rfc9829.original.xml   rfc9829.xml 
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?> <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<!-- draft submitted in xml v3 -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc [ <!DOCTYPE rfc [
<!ENTITY nbsp "&#160;"> <!ENTITY nbsp "&#160;">
<!ENTITY zwsp "&#8203;"> <!ENTITY zwsp "&#8203;">
<!ENTITY nbhy "&#8209;"> <!ENTITY nbhy "&#8209;">
<!ENTITY wj "&#8288;"> <!ENTITY wj "&#8288;">
]> ]>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" <rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" category="std" docName="draft-ie
category="std" tf-sidrops-rpki-crl-numbers-05" number="9829" ipr="trust200902" xml:lang="en" so
docName="draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-crl-numbers-05" rtRefs="true" submissionType="IETF" consensus="true" updates="6487" obsoletes=""
ipr="trust200902" symRefs="true" tocInclude="true" version="3">
xml:lang="en"
sortRefs="true"
submissionType="IETF"
consensus="true"
updates="6487"
obsoletes=""
symRefs="true"
tocInclude="true"
version="3">
<front> <front>
<title abbrev="RPKI CRL Number handling"> <title abbrev="RPKI CRL Number Handling">Handling of Resource Public Key Inf
Handling of Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Certificate Revocati rastructure (RPKI) Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Number Extensions</title>
on List (CRL) Number Extensions <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9829"/>
</title>
<author fullname="Job Snijders" initials="J." surname="Snijders"> <author fullname="Job Snijders" initials="J." surname="Snijders">
<organization />
<address> <address>
<postal> <postal>
<postalLine>Amsterdam</postalLine> <postalLine>Amsterdam</postalLine>
<postalLine>The Netherlands</postalLine> <postalLine>The Netherlands</postalLine>
</postal> </postal>
<email>job@sobornost.net</email> <email>job@sobornost.net</email>
</address> </address>
</author> </author>
<author fullname="Ben Maddison" initials="B." surname="Maddison"> <author fullname="Ben Maddison" initials="B." surname="Maddison">
<organization>Workonline</organization> <organization>Workonline</organization>
<address> <address>
<postal> <postal>
<street/>
<city>Cape Town</city> <city>Cape Town</city>
<country>South Africa</country> <country>South Africa</country>
</postal> </postal>
<email>benm@workonline.africa</email> <email>benm@workonline.africa</email>
</address> </address>
</author> </author>
<author fullname="Theo Buehler" initials="T." surname="Buehler"> <author fullname="Theo Buehler" initials="T." surname="Buehler">
<organization>OpenBSD</organization> <organization>OpenBSD</organization>
<address> <address>
<postal> <postal>
<country>CH</country> <country>Switzerland</country>
</postal> </postal>
<email>tb@openbsd.org</email> <email>tb@openbsd.org</email>
</address> </address>
</author> </author>
<date/> <date month="July" year="2025"/>
<area>Operations and Management Area (OPS)</area> <area>OPS</area>
<workgroup>SIDROPS</workgroup> <workgroup>sidrops</workgroup>
<keyword>RPKI</keyword> <keyword>RPKI</keyword>
<keyword>Routing Security</keyword> <keyword>Routing Security</keyword>
<keyword>BGP</keyword> <keyword>BGP</keyword>
<keyword>X.509</keyword> <keyword>X.509</keyword>
<keyword>CRL</keyword> <keyword>CRL</keyword>
<abstract> <abstract>
<t> <t>
This document revises how the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) handles Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Number extensions. This document revises how the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) handles Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Number extensions.
skipping to change at line 92 skipping to change at line 74
<middle> <middle>
<section anchor="intro"> <section anchor="intro">
<name>Introduction</name> <name>Introduction</name>
<t> <t>
<xref target="RFC5280" section="5.2.3" /> describes the value of the Cer tificate Revocation List (CRL) Number extension as a monotonically increasing se quence number, which "allows users to easily determine when a particular CRL sup ersedes another CRL". <xref target="RFC5280" section="5.2.3" /> describes the value of the Cer tificate Revocation List (CRL) Number extension as a monotonically increasing se quence number, which "allows users to easily determine when a particular CRL sup ersedes another CRL".
In other words, in Public Key Infrastructures (PKIs) in which it is poss ible for Relying Parties (RPs) to encounter multiple usable CRLs, the CRL Number extension is a means for an RP to determine which CRLs to rely upon. In other words, in Public Key Infrastructures (PKIs) in which it is poss ible for Relying Parties (RPs) to encounter multiple usable CRLs, the CRL Number extension is a means for an RP to determine which CRLs to rely upon.
</t> </t>
<t> <t>
In the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), a well-formed Manifest FileList contains exactly one entry for its associated CRL, together with a col lision-resistant message digest of that CRL's contents (see <xref target="RFC648 1" section="2.2"/> and <xref target="RFC9286" section="2"/>). In the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), a well-formed Manifest fileList contains exactly one entry for its associated CRL, together with a col lision-resistant message digest of that CRL's contents (see <xref target="RFC648 1" section="2.2"/> and <xref target="RFC9286" section="2"/>).
Additionally, the target of the CRL Distribution Points extension in an RPKI Resource Certificate is the same CRL object listed on the issuing Certifica tion Authorities (CAs) current manifest (see <xref target="RFC6487" section="4.8 .6"/>). Additionally, the target of the CRL Distribution Points extension in an RPKI Resource Certificate is the same CRL object listed on the issuing Certifica tion Authorities (CAs) current manifest (see <xref target="RFC6487" section="4.8 .6"/>).
Together, these properties guarantee that RPKI RPs will always be able t o unambiguously identify exactly one current CRL for each RPKI CA. Together, these properties guarantee that RPKI RPs will always be able t o unambiguously identify exactly one current CRL for each RPKI CA.
Thus, in the RPKI, the ordering functionality provided by CRL Numbers is fully subsumed by monotonically increasing Manifest Numbers (<xref target="RFC9 286" section="4.2.1"/>), thereby obviating the need for RPKI RPs to process CRL Number extensions at all. Thus, in the RPKI, the ordering functionality provided by CRL Numbers is fully subsumed by monotonically increasing Manifest Numbers (<xref target="RFC9 286" section="4.2.1"/>), thereby obviating the need for RPKI RPs to process CRL Number extensions at all.
</t> </t>
<t> <t>
Therefore, although the CRL Number extension is mandatory in RPKI CRLs f or compliance with the X.509 v2 CRL Profile (<xref target="RFC5280" section="5"/ >), any use of this extension by RPKI RPs merely adds complexity and fragility t o RPKI Resource Certificate path validation. Therefore, although the CRL Number extension is mandatory in RPKI CRLs f or compliance with the X.509 v2 CRL Profile (<xref target="RFC5280" section="5"/ >), any use of this extension by RPKI RPs merely adds complexity and fragility t o RPKI Resource Certificate path validation.
This document mandates that RPKI RPs ignore the CRL Number extension. This document mandates that RPKI RPs ignore the CRL Number extension.
</t> </t>
<t> <t>
This document updates <xref target="RFC6487"/>. This document updates <xref target="RFC6487"/>.
Refer to <xref target="Updates"/> for more details. Refer to <xref target="Updates"/> for more details.
</t> </t>
<section anchor="reqs-lang"> <section anchor="reqs-lang">
<name>Requirements Language</name> <name>Requirements Language</name>
<t> <t>
The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14 The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>",
>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14> "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL NOT</bcp14>
SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bc ",
p14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14> "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>",
" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP&nbsp;14 <xref targe "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
t="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all c "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to
apitals, as shown here.</t> be
interpreted as described in BCP&nbsp;14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref
target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as
shown here.
</t>
</section> </section>
<section anchor="Related"> <section anchor="Related">
<name>Related Work</name> <name>Related Work</name>
<t> <t>
It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the terms and concepts de The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terms and concepts describ
scribed in ed in "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate
"<xref target="RFC5280" format="title"/>" <xref target="RFC5280" format= and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile"
"default"/>, <xref target="RFC5280" />, "A Profile
"<xref target="RFC6481" format="title"/>" <xref target="RFC6481" format= for Resource Certificate Repository Structure" <xref target="RFC6481" format=
"default"/>, and "default"/>, and "Manifests for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)" <
"<xref target="RFC9286" format="title"/>" <xref target="RFC9286" format= xref target="RFC9286" format="default"/>.
"default"/>.
</t> </t>
</section> </section>
<section anchor="Changes"> <section anchor="Changes">
<name>Changes from RFC 6487</name> <name>Changes from RFC 6487</name>
<t> <t>
This section summarizes the significant changes between <xref target=" RFC6487"/> and this document. This section summarizes the significant changes between <xref target=" RFC6487"/> and this document.
</t> </t>
<!-- [rfced] We have added an informative reference to erratum 3206. Please let
us know if you have any concerns.
Original:
* Integration of RFC 6487 Errata 3205.
Current:
* Integration of Errata 3205 [Err3205].
-->
<ul> <ul>
<li>Revision of CRL Number handling.</li> <li>Revision of CRL Number handling.</li>
<li>Adjustment of step 5 of the Resource Certification Path Validation .</li> <li>Adjustment of step 5 of the Resource Certification Path Validation .</li>
<li>Integration of RFC 6487 Errata 3205.</li> <li>Integration of Errata 3205 <xref target="Err3205"/>.</li>
</ul> </ul>
</section> </section>
</section> </section>
<section> <section>
<name>Summary</name> <name>Summary</name>
<t> <t>
This document clarifies that, in the RPKI, there is exactly one CRL appr opriate and relevant for determining the revocation status of a given resource c ertificate. This document clarifies that, in the RPKI, there is exactly one CRL that is appropriate and relevant for determining the revocation status of a given re source certificate.
It is the unique CRL object that is simultaneously: It is the unique CRL object that is simultaneously:
</t> </t>
<ul> <ul>
<li>the target of the certificate's CRL Distribution Points extension, a nd</li> <li>the target of the certificate's CRL Distribution Points extension, a nd</li>
<li>listed in the issuing CA's current Manifest FileList and has matchin
g hash (see <xref target="RFC9286" section="4.2.1"/>).</li> <!-- [rfced] RFC 9286 defines "fileList" rather than "FileList". We have update
d the document accordingly. Please let us know any corrections.
Original:
In the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), a well-formed
Manifest FileList contains exactly one entry for its associated CRL, ...
Original:
* listed in the issuing CA's current Manifest FileList and has
matching hash (see Section 4.2.1 of [RFC9286]).
Original:
By way of the hash in the manifest's FileList this
provides a cryptographic guarantee on the Certification Authority's ...
In addition, note that the following terminology appears to be used
inconsistently throughout the document. Please review these occurrences
and let us know if/how they may be made consistent.
Manifest FileList vs manifest's FileList (note that we will lowercase FileList a
s noted above.)
Manifest vs manifest (6487 and 9286 seem to use "manifest" except where it's par
t of a specific name.)
-->
<li>listed in the issuing CA's current Manifest fileList and has a match
ing hash (see <xref target="RFC9286" section="4.2.1"/>).</li>
</ul> </ul>
<!-- [rfced] We are not sure what "without recourse" means here. Does it mean "
without access to"? Please clarify.
Original:
In particular, a resource certificate cannot be validated without
recourse to the current Manifest of the certificate's issuer.
-->
<t> <t>
In particular, a resource certificate cannot be validated without recour se to the current Manifest of the certificate's issuer. In particular, a resource certificate cannot be validated without recour se to the current Manifest of the certificate's issuer.
</t> </t>
</section> </section>
<section anchor="Updates"> <section anchor="Updates">
<name>Updates to RFC 6487</name> <name>Updates to RFC 6487</name>
<section> <section>
<name>Updates to Section 5</name> <name>Updates to Section 5</name>
skipping to change at line 174 skipping to change at line 204
<t>OLD</t> <t>OLD</t>
<blockquote> <blockquote>
<t> <t>
Where two or more CRLs are issued by the same CA, the CRL with the highest value of the "CRL Number" field supersedes all other CRLs issued by thi s CA. Where two or more CRLs are issued by the same CA, the CRL with the highest value of the "CRL Number" field supersedes all other CRLs issued by thi s CA.
</t> </t>
</blockquote> </blockquote>
<t>NEW</t> <t>NEW</t>
<blockquote> <blockquote>
<t> <t>
Per <xref target="RFC5280" section="5.2.3"/>, CAs issue new CRLs u sing a monotonically increasing sequence number in the "CRL Number" extension. Per <xref target="RFC5280" section="5.2.3"/>, CAs issue new CRLs u sing a monotonically increasing sequence number in the "CRL Number" extension.
It is RECOMMENDED that the "CRL Number" matches the "manifestNumbe r" of the manifest that will include this CRL (see <xref target="RFC9286" sectio n="4.2.1" />). It is <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> that the "CRL Number" match the " manifestNumber" of the manifest that will include this CRL (see <xref target="RF C9286" section="4.2.1" />).
</t> </t>
</blockquote> </blockquote>
</li> </li>
<li> <li>
<t>Second change:</t> <t>Second change:</t>
<t>OLD</t> <t>OLD</t>
<blockquote> <blockquote>
<t> <t>
An RPKI CA MUST include the two extensions, Authority Key Identifi An RPKI CA <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> include the two extensions, Authori
er and CRL Number, in every CRL that it issues. ty Key Identifier and CRL Number, in every CRL that it issues.
RPs MUST be prepared to process CRLs with these extensions. RPs <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be prepared to process CRLs with these ext
ensions.
No other CRL extensions are allowed. No other CRL extensions are allowed.
</t> </t>
</blockquote> </blockquote>
<t>NEW</t> <t>NEW</t>
<blockquote> <blockquote>
<t> <t>
An RPKI CA MUST include exactly two extensions in every CRL that i t issues: an Authority Key Identifier (AKI) and a CRL Number. An RPKI CA <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> include exactly two extensions in e very CRL that it issues: an Authority Key Identifier (AKI) and a CRL Number.
No other CRL extensions are allowed. No other CRL extensions are allowed.
</t> </t>
<ul> <ul>
<li>RPs MUST process the AKI extension.</li> <li>RPs <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> process the AKI extension.</li>
<li>RPs MUST ignore the CRL Number extension except for checking t <!-- [rfced] We have updated the text to use superscript (see <https://authors.i
hat it is marked as non-critical and contains a non-negative integer less than o etf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary#sup> for more information). Please let us know if thi
r equal to 2^159-1.</li> s is incorrect or not desired.
Original:
2^159-1
The HTML and PDF will display 159-1 as an exponent.
The text will display as follows:
2^(159-1)
-->
<li>RPs <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> ignore the CRL Number extension except
for checking that it is marked as non-critical and contains a non-negative inte
ger less than or equal to 2<sup>159-1</sup>.</li>
</ul> </ul>
</blockquote> </blockquote>
</li> </li>
</ul> </ul>
</section> </section>
<section> <section>
<name>Update to Section 7.2</name> <name>Update to Section 7.2</name>
<t> <t>
This section updates <xref target="RFC6487" section="7.2"/> as follows: This section updates <xref target="RFC6487" section="7.2"/> as follows:
skipping to change at line 229 skipping to change at line 270
A revoked certificate is identified by the certificate's serial number b eing listed on the issuer's current CRL, as identified by the issuer's current M anifest and the CRLDP of the certificate. A revoked certificate is identified by the certificate's serial number b eing listed on the issuer's current CRL, as identified by the issuer's current M anifest and the CRLDP of the certificate.
The CRL is itself valid and the public key used to verify the signature on the CRL is the same public key used to verify the certificate itself.</li> The CRL is itself valid and the public key used to verify the signature on the CRL is the same public key used to verify the certificate itself.</li>
</ol> </ol>
</blockquote> </blockquote>
</section> </section>
</section> </section>
<section anchor="operational"> <section anchor="operational">
<name>Operational Considerations</name> <name>Operational Considerations</name>
<!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update the text as follows?
Original:
This document has no additional operational considerations compared
to Section 9 of [RFC6487].
Perhaps:
This document has no additional operational considerations beyond those
described in Section 9 of [RFC6487].
-->
<t> <t>
This document has no additional operational considerations compared to <xr ef target="RFC6487" section="9"/>. This document has no additional operational considerations compared to <xr ef target="RFC6487" section="9"/>.
</t> </t>
</section> </section>
<section anchor="security"> <section anchor="security">
<name>Security Considerations</name> <name>Security Considerations</name>
<t> <t>
The Security Considerations of <xref target="RFC3779"/>, <xref target="R FC5280"/>, and <xref target="RFC6487"/> apply to Resource Certificates and CRLs. The Security Considerations of <xref target="RFC3779"/>, <xref target="R FC5280"/>, and <xref target="RFC6487"/> apply to Resource Certificates and CRLs.
</t> </t>
<t> <t>
This document explicates that, in the RPKI, the CRL listed on the certif icate issuer's current Manifest is the one relevant and appropriate for determin ing the revocation status of a resource certificate. This document explicates that, in the RPKI, the CRL listed on the certif icate issuer's current Manifest is the one relevant and appropriate for determin ing the revocation status of a resource certificate.
By way of the hash in the manifest's FileList this provides a cryptograp <!-- [rfced] This sentence uses "this" twice in the second sentence and they see
hic guarantee on the Certification Authority's intent that this is the most rece mingly refer to different things. What does each instance of "this" refer to?
nt CRL and removes possible replay vectors. Please review.
Note that the first sentence is provided for context.
Original:
This document explicates that, in the RPKI, the CRL listed on the
certificate issuer's current Manifest is the one relevant and
appropriate for determining the revocation status of a resource
certificate. By way of the hash in the manifest's FileList this
provides a cryptographic guarantee on the Certification Authority's
intent that this is the most recent CRL and removes possible replay
vectors.
-->
By way of the hash in the manifest's fileList this provides a cryptograp
hic guarantee on the Certification Authority's intent that this is the most rece
nt CRL and removes possible replay vectors.
</t> </t>
</section> </section>
<section anchor="iana"> <section anchor="iana">
<name>IANA Considerations</name> <name>IANA Considerations</name>
<t> <t>
This document has no IANA actions. This document has no IANA actions.
</t> </t>
</section> </section>
</middle> </middle>
<back> <back>
<references> <references>
<name>References</name> <name>References</name>
<references> <references>
<name>Normative References</name> <name>Normative References</name>
skipping to change at line 274 skipping to change at line 340
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8 174.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8 174.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9 286.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9 286.xml"/>
</references> </references>
<references> <references>
<name>Informative References</name> <name>Informative References</name>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3 779.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3 779.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5 280.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5 280.xml"/>
<reference anchor="Err3205" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid3205 " quoteTitle="false">
<reference anchor="rpki-client" target="https://www.rpki-client.org/"> <front>
<front> <title>RFC Errata, Erratum ID 3205</title>
<title>rpki-client</title>
<author fullname="Claudio Jeker"/>
<author fullname="Job Snijders"/>
<author fullname="Kristaps Dzonsons"/>
<author fullname="Theo Buehler"/>
<date month="June" year="2024" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="FORT" target="https://fortproject.net/en/validator"> <author initials="" surname="" fullname="">
<front> <organization />
<title>FORT validator</title> </author>
<author fullname="Alberto Leiva"/>
<date/>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="routinator" target="https://github.com/NLnetLabs/rout </front>
inator"> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6487" />
<front> </reference>
<title>Routinator</title>
<author fullname="NLnetLabs"/>
<date/>
</front>
</reference>
</references> </references>
</references> </references>
<section title="Implementation status - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATIO
N">
<t>
This section records the status of known implementations of the protocol
defined by this specification at the time of posting of this Internet-Draft, an
d is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942.
The description of implementations in this section is intended to assist
the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to RFCs.
Please note that the listing of any individual implementation here does
not imply endorsement by the IETF.
Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information presente
d here that was supplied by IETF contributors.
This is not intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of a
vailable implementations or their features.
Readers are advised to note that other implementations may exist.
</t>
<t>
According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups to
assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code, whi
ch may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that have made
the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as the
y see fit".
</t>
<ul>
<li>
OpenBSD <xref target="rpki-client"/>
</li>
<li>
<xref target="FORT"/>
</li>
<li>
<xref target="routinator"/>
</li>
</ul>
</section>
<section anchor="acknowledgements" numbered="false"> <section anchor="acknowledgements" numbered="false">
<name>Acknowledgements</name> <name>Acknowledgements</name>
<t> <t>
The authors wish to thank <contact fullname="Tom Harrison"/> whose observa tions prompted this document, <contact fullname="Alberto Leiva"/>, <contact full name="Tim Bruijnzeels"/>, <contact fullname="Mohamed Boucadair"/>, <contact full name="Geoff Huston"/>, and the IESG for their valuable comments and feedback. The authors wish to thank <contact fullname="Tom Harrison"/> whose observa tions prompted this document, <contact fullname="Alberto Leiva"/>, <contact full name="Tim Bruijnzeels"/>, <contact fullname="Mohamed Boucadair"/>, <contact full name="Geoff Huston"/>, and the IESG for their valuable comments and feedback.
</t> </t>
</section> </section>
<!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically
result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.
Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should
still be reviewed as a best practice.
-->
</back> </back>
</rfc> </rfc>
 End of changes. 29 change blocks. 
124 lines changed or deleted 151 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.