<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" []>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<?rfc iprnotified="no" ?>

<rfc category="info"
     docName="draft-mishra-v6ops-variable-slaac-problem-stmt-00"
     ipr="trust200902"
     updates="">

  <!-- category values: std, bcp, info, exp, and historic ipr values:
       trust200902, noModificationTrust200902,
       noDerivativesTrust200902, or pre5378Trust200902 you can add the
       attributes updates="NNNN" and obsoletes="NNNN" they will
       automatically be output with "(if approved)" -->

  <front>

    <title abbrev="Variable SLAAC">
      SLAAC with prefixes of arbitrary length in PIO (Variable SLAAC)
    </title>

    <author fullname="Gyan Mishra" initials="G. " surname="Mishra">
      <organization>Verizon Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <email>gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
 
    <author fullname="Alexandre Petrescu" initials="A." surname="Petrescu">
      <organization>CEA, LIST</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>CEA Saclay</street>
          <city>Gif-sur-Yvette</city>
          <region>Ile-de-France</region>
          <code>91190</code>
          <country>France</country>
        </postal>
        <phone>+33169089223</phone>
        <email>Alexandre.Petrescu@cea.fr</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Naveen Kottapalli" initials="N" surname="Kottapalli">
      <organization>Benu Networks</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street> 300 Concord Road</street>
          <city>Billerica</city>
          <code>MA 01821</code>
          <country>United States of America</country>
        </postal>
        <phone>+1 978 223 4700</phone>
        <email>nkottapalli@benu.net</email>
      </address>
    </author>
         
    <author fullname="Dusan Mudric" initials="D." surname="Mudric">
      <organization>Ciena</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
	    <street></street>
          <city></city>
          <code></code>
          <country>Canada</country>
        </postal>
        <phone>+1-613-670-2425</phone>
        <email>dmudric@ciena.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Dmytro Shytyi" initials="D." surname="Shytyi">
      <organization>SFR</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
	    <street></street>
		  <city>Paris</city>
		  <code></code>
          <country>France</country>
        </postal>
        <email>dmytro.shytyi@sfr.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>


  
    <date year='2020'/>

    <!-- Meta-data Declarations -->

    <area>Internet</area>

    <workgroup>6MAN Working Group</workgroup>

    <!-- WG name at the upperleft corner of the doc, IETF is fine for
         individual submissions.  If this element is not present, the
         default is "Network Working Group", which is used by the RFC
         Editor as a nod to the history of the IETF. -->

    <keyword>
      keywords
    </keyword>

    <!-- Keywords will be incorporated into HTML output files in a
         meta tag but they have no effect on text or nroff output. If
         you submit your draft to the RFC Editor, the keywords will be
         used for the search engine. -->

    <abstract>
      <t>
	In the past, various IPv6 addressing models have been proposed
	based on a subnet hierarchy embedding a 64-bit prefix.  The
	last remnant of IPv6 classful addressing is a inflexible interface
	identifier boundary at /64.  This document details the 64-bit boundary
	problem statement.
      </t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section title="Terminology"
	     anchor="terminology">
      <t>
	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
	<!-- <xref target="BCP14"/> -->
	<xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174" /> when, and
	only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
      </t>
    </section>
    <section title="Introduction"
	     anchor="introduction">
      <t>
	From the beginning, the IPv6 addressing plan was based on a
	128 bit address format made up of 8 hextets which were broken
	down into a 64 bit four hextet prefix and 64 bit four hextet
	interface identifier.  For example, the address
	2001:db8:3:4::1 has the first 4 hextets forming the /64 prefix
	2001:db8:3:4::/64, whereas the last four hextets form an
	interface identifier abbreviated as ::1 (a 'hextet' is a group
	of max 4 hex digits between two columns, e.g. "2001" and "db8"
	are each a hextet).  A comprehensive analysis of the 64-bit
	boundary is provided in <xref target="RFC7421"/>.  The history
	of IPv6 Classful models proposed, and the last remnant of IPv6
	Classful addressing rigid network interface identifier
	boundary at /64 is discussed in detail as well as the removal
	of the fixed position of the boundary for interface addressing
	in draft <xref target="I-D.bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6"/>.
      </t>
      <t>
	This document discusses the reasons why the interface
	identifier has been fixed at 64 bits, and the problems that
	can be addressed by changing the GUA interface identifier from
	fixed 64 bit size to a variable interface identifier.  This
	change would be consistent with static and DHCPv6 stateful
	IPv6 address assignment.  This document tries to achieve
	clearing the confusion related to prefix length, and provide
	consistency of variable length prefix across the three IPv6
	addressing strategies deployed, static, DHCPv6 and Stateless
	Address Autoconfiguration(SLAAC), and finally update all RFCs
	with the new variable SLAAC standard.
      </t>
      <t>
	Over the years one of the merits of increasing the prefix length,
	and reducing the size of the interface identifier has been
	incorrectly stated as the possibility of IPv6 address space
	exhaustion could be circumvented, or that a 64 bit interface
	identifier is an efficient use of address space.
      </t>
    </section>

    <section title="Problem Statement"
	     anchor="problem-statement">
      <t>
	This section details the problem statement as to what is broken
	today with fixed length Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
	SLAAC <xref target="RFC4862"/> and why it is critical to
	resolve this problem.
      </t>

      <t>
	The main problem is that SLAAC RA or PD allocates a /64 by the
	wireless carrier 4G, 5G, 3GPP to mobile handset or hotspot,
	however segmentation of the /64 via SLAAC is required so that
	downstream interfaces can be further sub-netted.  The use case
	section of this draft discusses this scenario as one of the
	use cases for shorter interface identifier, and this use case
	is the only one stated here in the problem statement as this
	is broken today with the current SLAAC specification <xref
	target="RFC4862"/>, and there is not any workaround for this
	use case.
      </t>
      
      <t>	
	There are two reasons why this was not a problem in the past,
	but now with increased bandwidth there are more and more
	devices being piled onto a single handset or mobile hotspot.
	In the past generations of cellular systems (e.g. 2.5G aka
	GPRS and some 3G) the bandwidth available to the User
	Equipment was not enough to accommodate several applications;
	bandwidth available was roughly 256Kbit/s.  For that reason,
	users were rarely tempted to use an UE to link other devices
	than that UE to the Internet.  However, with the arrival of
	3G, 3G+ (e.g. HSDPA / HSUPA), and even more so with 4G and 4G+,
	the bandwidth made available to UE increased significantly;
	this became an average effective of 1Mbit/s and even more.
	With this available bandwidth, the users are more and more
	tempted to connect several devices to the Internet.  This
	operation is named 'connection sharing' or 'tethering'.
	Another answer to this question is that IPv6
	technology that is widely used to 'tether' several IP devices
	to a smartphone is '64share' RFC7278.  This technology is used
	for smartphones but is not so in vehicles.  One of the
	reasons of not being used in vehicles is the lack of
	scalability: a /64 prefix is shared between the UE ptp link
	and the subnet (typically Wi-Fi), but can not be further
	sub-netted to other subnets in the car.
      </t>

      <t>	 
	The reason why all devices in a car cannot remain on a single
	/64 are as follows.  These devices have different link-layer
        technologies, and not all WiFi could be bridged into Ethernet
	such as to keep all devices into one /64.  They could be on links
	that are not bridgeable: devices on 802.11-OCB cannott be bridged,
	devices on Bluetooth cannott be bridged, devices on 3GPP cannott
	be bridged, and so one.  Other than the impossibility to bridge several
	such link-layer technologies there is also a problem of
	noise: in a vehicle one wants the braking pedal signal to not
	be disturbed by entertainment sites such as YouTube.  That
	physical technical requirement separation of different link
	layer technologies segmentation on to different smaller IPv6
	subnets cannot be achieved if all devices are on a
	single /64, or bridged.  Therefore, the only possible
	solution to connect these disparate devices onto a 3GPP
	network for internet access is to keep these separate link
	layer technologies segmented onto separate greater then /64
	prefix subnets and breaking the /64 boundary that exists
	today with a Variable SLAAC solution.  Thus, when the 3GPP
	network gives a /64 to the car, and when there are
	unbridgeable technologies in the car (e.g.  WiFi cant be
	bridged to Bluetooth), then the only possibility is to divide
	that /64 into two /65s.  One /65 would be used on the WiFi
	and another /65 would be used on Bluetooth.  But in order for
	SLAAC to work with /65 then there is a need to have the
	shorter interface identifier of length 63.  Hence the need of
	lengths of PIOs other than 64 (variable plen).
      </t>
      
      <t>	 
	There are three scenarios that require SLAAC to be able to be
	routed between two greater then /64 prefix segments as part of
	the requirement for variable length SLAAC and what is broken
	with the current SLAAC specification defined in <xref
	target="RFC4862"/>.
      </t> 
      
      <t>
	The first scenario is within a car using car manufacturer
	single SIM for internet access and being able to bridge(Route)
	other link layer devices like BT via variable slaac. In this
	scenario the communication between downstream devices are all
	located within the car using the car manufacturer built in SIM
	card for in-vehicle communication. The in-vehicle scenario
	covers both the built-in car manufacturer SIM card scenario, or
	if the car manufacturer does not support built-in SIM card then
	a single mobile handset providing 3GPP internet access to all
	devices in the car.
      </t> 

      <t>	 	 
	The second scenario is V2V (vehicle to vehicle) between cars
	requiring SLAAC to subnet the >64 prefix so that the two cars
	have WiFi connectivity.
	<!--It is using some link layers like DSRC (in
	US) or ITS-G5 (EU).  V2V almost never uses WiFi Mobile
	hotspot.-->
      </t> 
      
      <t>  
	This third scenario is a uCPE(Universal Customer Premises
	Equipment) device is LTE 4G and Wi-Fi capable, and utilizes
	NFV (Network Function Virtualization) framework, providing SFC
	(Service Function Chaining), where one VNF (Virtual Network
	Function) is a CPE Layer 3 router and is the uCPE device which
	will receive a /64 prefix from 4G 3GPP Wireless provider and
	would like to be able to provide further segmentation.  In
	order to provide further segmentation and subdivide the /64
	into smaller longer prefix subnets variable SLAAC must be
	employed.  In this example we would give 1st /66 to Wi-Fi
	users, 2nd /66 to Wired connected network device without
	security, 3rd /66 prefix to VNF firewall instance, and 4th /66
	prefix VNF load balancer instance.  The uCPE (Universal
	Customer Premises Equipment) defined in draft <xref
	target="I-D.shytyi-opsawg-vysm"/>.
      </t> 
      
      <t>
	From a segmented bandwidth perspective while breaking up
	the /64 subnet into smaller subnets, there is not any
	impact to the user experience of the now shared bandwidth,
	as long as the cellular signal has adequate enough bars as
	far as signal strength to accommodate the now multiple
	devices sharing the single cellular signal.  These scenarios
	described above are the problems that can only be solved
	with a variable SLAAC solution.  There is no other solution
	or workaround for this problem.
      </t>
     
    </section>
    

    <section title="Variable SLAAC Use Cases"
	     anchor="use-cases">
      <t>
	This section describes real world use cases of variable slaac
	that cannot be done today and with fixed 64 bit prefix
	lengths.
      </t>

      <section title="Permission-less Extension of the Network"
	       anchor="permission-less">
	<t>
	  Permission-less extensions of the network with new links
	  (and by implication with new routers) are not supported.
	</t>
	<t>
	  The lack of possibility to realize a permission-less
	  extension of the network is an important problem, which
	  appears at the edge of the network.  The permission
	  is 'granted' for end users situated at the edge of the
	  network, and is 'granted' by advertising a
	  prefix of length 64 inside the PIO option in a RA typically.
          The end user receives this prefix, forms an address, and
	  is able to connect to the internet.
	  However, the end user has no permission to further extend
	  the network.  Although the device is able to form subsequent
	  prefixes of a length of, say 65, and further advertise it
	  down in the extension of the network, no other Host in that
	  extension of the network is able to use that advertisement;
	  a Host cannot form an address with a prefix length 65 by
	  using SLAAC.  The Linux error text reported in the kernel
	  log upon reception of a plen 65 is "illegal" (or similar).
	</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Private Networks"
	       anchor="private-networks">
	<t>
	  Private networks such as Service Provider core not
	  accessible by customers and enterprises where all hosts are
	  trusted are the primary use case for variable SLAAC as the
	  shorter interface identifier does not create any security
	  issues with not having a longer 64 bit interface identifier
	  for privacy extensions stable interface identifier <xref
	  target="RFC8084"/> due to all hosts being inherently
	  trusted.  Private internal networks such as corporate
	  intranets traditionally have always used static IPv6
	  addressing for infrastructure. This manual IPv6 address
	  assignment process for network infrastructure links can take
	  long lead times to complete deployment. By changing the
	  behavior of SLAAC to support variable length prefix and
	  interface identifier allows SLAAC to be used
	  programmatically to deploy to large scale IPv6 networks with
	  thousands of point-to-point links.  Note that network
	  infrastructure technically does not require IPv6 addressing
	  due to IPv6 next hop being a link local address for IGP
	  routing protocols such as OSPF and ISIS as well as the link
	  local address can be the peer IPv6 address for exterior
	  gateway routing protocols such as BGP.  However for hop by
	  hop ping and traceroute capability to have IPv6 reachability
	  at each hop for troubleshooting jitter, latency and drops it
	  is an IPv6 recommended best practice to configure IPv6
	  address on all infrastructure interfaces.
	</t>
      </section>
      <section title="Mobile IPv6"
	       anchor="mobile-ipv6">
	<t>
	  Old MIP6 (Mobile IPv6) Working Group and old Nemo Working
	  Group's routing solution scenarios related to Mobile IPv6
	  (<xref target="RFC3775"/>) (note: nowadays most MIP-related
	  activity is in DMM WG) where the mobile endpoint can now
	  obtain from the home agent variable SLAAC address and not 64
	  bit prefix /64 address. This maybe useful in cases where a
	  /64 can now be managed from an addressing perspective and
	  subdivided into blocks for manageability of MIP6 endpoints
	  instead of allocating a single /64 per endpoint.
	</t>
      </section>
      <section title="Home and SOHO"
	       anchor="home-and-soho">
	<t>
	  Home and SOHO (Small Office and Home Office) environments
	  where internet access uses a broadband service provider
	  single or dual homed scenario.  In those such Home
	  networking Homenet environments where HNCP (Home Network
	  Control Protocol <xref target="RFC7788"/> SADR (Source
	  Address Dependent Routing) are deployed for automatic
	  configuration for LAN Wi-Fi endpoint subnets can also now
	  take advantage of variable length SLAAC in deployment
	  scenarios.  In cases where multiple routers are deployed in
	  a home environment where routing prefix reachability needs
	  to be advertised where Babel <xref target="RFC6126"/>
	  routing protocol is utilized in those cases variable SLAAC
	  can also be utilized to break up a /64 into multiple smaller
	  subnets.
	</t>
      </section>
      <section title="3GPP V2I and V2V networking"
	       anchor="v2v">
	<t>
	  In V2I networking (with 3GPP or with IEEE 802.11bd) the
	  IP-OBU in the vehicle receives a /64 prefix from the
	  cellular network (or from a IP-RSU - Road-Side Unit).  This
	  /64 prefix can be used to form one address for the egress
	  interface of the Mobile Router (MR, which is also termed
	  'IP-OBU', for IP On-Board Unit, in IPWAVE WG documents such
	  as RFC8691), but can not be used to form IP addresses for
	  other hosts in the vehicle.  In the following two paragraphs
	  we explain this problem.
	</t>
	<t>
	  In certain 3GPP V2I networking use cases a /56 is allocated
	  by the 3GPP infrastructure to the 4G modem of the IP-OBU in
	  the vehicle.  In such use case it is possible that the
	  IP-OBU sub-divides the allocated /56 into multiple 'result'
	  /64 prefixes.  Such a 'result' /64 prefix could be used to
	  form addresses for deeper subnets in the vehicle, by
	  employing existing SLAAC and existing IPv6-over-foo
	  specifications of Interface ID.
	</t>
	<t>
	  If in other 3GPP V2I networking use-cases the infrastructure
	  does not allocate a /56 (or 'longer' prefix lengths such as
	  a /57, /58../63) to the IP-OBU, i.e. a /64 is allocated to
	  the IP-OBU, then the 'result' prefix obtained after a
	  sub-divide operation can only be of length /65, or /66, or
	  longer.  A prefix of such length (longer than 64) can not be
	  used with SLAAC and existing IP-over-foo Interface
	  Identifiers, because the length of all Interface Identifiers
	  in all IPv6-over-foo documents must always be 64, and the
	  length of the IPv6 is always 128bit.  The 64bit of an IID
	  added to the 65bit (or more) of a prefix is larger than
	  128bit.  It is for this reason that a SLAAC with other than
	  64bit Interface IDs (hence a 'Variable Prefix Length SLAAC')
	  is needed.
	</t>
	<t>
	  The problem of /64 allocation to the vehicle is mostly
	  present in V2I use-cases.  In V2V use-cases this problem is
	  less apparent but deserves consideration.  Until now there
	  was no clearcut design and decision about the infrastructure
	  allocating addresses to several vehicles (just to one, in
	  V2I, see above).  In some use-cases, the prefix allocated to
	  one vehicle could be further extended by that vehicle to
	  delegate prefixes to other vehicles nearby which might not
	  have 3GPP connections, but only 802.11-OCB interfaces.  In
	  such cases it is again necessary that a /64 allocated by the
	  infrastructure to the first vehicle be further sub-divided
	  in multiple 'result' longer-than-/64 prefixes; and one of
	  these longer-than-64 prefixes might be used for the second
	  vehicle (instead of being used for the internal subnets of
	  the first vehicle); this latter vehicle will need to use a
	  form of SLAAC and IP-over-foo that are not limited by the
	  /64 limit.
	</t>
      </section>
      <section title="Smart Traffic Lights"
	       anchor="traffic-lights">
	<t>
	  Smart traffic lights are traffic lights equipped with a
	  communication system.  Smart traffic lights are deployed at
	  intersections of roads and serve the purpose of safely
	  arbitrating the passage of automobiles, pedestrians and
	  cyclists.  A typical smart traffic lights setting is made of
	  several computers, included but not limited to: a traffic
	  lights controller, a power controller and a communication
	  gateway.  More advanced smart traffic lights are equipped
	  with more computers for radars, detection loops, lidars, V2X
	  wireless capabilities, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and cellular 4G or
	  5G.  All these computers need to use IP addresses: at least
	  one IP address per computer.  Since smart traffic lights are
	  deployed in areas where Internet might not be available by
	  cable, fibre or other Wireless MAN technology the only way
	  to connect all computers in the smart traffic lights setting
	  is to employ a 4G (or 5G) gateway.  This gateway obtains
	  typically a /64 prefix from the network operator; there is a
	  problem in subdividing that /64 prefix into smaller
	  prefixes, because the obtained prefixes can not be used by
	  SLAAC, because SLAAC uses Interface IDs of length 64 in
	  practice.  Even if the SLAAC specification is independent of
	  the prefix length, the length of the Interface ID dictates
	  the prefix length by side effect (128 minus IID length
	  imposes the prefix length).  SLAAC might work with a plen 65
	  by specification, but all IIDs in all IPv6-over-foo request
	  that IIDs be 64; and the sum of IID len plus plen must be
	  128.
	</t>
      </section>
      <section title="6lo"
	       anchor="family-6lo">
	<t>
	  6lo Working IPv6 over Network Constrained nodes working
	  group use cases.  Use cases for IoT devices where have
	  limited network access requirements could now take advantage
	  of variable SLAAC longer prefixes lengths /65-/128.
	</t>
      </section>
      <section title="Large ISP's backbone POP"
	       anchor="large-isp">
	<t>
	  Large ISP backbone POPs such as IXPs where many carriers
	  share the same backbone and ND cache exhaustion may occur
	  due to /64 subnet size. One mitigation technique employed is
	  the use of an ARP Sponge for IPv4 or Layer 2 multicast rate
	  limiters for IPv6.  In those particular cases a longer
	  prefix static or variable SLAAC subnet could be utilized to
	  reduce the maximum number of hosts on the subnet.
	</t>
      </section>
      <section title="Permission-less extension of the Network"
	       anchor="permissionless">
	<t>
	  When one wants to extend the network, one typically wants to
	  add new computers to it.  Currently, there are two ways to
	  achieve it: (1) ask the network administrator to provide
	  addresses while also inserting a route towards the new
	  subnet of devices and (2) use NAT.  With IPv6, NAT is not
	  desirable.  In order to extend the network without asking
	  for permission one needs to obtain addresses and to obtain
	  that route inserted.  In order to obtain addresses, one
	  might take advantage of the /64 prefix typically advertised
	  by the network to an edge of it.  To do that, one needs to
	  sub-divide the /64 prefix into /65 sub-prefixes (or longer,
	  such as /66, /67, etc.) which could be further advertised in
	  the extension of the network.  For the action of inserting a
	  route, the particular topic is outside the scope of this
	  document.
	</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>
	The administrator should be aware to maintain 64 bit interface
	identifier for privacy when connected directly to the internet
	so that entropy for optimal heuristics are maintained for
	security.
      </t>
      <t>
	Variable length interface identifier shorter then 64 bits
	should be only used within corporate intranets and private
	networks where all hosts are trusted.
      </t>
      <t>
	In all cases where the host is on a public network for privacy
	concerns to avoid traceability variable interface identifier
	MUST never be utilized.
      </t>
    </section>    

    <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>
	IANA is requested to assign the new Router Advertisement flag
	defined in Section 5 of this document.  Bit 6 is the next
	available bit in this registry, IANA is requested to use this
	bit unless there is a reason to use another bit in this
	registry.
      </t>
      <t>
	IANA is also requested to register this new flag bit in the
	IANA IPv6 ND Router Advertisement flags Registry [IANA-RF].
      </t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Contributors"
             title="Contributors">
      <t>
	Contributors.
      </t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Acknowledgements"
             title="Acknowledgements">
      <!-- <t> -->
      <!-- 	<contact fullname="Ole Trøan (Ole Troan)."/> -->
      <!-- </t> -->
      <t>
	Ole Trøan.
      </t>
      <!-- <t> -->
      <!-- 	Ole Trøan, 神明達哉 (TATUYA Jinmei), Jérôme Härri.  It -->
      <!-- 	     would be great if xml2rfc could compile these characters -->
      <!-- 	     ok.  People's names are probably the most important thing -->
      <!-- 	     in an I-D. -->
      <!-- </t> -->

    </section>

  </middle>

  <!--  *****BACK MATTER ***** -->

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      <?rfc 
	include="reference.I-D.shytyi-opsawg-vysm"
      ?>
      <?rfc 
	include='reference.I-D.bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6'
      ?>
      <?rfc
        include="http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119"
      ?>
      <?rfc
        include="http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3775"
      ?>      
      <?rfc
        include="http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4862"
      ?>
      <?rfc
        include="http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6126"
      ?>      
      <?rfc
        include="http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7788"
      ?>      
      <?rfc
        include="http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8084"
      ?>      
      <?rfc
        include="http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174"
      ?>
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
      <?rfc
        include="http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7421"
      ?>        
    </references>

    <section anchor='changelog'
             title='ChangeLog'>
      <t>
        The changes are listed in reverse chronological order, most
        recent changes appearing at the top of the list.
      </t>
      <t>
	-00: initial version.
      </t>
    </section>

  </back>
</rfc>
