By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 29, 2007.
Copyright © The IETF Trust (2007).
This document describes how a structured peer-to-peer algorithm is used for resource lookup by a P2PSIP Peer Protocol. Specifically, this work describes how to integrate a DHT based on Bamboo with dSIP, a proposed P2PSIP Peer Protocol. This document extends the dSIP draft to provide one possible implementation of a pluggable DHT algorithm.
This is early work to demonstrate how alternative DHT algorithms can be plugged into the dSIP protocol. Where appropriate, we compare the Bamboo DHT implementation to the Chord DHT implementation.
4. Routing Table and Connection Table
4.1. Leaf Set
4.2. Bamboo Routing Table
4.3. Message Routing
5. Message Syntax
5.1. The DHT-PeerID Header
5.1.1. Hash Algorithms
5.1.2. DHT Name Parameter
5.2. The DHT-Link Header
5.2.1. The linktype and depth values
6. Bamboo Overlay Algorithm
6.1. Bamboo Routing Table and Leaf set
6.2. Starting a New Overlay
6.3. Peer Admission
6.3.1. Constructing a Peer Registration
6.3.2. Processing and Routing the Peer Registration
6.3.3. Admitting the Joining Peer
6.4. Bamboo Query Processing
6.5. Graceful Leaving
6.6. DHT Maintenance
6.6.1. leaf set maintenance
6.6.2. Bamboo routing table maintenance
6.7. Peer Failure
6.8. Resource Replicas
8. Security Considerations
9. Open Issues
10. IANA Considerations
11.1. Normative References
11.2. Informative References
§ Authors' Addresses
§ Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements
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 (Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” March 1997.) [RFC2119].
Terminology defined in RFC 3261 (Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, “SIP: Session Initiation Protocol,” June 2002.) [RFC3261] is used without definition.
We use the terminology and definitions from the dSIP: A P2P Approach to SIP Registration and Resource Location (Bryan, D., Lowekamp, B., and C. Jennings, “dSIP: A P2P Approach to SIP Registration and Resource Location,” February 2007.) [I‑D.bryan‑p2psip‑dsip] and the Concepts and Terminology for Peer to Peer SIP (Willis, D., “Concepts and Terminology for Peer to Peer SIP,” October 2006.) [I‑D.willis‑p2psip‑concepts] drafts extensively in this document. Other terms relating to P2P or new to this document are defined when used and are also defined in Definitions (Definitions). We suggest reviewing these drafts and the Definitions (Definitions) section before reading the remainder of this document..
In many places in this document, 10 hexadecimal digit values are used in examples as SHA-1 hashes. In reality, these hashes are 40 digit. They are shortened in this document for clarity only.
Please also see the dSIP: A P2P Approach to SIP Registration and Resource Location (Bryan, D., Lowekamp, B., and C. Jennings, “dSIP: A P2P Approach to SIP Registration and Resource Location,” February 2007.) [I‑D.bryan‑p2psip‑dsip] draft and the P2PSIP concepts and terminology (Willis, D., “Concepts and Terminology for Peer to Peer SIP,” October 2006.) [I‑D.willis‑p2psip‑concepts] draft for additional terminology. We do not redefine terms from that draft here.
- A particular algorithm/approach to implementing a DHT that is described by Rhea et al. (Rhea, R., Geels, D., Roscoe, T., and J. Kubiaatowicz, “Handling Churn in a DHT,” .) [Bamboo] Bamboo uses a circular arrangement for the namespace and stores resources with Resource-ID k at the peer with Peer-ID that is numerically closest to k.
- Bamboo routing table:
- Tree-based structure containing peer information (Peer-ID and location). Each row of the table, l, contains peers whose Peer-IDs match its own Peer-ID in exactly l digits. The columns in the row represent the values for the (l+1) digit. A peer that has the same digit prefix (l) as its own Peer-ID and whose (l+1) digit is i, will be stored at row l, column i in its routing table.
- A particular algorithm/approach to implementing a DHT, described by Stoica et al. (Stoica, I., Morris, R., Liben-Nowell, D., Karger, D., Kaashoek, M., Dabek, F., and H. Balakrishnan, “Chord: A Scalable Peer-to-peer Lookup Service for Internet Applications,” .) [Chord]. Uses a circular arrangement for the namespace.
- leaf set:
- A set of peers immediately preceding and following the peer in the circular namespace.
- Predecessor Peer:
- Refers to a peer directly before a particular peer in the address space. This does not mean that the predecessor's Peer-ID is one less than the peer, it simply means that there are no other peers in the namespace between the peer and the predecessor peer.
- Successor Peer:
- Refers to a peer directly after a particular peer in the address space. This does not mean that the successor peer's Peer-ID is one more that that peer, rather there are no other peers in the namespace between that peer and the successor peer. Note that the first peer in a finger table is typically also the first successor peer.
Bamboo (Rhea, R., Geels, D., Roscoe, T., and J. Kubiaatowicz, “Handling Churn in a DHT,” .) [Bamboo] is one particular DHT algorithm that, like the Chord DHT (Stoica, I., Morris, R., Liben-Nowell, D., Karger, D., Kaashoek, M., Dabek, F., and H. Balakrishnan, “Chord: A Scalable Peer-to-peer Lookup Service for Internet Applications,” .) [Chord], conceptualizes the namespace as a circle, meaning the peer with Peer-ID is located next to the peer with largest possible Peer-ID in the namespace. Unlike Chord, Bamboo uses prefix routing to converge on the peer responsible for the search key. In Bamboo resources are stored by the peer with the closest numerical Peer-ID to their Resource-ID. Note this differs from the Chord (Stoica, I., Morris, R., Liben-Nowell, D., Karger, D., Kaashoek, M., Dabek, F., and H. Balakrishnan, “Chord: A Scalable Peer-to-peer Lookup Service for Internet Applications,” .) [Chord] approach where resources are stored by the first peer with Peer-ID equal or greater than the the Resource-ID. Each Resource-ID is the responsibility of some peer in the overlay, though the responsible peer may change as peers enter and leave the overlay.
Each peer keeps information about how to contact some number of other peers in the overlay. In terms of the overlay network, these are the neighbors of the peer, since they are reachable in one hop. In Bamboo, the peer keep tracks of a leaf set containing one or more of its immediate predecessor peers, as well as one or more successor peers. The peer also keeps a table of information about other neighbors called a Bamboo routing table.
Note we use routing table as defined in the dSIP draft and Bamboo routing table as the specific structure of peers stored for routing use in the Bamboo DHT. The routing table, as defined by dSIP, is a union of the leaf set and the Bamboo routing table.
Each peer maintains a leaf set, or set of peers immediately preceding and following the peer in the circular namespace. Half of the leaf set contains the peers with numerically closest Peer-ID that are smaller than this peer's own Peer-ID. The other half of the leaf set contains the peers with numerically closest Peer-IDs that are larger than this peer-s own Peer-ID.
The leaf set is a similar concept to Chord's predecessor and successor peers. See Section Definitions (Definitions). The peers in the leaf set may be called successors or predecessor in the remainder of this document.
Each peer also maintains a Bamboo routing table. Bamboo routing tables treat each identifier as a sequence of digits of base 2^b. Each row l of the Bamboo routing table stores peers with Peer-IDs that share the first l digits with its own peer-ID. The columns in each row represent the different values possible for the l+1st digit.
More than one peer may be an appropriate fit for each Bamboo routing table entry, and entries may be chosen based on network proximity or other factors. The choice of which peer to use for each entry is left up to each implementation. As an example, the peer with the smallest latency will fill the routing table spot whenever possible.
Bamboo uses prefix routing. Messages are routed such that each hop will results in a peer that either shares a larger prefix with the ID being searched for or shares the same length prefix as the previous hop's Peer-ID, but the new peer's Peer-ID is numerically closer to the ID than the previous hop's Peer-ID.
To route a message to a particular ID, the peer first looks to see any of the peers in its leaf set are responsible for the ID. If the ID lies within the leaf set, the message is routed to the appropriate leaf set peer. If the ID is not within the leaf set, the searching peer computes the length l of the longest matching prefix between the search ID and it's own peer-ID. The peer then looks in its Bamboo routing table at row l. If there is an entry in that row corresponding to the l length prefix of the ID being searched for, then the message is forwarded on to that peer. If that Bamboo routing table entry is empty, the message is routed to the peer in its leaf set with the peer-ID that is numerically closest to the ID being searched for.
The routing algorithms used to implement the overlay is specified in the dht-param parameter in the DHT-PeerID header. The format of the DHT-PeerID header is defined in the dSIP (Bryan, D., Lowekamp, B., and C. Jennings, “dSIP: A P2P Approach to SIP Registration and Resource Location,” February 2007.) [I‑D.bryan‑p2psip‑dsip] draft.
Implementations MUST support the SHA-1 (Eastlake, D. and P. Jones, “US Secure Hash Algorithm 1 (SHA1),” September 2001.) [RFC3174] algorithm, which produces a 160 bit hash value. An implementation MAY rely on a secret initialization vector, key, or other shared secret to use the identifier as an HMAC, from from RFC 2104 (Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, “HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication,” February 1997.) [RFC2104] such that no peer may join the overlay without knowledge of the shared secret, however this technique by itself does not protect the overlay against replay attacks. Security Extensions to dSIP (Lowekamp, B. and J. Deverick, “Authenticated Identity Extensions to dSIP,” February 2007.) [I‑D.lowekamp‑p2psip‑dsip‑security] provides information on how to protect against replay attacks and hash algorithms defined in that draft MAY be used in Chord implementations.
For this protocol, the dht-param token MUST be set to "Bamboo1.0".
A peer receiving a message with a dht-param other than "Bamboo1.0" SHOULD reject the message and return a 488 Not Acceptable Here response message.
- A peer with an SHA-1 hashed Peer-ID of a04d371e24 on IP 192.0.2.1. We include the required algorithm, and overlay as well as the optional expires header parameter.
DHT-PeerID: <sip:firstname.lastname@example.org;peer-ID=a04d371e24>;algorithm=sha1; dht=Bamboo1.0;overlay=chat;expires=600
The DHT-Link header is used to transfer information about where in the DHT other peers are located. In particular, it is used by peers to pass information about the leaf set peers and Bamboo routing table information stored by a peer.
The linktype and depth values are dependent on the DHT routing algorithm employed by the peer. We define a linktype-token and depth-token in the DHT-Link Header to be used by peers implementing the Bamboo1.0 DHT algorithm.
link-value = linktype-token depth-token linktype-token = "P" / "S" / "R" / other-token depth-token = 1*DIGIT
and an example, the header might look like (using a shortened digit Peer-ID for clarity):
The linktype MUST be one of three single characters, "S", "P" or "R". "S" MUST be used to indicate that the information provided describes a successor, a peer in the leaf set that immediately follows the sending peer in the circular namespace. "P" MUST be used to indicate that the information provided describes a peer in the leaf set that immediately precedes the sending peer in the circular namespace. "R" MUST indicate that the information describes a peer in the sending peer's routing table.
The depth MUST be a non-negative integer representing which leaf set peer or routing table entry is being described. For leaf set peers, this depth value MUST indicate numeric depth. In other words, "S1" indicates the first succeeding peer in the circular namespace, while "P3" would indicate the third preceding peer in the circular namespace. "S0" or "P0" would indicate the sending peer itself. In the case of the routing table entries, the depth MUST indicate the level/row of the routing table. The routing table level is designed so that the level represents the number of digits (digit prefix) the routing table entry has in common with the sending peer. For example, "R1" would correspond to a routing table entry that shares a one-digit prefix with the sending peer, while "R3" would indicate a routing table entry that shares a three-digits prefix with the sending peer.
Bamboo routing tables treat each identifier as a sequence of digits of base 2^b. For a namespace of N, there are log_(2^b)(N) rows in a Bamboo routing table and each row should contain 2^b-1 entries. We use "l" to indicate the number of rows. The row number corresponds to the number of digits that match its own identifier ( row 0 would have no matching prefix, row 1 would have peers that have the same first digit...).
In order to be compatible with our hashing and security schemes, we use 160 bit identifiers, meaning our namespace N is of size 2^160. Additionally, we choose to use hexadecimal values, meaning our b is 4, since 2^b or 2^4=16. Solving for the number rows in the Bamboo routing table, " l", we have the following. Note that in our notation, log_n means log base n, and lg is assumed to be log base 2, or log_2:
l = log_(2^b) (N) Using the property that log_n x = lg n / lg x we have: l = [lg N] / [lg 2^b] Plugging in and solving we have: l = [lg (2^160)] / [lg 16] l = 160 / 4 l = 40
Leaf sets in Bamboo store peers that immediately precede or follow the current peer in the circular namespace. The leaf set MUST contain at least one peer that immediately precedes the current peer and one peer that follows the current peer, but it SHOULD contain 2^b total peers in the leaf set (half for peers preceding and half for peers following the current peer in the namespace).
A peer starting an overlay for the first time need not do anything special in order to construct the overlay. The peer MUST initialize its leaf set and routing table such that all entries are NULL.
A peer that wishes to join an overlay (called the joining peer), constructs a Peer Registration message and sends it to the bootstrap peer. The Peer Registration is routed to the admitting peer, which is the peer that is currently responsible for the joining peer's portion of the overlay.
To initiate the joining process, the joining peer constructs a Peer Registration and sends it to the bootstrap peer. The joining peer MUST construct the Peer Registration according the rules outlined in the dSIP (Bryan, D., Lowekamp, B., and C. Jennings, “dSIP: A P2P Approach to SIP Registration and Resource Location,” February 2007.) [I‑D.bryan‑p2psip‑dsip] draft. The registering peer MUST provide a DHT-PeerID header field in the Peer Registration message. It MAY leave the overlay parameter set to "*" for its initial registration message, but MUST set this parameter to the name of the overlay it is joining as soon as it receives a response from the bootstrap peer. The dht-param parameter in the DHT-PeerID header MUST be set to "*" or "Bamboo1.0", as specified in Section DHT Name Parameter (DHT Name Parameter).
Assume that a peer running on IP address 192.0.2.2 on port 5060 attempts to join the network by contacting a bootstrap peer at address 192.0.2.129. Further assume that 192.0.2.2:5060 hashes to 463ac4b449 under SHA-1 (using a 10 digit hash for example simplicity), and that the overlay name is chat. An example message would look like this (neglecting tags):
REGISTER sip:192.0.2.129 SIP/2.0 To: <sip:email@example.com;peer-ID=463ac4b449> From: <sip:firstname.lastname@example.org;peer-ID=463ac4b449> Contact: <sip:email@example.com;peer-ID=463ac4b449> Expires: 600 DHT-PeerID: <sip:firstname.lastname@example.org;peer-ID=463ac4b449>;algorithm=sha1; dht=Bamboo1.0;overlay=chat;expires=600 Require: dht Supported: dht
The Peer Registration is processed and routed according the rules outlined in the dSIP (Bryan, D., Lowekamp, B., and C. Jennings, “dSIP: A P2P Approach to SIP Registration and Resource Location,” February 2007.) [I‑D.bryan‑p2psip‑dsip] draft.
The admitting peer recognizes that it is presently responsible for this region of the hash space -- that is, it is currently the peer storing the information that the joining peer will eventually be responsible for. The admitting peer knows this because the joining peer's Peer-ID is numerically closest to its own Peer-ID; the admitting peer does not have a Bamboo routing table entry or leaf set peer with a longer shared prefix or with a numerically closer Peer-ID than its own Peer-ID. The admitting peer is responsible for helping the joining peer become a member of the overlay.
When handling a Peer Registration, the admitting peer MUST reply with a 200 response if the admitting peer's Peer-ID has the longest shared prefix and is numerically closest to the joining peer's peer-ID as compared to all the peers in its leaf set and Bamboo routing table.
The admitting peer MUST verify that the joining peer's Peer-ID is valid. If the joining peer's credentials are not valid, the message should be rejected with a response of 493 Undecipherable. In addition to verifying that the joining peer's Peer-ID is valid, the admitting peer MAY require an authentication challenge to the REGISTER message. Once any challenge has been met, the admitting will reply with a 200 OK message to the joining peer. As in a traditional registration, the Contact in the 200 OK will be the same as in the request, and the expiry time MUST be provided.
The 200 response that is constructed MUST provide information about the admitting peer's leaf set peers in the DHT-Link headers of the 200 response. This enables the joining peer to initialize its own leaf set and fill any appropriate entries in its Bamboo routing table. These MUST be placed in DHT-Link headers, as described in the The DHT-Link Header (The DHT-Link Header) section of this document. If the immediate preceding peer is not NULL, it MUST be transmitted in a DHT-Link header using a type of "P" and a depth of 1. It MUST be omitted if NULL. If the immediate following peer is not NULL, it must be transmitted in a DHT-Link header using a type of "S" and depth of 1. It MUST be omitted if NULL. The 200 or 404 MUST contain the other leaf set peers, again only if they are not NULL. Additionally, the replying peer MUST include its DHT-PeerID header.
The admitting peer MUST add the joining peer to its leaf set and the joining peer MUST add the admitting peer to its leaf set. The joining peer MAY use the leaf set information to fill in entries in its Bamboo routing table.
[To Do: Add example of 200 response to Peer Registration.]
A reply that is constructed to a query by the responsible peer MUST provide information about the responding peer's Bamboo routing table entries. These MUST be placed in in the DHT-Link headers of the 200 or 404 message. The admitting peer calculates the shared prefix, l, between it's Peer-ID and the joining peer's Peer-ID. The admitting peer MUST place all non NULL Bamboo routing table entries in row l of its Bamboo routing table in DHT-Link headers of type R, as described in the The DHT-Link Header (The DHT-Link Header) section. Additionally, the replying peer MUST include its DHT-PeerID header.
Peers MUST send their resource registrations to their successor or predecessor before leaving the overlay. Additionally, peers MUST unregister themselves with their leaf set peers. This unregister message is constructed exactly the same as the Peer Registration message used to join, with the following exceptions. The expires parameter or header MUST be provided, and MUST be set to 0.
In order to keep the overlay stable, peers must periodically perform book keeping operations to take into account peer failures. Periodically (we suggest 60-360 seconds), peers MUST perform leaf set and Bamboo routing table maintenance.
Every maintenance period, a peer must exchange its leaf set information with a randomly chosen peer in the leaf set. After choosing the peer from the leaf set, the peer MUST send a Peer Registration to the selected peer, structured as if the peer had just entered the system. The message MUST include the sending peer's leaf set information transmitted in the DHT-Link headers using a type of "S" and "P", as described above in the The DHT-Link Header (The DHT-Link Header) section. Additionally, the sending peer MUST include its DHT-PeerID header.
The response MUST include the responding peer's leaf set information transmitted in the DHT-Link headers using a type of "S" and "P", as described above. The response MUST also include the DHT-PeerID of the responding peer.
Both peers should examine the DHT-Link Headers in the response and verify that the leaf set information is consistent with each others leaf set. If there are any inconsistencies, the peers SHOULD attempt to update their leaf sets by contacting the peers in question.
Every maintenance period, a peer MUST perform an arbitrary query for to update one of its Bamboo routing entries. Each routing table entry is specified by the l shared prefix with the peer and the unique l+1st digit. During maintenance, the peer performs a peer query for a Peer-ID that contains the l prefix and l+1st digit of the chosen routing table entry with all other digits random.
The responding peer MUST provide information about its Bamboo routing table entries in the 200 or 404 response. The responding peer calculates the shared prefix, l, between it's Peer-ID and the sending peer's Peer-ID. The responding peer MUST place all non NULL Bamboo routing table entries in row l of its Bamboo routing table in DHT-Link headers of type R, as described in the The DHT-Link Header (The DHT-Link Header) section. Additionally, the responding peer MUST include its DHT-PeerID header.
The sending peer uses the information in the response to update its Bamboo routing table information. If the peer in the DHT-PeerID is a closer peer than the existing entry in the Bamboo routing table, the existing entry MUST be replaced by the peer in the DHT-PeerID. The peers listed in the DHT-Link Headers MAY be used to fill any empty Bamboo routing table holes, but these SHOULD be contacted directly before adding to the table.
Peer failure is handled by the periodic DHT Maintenance and responses to failed requests discussed above. Redundancy prevents against lost registrations.
When a resource is registered, the registering peer SHOULD create at least 2 redundant replicas to ensure the registry information is secure in the DHT. The registering peer is responsible for maintaining these replicas along with the primary entry.
[To Do: Add examples here]
There are no new security considerations introduced in this draft beyond those already mentioned in the dSIP (Bryan, D., Lowekamp, B., and C. Jennings, “dSIP: A P2P Approach to SIP Registration and Resource Location,” February 2007.) [I‑D.bryan‑p2psip‑dsip] and Security for P2PSIP (Lowekamp, B. and J. Deverick, “Authenticated Identity Extensions to dSIP,” February 2007.) [I‑D.lowekamp‑p2psip‑dsip‑security] drafts.
As this is preliminary work on how to integrate the Bamboo DHT with dSIP, there are many issues that are yet to be resolved.
The reliability of the system depends in part on keeping the leaf sets updated and exchanging leaf set information between peers. Peers should be skeptical of information about peer arrival or departures and should verify information by directly contacting peers. However, should it be possible for one peer to trigger another peer to update their information?
The number of bits in each Peer-ID is large (160 if using SHA-1) and messages include the Peer-IDs in DHT-PeerID and DHT-Link headers. In Bamboo, each routing table row has the same prefix length (just different digits after the prefix are stored in each row). When routing table information is sent in DHT-Link headers, can we eliminate the prefix of each Peer-ID? This would certainly help reduce the message size, but needs to be explored more.
This document defines the valid "link-value" values, and defines the "dht-param" value to be "Bamboo1.0".
|[I-D.bryan-p2psip-dsip]||Bryan, D., Lowekamp, B., and C. Jennings, “dSIP: A P2P Approach to SIP Registration and Resource Location,” Internet Draft draft-bryan-p2psip-dsip-00, February 2007.|
|[I-D.lowekamp-p2psip-dsip-security]||Lowekamp, B. and J. Deverick, “Authenticated Identity Extensions to dSIP,” Internet Draft draft-lowekamp-p2psip-dsip-security-00, February 2007.|
|[I-D.willis-p2psip-concepts]||Willis, D., “Concepts and Terminology for Peer to Peer SIP,” draft-willis-p2psip-concepts-03 (work in progress), October 2006.|
|[RFC2104]||Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, “HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication,” RFC 2104, February 1997.|
|[RFC2119]||Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997 (TXT, HTML, XML).|
|[RFC3174]||Eastlake, D. and P. Jones, “US Secure Hash Algorithm 1 (SHA1),” RFC 3174, September 2001.|
|[RFC3261]||Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, “SIP: Session Initiation Protocol,” RFC 3261, June 2002.|
|[Bamboo]||Rhea, R., Geels, D., Roscoe, T., and J. Kubiaatowicz, “Handling Churn in a DHT,” University of California, Berkeley Technical Report UCB/CSD-03-1299 December 2003, Usenix Annual Technical Conference June 2004.|
|[Chord]||Stoica, I., Morris, R., Liben-Nowell, D., Karger, D., Kaashoek, M., Dabek, F., and H. Balakrishnan, “Chord: A Scalable Peer-to-peer Lookup Service for Internet Applications,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking Volume 11, Issue 1, 17-32, Feb 2003.|
|3000 Easter Circle|
|Williamsburg, VA 23188|
|Phone:||+1 757 565 0101|
|David A. Bryan|
|3000 Easter Circle|
|Williamsburg, VA 23188|
|Phone:||+1 757 565 0101|
Copyright © The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an “AS IS” basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, 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 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at email@example.com.
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA).