RFC 5146
Interworking Requirements to Support Operation of MPLS-TE over GMPLS Networks
Network Working Group 🎀 Kumaki, K., Ed. (KDDI Corporation)
Request for Comments: 5146 🦋
Category: Informational ✨
Date: March 2008 📅
Title: Interworking Requirements to Support Operation of MPLS-TE over GMPLS Networks 💖
Okay, so this RFC was written by K. Kumaki (the Ed. just means editor 💅) from KDDI Corporation. It's Informational, which means it's guidance and not a strict standard 🫶. It was published in March 2008. It doesn't obsolete or update anything, since its header doesn't list any RFCs it replaces or changes 🌈.
Status of This Memo ✨
Bestie, this memo is here to provide information for the Internet community 🫶. It doesn't specify an Internet standard of any kind, so it's not a rulebook 💅. Distribution of this memo is unlimited 🌈.
Abstract 🌸
Okay so, running an MPLS traffic engineering (TE) network as a client network on top of a Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) network gives you way more operational capabilities than the other model, which is running MPLS-TE over an independently managed transport layer 💜. That's the "coexistent protocol model" in the original, and it's giving less control, ngl 🙈.
The GMPLS network can be a packet network or a non-packet network, and it can even be multi-layer, supporting both packet and non-packet technologies 🧚. An MPLS-TE Label Switched Path (LSP) starts and ends on an MPLS Label Switching Router (LSR). The GMPLS network gives transparent transport for that end-to-end MPLS-TE LSP, which is so iconic 👑.
This document describes a framework and Service Provider requirements for operating MPLS-TE networks over GMPLS networks 🍓.
Table of Contents 🧚
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Terminology ................................................4
2. Reference Model .................................................4
3. Detailed Requirements ...........................................5
3.1. End-to-End Signaling .......................................5
3.2. Triggered Establishment of GMPLS LSPs ......................5
3.3. Diverse Paths for End-to-End MPLS-TE LSPs ..................6
3.4. Advertisement of MPLS-TE Information via the GMPLS
Network ....................................................6
3.5. Selective Advertisement of MPLS-TE Information via
a Border Node ..............................................6
3.6. Interworking of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Protection ...............7
3.7. Independent Failure Recovery and Reoptimization ............7
3.8. Complexity and Risks .......................................7
3.9. Scalability Considerations .................................7
3.10. Performance Considerations ................................8
3.11. Management Considerations .................................8
4. Security Considerations .........................................8
5. Recommended Solution Architecture ...............................9
5.1. Use of Contiguous, Hierarchical, and Stitched LSPs ........10
5.2. MPLS-TE Control Plane Connectivity ........................10
5.3. Fast Reroute Protection ...................................10
5.4. GMPLS LSP Advertisement ...................................11
5.5. GMPLS Deployment Considerations ...........................11
6. Acknowledgments ................................................11
7. References .....................................................11
7.1. Normative References ......................................11
7.2. Informative References ....................................12
8. Contributors' Addresses ........................................131. Introduction ✨
Okay so MPLS-TE networks are often deployed over transport networks, and those transport networks give connectivity between the Label Switching Routers (LSRs) in the MPLS-TE network 💖. More and more, these transport networks run on a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) control plane 🌸. The Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in the GMPLS network give connectivity as virtual data links, which get advertised as TE links in the MPLS-TE network 🦋.
GMPLS protocols were built as extensions to MPLS-TE protocols 🫶. MPLS-TE only controls packet switching networks, but GMPLS can also control technologies at layers one and two 🔥.
The GMPLS network might be managed by an operator as a totally separate network (which is what it was like when it was under management plane control, before GMPLS became the control plane) 🙈. But you can get optimizations in management and operation by coordinating the MPLS-TE and GMPLS networks and running them with a close client/server relationship 💜.
GMPLS LSP setup can be triggered by the signaling of MPLS-TE LSPs in the MPLS-TE network. That means the GMPLS network reacts to what the MPLS-TE network needs 🧚. The triggering can be controlled by operator policies, without needing an operator to step in directly 👑.
The client/server setup I just described also works for migration scenarios, where MPLS-TE packet switching networks are moving over to GMPLS control 🍓. [RFC5145] describes one of these migration scenarios, called the Island Model. In it, groups of nodes (the islands) move from MPLS-TE protocols to GMPLS protocols, and they run completely surrounded by MPLS-TE nodes (the sea) 🌈. This can be managed effectively as a client/server network relationship, using the framework in this document ✨.
To manage the dynamic interaction between the MPLS and GMPLS networks properly, you need to understand the operational requirements and how much control the operator can have 💅. This problem is super similar to the multi-layer networks described in [MLN-REQ]. But those networks run GMPLS protocols in both the client and server networks, which makes interworking smoother 🫶. When the client network uses MPLS-TE protocols over a GMPLS server network, we need to study how the two protocol sets interwork 🔥.
This document looks at the protocol requirements for interworking, so an MPLS-TE network can run as a client network over a GMPLS server network, and it gives a framework for these operations 💖.
1.1. Terminology 🎀
Although this Informational document isn't a protocol specification, 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 [RFC2119] for clarity of exposure of the requirements 💅.
2. Reference Model 🦋
The reference model in this document is shown in Figure 1 🧚. Here's the key takeaway: the interworking between MPLS-TE and GMPLS protocols has to happen on a node and not on a link 👑. The nodes on the boundary between the MPLS-TE and GMPLS networks must handle both protocol sets and provide whatever protocol interworking is required 🫶. We call these nodes Border Routers 💖.
-------------- ------------------------- --------------
| MPLS Client | | GMPLS Server Network | | MPLS Client |
| Network | | | | Network |
| | | | | |
| ---- --+--+-- ----- ----- --+--+-- ---- |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |MPLS|_| Border |__|GMPLS|_|GMPLS|__| Border |_|MPLS| |
| |LSR | | Router | | LSR | | LSR | | Router | |LSR | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ---- --+--+-- ----- ----- --+--+-- ---- |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
-------------- ------------------------- --------------
| | GMPLS LSP | |
| |<------------------------->| |
| |
|<--------------------------------------------->|
End-to-End MPLS-TE LSPFigure 1. Reference model of MPLS-TE/GMPLS interworking
MPLS-TE network connectivity comes through a GMPLS LSP that gets created between Border Routers 🌸. End-to-end connectivity between MPLS LSRs in the client MPLS-TE networks is provided by an MPLS-TE LSP. That LSP is carried across the MPLS-TE network by the GMPLS LSP, using hierarchical LSP techniques [RFC4206], LSP stitching segments [RFC5150], or a contiguous LSP ✨. LSP stitching segments and contiguous LSPs are only available where the GMPLS network is a packet switching network 🙈.
3. Detailed Requirements 💅
This section describes detailed requirements for MPLS-TE/GMPLS interworking, in support of the reference model shown in Figure 1 🎀.
The functional requirements for GMPLS-MPLS interworking described in this section must be met by any device taking part in the interworking 🫶. That can include routers, servers, network management devices, path computation elements, and so on 🧚.
3.1. End-to-End Signaling 💖
The solution MUST be able to preserve MPLS signaling information that's signaled within the MPLS-TE client network at the start of the MPLS-TE LSP. It then has to deliver that information on the other side of the GMPLS server network, so it can be used within the MPLS-TE client network at the end of the MPLS-TE LSP 🦋. This may require protocol mapping (and re-mapping), protocol tunneling, or the use of remote protocol adjacencies 🌈.
3.2. Triggered Establishment of GMPLS LSPs 🌸
The solution MUST provide the ability to establish end-to-end MPLS-TE LSPs over a GMPLS server network 👑. It SHOULD be possible for GMPLS LSPs across the core network to be set up between Border Routers, triggered by the signaling of MPLS-TE LSPs in the client network 🔥. In that case, policy controls MUST be made available at the border routers, so the operator of the GMPLS network can manage how core network resources get used 💜. GMPLS LSPs MAY also be pre-established as the result of management plane control ✨.
Note that multiple GMPLS LSPs may be set up between a given pair of Border Routers to support connectivity in the MPLS client network 🧚. If these LSPs are advertised as TE links in the client network, link bundling [RFC4201] can reduce any scaling concerns linked to those advertisements 🍓.
The application of the Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655] in the context of an inter-layer network [PCE-INT] may be considered, to determine an end-to-end LSP with a triggered GMPLS segment or tunnel 🫶.
3.3. Diverse Paths for End-to-End MPLS-TE LSPs 🦋
The solution SHOULD provide the ability to establish end-to-end MPLS-TE LSPs with diverse paths, for protecting the LSP traffic 💅. This means MPLS-TE LSPs SHOULD be kept diverse both within the client MPLS-TE network and as they cross the server GMPLS network 👑. It also means there SHOULD be a mechanism to request diverse GMPLS LSPs between a pair of Border Routers, to protect the GMPLS span 🔥. And there SHOULD be a way to keep GMPLS LSPs between different Border Routers disjoint 💖.
3.4. Advertisement of MPLS-TE Information via the GMPLS Network ✨
okay so the solution SHOULD give you a way to exchange advertisements of TE information between MPLS-TE client networks across the GMPLS server network 💖
why this matters: when TE info from inside a client network gets advertised to all the LSRs in that client network, the head-end LSR can figure out an optimal path for an LSP to a tail-end LSR that's only reachable over the GMPLS server network. that's the main character path-planning energy 🦋
if there's more than one client MPLS-TE network, the TE info from each separate network MUST be kept private, confidential and secure. no snooping, bestie 🙈
3.5. Selective Advertisement of MPLS-TE Information via a Border Node 🎀
the solution SHOULD be able to share TE reachability info from the GMPLS server network into MPLS-TE networks, but selectively 💅 this is useful because LSRs in the MPLS-TE networks need it to compute paths that cross the GMPLS server network, and to pick the right Border Routers for connectivity.
now the big rule: the solution MUST NOT distribute TE info from inside a non-PSC (Packet Switch Capable) GMPLS server network to any client MPLS-TE network. why? because it can cause confusion and lead to selection of inappropriate paths. absolutely not 🙅♀️
for non-PSC GMPLS networks that support PSC MPLS networks, the use of PCE [RFC4655] may provide a solution. 🧚
3.6. Interworking of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Protection 🛡️
okay, so if an MPLS-TE LSP is protected using MPLS Fast Reroute (FRR) [RFC4090], then similar protection MUST be provided over the GMPLS island. no dropping the ball on protection ngl 😭
operator and policy controls SHOULD be made available at the Border Router, so the operator can decide how suitable protection gets provided in the GMPLS island. this is the control panel moment 🎛️✨
3.7. Independent Failure Recovery and Reoptimization 🌸
the solution SHOULD provide failure recovery and reoptimization in the GMPLS server network without impacting the MPLS-TE client network, and vice versa. the vibe here is independence, fr fr 🦋 it SHOULD be possible to recover from a fault within the GMPLS island, or to reoptimize the path across the GMPLS island, without needing signaling activity in the MPLS-TE client network. and similarly, it SHOULD be possible to do recovery or reoptimization inside the MPLS-TE client network without needing signaling activity in the GMPLS server networks.
if a failure in the GMPLS server network can not be repaired transparently, some kind of notification of the failure SHOULD be transmitted to the MPLS-TE network. so nobody gets blindsided 🥹
3.8. Complexity and Risks 💀
the solution SHOULD NOT introduce unnecessary complexity into the current operating network to such a degree that it would affect stability and diminish the benefits of deploying the solution in service provider networks. nobody wants a network that's a mess and not even worth it 😤
3.9. Scalability Considerations 📈
the solution MUST scale well with consideration to at least the following metrics:
- The number of GMPLS-capable nodes (i.e., the size of the GMPLS server network).
- The number of MPLS-TE-capable nodes (i.e., the size of the MPLS-TE client network).
- The number of MPLS-TE client networks.
- The number of GMPLS LSPs.
- The number of MPLS-TE LSPs.
3.10. Performance Considerations 🏃♀️
the solution SHOULD be evaluated against the following criteria:
- Failure and restoration time.
- Impact and scalability of the control plane due to added overheads.
- Impact and scalability of the data/forwarding plane due to added overheads.
3.11. Management Considerations 🧠
manageability of the deployment of an MPLS-TE client network over a GMPLS server network MUST addresses the following considerations:
- Need for coordination of MIB modules used for control plane management and monitoring in the client and server networks.
- Need for diagnostic tools that can discover and isolate faults across the border between the MPLS-TE client and GMPLS server networks.
4. Security Considerations 🔥
okay, bestie, security time, and it's serious 🔐 Border routers in the model described in this document sit on administrative domain boundaries. the administrative boundary does not lie on a link the way it might in the inter-Autonomous-System (inter-AS) case seen in IP networks. so many security concerns for inter-domain exchange of control plane messages just don't show up in this model. the border router participates fully in both the MPLS and the GMPLS network, and it has to go through the security procedures of both networks 🫶 security considerations for MPLS-TE and GMPLS protocols are discussed in [SECURITY].
policy considerations at the border routers are very important, and they may be considered part of the security of the networks 👑 in particular, the server network (the GMPLS network) may want to protect itself from behavior in the client network, like frequent demands to set up and tear down server LSPs. that's handled by appropriate policies implemented at the border routers. also, because the border routers form part of both networks, they are trusted in both networks, and policies configured (whether locally or centrally) for use by a border router are expected to be observed.
authentication and access controls for operators are still super important at border routers 💖 operators of the client MPLS-TE network MUST NOT be allowed to configure the server GMPLS network (including setting server network policies), and operators of the server GMPLS network MUST NOT be able configure the client MPLS-TE network. hard boundaries, no exceptions 🚫 obviously, it SHOULD be possible to grant an operator privileges in both networks. it may also be desirable to give operators of one network access to, for example, status information about the other network.
mechanisms for authenticating operators and providing access controls are not part of the responsibilities of the GMPLS protocol set. they depend on the management plane protocols and techniques that get implemented 🧚
5. Recommended Solution Architecture ✨
the recommended solution architecture to meet the requirements set out in Section 3 is known as the Border Peer Model 🦋 this architecture is a variant of the Augmented Model described in [RFC3945]. the rest of this document gives you an overview of it.
in the Augmented Model, routing information from the lower layer (server) network gets filtered at the interface to the higher layer (client) network, and a subset of that information is distributed within the higher layer network.
in the Border Peer Model, the interface between the client and server networks is the Border Router. this router can see the routing information in the server network, and it also participates as a peer in the client network. so the Border Router has full visibility into both networks 👀 however, the Border Router does not distribute server routing information into the client network, and it does not distribute client routing information into the server network.
the Border Peer Model can also be contrasted with the Overlay Model [RFC3945]. in that model, there's a protocol request/response interface (the user network interface (UNI)) between the client and server networks. [RFC4208] shows how this interface may be supported by GMPLS protocols operated between client edge and server edge routers, while the routing information stays within the server network. so in the Overlay Model there's no exchange of routing or reachability information between client and server networks, and no network element has visibility into both. the Border Peer Model basically places the UNI within the Border Router, which gives the Border Router peer capabilities in both the client and server network 💅
5.1. Use of Contiguous, Hierarchical, and Stitched LSPs 🧩
all three LSP types MAY be supported in the Border Peer Model, but contiguous LSPs are the hardest to support, because they require protocol mapping between the MPLS-TE client network and the GMPLS server network. this protocol mapping can be achieved right now, since MPLS-TE signaling protocols are a subset of GMPLS, but this mechanism is not future-proofed 😬
contiguous and stitched LSPs can only be supported where the GMPLS server network has the same switching type (that is, packet switching) as the MPLS-TE network. requirements for independent failure recovery within the GMPLS island require the use of loose path reoptimization techniques [RFC4736] and end-to-end make-before-break [RFC3209], which will not provide rapid recovery. it's not the fastest, sis 🐢
for these reasons, the use of hierarchical LSPs across the server network is RECOMMENDED for the Border Peer Model, but see the discussion of Fast Reroute protection in Section 5.3. 🌈
5.2. MPLS-TE Control Plane Connectivity 🛰️
control plane connectivity between MPLS-TE LSRs connected by a GMPLS island in the Border Peer Model MAY be provided by the control channels of the GMPLS network. if that's done, a tunneling mechanism (such as GRE [RFC2784]) SHOULD be used so that MPLS-TE information is not consumed by the GMPLS LSRs. but care is required to avoid swamping the control plane of the GMPLS network with MPLS-TE control plane (particularly routing) messages 🙃
to ensure scalability, control plane messages for the MPLS-TE client network MAY be carried between Border Routers in a single hop MPLS-TE LSP routed through the data plane of the GMPLS server network. ✨
5.3. Fast Reroute Protection 🔁
if the GMPLS network is packet switching, Fast Reroute protection can be offered on all hops of a contiguous LSP. if the GMPLS network is packet switching, then all hops of a hierarchical GMPLS LSP or GMPLS stitching segment can be protected using Fast Reroute too. and if the end-to-end MPLS-TE LSP requests Fast Reroute protection, the GMPLS packet switching network SHOULD provide that protection 💖
but here's the catch: it is not possible to provide FRR node protection of the upstream Border Router without careful consideration of available paths, and protection of the downstream Border Router is not possible where hierarchical LSPs or stitching segments are used. so read the fine print 🫠
also, Fast Reroute is not available in non-packet technologies. however, other protection techniques are supported by GMPLS for non-packet networks, and they are likely to provide similar levels of protection 🌸
the limitations of FRR need careful consideration by the operator, and they may lead to the decision to provide end-to-end protection for the MPLS-TE LSP. 👑
5.4. GMPLS LSP Advertisement 📣
in the Border Peer Model, the LSPs established by the Border Routers in the GMPLS server network SHOULD be advertised in the MPLS-TE client network as real or virtual links. if real links are advertised into the MPLS-TE client network, the Border Routers in the MPLS-TE client network MAY establish IGP neighbors. the Border Routers MAY also automatically advertise the GMPLS LSPs when they establish them 🦋
5.5. GMPLS Deployment Considerations 🚀
the Border Peer Model does not require the existing MPLS-TE client network to be GMPLS aware, and it does not affect the operation and management of the existing MPLS-TE client network. only border routers need to be upgraded with GMPLS functionality. that's the glow-up with zero drama 🌈 in this fashion, the Border Peer Model lends itself to incremental deployment of the GMPLS server network, without needing reconfiguration of existing areas/ASs, changes to how IGP and BGP operate, or a software upgrade of the existing MPLS-TE client network. iconic, periodt 💅
6. Acknowledgments ✨
okay bestie, the author wants to give a huge shoutout to Raymond Zhang, Adrian Farrel, and Deborah Brungard 🫶 for their helpful and useful comments and feedback. they're literally the reason this doc is as good as it is 💖
7. References 📚
7.1. Normative References
These are the must-read docs this one leans on 🌸
[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.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast
Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
May 2005.
[RFC4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling
in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October
2005.
[RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October
2005.
[RFC4208] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Y. Rekhter,
"Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) User-
Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the Overlay
Model", RFC 4208, October 2005.
[RFC5150] Ayyangar, A., Kompella, K., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
"Label Switched Path Stitching with Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (GMPLS
TE)", RFC 5150, February 2008.7.2. Informative References
these ones are good to know, but you don't need them to get the main idea 🦋
[RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
March 2000.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
August 2006.
[RFC4736] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
"Reoptimization of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Traffic Engineering (TE) Loosely Routed Label Switched
Path (LSP)", RFC 4736, November 2006.
[RFC5145] Shiomoto, K., Ed., "Framework for MPLS-TE to GMPLS
Migration", RFC 5145, March 2008.
[MLN-REQ] Shiomoto, K., Papadimitriou, D., Le Roux, J.L.,
Vigoureux, M., and D. Brungard, "Requirements for GMPLS-
Based Multi-Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN)",
Work in Progress, January 2008.
[PCE-INT] Oki, E., Le Roux , J-L., and A. Farrel, "Framework for
PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic
Engineering," Work in Progress, January 2008.
[SECURITY] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", Work in Progress, November 2007.8. Contributors' Addresses 💌
here's where to find the people who helped write this, in case you want to slide into their inbox 🧚
Tomohiro Otani
KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
2-1-15 Ohara Kamifukuoka
Saitama, 356-8502, Japan
Phone: +81-49-278-7357
EMail: otani@kddilabs.jp
Shuichi Okamoto
NICT JGN II Tsukuba Reserach Center
1-8-1, Otemachi Chiyoda-ku,
Tokyo, 100-0004, Japan
Phone: +81-3-5200-2117
EMail: okamoto-s@nict.go.jp
Kazuhiro Fujihara
NTT Communications Corporation
Tokyo Opera City Tower 3-20-2 Nishi Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku
Tokyo 163-1421, Japan
EMail: kazuhiro.fujihara@ntt.com
Yuichi Ikejiri
NTT Communications Corporation
Tokyo Opera City Tower 3-20-2 Nishi Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku
Tokyo 163-1421, Japan
EMail: y.ikejiri@ntt.comEditor's Address 🎀
and the editor, who kept everything organised 💅
Kenji Kumaki
KDDI Corporation
Garden Air Tower
Iidabashi, Chiyoda-ku,
Tokyo, 102-8460, JAPAN
EMail: ke-kumaki@kddi.comFull Copyright Statement ⚖️
the legal bit, so read it even if it's boring 🙈
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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.
Intellectual Property 🔐
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 ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
That's the whole thing, bestie 🌈💜 RFC 5146 is a wrap! ✨
📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc5146 2008-03
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms