draft-ietf-gsmp-reqs-02.txt

Jonathan Sadler <[email protected]> Mon, 01 Jul 2002 06:43:16 -0500

Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.gsmp
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

A new version of the optical requirements draft has been produced by the
design team.

Please review and provide comments to the GSMP list ([email protected]).

Thank you!

Jonathan Sadler

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Mon, 21 June 2002 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.

These last few lines are added automatically by Tellabs email servers.

============================================================
The information contained in this message may be privileged 
and confidential and protected from disclosure.  If the 
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an 
employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to 
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this 
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received 
this communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

Thank you.
Tellabs
============================================================

draft-ietf-gsmp-reqs-02.txt (text/plain, 31.5 KB)

Generalized Switch Management Protocol (gsmp) Georg Kullgren
Internet Draft Steven Shew
Document: draft-ietf-gsmp-reqs-02.txt Nortel Networks
Category: Standards Track
Hormuzd Khosravi
Expiration Date: December 2002 Intel

Jonathan Sadler
Tellabs

Satoru Okamoto
Kohei Shiomoto
Atsushi Watanabe
NTT

June 2002

Requirements For Adding Optical Support To GSMPv3

draft-ietf-gsmp-reqs-02.txt

1. Status of this Memo

This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
of Section 10 of RFC2026 except that the right to produce derivative
works is not granted.

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/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

2. Abstract

This memo provides an overview of additional requirements on the
GSMP protocol.

3. Changes

Merged Sections 2 and 4.

Kullgren, et. al. GSMP WG - June 2002 1
draft-ietf-gsmp-reqs-02.txt December 2002

Moved Link Bundling out of GSMP scope as links are network in scope,
and not node in scope.

Where appropriate, changed text that was specific to transparent
optical switching generic so it also applies to SONET/SDH switching.

Updated references to current CCAMP Drafts/GSMP RFCs.

Took out references that were not referred to by the base text.

4. Table of Contents

5. Overview

This document details the changes to GSMP necessary for the support
of optical (non-transparent and all optical), SONET/SDH, and spatial
switching of IP packets, L2 frames and TDM data. When implemented,
GSMP controllers will then be able to control: photonic cross-
connects (optical-optical), transparent optical cross connects
(optical-electrical-optical, frame independent), opaque cross
connects (optical-electrical-optical, SONET/SDH frames), and
traditional TDM switches (all electrical). The resulting systems
could form IP based optical routers, optical label switches,
wavelength routers, and dynamic optical cross connects.

Several different generic models exist defining how to provide
control plane functionality in an optical network [1][2][3].
This document takes no position on which model is most appropriate
(e.g., single or multiple routing plane instances). The only
assumption is that the ability to separate the control mechanisms
from the data switching is as useful for the signaling of optical
paths (e.g., GMPLS) as it is for the signaling of L2 paths (e.g.,
MPLS). Therefore, the requirements contained within are focused only
on the separation of control functions from data functions in order
to provide a more flexible network architecture.

GSMPv3[4] is well suited for providing the control interface
necessary for allowing an IP based controller to direct the
activities of an optical switch. In order for GSMP to operate
between controllers and optical switches and cross connects, support
for optical labels and service and resource abstractions must be
added to GSMP.

6. Requirements for Optical Support

6.1. Label

6.1.1. Label Types

New labels are needed to identify the entities that are to be
switched in the optical fabric. These are longer than the labels
defined in GSMPv3 as they have physical and structural context. As

Kullgren, et. al. GSMP WG - June 2002 2
draft-ietf-gsmp-reqs-02.txt December 2002

GMPLS[1][2] has had very similar requirements for label formats
alignment with GMPLS is proposed. This includes support for:

- Digital Carrier Hierarchy (e.g., DS-1, E1)
- SONET and SDH Hierarchy (e.g., OC-3, STM-1, VT1.5, VC-12)
- PDH labels [5]
- OTN G.709 labels
- Lambdas
- Fibers

GSMP MUST include support for all label types as well as for label
hierarchies and label lists as defined by GMPLS. Therefore the
ability to perform operations on groups of the above labels MUST
also be supported (e.g., 5 OC-3s, contiguous wavebands)

6.1.2. Label Management Issues

An updated label range message MUST be provided. There MUST also be
support of multiplexing (e.g. no multiplexing, SONET, Gigabit
Ethernet multiplexing etc).

6.2. Statistics messages

Optical switches have a number of different statistics which are not
in common with ATM, or Frame Relay switches. Consequently, the
statistics messages SHOULD be updated to report Performance
Monitoring statistics defined for all new optical transport
technologies added to GSMP.

6.3. Configuration Issues

6.3.1. Switch Configuration

6.3.1.1. Layer Switching Identification

Since an Optical Switches may be able to provide connection services
at multiple transport layers (i.e. STS-3c, STS-1, VT-1.5, DS3, DS1),
and not all switches are expected to support the same transport
layers, the switch will need to notify the controller of the
specific layers it can support.

Therefore, the Switch Configuration message MUST be extended to
provide a list of the transport layers for which an optical switch
can perform switching.

Kullgren, et. al. GSMP WG - June 2002 3
draft-ietf-gsmp-reqs-02.txt December 2002

6.3.2. Port Configuration

The port configuration message supplies the controller with the
configuration information related to a single port. Consequently,
extensive additions will need to be made to this command.

6.3.2.1. Port Type extensions

Port types MUST be added to support the mix of optical signals that
can operate over a single fiber.

The port information that MAY need to be conveyed includes[6]:

- wavelengths available per interface
- bit rate per wavelength
- type of fiber

6.3.2.2. Supported Signal Type extensions

Since a port on an optical switch may support signals at multiple
transport layers, it is necessary to understand the signals
supported, as well as the possible ways that one signal can be
transported within another.

For OTN, SONET/SDH and PDH optical switches, the Port configuration
message MUST be extended to detail the different transport layer
signals that are supported by a port. Furthermore, this extension
MUST detail which signals may be transported by another signal.

This mechanism MUST also provide information about optional
capabilities (such as virtual concatenation and arbitrary
concatenation for SONET/SDH) available on a port.

6.3.2.3. Trace Mechanism support Identification

A number of transport layer signals include overhead channels that
can be used to identify the source of a signal. Since they are
embedded in the signal, only the network element has access to the
signals. However, not all network elements have the capability to
set or read the messages in these channels on every port.
Consequently, this port attribute needs to be reported to the
controller.

The Port Configuration message MUST be extended to report which
trace mechanisms are supported by a port.

6.3.2.4. Port Location Identification

Since contemporary Optical switches have the ability to support tens
of thousands of ports in hundreds of shelves located in as
potentially as many bays, the current "Slot/Port" location
identifier is inadequate.

Kullgren, et. al. GSMP WG - June 2002 4
draft-ietf-gsmp-reqs-02.txt December 2002

The Slot/Port Location Identifier MUST be extended to encode
Bay/Shelf/Slot/Port.

6.3.2.5. Port-related Partitioning Extensions

Partitioning can be done for any resource that exists in the network
element. The GSMP partitioning draft currently defines ports and
switching resources as partitionable resources. Since optical
switches may support multiple transport network layers, an
additional resource type is introduced: the transport layer signal.

The point where a transport layer signal is inserted into a lower
layer signal (called an "access point" by the ITU[7]), is very
similar to a port. Therefore, when partitioning is done on a
transport layer signal basis, the partition that is the user of the
access point MUST have a port that associated with the access point.
Labels will then be used in the to describe the subordinate signals.

6.3.3. Service Configuration

While new capability sets MUST be added to support quality
parameters in optical switches, no changes are foreseen to the
service configuration message as its role to carry the service
information as defined in the applicable service model.

6.4. Service Model Issues

While one assumption of using optical media is that bandwidth is
plentiful, it should be expected that traffic engineering will be
necessary in any case[4]. GSMP provides the means for each
connection to be created with specific attributes. Therefore,
service parameters will need to be defined for each of the Different
Optical technologies.

6.4.1 Transparent Optical

Capability to control re-timing and re-shaping on a per port level
MUST be added.

6.4.2 SONET/SDH and OTN

The capability to control the adaptation parameters used when a
transport signal is inserted into another transport signal MUST be
added. These parameters SHOULD be modifiable at times other than
adding a branch so that functions such as Tandem Connection
Monitoring can be configured.Currently, the default set of service
models in GSMP are all based on the services models defined
elsewhere, e.g. the Intserv model[8][9], the Diffserv[10] model,
ATM QoS models and the Frame relay forum QoS models. A determination
needs to be made of the applicable service models for optical

Kullgren, et. al. GSMP WG - June 2002 5
draft-ietf-gsmp-reqs-02.txt December 2002

channel trails. These models MUST then be mapped to the GSMP
capability set mechanism.

6.5. Encapsulation issues

The working group needs to decide whether a new encapsulation is
required. In other words, will all optical switches used in either
the MPLS over Optics and the IP over optics applications require
that IP be implemented on the control channel connecting the GSMP
controller and Optical switch (the GSMP target).

A new encapsulation SHOULD be defined allowing the use of a non-IP
raw wavelength control connection.

Likewise, a new encapsulation SHOULD be defined allowing GSMP to be
used in legacy DCN environments that use OSI CLNP.

6.6. MIB Issues

If a new encapsulation is defined, then the encapsulation group
SHOULD be updated. No other changes should be required.

6.7. OXC Transaction Model

6.7.1 Serial Transactions

Many existing OXCs use a command interface which assumes a serial
transaction model. That is, a new command cannot be issued or
processed until the existing command is completed. Under
provisioning control via a network management application, and with
non-dynamic path setup, this model has been adequate.

Moving to a dynamic path setup capability with a distributed control
plane, a parallel transaction model is likely required for
performance. This is particularly helpful when the performance of
setting up a TDM style connection is much slower than setting up an
L2 connection table. If the OXC is not able to support a parallel
transaction model, a GSMP controller MUST be informed of this and
adopt serial transaction behavior.

6.7.2. Bulk Transactions

Again due to the time it may take some OXCs to setup TDM connections
relative to L2 fabrics (e.g., VC-4/STS-1 SPE fabric in an HOVC/STS
switch), support for sending multiple transactions in the same
message is a useful optimization. When an OXC receives a bulk
message, the individual transactions are acted upon and a single
reply is sent. If parallel transactions are not supported, bulk
messages can improve performance by reducing transaction overhead.
Bulk transactions SHOULD be supported.

Kullgren, et. al. GSMP WG - June 2002 6
draft-ietf-gsmp-reqs-02.txt December 2002

6.8. OXC Restoration Capabilities

To achieve fast link protection performance (e.g., 50 ms after
failure detection), SONET/SDH and some OXC systems use hardware
based protection schemes (e.g., ring protection). Achieving this
level of performance solely using a data control plane such as GMPLS
is a serious challenge. An alternate approach is to utilize fast
restoration capabilities of an OXC with a dynamic control plane. An
implication of this hybrid approach is that extensions are needed to
GSMP to provision the behavior of an OXC in anticipation of a link
failure.

This differs from the strict master-slave relationship in GSMP for
Layer 2 switches in that here the OXC is capable of taking an action
independent of the GSMP controller and then informing the controller
afterwards. Consequently, the GSMP port configuration command MUST
be extended to allow autonomous protection behaviors to be
provisioned into the Network Element.

Furthermore, the controller MUST be able to provide the parameters
for when reversion from a backup link to the original link is
allowed. This may take form of hold-off timers, BER parameters, or
the requirement for controller directed reversion.

6.8.1. Non-Reserved Protection Links

An example of protection OXC behavior is that when a link fails, a
backup link may be used to protect traffic on. This backup link
could be selected from a set of links, none of which are pre-
reserved. A backup link could be shared with one or more "working"
links which is a form of 1:n shared protection. Specifying the set
of possible backup links SHOULD be done as an option to the Add-
Branch message.

When a backup link is used or the OXC reverts back to the original
link, the control plane (i.e., signaling) may need to know about the
new path state in order to notify the operator, or take some other
OAM action (e.g., billing, SLA monitoring). An additional GSMP
message to inform the controller SHOULD be added to do this.

6.8.2. Dedicated Protection Links

A more specialized form of restoration called "1+1" defines a
(usually node disjoint) protection path in a transport/optical
network for a given working path. At the ingress node to the path,
the traffic signal is sent simultaneously along both working and
protection paths. Under non-failure conditions at the egress node,
only the last link of the working path is connected to the client.
When any link in the working path fails, traffic on the working path

Kullgren, et. al. GSMP WG - June 2002 7
draft-ietf-gsmp-reqs-02.txt December 2002

ceases to be received at end of the path. The egress OXC detects
this condition and then switches to use the last link of the
protection path without the controller having to issue a Move-Input-
Branch message. At no time is the ingress node aware which link the
egress node is using. Selection of the protection path and all of
its links is outside the scope of GSMP.

Specification of the two output branches at the ingress node can be
done with the usual Add-Branch semantics. The ingress node
protection link is not shared with any other working link.

Specification of the two input branches at the egress node should be
done when the Add-Branch message is sent. This SHOULD be an option
to that message. The egress node protection link is not shared with
any other working link.

When a protection link is used or the OXC reverts back to the
working link, the control plane (i.e., signaling) may need to know
about the new path state in order to notify the operator, or take
some other OAM action (e.g., billing, SLA monitoring). An
additional GSMP message to inform the controller SHOULD be added to
do this.

If an alternate input port is not specified with an original Add-
Branch message, it MAY be specified in a subsequent Add-Branch
message. In this case, it is useful to include information about
existing users of the output port in that Add-Branch message. This
helps the OXC immediately learn of the association between the new
input port and an existing one. The association is used to enable
OXC protection procedures. This capability MUST be added to the add-
branch message.

Similar contextual information is needed for a Delete-Branch message
so that the OXC can determine if a path becomes unprotected. This
capability MUST be added to the Delete-branch message.

6.8.3. Protection Triggers

Aside from link or equipment failures, there are a variety of
maintenance conditions that could cause the backup/protection
link(s) to be used. These may include:

- Scheduled maintenance of the working link. Here the network
operator deliberately takes a link out of service to perform
maintenance.
- Reconfiguration of fiber/node/network which causes temporary need
to use backup links.

It may be useful to specify these triggers when the
backup/protection links are defined with the Add-Branch message.
This depends on how the OXC is implemented to be aware of such
triggers. This is for further study.

Kullgren, et. al. GSMP WG - June 2002 8
draft-ietf-gsmp-reqs-02.txt December 2002

6.8.4. Protection Link Capabilities

When an OXC has the capability to perform protection switching
independently from the OCC, it may be useful for the OCC to be
informed of these capabilities at switch and/or port configuration.
Applications in the GSMP controller could use this information. For
example, signaling clients could define a path protection scheme
over multiple GSMP enabled OXCs. This is for further study.

6.9. Controller directed restoration

Bi-directional Connection Replacement

Connections in the transport network are inherently point-to-point
bi-directional. Unfortunately, GSMPv3 currently does not allow for
the B and R flags to be set on a add branch message. This means
that it is not possible to do an atomic replacement of a bi-
directional connection -- an action that is desirable for controller
directed restoration. Consequently, the protocol MUST be changed to
allow these flags to be used at the same time.

6.10 GSMP support for optical cross-connect system

The cross-connect system such as photonic cross-connect, transparent
optical cross-connect, opaque cross-connect and traditional TDM
switch can be consist of not only cross-connect (/switch) function,
but also multiplexing function (including transmission function),
path termination function (including client signal termination
function). In the optical cross-connect (OXC) system, the
multiplexing function corresponds to the wavelength division
multiplexing (WDM). The optical regenerator and wavelength converter
may be necessary in order to realize long-haul transmission and to
use effectively the wavelength resource respectively. Figure 1 shows
the generalized OXC functional block. The OXC system shown in Fig.1
should be controlled / managed by GSMP. The advantage of this
concept is that the GSMP can control the OXC system, without other
control protocols. This will reduce the cost and time of OXC control
application development. To control the OXC system, the control
concept of both connection termination and trail termination for
each optical label switched path or WDM sections (defined in G.872;
OMS and OTS) should be introduced in the GSMP. The GSMP for optical
switch can be located as subset of that for optical cross-connect.

Kullgren, et. al. GSMP WG - June 2002 9
draft-ietf-gsmp-reqs-02.txt December 2002

+-------------+-------------------+-----------+
-->| | | |
WDM | Wavelength | Opt. regenerator/ | Opt. |
signals | demultiplex/| Wavelength | switch |
| multiplex | converter | |
<--| | | |
+-------------+-------------------+-----------+
|| ||
Client +-----------+
signals (In) -->| Path |
Client | terminator|
signals(Out) <--| |
+-----------+

Figure 1 General OXC functional block

7. Requirements from Implementors

7.1. GSMP Packet Format

The Basic GSMP Message Format in chapter 3.1.1 in [5] describes the
common fields present in all GSMP messages except for the Adjacency
protocol.

7.1.1. Message segmentation

If a message exceeds the MTU of the link layer it has to be
segmented. This was originally done with the "More" value
in the
Result field. The addition of the I flag and the SubMessage Number
to the header has made the "More" v alue
in the Result field
obsolete. A clarification of the I flag and SubMessage Number is
also needed.

7.1.1.1. "More" Result V alu
e

The "More" v alue
should not be used in GSMP. A request message with
the Result field set to "More" SHOULD be answered with a failure
response with a Code field indicating the type of failure.

7.1.1.2. SubMessage Number

The definition of the SubMessage field should indicate if the
submessages are numbered starting with 0 or 1.

7.1.1.3. I flag

The value of the I flag for messages which are not segmented is
unspecified.

Kullgren, et. al. GSMP WG - June 2002 10
draft-ietf-gsmp-reqs-02.txt December 2002

7.1.1.4. Updated Messages

The "Report Connection State Reply Message" and "All Ports
Configuration Message" should be rewritten to use the I flag instead
of the More flag.

7.1.1.5. Message Segmentation example

A description of how to segment a message should be provided. The
definition of the Length field should state if each segment should
contain the total GSMP message length or the length of the segment.

7.1.2. Transaction Identifier

The Transaction Identifier in [5] does not distinguish between
replies from a request with "AckAll" and "NoSuccessAck". It also
does not provide any information about how to handle replies where
the Transaction ID doesn't match a Transaction ID from a previously
sent request.

If multiple controllers are connected to a single switch and the
switch send an event message with "ReturnReceipt" set to all of
them, there is no way for the switch to identify which controller
the receipt is coming from.

7.2. Window Size

The Switch Configuration Message defined in chapter 8.1 in [5]
defines a Window size to be used by the controller when sending
messages to the switch. It is not stated if this window should apply
to all messages or only to messages that will always generate a
reply.

If messages that may not generate a reply should be counted against
the window a time-out period when they are to be removed from the
window should be defined.

It is not defined if the window should be cleared when the adjacency
is lost and later recovered.

7.2.2. Retransmission

A retransmission policy should be used if no reply is received for a
message with "AckAll" set.

Kullgren, et. al. GSMP WG - June 2002 11
draft-ietf-gsmp-reqs-02.txt December 2002

7.3. Delete Branches Message

The "Delete Branch Element" has a 4 bit Error field that should be
redefined to match the size of the "Failure Response Codes".

7.4. Adjacency

The chapter about how to handle a new adjacency and re-established
adjacencies should be clarified.

7.4.1. Loss of Synchronization

If a controller looses synchronization, the draft requires the
switch to reset the connection state. This should be redefined since
more than one controller may be synchronized to a switch partition.

This change will affect the definition of the PFlag.

7.5. ReturnReceipt Result value in Events

When the GSMP V3 initially was defined the events was supposed to be
generated in a similar fashion as SNMP Traps. When an event was sent
it was a uni-direction message and there was no requirement of the
switch to verify that a controller received the message. Since event
messages never expected a reply of a sent message there where no
need of a Transaction Identifier. In the case of Event Messages the
Transaction Identifier was decided it SHOULD be set to zero.

Later on, a new Result Value of ReturnReceipt was introduced.
ReturnReceipt is a results field used in Events to indicate that a
switch requires an acknowledgment for the message.

Introduced at the same time was the allowance of Multiple
Controllers jointly controlling the same partition.

Since all Transaction Identifiers is set to zero in the case of
Event Messages the following problem can occur.

1. A switch has multiple controllers jointly controlling a
partition.
2. The switch is configured to require acknowledgment of sent
events.
3. For some reason one or more controller can not send the
acknowledgment.
4. The switch has no ability to find out which controller that did
not respond.

Kullgren, et. al. GSMP WG - June 2002 12
draft-ietf-gsmp-reqs-02.txt December 2002

8. Security Considerations

The security of GSMP's TCP/IP control channel has been addressed in
[11]. Any potential remaining security considerations are not
addressed in the current revision of this draft.

9. Acknowledgements

The list of authors provided with this document is a reduction of
the original list. Currently listed authors wish to acknowledge that
a substantial amount was also contributed to this work by: Avri
Doria and Kenneth Sundell

The authors would like to acknowledge the careful review and
comments of Dimitri Papadimitriou and Torbjorn Hedqvist.

10. References

1 Ashwood-Smith, D., et. al., "Generalized MPLS - Signaling
Functional Description," Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-
generalized-signaling-08.txt (work in progress), April 2002.

2 Mannie, E., et. al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Architecture," draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt
(work in progress), March 2002.

3 International Telecommunications Union, "Architecture for the
Automatic Switched Optical Network," G.8080, October 2001.

4 Doria, A, Sundell, K, Hellstrand, F, Worster, T, "General
Switch Management Protocol V3," RFC 3292, June 2002.

5 Sadler, J., Mack-Crane, B., "TDM Labels for GSMP," draft-sadler-
gsmp-tdm-labels-00.txt (work in progress), February 2001.

6 Rajagopalan, B., et. al., _IP over Optical Networks: A Framework,
draft-ietf-ipo-framework-02.txt (work in progress), June 2002.

7 International Telecommunications Union, "Generic functional
architecture of transport networks", G.805, March 2000.

8 Braden, R., "Integrated Services in the Internet Architecture: An
Overview," RFC1633, June 1994.

9 J. Wroclawski, "Specification of the Controlled-Load Network
Element Service," RFC2211, Sep 1997.

10 Blake, S., et. al., _"An Architecture for Differentiated
Services," RFC2475, December 1998.

Kullgren, et. al. GSMP WG - June 2002 13
draft-ietf-gsmp-reqs-02.txt December 2002

11 Worster, T, et. al., "GSMP Packet Encapsulations for ATM,
Ethernet and TCP," RFC 3293, June 2002.

11. Author's Addresses

Hormuzd Khosravi
Intel
2111 NE 25th Avenue
Hillsboro, OR 97124 USA
Phone: +1 503 264 0334
Email: [email protected]

Georg Kullgren
Nortel Networks AB
S:t Eriksgatan 115 A
P.O. Box 6701
SE-113 85 Stockholm Sweden
Email: [email protected]

Jonathan Sadler
Tellabs Operations, Inc.
1415 West Diehl Road
Naperville, IL 60563
Phone: +1 630-798-6182
Email: [email protected]

Stephen Shew
Nortel Networks
PO Box 3511 Station C
Ottawa, ON
K1Y 4H7
Email: [email protected]

Kohei Shiomoto
Email: [email protected]

Atsushi Watanabe
Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation
807A 1-1 Hikari-no-oka, Yokosuka-shi
Kanagawa 239-0847, Japan
Email: [email protected]

Satoru Okamoto
Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation
9-11 Midori-cho 3-chome, Musashino-shi
Tokyo 180-8585, Japan
Email: [email protected]

Kullgren, et. al. GSMP WG - June 2002 14
draft-ietf-gsmp-reqs-02.txt December 2002

Full Copyright Statement

"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into

Kullgren, et. al. GSMP WG - June 2002 15