured so that they never send BFD
	control packets to the head, even when the head wishes notification		control packets to the head, even when the head wishes notification
	of path failure from the tail. Such tails will never be known to the		of path failure from the tail. Such tails will never be known to the
	head, but will still be able to detect multipoint path failures from		head, but will still be able to detect multipoint path failures from
	the head.		the head.
	3. Protocol Details		3. Protocol Details
	This section describes the operation of BFD Multipoint active tail in		This section describes the operation of BFD Multipoint active tail in
	detail. This section is update to section 4 of		detail. This section is update to section 4 of
	[I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint]		[I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint].
	3.1. Multipoint Client Session		3.1. Multipoint Client Session
	If the head is keeping track of some or all of the tails, it has a		If the head is keeping track of some or all of the tails, it has a
	session of type MultipointClient per tail that it cares about. All		session of type MultipointClient per tail that it cares about. All
	of the MultipointClient sessions for tails on a particular multipoint		of the MultipointClient sessions for tails on a particular multipoint
	path are grouped with the MultipointHead session to which the clients		path are grouped with the MultipointHead session to which the clients
	are listening. A BFD Poll Sequence may be sent over such a session		are listening. A BFD Poll Sequence may be sent over such a session
	to a tail if the head wishes to verify connectivity. These sessions		to a tail if the head wishes to verify connectivity. These sessions
	receive any BFD Control packets sent by the tails, and never transmit		receive any BFD Control packets sent by the tails, and never transmit
	skipping to change at page 9, line 42 ¶		skipping to change at page 10, line 6 ¶
	3.10. Verifying Connectivity to Specific Tails		3.10. Verifying Connectivity to Specific Tails
	If the head wishes to verify connectivity to a specific tail, the		If the head wishes to verify connectivity to a specific tail, the
	corresponding MultipointClient session MAY send a BFD Poll Sequence		corresponding MultipointClient session MAY send a BFD Poll Sequence
	to said tail. This might be done in reaction to the expiration of		to said tail. This might be done in reaction to the expiration of
	the Detection Timer (the tail didn't respond to a multipoint Poll),		the Detection Timer (the tail didn't respond to a multipoint Poll),
	or it might be done on a proactive basis.		or it might be done on a proactive basis.
	The interval between transmitted packets in the Poll Sequence MUST be		The interval between transmitted packets in the Poll Sequence MUST be
	calculated as specified in the base specification (the greater of		calculated as specified in the base BFD specification [RFC5880] (the
	bfd.DesiredMinTxInterval and bfd.RemoteMinRxInterval.)		greater of bfd.DesiredMinTxInterval and bfd.RemoteMinRxInterval.)
	The value transmitted in Required Min RX Interval will be used by the		The value transmitted in Required Min RX Interval will be used by the
	tail (rather than the value received in any multipoint packet) when		tail (rather than the value received in any multipoint packet) when
	it transmits BFD Control packets to the head notifying it of a		it transmits BFD Control packets to the head notifying it of a
	session failure, and the transmitted packets will not be delayed.		session failure, and the transmitted packets will not be delayed.
	This value can potentially be set much lower than in the multipoint		This value can potentially be set much lower than in the multipoint
	case, in order to speed up notification to the head, since the value		case, in order to speed up notification to the head, since the value
	will be used only by the single tail. This value (and the lack of		will be used only by the single tail. This value (and the lack of
	delay) are "sticky", in that once the tail receives it, it will		delay) are "sticky", in that once the tail receives it, it will
	continue to use it indefinitely. Therefore, if the head no longer		continue to use it indefinitely. Therefore, if the head no longer
	skipping to change at page 10, line 25 ¶		skipping to change at page 10, line 37 ¶
	connectivity, though a reply to a Poll Sequence does reliably		connectivity, though a reply to a Poll Sequence does reliably
	indicate connectivity or lack thereof (by virtue of the tail's state		indicate connectivity or lack thereof (by virtue of the tail's state
	not being Up in the BFD Control packet.)		not being Up in the BFD Control packet.)
	3.11. Detection Times		3.11. Detection Times
	MultipointClient sessions at the head are always in Demand mode, and		MultipointClient sessions at the head are always in Demand mode, and
	as such only care about detection time in two cases. First, if a		as such only care about detection time in two cases. First, if a
	Poll Sequence is being sent on a MultipointClient session, the		Poll Sequence is being sent on a MultipointClient session, the
	detection time on this session is calculated according to the base		detection time on this session is calculated according to the base
	specification, that is, the transmission interval multiplied by		BFD specification [RFC5880], that is, the transmission interval
	bfd.DetectMult. Second, when a multipoint Poll is sent to solicit		multiplied by bfd.DetectMult. Second, when a multipoint Poll is sent
	tail replies, the detection time on all associated MultipointClient		to solicit tail replies, the detection time on all associated
	sessions that aren't currently sending Poll Sequences is set to a		MultipointClient sessions that aren't currently sending Poll
	value greater than or equal to bfd.RequiredMinRxInterval (one packet		Sequences is set to a value greater than or equal to
	time.) This value can be made arbitrarily large in order to ensure		bfd.RequiredMinRxInterval (one packet time.) This value can be made
	that the detection time is greater than the BFD round trip time		arbitrarily large in order to ensure that the detection time is
	between the head and the tail with no ill effects, other than		greater than the round trip time of a BFD Control packet between the
	delaying the detection of unresponsive tails. Note that a detection		head and the tail with no ill effects, other than delaying the
	time expiration on a MultipointClient session at the head, while		detection of unresponsive tails. Note that a detection time
			expiration on a MultipointClient session at the head, while
	indicating a BFD session failure, cannot be construed to mean that		indicating a BFD session failure, cannot be construed to mean that
	the tail is not hearing multipoint packets from the head.		the tail is not hearing multipoint packets from the head.
	3.12. MultipointClient Down/AdminDown Sessions		3.12. MultipointClient Down/AdminDown Sessions
	If the MultipointHead session is going down (which only happens		If the MultipointHead session is going down (which only happens
	administratively), all associated MultipointClient sessions SHOULD be		administratively), all associated MultipointClient sessions SHOULD be
	destroyed as they are superfluous.		destroyed as they are superfluous.
	If a MultipointClient session goes down due to the receipt of an		If a MultipointClient session goes down due to the receipt of an
	skipping to change at page 11, line 13 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 26 ¶
	the session SHOULD be maintained.		the session SHOULD be maintained.
	If the tail replies to a Poll Sequence with state Down or AdminDown,		If the tail replies to a Poll Sequence with state Down or AdminDown,
	it means that the tail session is definitely down. In this case, the		it means that the tail session is definitely down. In this case, the
	session MAY be destroyed.		session MAY be destroyed.
	If the Detection Time expires on a MultipointClient session (meaning		If the Detection Time expires on a MultipointClient session (meaning
	that the tail did not reply to a Poll Sequence) the session MAY be		that the tail did not reply to a Poll Sequence) the session MAY be
	destroyed.		destroyed.
	3.13. Base Specification Text Replacement		3.13. Base BFD Specification Text Replacement
	The following sections are meant to replace the corresponding		The following sections are meant to replace the corresponding
	sections in the base specification.		sections in the base specification.
	3.13.1. Reception of BFD Control Packets		3.13.1. Reception of BFD Control Packets
	The following procedure replaces section 6.8.6 of [RFC5880].		The following procedure replaces section 6.8.6 of [RFC5880].
	When a BFD Control packet is received, procedure defined in section		When a BFD Control packet is received, procedure defined in section
	4.13.1 of [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] MUST be followed, in the order		4.13.1 of [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] MUST be followed, in the order
	skipping to change at page 14, line 7 ¶		skipping to change at page 14, line 16 ¶
	5.1. No Head Notification		5.1. No Head Notification
	Since the only path used in this scenario is the multipoint path,		Since the only path used in this scenario is the multipoint path,
	none of the others matter. A failure in the multipoint path will		none of the others matter. A failure in the multipoint path will
	result in the tail noticing the failure within a detection time, and		result in the tail noticing the failure within a detection time, and
	the head will remain ignorant of the tail state.		the head will remain ignorant of the tail state.
	5.2. Unreliable Head Notification		5.2. Unreliable Head Notification
	In this scenario, the tail sends back unsolicicted BFD packets in		In this scenario, the tail sends back unsolicited BFD packets in
	response to the detection of a multipoint path failure. It uses the		response to the detection of a multipoint path failure. It uses the
	reverse unicast path, but not the forward unicast path.		reverse unicast path, but not the forward unicast path.
	If the multipoint path fails but the reverse unicast path stays up,		If the multipoint path fails but the reverse unicast path stays up,
	the tail will detect the failure within a detection time, and the		the tail will detect the failure within a detection time, and the
	head will know about it within one reverse packet time (since the		head will know about it within one reverse packet time (since the
	notification is delayed.)		notification is delayed.)
	If both the multipoint path and the reverse unicast paths fail, the		If both the multipoint path and the reverse unicast paths fail, the
	tail will detect the failure but the head will remain unaware of it.		tail will detect the failure but the head will remain unaware of it.
	skipping to change at page 16, line 21 ¶		skipping to change at page 16, line 31 ¶
	9. Acknowledgements		9. Acknowledgements
	Authors would also like to thank Nobo Akiya, Vengada Prasad Govindan,		Authors would also like to thank Nobo Akiya, Vengada Prasad Govindan,
	Jeff Haas, Wim Henderickx, Gregory Mirsky and Mingui Zhang who have		Jeff Haas, Wim Henderickx, Gregory Mirsky and Mingui Zhang who have
	greatly contributed to this document.		greatly contributed to this document.
	10. Normative References		10. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint]		[I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint]
	Katz, D., Ward, D., and J. Networks, "BFD for Multipoint		Katz, D., Ward, D., and J. Networks, "BFD for Multipoint
	Networks", draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-10 (work in		Networks", draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-11 (work in
	progress), April 2017.		progress), December 2017.
	[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>.
	[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection		[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
	(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,		(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
	Authors' Addresses		[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
			2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
			May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
			Authors' Addresses
	Dave Katz		Dave Katz
	Juniper Networks		Juniper Networks
	1194 N. Mathilda Ave.		1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
	Sunnyvale, California 94089-1206		Sunnyvale, California 94089-1206
	USA		USA
	Email: dkatz@juniper.net		Email: dkatz@juniper.net
	Dave Ward		Dave Ward
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
	skipping to change at page 17, line 4 ¶		skipping to change at page 17, line 19 ¶
	Email: dkatz@juniper.net		Email: dkatz@juniper.net
	Dave Ward		Dave Ward
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
	170 West Tasman Dr.		170 West Tasman Dr.
	San Jose, California 95134		San Jose, California 95134
	USA		USA
	Email: wardd@cisco.com		Email: wardd@cisco.com
	Santosh Pallagatti (editor)		Santosh Pallagatti (editor)
	Individual Contributor		Individual Contributor
	Embassy Business Park		Embassy Business Park
	Bangalore, KA 560093		Bangalore, KA 560093
	India		India
	Email: santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com		Email: santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
			Greg Mirsky (editor)
			ZTE Corp.
			Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
End of changes. 26 change blocks.
	39 lines changed or deleted		58 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/