RFC 8256
Requirements for Hitless MPLS Path Segment Monitoring
Requirements for Hitless MPLS Path Segment Monitoring 🦋✨
Part 1 of 4
Okay bestie, here's the vibe check on this RFC 💅
- RFC number: 8256
- Category: Informational (so it's not a Standards Track spec, just here to share knowledge 🧠)
- ISSN: 2070-1721
- Date: October 2017
- Authors:
- A. D'Alessandro (Telecom Italia)
- L. Andersson (Huawei Technologies)
- S. Ueno (NTT Communications)
- K. Arai (NTT)
- Y. Koike (NTT)
- Obsoletes / Updates: Nothing is listed in its header 🙈
Abstract ✨
Okay so fault localization is one of the most important OAM (Operations, Administration, and Maintenance) capabilities for transport networks, and it's giving main character energy 💖 You need an in-service, on-demand path segment monitoring function for a transport path, and it's basically non-negotiable, especially when service monitoring only runs between endpoints 😭
Here's the tea though: the current segment monitoring approach for MPLS (including MPLS-TP) defined in RFC 6371, "Operations, Administration, and Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks", has drawbacks 💀 This doc takes a look at the existing MPLS-TP OAM mechanisms for path segment monitoring and lays out requirements for building new OAM tools that support Hitless Path Segment Monitoring (HPSM) 🎀
Status of This Memo 🌸
Not an Internet Standards Track spec. It's published for info purposes only 📚
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and represents the consensus of the IETF community 🫶 It got public review and was approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not every IESG-approved doc is a candidate for any level of Internet Standard, so see Section 2 of RFC 7841 for that 💅
For the latest status, errata, and how to give feedback, check https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8256 🔥
Copyright Notice 🌈
Copyright (c) 2017 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) as in effect on the publication date. Please actually read those, because they spell out your rights and restrictions for this doc 🧾 Code Components pulled out of this document must include Simplified BSD License text, as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions, and they come without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License ⚖️
Table of Contents 🧚
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Requirements for HPSM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Non-Intrusive Segment Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Monitoring Multiple Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. Monitoring Single and Multiple Levels . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.5. HPSM and End-to-End Proactive Monitoring Independence . . 10
4.6. Monitoring an Arbitrary Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.7. Fault while HPSM Is Operational . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.8. HPSM Manageability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.9. Supported OAM Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161. Introduction 🎀
Per the MPLS-TP OAM requirements [RFC5860], mechanisms MUST be available for alerting service providers of faults or defects that affect their services 🚨 On top of that, operators need a way to diagnose a detected problem so faults or service degradation can actually be localized 🔍 The thing is, end-to-end monitoring alone isn't enough for this, because an operator can't localize a fault or degradation accurately with it 😤
What they really need is a segment monitoring function that can zoom in on one specific segment of a transport path and give a detailed analysis. That's what makes it possible to localize a fault quickly and accurately ⚡ MPLS-TP already has a function for monitoring path segments, but as the MPLS-TP OAM Framework [RFC6371] points out, the current segment monitoring method for a transport path has implications that get in the way of using it in an operator network 💀
So after walking through the problem statement for the path segment monitoring function as it's currently defined, this doc gives requirements for an on-demand path segment monitoring function that doesn't disrupt traffic 🦋 There's still more work to do to check how these requirements fit with the current MPLS architecture and to figure out possible solutions 🧩
2. Conventions Used in This Document 💜
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here 📖 Only in all capitals, though. Lowercase versions are just regular words 🙃
2.1. Terminology 🍓
Here's the glossary, bestie:
HPSM- Hitless Path Segment MonitoringLSP- Label Switched PathLSR- Label Switching RouterME- Maintenance EntityMEG- Maintenance Entity GroupMEP- Maintenance Entity Group End PointMIP- Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate PointOTN- Optical Transport NetworkTCM- Tandem Connection MonitoringSPME- Sub-Path Maintenance Element
3. Problem Statement 🔥
okay so this section is where the RFC explains why the old way is kinda messy 😭 A Sub-Path Maintenance Element (SPME) is the function in [RFC5921] that watches over (and can protect or manage) MPLS-TP network segments. The SPME sits between the edges of the segment of a transport path you want to keep an eye on. You create it by stacking the shim header (the MPLS header) following [RFC3031], and the SPME is basically defined as the segment where that header is stacked. OAM messages can start at the SPME edge and get sent either to the peer edge or to a MIP along the SPME. You do this by setting the TTL of the Label Stack Entry (LSE) and the interface identifier at the matching hierarchical LSP level, which is the case for a per-node model 💅
According to Section 3.8 of [RFC6371], MPLS-TP segment monitoring should hit two network objectives:
- (N1) The monitoring and maintenance of current transport paths has to be conducted in-service without traffic disruption. ✨
- (N2) Segment monitoring must not modify the forwarding of the segment portion of the transport path. 🙅♀️
The SPME function in [RFC5921] comes with some drawbacks, though 💀
- (P1) It increases network management complexity, because a new sub-layer and new MEPs and MIPs have to be configured for the SPME.
- (P2) Original conditions of the path change.
- (P3) The client traffic over a transport path is disrupted if the SPME is configured on-demand.
Okay so (P1) is all about managing each extra sub-layer you need for segment monitoring in an MPLS-TP network 🧚 When an SPME is used for on-demand OAM functions, you're going to need a rule to tell those SPMEs apart operationally, at least within an administrative domain. That means operators have to add at least one more layer to their management systems that only exists for on-demand path segment monitoring. From an operations point of view, more managed layers and more managed addresses and identifiers is not it, because you want your management systems to stay as simple as possible. On top of that, the current methods make on-demand SPME setup cause (P2) and (P3), thanks to the extra label stacking 🌸
(P2) happens because the MPLS-exposed label value and the MPLS frame length both change. The monitoring function should check the status without changing any condition of the target segment or the target transport path. You shouldn't change the settings of the original shim header, because that basically creates a new segment of the original transport path, and that's a different thing 🙈 When the path conditions change, the measured values or observed data change too. That can make the monitoring pointless, since the measurement no longer shows how the connection behaved when the original fault or degradation happened. For example, when you set up an on-demand SPME, the LSRs inside the monitored segment only look at the stacked labels, not the labels of the original LSP. So problems from wrong or unexpected handling of the original LSP labels by nodes in the monitored segment can't be found when you set up the SPME. That could include hardware problems during label lookup, misconfiguration, and so on. Operators therefore have to be extra careful about setting and checking the original LSP label values in the configuration. The reverse is also possible: wrong or unexpected handling of SPME labels can lead to false fault detection where there was never a real problem to begin with 😭
Figure 1 shows an example of SPME settings. In the figure, "X" is the label value of the original path expected at the tail end of node D. "210" and "220" are label values allocated for the SPME. The original path's label values get modified, and so do the stacked labels. As Figure 1 shows, the SPME changes both the length of MPLS frames and the label value(s). Performance monitoring measurements, like Delay Measurement and Packet Loss Measurement, are especially sensitive to these changes. For instance, a longer packet can affect packet loss because of MTU settings, and changing the label stack may introduce packet loss or fix it, depending on the configuration. These changes can influence packet delay too, even though in practice only a few services will probably feel the impact 🦋
--- --- --- --- ---
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
--- --- --- --- ---
A--100--B--110--C--120--D--130--E <= transport path
MEP MEP --- --- --- --- ---
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
--- --- --- --- ---
A--100--B-----------X---D--130--E <= transport path
MEP MEP
210--C--220 <= SPME
MEP' MEP' Figure 1: SPME Settings Example(P3) can be avoided if operators set up SPMEs in advance and keep them until the transport path reaches end of life. The catch is that this doesn't support on-demand 🥲 SPMEs also can't be set up arbitrarily, because overlapping path segments are limited to nesting relationships. So the possible SPME configurations for segments of an original transport path are restricted by the SPME characteristic shown in Figure 1, even when SPMEs are preconfigured.
The make-before-break procedure in the survivability document [RFC6372] does support configuration for monitoring according to the framework document [RFC5921]. But without traffic disruption, you can't configure an SPME without violating network objective (N2). These concerns are described in Section 3.8 of [RFC6371].
Make-before-break usually relies on a control plane, too. That means a management system needs extra functionality to properly support SPME creation and traffic switching from the original transport path to the SPME ✨
Here's an example: the old and new transport resources (for example, LSP tunnels) can end up competing for resources they share. Depending on what's available, that competition can make admission control block the new LSP tunnel from being established, because the bandwidth accounting drifts away from normal (non-control-plane) management-system operation. SPMEs can be applied in any network context, including single-domain, multi-domain, single-carrier, multi-carrier, and so on. The main uses are inter-carrier or inter-domain segment monitoring, where they're typically preconfigured or pre-instantiated. An SPME instantiates a hierarchical path (introducing MPLS label stacking) that OAM packets can be sent through. The SPME monitoring function also matters a lot for protecting bundles of transport paths and carriers' carrier solutions within an administrative domain 👑
The equivalent of SPME in other transport technologies is Tandem Connection Monitoring (TCM). TCM is used in Optical Transport Networks (OTNs) and Ethernet transport networks. It supports on-demand use but doesn't affect the path. In OTNs, for example, TCM lets you insert and remove performance monitoring overhead within the frame at intermediate points in the network. Inserting and removing it doesn't change the conditions of the path. Still, because the OAM overhead is part of the frame (in designated overhead bytes), it's limited to a predefined number of monitoring segments 💜
To sum it up: the problem is that today's sub-path maintenance based on a hierarchical LSP (SPME) is hard to preconfigure, because layer stacking and identifiers/addresses keep increasing the number of managed objects. On-demand SPME configuration is one possible way to reduce the impact of these issues. But the current procedure isn't great, since on-demand configuration for monitoring changes the condition of the original monitored path. To avoid or minimize the drawbacks above, MPLS-TP transport networks need a more efficient approach. So the RFC calls for a monitoring mechanism named "Hitless Path Segment Monitoring" (HPSM), which supports on-demand path segment monitoring without traffic disruption 🎀
4. Requirements for HPSM 🌈
In the sections that follow, mandatory (M) and optional (O) requirements for the HPSM function are listed ✨
4.1. Backward Compatibility
HPSM would be an additional OAM tool that doesn't replace SPME. So:
- (M1) HPSM MUST be compatible with the usage of SPME.
- (O1) HPSM SHOULD be applicable at the SPME layer too.
- (M2) HPSM MUST support both the per-node and per-interface model as specified in [RFC6371].
4.2. Non-Intrusive Segment Monitoring
One of the big problems with legacy SPME, which Section 3 highlights, is that it may not monitor the original path and could disrupt service traffic when it's set up on demand 😤
- (M3) HPSM MUST NOT change the original conditions of the transport path (e.g., the length of MPLS frames, the exposed label values, etc.).
- (M4) HPSM MUST support on-demand provisioning without traffic disruption.
4.3. Monitoring Multiple Segments
Along a transport path, you might need to monitor multiple segments at the same time 🧜♀️
- (M5) HPSM MUST support configuration of multiple monitoring segments along a transport path.
--- --- --- --- ---
| | | | | | | | | |
| A | | B | | C | | D | | E |
--- --- --- --- ---
MEP MEP <= ME of a transport path
*------* *----* *--------------* <=three HPSM monit. instances Figure 2: Multiple HPSM Instances Example4.4. Monitoring Single and Multiple Levels 🧚
Okay so HPSM is mainly for on-demand diagnostics 🔍. The biggest problem with the current approach is that there's no way to find the degraded segment of a path without changing the conditions of the original path 😭. So as a first step, single-level, single-segment monitoring that doesn't affect the monitored path is required for HPSM. Monitoring simultaneous segments on multiple levels is the most powerful tool for accurately diagnosing how a transport path is performing ✨. Still, out in the field, a single-level, multiple-segment approach is less complex for management and ops 💅.
(M6) HPSM MUST support single-level segment monitoring.
(O2) HPSM MAY support multi-level segment monitoring.
--- --- --- --- ---
| | | | | | | | | |
| A | | B | | C | | D | | E |
--- --- --- --- ---
MEP MEP <= ME of a transport path
*-----------------* <=On-demand HPSM level 1
*-------------* <=On-demand HPSM level 2
*-* <=On-demand HPSM level 3
Figure 3: Multi-Level HPSM Example4.5. HPSM and End-to-End Proactive Monitoring Independence 🦋
We need to be able to use existing end-to-end proactive monitoring and on-demand path segment monitoring at the same time 🫶. Normally, on-demand path segment monitoring gets set up on a segment of a maintenance entity of a transport path. In that kind of setup, on-demand single-level monitoring should be performed without disrupting the proactive monitoring of the targeted end-to-end transport path, so user traffic performance doesn't get affected 🌸.
(M7) HPSM MUST support the capability of being operated concurrently to, and independently of, the OAM function on the end-to-end path.
--- --- --- --- ---
| | | | | | | | | |
| A | | B | | C | | D | | E |
--- --- --- --- ---
MEP MEP <= ME of a transport path
+-----------------------------+ <= Proactive end-to-end mon.
*------------------* <= On-demand HPSM
Figure 4: Independence between Proactive End-to-End Monitoring and
On-Demand HPSM4.6. Monitoring an Arbitrary Segment 🍓
The main goal of on-demand path segment monitoring is to diagnose fault locations 🕵️♀️. A realistic diagnostic move is to fix one endpoint of a segment at the MEP of the transport path under observation, then keep changing the length of the segments. That means you can check all the paths step by step, with a granularity that depends on the equipment implementation 💖. For example, Figure 5 shows a granularity at the interface level, so monitoring happens at each input interface and output interface of each piece of equipment.
--- --- --- --- ---
| | | | | | | | | |
| A | | B | | C | | D | | E |
--- --- --- --- ---
MEP MEP <= ME of a transport path
+-----------------------------+ <= Proactive end-to-end mon.
*-----* <= 1st on-demand HPSM
*-------* <= 2nd on-demand HPSM
| |
| |
*-----------------------* <= 4th on-demand HPSM
*-----------------------------* <= 5th on-demand HPSM
Figure 5: Localization of a Defect by Consecutive On-Demand Path
Segment Monitoring ProcedureAnother scenario is shown in Figure 6 🌈. Here the operator wants to diagnose a transport path starting at a transit node, because the end nodes (A and E) sit at customer sites and are small boxes that only support a subset of OAM functions 📦. When the source entities of the diagnostic packets are limited to the positions of MEPs, on-demand path segment monitoring gets ineffective, because not all the segments can be diagnosed. For example, segment monitoring HPSM 3 in Figure 6 isn't available, so the fault location can't be pinned down exactly 😵.
(M8) It SHALL be possible to provision HPSM on an arbitrary segment of a transport path.
--- --- ---
--- | | | | | | ---
| A | | B | | C | | D | | E |
--- --- --- --- ---
MEP MEP <= ME of a transport path
+-----------------------------+ <= Proactive end-to-end mon.
*-----* <= On-demand HPSM 1
*-----------------------* <= On-demand HPSM 2
*---------* <= On-demand HPSM 3
Figure 6: HPSM Configuration at Arbitrary Segments4.7. Fault while HPSM Is Operational ⚡
Node or link failures can happen while HPSM is active. If no resiliency mechanism is set up on the subtended transport path, there's no particular requirement for HPSM. But if the transport path is protected, the HPSM function might end up monitoring unintended segments 🙈. The examples below are here to clarify things.
Protection scenario A is shown in Figure 7. In this one, a working LSP and a protection LSP are set up, and HPSM is activated between nodes A and E. When a fault happens between nodes B and C, HPSM isn't affected by the protection switch and keeps going on the active LSP 💜.
A - B - C - D - E - F
\ /
G - H - I - L
Where:
- end-to-end LSP: A-B-C-D-E-F
- working LSP: A-B-C-D-E-F
- protection LSP: A-G-H-I-L-F
- HPSM: A-E
Figure 7: Protection Scenario AProtection scenario B is shown in Figure 8. The difference from scenario A is that only a portion of the transport path is protected 🎀. In this case, when a fault happens between nodes B and C on the working sub-path B-C-D, traffic gets switched to protection sub-path B-G-H-D. Assuming that OAM packet termination depends only on the TTL value of the MPLS label header, the target node of HPSM changes from E to D, because the hop counts differ between the working path route (A-B-C-D-E: 4 hops) and the protection path route (A-B-G-H-D-E: 5 hops). In this case, HPSM is affected 😤.
A - B - C - D - E - F
\ /
G - H
- end-to-end LSP: A-B-C-D-E-F
- working sub-path: B-C-D
- protection sub-path: B-G-H-D
- HPSM: A-E
Figure 8: Protection Scenario B(M9) The HPSM SHOULD avoid monitoring an unintended segment when one or more failures occur.
There are potentially different solutions for meeting that requirement 🧩. One possible solution is to suspend HPSM monitoring until network restoration takes place. Another possible approach is to compare the node/interface ID in the OAM packet with the one at the node reached at TTL termination, and if they don't match, a suspension of HPSM monitoring should be triggered. Both approaches are valid in any circumstance, for both protected and unprotected network LSPs. These examples should not be taken to limit the design of a solution 🫧.
4.8. HPSM Manageability 🗂️
From a management perspective, increasing the number of managed layers and managed addresses/identifiers isn't desirable, because we want management systems to stay as simple as possible 🥰.
(M10) HPSM SHOULD NOT be based on additional transport layers (e.g., hierarchical LSPs).
(M11) The same identifiers used for MIPs and/or MEPs SHOULD be applied to maintenance points for the HPSM when they are instantiated in the same place along a transport path.
Maintenance points for HPSM might be different from the functional components of MIPs and MEPs as defined in the OAM framework document [RFC6371] 🧠. Figuring out solutions for the HPSM requirements may lead to identifying new functional components. Those components need to be backward compatible with MPLS architecture. Solutions are outside the scope of this document 📝.
4.9. Supported OAM Functions 🛠️
A maintenance point that supports the HPSM function has to be able to generate and inject OAM packets. The OAM functions that could be applicable for on-demand HPSM are basically the on-demand performance monitoring functions defined in the OAM framework document [RFC6371]. The "on-demand" attribute is typically temporary, since it's for maintenance operations ⏳.
(M12) HPSM MUST support Packet Loss and Packet Delay measurement.
These functions are normally only supported at the endpoints of a transport path. If a defect happens, it can be really hard to locate the defect or degradation point without the segment monitoring function 😩. And if an operator can't locate or narrow down the cause of a fault, it's pretty tough to take prompt action to fix the problem.
Other on-demand monitoring functions (e.g., Delay Variation measurement) are desirable, but they aren't as necessary as the ones above 💅.
(O3) HPSM MAY support Packet Delay variation, Throughput measurement, and other performance monitoring and fault management functions.
Support for out-of-service on-demand performance-management functions (e.g., Throughput measurement) is not required for HPSM 🙅♀️.
5. Summary 📋
A new HPSM mechanism is required to provide on-demand path segment monitoring without traffic disruption ✨. It shall meet the two network objectives described in Section 3.8 of [RFC6371] and summarized in Section 3 of this document.
The mechanism should minimize the problems described in Section 3, i.e., (P1), (P2), and (P3) 💫.
The solution for on-demand path segment monitoring without traffic disruption needs to cover both the per-node model and the per-interface model specified in [RFC6371] 🌸.
The on-demand path segment monitoring solution without traffic disruption needs to support on-demand Packet Loss Measurement and Packet Delay Measurement functions. It can also optionally support other performance monitoring and fault management functions (e.g., Throughput measurement, Packet Delay variation measurement, Diagnostic test, etc.) 🦋.
6. Security Considerations 🔐
Security is a big deal for the MPLS Transport Profile, bestie 😭. This document gives a problem statement and requirements to guide the development of new OAM tools to support HPSM. Those new tools must follow the security considerations in OAM Requirements for MPLS-TP in [RFC5860] 🛡️.
7. IANA Considerations 🎀
This document does not require any IANA actions 🫶.
8. References 📚
8.1. Normative References ✨
okay bestie, these are the refs you actually need to have read before you touch the spec 📚💅
[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>.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
[RFC5860] Vigoureux, M., Ed., Ward, D., Ed., and M. Betts, Ed., "Requirements for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS Transport Networks", RFC 5860, DOI 10.17487/RFC5860, May 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5860>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
8.2. Informative References 🦋
these ones are the helpful background reads, the "ooh let me explain the vibe" kind of refs 🫶
[RFC5921] Bocci, M., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., Frost, D., Ed., Levrau, L., and L. Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks", RFC 5921, DOI 10.17487/RFC5921, July 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5921>.
[RFC6371] Busi, I., Ed. and D. Allan, Ed., "Operations, Administration, and Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks", RFC 6371, DOI 10.17487/RFC6371, September 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6371>.
[RFC6372] Sprecher, N., Ed. and A. Farrel, Ed., "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Survivability Framework", RFC 6372, DOI 10.17487/RFC6372, September 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6372>.
Contributors 🌸
big shoutout to our contributor, Manuel Paul, who worked on this from Deutsche Telekom AG 🎀
Manuel Paul
Deutsche Telekom AG
Email: manuel.paul@telekom.deAcknowledgements 🫶
the authors wanna give a huge thank you to Alexander Vainshtein, Dave Allan, Fei Zhang, Huub van Helvoort, Malcolm Betts, Italo Busi, Maarten Vissers, Jia He, and Nurit Sprecher for dropping their comments and enhancements to the text. literally the best group chat energy 💖✨
Authors' Addresses 💜
here are the five authors and how to reach them, bestie 🧚
Alessandro D'Alessandro
Telecom Italia
Via Reiss Romoli, 274
Torino 10148
Italy
Email: alessandro.dalessandro@telecomitalia.itLoa Andersson
Huawei Technologies
Email: loa@pi.nuSatoshi Ueno
NTT Communications
Email: ueno@nttv6.jpKaoru Arai
NTT
Email: arai.kaoru@lab.ntt.co.jpYoshinori Koike
NTT
Email: y.koike@vcd.nttbiz.com📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc8256 2017-10
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms