Networking Working Group A. Farrel (Ed.)
Internet-Draft Old Dog Consulting
Intended Status: Standards Track R. Bradford
Created: January 8, 2009 JP. Vasseur
Expires: July 8, 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc.
RSVP Extensions for Path Key Support
draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-03.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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
The paths taken by Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) may be computed by Path Computation Elements (PCEs).
Where the TE LSP crosses multiple domains, such as Autonomous Systems
(ASes), the path may be computed by multiple PCEs that cooperate,
with each responsible for computing a segment of the path.
To preserve confidentiality of topology within each AS, the PCEs
support a mechanism to hide the contents of a segment of a path (such
as the segment of the path that traverses an AS), called the
Confidential Path Segment (CPS), by encoding the contents as a Path
Key Subobject (PKS) and embedding this subobject within the result of
its path computation.
Farrel, Bradford, and Vasseur [Page 1]
draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-03.txt January 2009
This document describes how to carry Path Key Subobjects in the
Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Explicit Route Objects (EROs)
and Record Route Object (RROs) so as to facilitate confidentiality in
the signaling of inter-domain TE LSPs.
Conventions used in this document
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
RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
1. Introduction
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) are signaled
using the TE extensions to the Resource Reservation Protocol
(RSVP-TE) [RFC3209], [RFC3473]. The routes followed by MPLS and
GMPLS TE LSPs may be computed by Path Computation Elements (PCEs)
[RFC4655].
Where the TE LSP crosses multiple domains [RFC4726], such as
Autonomous Systems (ASes), the path may be computed by multiple PCEs
that cooperate, with each responsible for computing a segment of the
path. To preserve confidentiality of topology with each AS, the
PCE Communications Protocol (PCEP) [PCEP] supports a mechanism to
hide the contents of a segment of a path, called the Confidential
Path Segment (CPS), by encoding the contents as a Path Key
Subobject (PKS) [PCE-PKS].
This document defines RSVP-TE protocol extensions necessary to
support the use of Path Key Subobjects in MPLS and GMPLS signaling by
including them in Explicit Route Objects (EROs) and Record Route
Object (RROs) so as to facilitate confidentiality in the signaling of
inter-domain TE LSPs.
1.1. Usage Scenario
Figure 1 shows a simple network constructed of two ASes. An LSP is
desired from the ingress in AS-1 to the egress in AS-2. As described
in [RFC4655], the ingress Label Switching Router (LSR) acts as a Path
Computation Client (PCC) and sends a request to its PCE (PCE-1).
PCE-1 can compute the path within AS-1, but has no visibility into
AS-2. So PCE-1 cooperates with PCE-2 to complete the path
computation.
However, PCE-2 does not want to share the information about the
path across AS-2 with nodes outside the AS. So, as described in
Farrel, Bradford, and Vasseur [Page 2]
draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-03.txt January 2009
[PCE-PKS], PCE-2 reports the AS-2 path segment using a PKS rather
than the explicit details of the path.
PCE-1 can now return the path to be signaled to the ingress LSR in a
path computation response with the AS-2 segment still hidden as a
PKS.
In order to set up the LSP, the ingress LSR signals using RSVP-TE and
encodes the path reported by PCE-1 in the Explicit Route Object
(ERO). This process is as normal for RSVP-TE, but requires that the
PKS is also included in the ERO using the mechanisms defined in this
document.
When the signaling message (the RSVP-TE Path message) reaches ASBR-2
it consults PCE-2 to 'decode' the PKS and return the expanded
explicit path segment to ASBR-2. (The information that PCE-2 uses to
decode the PKS is encoded within the PKS itself.) The PKS is replaced
in the ERO with the expanded information about the path.
----------------------------- ----------------------------
| AS-1 | | AS-2 |
| | | |
| ------- | | ------- |
| | PCE-1 |<---------------+--+-->| PCE-2 | |
| ------- | | ------- |
| ^ | | ^ |
| | | | | |
| v | | v |
| ------- ---- | | ---- |
| | PCC | - - |ASBR| | | |ASBR| - - ------ |
| |Ingress|--|A|--|B|--| 1 |-+--+-| 2 |--|C|--|D|--|Egress| |
| ------- - - ----- | | ---- - - ------ |
| | | |
----------------------------- ----------------------------
Figure 1 : A Simple network to demonstrate the use of the PKS
2. Terminology
CPS: Confidential Path Segment. A segment of a path that contains
nodes and links that the AS policy requires to not be disclosed
outside the AS.
PCE: Path Computation Element: an entity (component, application
or network node) that is capable of computing a network path or
route based on a network graph and applying computational
constraints.
Farrel, Bradford, and Vasseur [Page 3]
draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-03.txt January 2009
PKS: Path Key Subobject. A subobject of an Explicit Route Object
which encodes a CPS, so as to preserve confidentiality.
3. RSVP-TE Path Key Subobject
The Path Key Subobject (PKS) may be carried in the Explicit Route
Object (ERO) of a RSVP-TE Path message [RFC3209]. The PKS is a fixed-
length subobject containing a Path Key and a PCE-ID. The Path Key is
an identifier, or token used to represent the CPS within the context
of the PCE identified by the PCE-ID. The PCE-ID identifies the PCE
that can decode the Path Key using a reachable IPv4 or IPv6 address
of the PCE. In most cases, the decoding PCE is also the PCE that
computed the Path Key and the associated path. Because of the IPv4
and IPv6 variants, two subobjects are defined as follows.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Path Key |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PCE ID (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
L
The L bit SHOULD NOT be set, so that the subobject represents a
strict hop in the explicit route.
Type
Subobject Type for a Path Key with 32-bit PCE ID as assigned by
IANA.
Length
The Length contains the total length of the subobject in bytes,
including the Type and Length fields. The Length is always 8.
PCE ID
A 32-bit identifier of the PCE that can decode this key. The
identifier MUST be unique within the scope of the domain that the
CPS crosses, and MUST be understood by the LSR that will act as
PCC for the expansion of the PKS. The interpretation of the
PCE-ID is subject to domain-local policy. It MAY be an IPv4
address of the PCE that is always reachable, and MAY be an
address that is restricted to the domain in which the LSR that is
called upon to expand the CPS lies. Other values that have no
Farrel, Bradford, and Vasseur [Page 4]
draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-03.txt January 2009
meaning outside the domain (for example, the Router ID of the
PCE) MAY be used to increase security or confidentiality.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Path Key |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PCE ID (16 bytes) |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
L
As above.
Type
Subobject Type for a Path Key with 128-bit PCE ID as assigned by
IANA.
Length
The Length contains the total length of the subobject in bytes,
including the Type and Length fields. The Length is always 20.
PCE ID
A 128-bit identifier of the PCE that can decode this key. The
identifier MUST be unique within the scope of the domain that the
CPS crosses, and MUST be understood by the LSR that will act as
PCC for the expansion of the PKS. The interpretation of the
PCE-ID is subject to domain-local policy. It MAY be an IPv6
address of the PCE that is always reachable, but MAY be an
address that is restricted to the domain in which the LSR that is
called upon to expand the CPS lies. Other values that have no
meaning outside the domain (for example, the IPv6 TE Router ID)
MAY be used to increase security (see Section 5).
Note: The twins of these sub-objects are carried in PCEP messages
as defined in [PCE-PKS].
Farrel, Bradford, and Vasseur [Page 5]
draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-03.txt January 2009
3.1. Explicit Route Object Processing Rules
The basic processing rules of an ERO are not altered. Refer to
[RFC3209] for details. In particular, an LSR is not required to "look
ahead" in the ERO beyond the first subobject that is non-local.
[PCE-PKS] requires that any path fragment generated by a PCE that
contains a PKS is such that the PKS is immediately preceded by an
subobject that identifies the head end of the PKS (for example, an
incoming interface, or a node ID). This rule is extended to the PKS
in the ERO so that the following rules are defined.
- If an LSR receives a Path message where the first subobject of the
ERO is a PKS, it MUST respond with a PathErr message carrying the
error code/value combination "Routing Problem"/"Bad initial
subobject".
- If an LSR strips all local sub-objects from an ERO carried in a
Path message (according to the procedures in [RFC3209]) and finds
that the next subobject is a PKS it MUST attempt to resolve the PKS
to a CPS.
Resolution of the PKS MAY take any of the following forms or use
some other technique subject to local policy and network
implementation.
- The LSR can use the PCE-ID contained in the PKS to contact the
identified PCE using PCEP [PCEP] and request that the PKS be
expanded.
- The LSR can contact any PCE using PCEP [PCEP] to request that the
PKS be expanded relying on cooperation between the PCEs.
- The LSR can use the information in the PKS to index a CPS
previously supplied to it by the PCE that originated the PKS.
If a CPS is derived, the path fragment SHOULD be inserted into the
ERO of the Path message as a direct replacement for the PKS. Other
processing of the CPS and ERO are permitted as described in
[RFC3209].
This processing can give rise to the following error cases:
- PCE-ID cannot be matched to a PCE to decode the PKS.
The LSR sends a PathErr message with the error code "Routing
Problem" and a new error value "Unknown PCE-ID for PKS expansion"
(see Section 6.3).
Farrel, Bradford, and Vasseur [Page 6]
draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-03.txt January 2009
- PCE identified by the PCE-ID cannot be reached.
The LSR sends a PathErr message with the error code "Routing
Problem" and a new error value "Unreachable PCE for PKS
expansion" (see Section 6.3).
- The PCE is unable to decode the PKS, perhaps because the Path Key
has expired.
The LSR sends a PathErr message with the error code "Routing
Problem" and a new error value "Unknown Path Key for PKS
expansion" (see Section 6.3).
- PKS cannot be decoded for policy reasons.
The LSR sends a PathErr message with the error code "Policy
Control Failure" and the error value "Inter-domain policy
failure".
- Addition of CPS to ERO causes Path message to become too large.
The LSR MAY replace part of the ERO with loose hops [RFC3209] or
with a further PKS according to local policy if the loss in
specifics within the explicit path is acceptable. If the LSR is
unable to take steps to reduce the size of the ERO it MUST send a
PathErr message with the error code "Routing Problem" and a new
error value "ERO too large for MTU" (see Section 6.3).
- An LSR that is called on to process a PKS within an ERO, but does
not recognize the subobject will react according to [RFC3209] and
send a PathErr message with the error code/value combination
"Routing Problem"/"Bad Explicit Route Object".
3.2. Reporting Path Key Segments in Record Route Objects
The Record Route Object (RRO) is used in RSVP-TE to record the route
traversed by an LSP. The RRO may be present on a Path message and on
a Resv message. The intention [RFC3209] is that an RRO on a Resv
message received by an ingress LSR is suitable for use as an ERO on a
Path message sent by that LSR to achieve an identical LSP.
The PKS offers an alternative that can be more useful to diagnostics.
When the signaling message crosses a domain boundary, the path
segment that needs to be hidden (that is, a CPS) MAY be replaced in
the RRO with a PKS. In the case of an RRO on a Resv message, the PKS
used SHOULD be the one originally signaled in the ERO of the Path
message. On a Path message, the PKS SHOULD identify the LSR replacing
the CPS, and provide a Path Key that can be used to expand the path
Farrel, Bradford, and Vasseur [Page 7]
draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-03.txt January 2009
segment. In the latter case, the Path Key and its expansion SHOULD be
retained by the LSR that performs the substitution for at least the
lifetime of the LSP. In both cases, the expansion of the PKS SHOULD
be made available to diagnostic tools under the control of local
policy.
4. Security Considerations
The protocol interactions required by the mechanisms described in
this document are point to point and can be authenticated and made
secure as described in [PCEP] and [RFC3209]. The protocol
interactions for PCEP are listed in [PCE-PKS], while general
considerations for securing RSVP-TE in MPLS-TE and GMPLS networks can
be found in [MPLS-SEC].
Thus, the security issues can be dealt with using standard techniques
for securing and authenticating point-to-point communications. In
addition, it is RECOMMENDED that the PCE providing a PKS expansion
checks that the LSR that issued the request for PKS expansion is the
head end of the resulting CPS.
Further protection can be provided by using a PCE ID to identify
the decoding PCE that is only meaningful within the domain that
contains the LSR at the head of the CPS. This may be an IP address
that is only reachable from within the domain, or some non-address
value. The former requires configuration of policy on the PCEs,
the latter requires domain-wide policy.
The following specific security issues need to be considered.
- Confidentiality of the CPS. The question to be answered is whether
other network elements can probe a PCE for the expansion of PKSs,
possibly generating path keys at random. This can be protected
against by only allowing PKS expansion to be successfully completed
if requested by the LSR that is at the head end of the resulting
CPS. Under specific circumstances, PKS expansion might also be
allowed by configured management stations.
The CPS itself may be kept confidential as it is exchanged in the
PCEP and RSVP-TE protocols using standard security mechanisms
defined for those protocols.
- Determination of information by probing. In addition to the probing
described above, a node might deduce information from the error
responses generated when PKS expansion fails as described in
Section 3.1. Any LSR that considers that supplying one of the
detailed error codes described in Section 3.1 might provide too
much information that could be used as part of a systematic attack,
Farrel, Bradford, and Vasseur [Page 8]
draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-03.txt January 2009
MAY simply use the error code/value "Policy Control Failure"/
"Inter-domain policy failure" in all cases.
- Authenticity of the path key. A concern is that the path key in the
PKS will be altered or faked leading to erroneous path key
expansion and the use of the wrong CPS. The consequence would be a
bad ERO in a Path message causing the LSP to be set up incorrectly
resulting in incorrect network resource usage, diversion of traffic
to where it can be intercepted, or failure to set up the LSP. These
problems can be prevented by protecting the protocol exchanges in
PCEP and RSVP-TE using standard security techniques.
- Resilience to DNS attacks. A PCE can be attacked through a flood of
path key expansion requests - this issue is addressed in [PCE-PKS]
and is out of scope for this document. A further attack might
consist of sending a flood of RSVP-TE Path messages with
deliberately spurious PKSs. This attack is prevented by ensuring
the integrity of the Path messages using standard RSVP-TE security
mechanisms, and by enforcing the RSVP-TE chain of trust security
model.
5. Manageability Considerations
5.1. Control of Function Through Configuration and Policy
Policy forms an important part of the use of PKSs in EROs and RROs.
There are local and domain-wide policies that SHOULD be available for
configuration in an implementation.
- Handling of an ERO containing a PKS. As described in Section 3.1 an
LSR that receives a Path message containing a PKS can be configured
to reject the Path message according to policy.
- Handling of PKS requests at a PCE. As described in Section 3.1, in
[PCE-PKS], and in [RFC5394] a PCE can be configured with policy
about how it should handle requests for PKS expansion.
- PKS expansion. Section 3.1 explains that the PKS can be expanded by
the local LSR, the specific PCE identified in the PKS, any PCE
acting as a proxy, or by some other method. The behavior of the LSR
needs to be locally configurable, but is subject the domain-wide
policy.
- Interpretation of PCE-ID. The interpretation of the PCE-ID
component of PKSs is subject to domain-local policy and needs to be
configurable as such. See Section 3 and Section 4 for the options.
Farrel, Bradford, and Vasseur [Page 9]
draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-03.txt January 2009
- ERO too large. The behavior of an LSR when it finds that adding a
CPS to the ERO causes the Path message to be too large, is an
implementation choice. However, implementations may choose to
provide configuration of behavior as described in Section 3.1.
- Masking of RRO. As described in Section 3.2, a border router can
choose to mask segments of the path by replacing them with PKSs.
This behavior needs to be configurable with the default being to
not hide any part of the RRO.
- Inspection / decode of PKS by diagnostic tools. A PCE can allow
access from management or diagnostic tools to request the expansion
of a PKS. Note that this must be regulated with the security and
confidentiality behavior described in Section 4.
- Hiding of reason codes. An LSR can support the configuration of
local policy to hide reason codes associated with the failure to
expand a PKS, and as described in Section 4, report all errors as
policy failures.
The treatment of a path segment as a CPS, and its substitution in
a PCRep ERO with a PKS, is a PCE function and is described in
[PCE-PKS].
6. IANA considerations
6.1. Explicit Route Object Subobjects
IANA maintains a registry called "Resource Reservation Protocol
(RSVP) Parameters" with a subregistry called "Class Names, Class
Numbers, and Class Types".
Within this subregistry there is a definition of the EXPLICIT_ROUTE
object with Class Number 20. The object definition lists a number of
acceptable sub-objects for the Class Type 1.
IANA is requested to allocate two further sub-objects as described in
Section 3. The resulting entry in the registry should look as
follows.
20 EXPLICIT_ROUTE [RFC3209]
Class Types or C-Types:
1 Type 1 Explicit Route [RFC3209]
Sub-object type
64 Path Key with 32-bit PCE ID [This.I-D]
65 Path Key with 128-bit PCE ID [This.I-D]
Farrel, Bradford, and Vasseur [Page 10]
draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-03.txt January 2009
Note well: [PCE-PKS] defines the PKS for use in PCEP. IANA is
requested to assign the same sub-object numbers for use in RSVP-TE as
are assigned for the PKS in PCEP. The numbers suggested above are the
same as are suggested in [PCE-PKS].
6.2. Record Route Objects Subobjects
IANA maintains a registry called "Resource Reservation Protocol
(RSVP) Parameters" with a subregistry called "Class Names, Class
Numbers, and Class Types".
Within this subregistry there is a definition of the ROUTE_RECORD
object (also known as the RECORD_ROUTE object) with Class Number 21.
The object definition lists a number of acceptable sub-objects for
the Class Type 1.
IANA is requested to allocate two further sub-objects as described in
Section 3. The resulting entry in the registry should look as
follows.
21 ROUTE_RECORD [RFC3209]
(also known as RECORD_ROUTE)
Class Types or C-Types:
1 Type 1 Route Record [RFC3209]
Sub-object type
64 Path Key with 32-bit PCE ID [This.I-D]
65 Path Key with 128-bit PCE ID [This.I-D]
Note well: IANA is requested to use the same sub-object numbers as
are defined for the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object in Section 6.1.
6.3. Error Codes and Error Values
IANA maintains a registry called "Resource Reservation Protocol
(RSVP) Parameters" with a subregistry called "Error Codes and
Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes".
Within this subregistry there is a definition of the "Routing
Problem" error code with error code value 24. The definition lists a
number of error values that may be used with this error code.
IANA is requested to allocate further error values for use with this
error value as described in Section 3.1. The resulting entry in the
registry should look as follows.
Farrel, Bradford, and Vasseur [Page 11]
draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-03.txt January 2009
24 Routing Problem [RFC3209]
This Error Code has the following globally-defined Error
Value sub-codes:
31 = Unknown PCE-ID for PKS expansion [This.ID]
32 = Unreachable PCE for PKS expansion [This.ID]
33 = Unknown Path Key for PKS expansion [This.ID]
34 = ERO too large for MTU [This.ID]
The values shown above are suggested values.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., et al. "GMPLS Singlaling RSVP-TE extensions",
RFC3473, January 2003.
7.2. Informational References
[MPLS-SEC] Fang, L., et al., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-
framework, work in progress.
[PCEP] J.P. Vasseur, et al., "Path Computation Element (PCE)
Communication Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep, work
in progress.
[PCE-PKS] Bradford, R., Vasseur, J.P., and Farrel, A., "Preserving
Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation
Using a Key-Based Mechanism", draft-ietf-pce-path-key,
work in progress.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.P., and Ash, J., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
[RFC4726] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.P., and Ayyangar, A., "A Framework
for Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic
Engineering", RFC 4726, November 2006.
Farrel, Bradford, and Vasseur [Page 12]
draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-03.txt January 2009
[RFC5394] Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., Berger, L. and Ash, J.,
"Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework", RFC 5394,
December 2008.
8. Authors' Addresses:
Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting
EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Rich Bradford
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA - 01719
USA
Email: rbradfor@cisco.com
J.-P Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA - 01719
USA
Email: jpv@cisco.com
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document.
All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are provided
on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST 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 THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Farrel, Bradford, and Vasseur [Page 13]
draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-03.txt January 2009
Intellectual Property
The IETF Trust 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 any IETF 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.
Copies of Intellectual Property 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
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
any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please
address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or
under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are
published by third parties, including those that are translated into
other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions
of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions
is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of
these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties, including
those that are translated into other languages, should not be
considered to be definitive versions of these Legal Provisions.
For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards
Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of
the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the
provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms,
conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the
rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect and
shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such
Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution.
Farrel, Bradford, and Vasseur [Page 14]
