NETCONF G. Zheng
Internet-Draft T. Zhou
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
Expires: April 6, 2021 T. Graf
Swisscom
P. Francois
INSA-Lyon
P. Lucente
NTT
October 3, 2020
UDP-based Transport for Configured Subscriptions
draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-00
Abstract
This document describes an UDP-based notification mechanism to
collect data from networking devices. A shim header is proposed to
facilitate the streaming of data directly from line cards to a
collector. The objective is to rely on a lightweight approach to
allow for higher frequency and better transit performance compared to
already established notification mechanisms.
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 6, 2021.
Zheng, et al. Expires April 6, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ietf-udp-notif October 2020
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
(https://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. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Configured Subscription to UDP-Notif . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. UDP-Based Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Design Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Format of the UDP-Notif Message Header . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.1. Fragmentation Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Data Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. A YANG Data Model for Management of UDP-Notif . . . . . . . . 8
7. YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
Sub-Notif [RFC8639] defines a mechanism that lets a collector
subscribe to the publication of YANG-defined data maintained in a
YANG [RFC7950] datastore. The mechanism separates the management and
control of subscriptions from the transport used to deliver the data.
Three transport mechanisms, namely NETCONF transport [RFC8640],
RESTCONF transport [RFC8650], and HTTPS transport
[I-D.ietf-netconf-https-notif] have been defined so far for such
notification messages.
Zheng, et al. Expires April 6, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ietf-udp-notif October 2020
While powerful in its features and general in their architecture, the
currently available transport mechanisms need to be complemented to
support data publications at high velocity from devices that feature
a distributed architecture. The currently available transports are
based on TCP and lack the efficiency needed to continuously send
notifications at high velocity.
This document specifies a transport option for Sub-Notif that
leverages UDP. Specifically, it facilitates the distributed data
collection mechanism described in
[I-D.unyte-netconf-distributed-notif]. In the case of data
originating from multiple line cards, centralized designs require
data to be internally forwarded from those line cards to the push
server, presumably on a route processor, which then combines the
individual data items into a single consolidated stream. The
centralized data collection mechanism can result in a performance
bottleneck, especially when large amounts of data are involved.
What is needed is the support for a mechanism that allows for
directly pushing multiple substreams, e.g. one from each line card,
without passing them through an additional processing stage for
internal consolidation. The proposed UDP-based transport allows for
such a distributed data collection approach.
o Firstly, a UDP approach reduces the burden of maintaining a large
amount of active TCP connections at the collector, notably in
cases where it collects data from the line cards of a large amount
of networking devices.
o Secondly, as no connection state needs to be maintained, UDP
encapsulation can be easily implemented by the hardware of the
publication streamer, which will further improve performance.
o Ultimately, such advantages allow for a larger data analysis
feature set, as more voluminous, finer grained data sets can be
streamed to the collector.
The transport described in this document can be used for transmitting
notification messages over both IPv4 and IPv6.
This document describes the notification mechanism. It is intended
to be used in conjunction with [RFC8639], extended by
[I-D.unyte-netconf-distributed-notif].
Section 2 describes the control of the proposed transport mechanism.
Section 3 details the notification mechanism and message format.
Section 4 discusses congestion control. Section 5 covers the
applicability of the proposed mechanism.
Zheng, et al. Expires April 6, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ietf-udp-notif October 2020
2. Configured Subscription to UDP-Notif
This section describes how the proposed mechanism can be controlled
using subscription channels based on NETCONF or RESTCONF.
Following the usual approach of Sub-Notif, configured subscriptions
contain the location information of all the receivers, including the
IP address and the port number, so that the publisher can actively
send UDP-Notif messages to the corresponding receivers.
Note that receivers MAY NOT be already up and running when the
configuration of the subscription takes effect on the monitored
device. The first message MUST be a separate subscription-started
notification to indicate the Receiver that the stream has started
flowing. Then, the notifications can be sent immediately without
delay. All the subscription state notifications, as defined in
[RFC8639], MUST be encapsulated in separate notification messages.
3. UDP-Based Transport
In this section, we specify the UDP-Notif Transport behaviour.
Section 3.1 describes the general design of the solution.
Section 3.2 specifies the UDP-Notif message format. Section 3.3
describes a generic optional sub TLV format. Section 3.3.1 uses such
options to provide a fragmentation solution for large UDP-Notif
message payloads. Section 3.4 describes the encoding of the message
payload.
3.1. Design Overview
As specified in Sub-Notif, the telemetry data is encapsulated in the
NETCONF/RESTCONF notification message, which is then encapsulated and
carried using transport protocols such as TLS or HTTP2. Figure 1
illustrates the the structure of an UDP-Notif message.
o The Message Header contains information that facilitate the
message transmission before deserializing the notification
message.
o Notification Message is the encoded content that the publication
stream transports. The common encoding methods include GPB [1],
CBOR [RFC7049], JSON, and XML.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-notification-messages] describes the structure
of the Notification Message for single notifications and bundled
notifications.
Zheng, et al. Expires April 6, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ietf-udp-notif October 2020
+-------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
| UDP | | Message | | Notification |
| | | Header | | Message |
+-------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
Figure 1: UDP-Notif Message Overview
3.2. Format of the UDP-Notif Message Header
The UDP-Notif Message Header contains information that facilitate the
message transmission before deserializing the notification message.
The data format is shown in Figure 2.
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
+-------+-------+---------------+-------------------------------+
| Vers. | ET | Header Len | Message Length |
+-------+-------+---------------+-------------------------------+
| Message-Generator-ID |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Message ID |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
~ Options ~
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: UDP-Notif Message Header Format
The Message Header contains the following field:
o Version represents the PDU (Protocol Data Unit) encoding version.
The initial version value is 0.
o ET is a 4 bit identifier to indicate the encoding type used for
the Notification Message. 16 types of encoding can be expressed:
* 0: GPB;
* 1: CBOR;
* 2: JSON;
* 3: XML;
* others are reserved.
o Header Length is the length of the message header in octets,
including both the fixed header and the options.
Zheng, et al. Expires April 6, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ietf-udp-notif October 2020
o Message Length is the total length of the message within one UDP
datagram, measured in octets, including the message header.
o Message-Generator-ID is a 32-bit identifier of the process which
created the notification message. This allows disambiguation of
an information source, such as the identification of different
line cards sending the notification messages. The source IP
address of the UDP datagrams SHOULD NOT be interpreted as the
identifier for the host that originated the UDP-Notif message.
Indeed, the streamer sending the UDP-Notif message could be a
relay for the actual source of data carried within UDP-Notif
messages.
o The Message ID is generated continuously by the sender of UDP-
Notif messages. Different subscribers share the same Message ID
sequence.
o Options is a variable-length field in the TLV format. When the
Header Length is larger than 12 octets, which is the length of the
fixed header, Options TLVs follow directly after the fixed message
header (i.e., Message ID). The details of the options are
described in the following section.
3.3. Options
All the options are defined with the following format, illustrated in
Figure 3.
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
+---------------+---------------+--------------------------------
| Type | Length | Variable-length data
+---------------+---------------+--------------------------------
Figure 3: Generic Option Format
o Type: 1 octet describing the option type;
o Length: 1 octet of the TLV Length, including the Type and Length
fields;
o Variable-length data: 0 or more octets of TLV Value.
3.3.1. Fragmentation Option
The UDP payload length is limited to 65535. Application level
headers will make the actual payload shorter. Even though binary
encodings such as GPB and CBOR may not require more space than what
Zheng, et al. Expires April 6, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ietf-udp-notif October 2020
is left, more voluminous encodings such as JSON and XML may suffer
from this size limitation. Although IPv4 and IPv6 senders can
fragment outgoing packets exceeding their Maximum Transmission
Unit(MTU), fragmented IP packets may not be desired for operational
and performance reasons.
Consequently, implementations of the mechanism SHOULD provide a
configurable max-fragment-size option to control the maximum size of
a payload.
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
+---------------+---------------+
| Type | Length |
+-------------------------------+---------------+-------------+-+
| Fragment Number |L|
+-------------------------------------------------------------+-+
Figure 4: Fragmentation Option Format
The Fragmentation Option is to be included when the message content
is fragmented into multiple pieces. Different fragments of one
message share the same Message ID. An illustration is provided in
Figure 4. The fields of this TLV are:
o Type: indicates Fragmentation Option. The Type value is to be
asigned.
o Length: is a fixed value of 6 octets.
o Fragment Number: indicates the sequence number of the current
fragment.
o L: is a flag to indicate whether the current fragment is the last
one. When 0 is set, the current fragment is not the last one,
hence more fragments are expected. When 1 is set, the current
fragment is the last one.
3.4. Data Encoding
UDP-Notif message data can be encoded in GPB, CBOR, XML or JSON
format. It is conceivable that additional encodings may be supported
in the future. This can be accomplished by augmenting the
subscription data model with additional identity statements used to
refer to requested encodings.
Implementation MAY support multiple encoding methods per
subscription. When bundled notifications are supported between the
Zheng, et al. Expires April 6, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ietf-udp-notif October 2020
publisher and the receiver, only subscribed notifications with the
same encoding can be bundled in a given message.
4. Congestion Control
Congestion control mechanisms that respond to congestion by reducing
traffic rates and establish a degree of fairness between flows that
share the same path are vital to the stable operation of the Internet
[RFC2914]. While efficient, UDP has no built-in congestion control
mechanism. Because streaming telemetry can generate unlimited
amounts of data, transferring this data over UDP may be considered
problematic. It is not recommended to use the proposed mechanism
over congestion-sensitive network paths. The only environments where
UDP-Notif is expected to be used are managed networks. The
deployments require that the network path has been explicitly
provisioned to handle the traffic through traffic engineering
mechanisms, such as rate limiting or capacity reservations. The UDP-
Notif Message ID can be used to deduce congestion based on packet
loss detection. Hence the collector can notify the device to use a
lower streaming rate. The interaction to control the streaming rate
on the device is out of the scope of this document.
5. Applicability
The target application for UDP-Notif is the collection of data-plane
information. The lack of reliability of the data streaming mechanism
is thus considered acceptable as the mechanism is to be used in
controlled environments, mitigating the risk of information loss,
while allowing for publication of very large amounts of data.
Moreover, in this context, sporadic events when incomplete data
collection is provided is not critical for the proper management of
the network.
6. A YANG Data Model for Management of UDP-Notif
The YANG model defined in Section 9 has two leafs augmented into one
place of Sub-Notif [RFC8639], plus one identity.
module: ietf-udp-subscribed-notifications
augment /sn:subscriptions/sn:subscription/sn:receivers/sn:receiver:
+--rw address inet:ip-address
+--rw port inet:port-number
+--rw enable-fragment? boolean
+--rw max-fragment-size? uint32
Zheng, et al. Expires April 6, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ietf-udp-notif October 2020
7. YANG Module
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-udp-notif@2020-04-27.yang"
module ietf-udp-notif {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-udp-notif";
prefix un;
import ietf-subscribed-notifications {
prefix sn;
reference
"RFC 8639: Subscription to YANG Notifications";
}
import ietf-inet-types {
prefix inet;
reference
"RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types";
}
organization "IETF NETCONF (Network Configuration) Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <http:/tools.ietf.org/wg/netconf/>
WG List: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
Authors: Guangying Zheng
<mailto:zhengguangying@huawei.com>
Tianran Zhou
<mailto:zhoutianran@huawei.com>
Thomas Graf
<mailto:thomas.graf@swisscom.com>
Pierre Francois
<mailto:pierre.francois@insa-lyon.fr>
Paolo Lucente
<mailto:paolo@ntt.net>";
description
"Defines UDP-Notif as a supported transport for subscribed
event notifications.
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors
of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to the license
terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set forth in Section
4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Zheng, et al. Expires April 6, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ietf-udp-notif October 2020
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see the RFC
itself for full legal notices.";
revision 2020-04-27 {
description
"Initial version";
reference
"RFC XXXX: UDP-based Notifications for Streaming Telemetry";
}
identity udp-notif {
base sn:transport;
description
"UDP-Notif is used as transport for notification messages
and state change notifications.";
}
identity encode-cbor {
base sn:encoding;
description
"Encode data using CBOR as described in RFC 7049.";
reference
"RFC 7049: Concise Binary Object Representation";
}
identity encode-gpb {
base sn:encoding;
description
"Encode data using GPB.";
}
grouping target-receiver {
description
"Provides a reusable description of a UDP-Notif target receiver.";
leaf address {
type inet:ip-address;
mandatory true;
description
"IP address of target UDP-Notif receiver, which can be an
IPv4 address or an IPV6 address.";
}
leaf port {
type inet:port-number;
mandatory true;
description
"Port number of target UDP-Notif receiver, if not specified,
the system should use default port number.";
Zheng, et al. Expires April 6, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ietf-udp-notif October 2020
}
leaf enable-fragment {
type boolean;
default false;
description
"The switch for the fragment feature. When disabled, the
publisher will not allow fragment for a very large data";
}
leaf max-fragment-size {
when "../enable-fragment = true";
type uint32;
description "UDP-Notif provides a configurable max-fragment-size
to control the size of each message.";
}
}
augment "/sn:subscriptions/sn:subscription/sn:receivers/sn:receiver" {
description
"This augmentation allows UDP-Notif specific parameters to be
exposed for a subscription.";
uses target-receiver;
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
8. IANA Considerations
This RFC requests that IANA assigns one UDP port number in the
"Registered Port Numbers" range with the service name "udp-notif".
This port will be the default port for the UDP-based notification
Streaming Telemetry (UDP-Notif) for NETCONF and RESTCONF. Below is
the registration template following the rules of [RFC6335].
Service Name: udp-notif
Transport Protocol(s): UDP
Assignee: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Contact: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Description: UDP-based Publication Streaming Telemetry
Reference: RFC XXXX
Port Number: PORT-X
Zheng, et al. Expires April 6, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ietf-udp-notif October 2020
IANA is requested to assign a new URI from the IETF XML Registry
[RFC3688]. The following URI is suggested:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-udp-notif
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
This document also requests a new YANG module name in the YANG Module
Names registry [RFC7950] with the following suggestion:
name: ietf-udp-notif
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-udp-notif
prefix: un
reference: RFC XXXX
9. Security Considerations
TBD
10. Acknowledgements
The authors of this documents would like to thank Alexander Clemm,
Eric Voit, Huiyang Yang, Kent Watsen, Mahesh Jethanandani, Stephane
Frenot, Timothy Carey, Tim Jenkins, and Yunan Gu for their
constructive suggestions for improving this document.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2914] Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41,
RFC 2914, DOI 10.17487/RFC2914, September 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2914>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[RFC4347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security", RFC 4347, DOI 10.17487/RFC4347, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4347>.
Zheng, et al. Expires April 6, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ietf-udp-notif October 2020
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165,
RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335>.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.
[RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
October 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8639] Voit, E., Clemm, A., Gonzalez Prieto, A., Nilsen-Nygaard,
E., and A. Tripathy, "Subscription to YANG Notifications",
RFC 8639, DOI 10.17487/RFC8639, September 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8639>.
[RFC8640] Voit, E., Clemm, A., Gonzalez Prieto, A., Nilsen-Nygaard,
E., and A. Tripathy, "Dynamic Subscription to YANG Events
and Datastores over NETCONF", RFC 8640,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8640, September 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8640>.
Zheng, et al. Expires April 6, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ietf-udp-notif October 2020
[RFC8650] Voit, E., Rahman, R., Nilsen-Nygaard, E., Clemm, A., and
A. Bierman, "Dynamic Subscription to YANG Events and
Datastores over RESTCONF", RFC 8650, DOI 10.17487/RFC8650,
November 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8650>.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-netconf-https-notif]
Jethanandani, M. and K. Watsen, "An HTTPS-based Transport
for Configured Subscriptions", draft-ietf-netconf-https-
notif-04 (work in progress), July 2020.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-notification-messages]
Voit, E., Jenkins, T., Birkholz, H., Bierman, A., and A.
Clemm, "Notification Message Headers and Bundles", draft-
ietf-netconf-notification-messages-08 (work in progress),
November 2019.
[I-D.unyte-netconf-distributed-notif]
Zhou, T., Zheng, G., Voit, E., Graf, T., and P. Francois,
"Subscription to Distributed Notifications", draft-unyte-
netconf-distributed-notif-00 (work in progress), June
2020.
11.3. URIs
[1] https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/
Authors' Addresses
Guangying Zheng
Huawei
101 Yu-Hua-Tai Software Road
Nanjing, Jiangsu
China
Email: zhengguangying@huawei.com
Tianran Zhou
Huawei
156 Beiqing Rd., Haidian District
Beijing
China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Zheng, et al. Expires April 6, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ietf-udp-notif October 2020
Thomas Graf
Swisscom
Binzring 17
Zuerich 8045
Switzerland
Email: thomas.graf@swisscom.com
Pierre Francois
INSA-Lyon
Lyon
France
Email: pierre.francois@insa-lyon.fr
Paolo Lucente
NTT
Siriusdreef 70-72
Hoofddorp, WT 2132
NL
Email: paolo@ntt.net
Zheng, et al. Expires April 6, 2021 [Page 15]
