<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!-- edited with XMLSPY v5 rel. 3 U (http://www.xmlspy.com)
     by Daniel M Kohn (private) -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!ENTITY rfc2119 PUBLIC "" "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
]>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-21"
     ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="BGP-LS-Inter-AS-Ext">BGP-LS Extension for Inter-AS Topology
    Retrieval</title>

    <author fullname="Aijun Wang" initials="A" surname="Wang">
      <organization>China Telecom</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Beiqijia Town, Changping District</street>

          <city>Beijing</city>

          <region>Beijing</region>

          <code>102209</code>

          <country>China</country>
        </postal>

        <email>wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Huaimo Chen" initials="H" surname="Chen">
      <organization>Individual</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city>Boston</city>

          <region>MA</region>

          <code/>

          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>

        <email>hchen.ietf@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Ketan Talaulikar" initials="K" surname="Talaulikar">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city/>

          <region/>

          <code/>

          <country>India</country>
        </postal>

        <phone/>

        <facsimile/>

        <email>ketant.ietf@gmail.com</email>

        <uri/>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Shunwan Zhuang" initials="S" surname="Zhuang">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd.</street>

          <city>Beijing</city>

          <region/>

          <code>100095</code>

          <country>China</country>
        </postal>

        <phone/>

        <facsimile/>

        <email>zhuangshunwan@huawei.com</email>

        <uri/>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Changwang Lin" initials="C" surname="Lin">
      <organization>New H3C Technologies</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd.</street>

          <city>Beijing</city>

          <region/>

          <code/>

          <country>China</country>
        </postal>

        <phone/>

        <facsimile/>

        <email>linchangwang.04414@h3c.com</email>

        <uri/>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date day="13" month="February" year="2026"/>

    <area>RTG Area</area>

    <workgroup>IDR Working Group</workgroup>

    <keyword>RFC</keyword>

    <abstract>
      <t>This document specifies the procedure for distributing Border Gateway
      Protocol-Link State (BGP-LS) key parameters for inter-domain links
      between two Autonomous Systems (ASes). It defines a new type within the
      BGP-LS Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) for a Stub Link, as
      well as three new type-length-values (TLVs) for the BGP-LS Link
      descriptor. These BGP-LS extensions enable Software-Defined Networking
      (SDN) controllers to automatically retrieve network topology across
      diverse inter-AS environments.</t>

      <t>These extensions and procedures allow network operators to collect
      inter-domain interconnect information and automatically compute the
      end-to-end network topology using information provided by the BGP-LS
      protocol.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
      <t>BGP-LS <xref target="RFC9552"/> specifies the methodology for using
      the BGP protocol to transfer Link-State information. This method enables
      SDN controllers to automatically collect underlay network topology, but
      it typically retrieves only information within a single Interior Gateway
      Protocol (IGP) domain. If an operator manages multiple IGP domains that
      interconnect with one another, no mechanism exists within the current
      BGP-LS protocol to transfer inter-domain topology information..</t>

      <t><xref target="RFC9086"/> defines extensions for exporting BGP peering
      node topology information (including peers, interfaces, and peering
      ASes) in a manner exploitable for computing efficient BGP Peering
      Engineering policies and strategies. This information can also be used
      to compute interconnection topology among different IGP domains, but it
      requires every border router to run the BGP-LS protocol and report such
      information to SDN controllers. Given the large number of border routers
      at the network boundary, this solution limits deployment
      flexibility.</t>

      <t>This document analyzes scenarios in which SDN controllers require
      inter-domain topology information between different Autonomous Systems
      (ASes). After describing these scenarios, this document defines a new
      Stub Link type within the BGP-LS NLRI <xref target="RFC9552"/> to
      describe inter-AS links and new TLVs for this new BGP-LS type. The SDN
      controller can then automatically deduce the multi-domain topology using
      information from the BGP-LS protocol.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Conventions used in this document">
      <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
      "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
      document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 <xref
      target="RFC2119"/> .</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Terminology">
      <t>The following terms are defined in this document:</t>

      <t><list style="symbols">
          <t>IDCs: Internet Data Centers</t>

          <t>MAN: Metrio-Area-Network</t>

          <t>SDN: Software Definition Network</t>
        </list></t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="s-Inter-AS-Scenario" title="Inter-AS Domain Scenarios">
      <t>Figure 1 illustrates the multi-domain scenarios discussed in this
      document. Typically, the SDN Controller can retrieve the topology of IGP
      A and IGP B individually via the BGP-LS protocol, but it cannot obtain
      topology connection information between these two IGP domains, as IGP
      protocols are generally not run on the connected links.<figure>
          <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[                      +-----------------+
                 +----+IP SDN Controller+----+
                 |    +-----------------+    |
                 |                           |
                 |BGP-LS                     |BGP-LS
                 |                           |
 +---------------+-----+               +-----+--------------+
 | +--+        +-++   ++-+           +-++   +|-+        +--+|
 | |S1+--------+S2+---+B1+-----------+B2+---+T1+--------+T2||
 | +-++   N1   +-++   ++-+           +-++   ++++   N2   +-++|
 |   |           |     |               |     ||           | |
 |   |           |     |               |     ||           | |
 | +-++        +-++   ++-+           +-++   ++++        +-++|
 | |S4+--------+S3+---+B3+-----------+B4+---+T3+--------+T4||
 | +--+        +--+   ++-+           +-++   ++-+        +--+|
 |                     |               |                    |
 |                     |               |                    |
 |       IGP A         |               |      IGP B         |
 +---------------------+               +--------------------+

             Figure 1: Inter-AS Domain Scenarios
]]></artwork>
        </figure></t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="s-Stub-Link-NLRI" title="Stub Link NLRI">
      <t><xref target="RFC9552"/> defines four types within the BGP Link-State
      NLRI (Node NLRI, Link NLRI, IPv4 Topology Prefix NLRI, and IPv6 Topology
      Prefix NLRI) for transferring topology and prefix information. For
      inter-AS links, the two ends of a link reside in different IGP domains;
      thus, it is not appropriate to transfer their information using the
      currently defined NLRI types.</t>

      <t>This document defines a new NLRI type 7, see<spanx> </spanx><xref
      target="s-IANA"/>) within the BGP Link-State (BGP-LS) NLRI, referred to
      as the Stub Link NLRI. The Stub Link NLRI is encoded in the format shown
      in Figure 2 and is explained below:</t>

      <t><figure>
          <artwork><![CDATA[      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  Protocol-ID  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                           Identifier                          |
     |                            (64 bits)                          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     //              Local Node Descriptors (variable)              //
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     //               Stub Link Descriptors (variable)              //
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

            Figure 2: Stub Link NLRI Format]]></artwork>
        </figure></t>

      <t>The "Protocol-ID" SHOULD be set to the value indicating the source
      protocol of the stub link information, as specified in<xref
      target="RFC9552"/> Section 5.2.</t>

      <t>Local Node Descriptors: define the ASBRs attached to the inter-AS
      stub links, and use the "Local Node Descriptor" specified in<xref
      target="RFC9552"/> , Section 5.2.1.4. The following Node Descriptor
      sub-TLVs from <xref target="RFC9552"/> are valid for inclusion in the
      local Node descriptor: AS system, OSPF Area-ID, IGP Router-ID.</t>

      <t>Stub Link Descriptors: define the Stub Links that have only one end
      located in an IGP domain, using the "Link Descriptor definition"
      specified in<xref target="RFC9552"/> ,Section 5.2.2 with the exceptions
      noted below.</t>

      <t>The Stub Link Descriptors support the inclusion of the following
      sub-TLVs:</t>

      <t>&bull; Link/Local Identifier (TLV 258, <xref target="RFC9552"/>)</t>

      <t>&bull; IPv4 Interface Address (TLV 259, <xref target="RFC9552"/>)</t>

      <t>&bull; IPv4 Neighbor Address (TLV 260, <xref target="RFC9552"/>)</t>

      <t>&bull; IPv6 Interface Address (TLV 261, <xref target="RFC9552"/>)</t>

      <t>&bull; IPv6 Neighbor Address (TLV 262, <xref target="RFC9552"/>)</t>

      <t>&bull; Remote-AS Number (TLV 270, [This document], section <xref
      target="sec7.1"/>)</t>

      <t>&bull; IPv4 Remote ASBR ID (TLV 271, [This document], section <xref
      target="sec7.2"/>)</t>

      <t>&bull; IPv6 Remote ASBR ID (TLV 272, [This document], section <xref
      target="sec7.3"/>)</t>

      <t>This newly defined NLRI can be used to describe links that have only
      one end located within an IGP domain, as described in the following
      sections.</t>

      <t>To match the stub link connecting the two bordering Autonomous
      Systems (ASes), the Remote AS Number TLV, the IPv4 Remote ASBR ID TLV
      (if the neighboring ASBR has an IPv4 address), and/or the IPv6 Remote
      ASBR ID TLV (if the neighboring ASBR has an IPv6 address) MUST be
      included.</t>

      <t>Correspondingly, the IPv4 Router-ID of Local Node TLV (1028) and/or
      the IPv6 Router-ID of Local Node TLV (1029) MUST be included as Link
      Attribute TLVs of the Stub Link NLRI.</t>

      <t>The Node and Link Descriptor sub-TLVs, as well as Node and Link
      attributes defined in<xref target="RFC9552"/> MAY be included in the
      NLRI if necessary. The interface and neighbor address sub-TLVs SHOULD be
      included in the Local Node Descriptors to differentiate parallel links
      between two ASBRs.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="IGP Information for Inter-AS Link">
      <t><xref target="RFC9346"/> and <xref target="RFC5392"/> define IS-IS
      and OSPF extensions, respectively, to address the requirements for
      reporting inter-AS links. Three sub-TLVs related to Inter-Domain Links
      (Remote AS Number, IPv4 Remote ASBR ID, and IPv6 Remote ASBR ID) are
      defined in these documents.</t>

      <t>These IGP TLVs are automatically flooded within an IGP domain. This
      document specifies that these MAY also be carried within the newly
      defined Stub Link NLRI in the BGP-LS protocol, as descriptors for
      inter-AS stub links.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="BGP-LS Extensions for Inter-AS Link">
      <t>This section proposes adding three new TLVs to be supported within
      the Stub Link NLRI of the BGP-LS NLRI. These new TLVs enable BGP-LS to
      transfer inter-AS information collected by the SDN controller.</t>

      <t>The following Link Descriptor TLVs are added to the BGP-LS
      protocol:</t>

      <t><figure>
          <artwork><![CDATA[+-----------+---------------------+--------------+----------------+
|  TLV Code | Description         |IS-IS/OSPF TLV| Reference      |
|   Point   |                     |   /Sub-TLV   | (RFC/Section)  |
+-----------+---------------------+--------------+----------------+
|    270    |Remote AS Number     |   24/21      | [RFC9346]/3.3.1|
|           |                     |              | [RFC5392]/3.3.1|
|    271    |IPv4 Remote ASBR ID  |   25/22      | [RFC9346]/3.3.2|
|           |                     |              | [RFC5392]/3.3.2| 
|    272    |IPv6 Remote ASBR ID  |   26/24      | [RFC9346]/3.3.3|
|           |                     |              | [RFC5392]/3.3.3|
+-----------+---------------------+--------------+----------------+
             Figure 3: Stub Link Descriptor TLVs]]></artwork>
        </figure></t>

      <t>The detailed encoding of these TLVs is synchronized with the
      corresponding sections in<xref target="RFC9346"/> and <xref
      target="RFC5392"/>, which maintains BGP-LS protocol agnosticism to the
      underlying protocol.</t>

      <section anchor="sec7.1" title="Remote AS Number TLV">
        <t>A new TLV, referred to as the Remote AS Number TLV, is defined for
        inclusion in the Link Descriptor when advertising inter-AS links. The
        Remote AS Number TLV specifies the AS number of the neighboring AS to
        which the advertised link connects.</t>

        <t>The Remote AS Number TLV is TLV Type 270 (see <xref
        target="s-IANA"/> ) and is 4 octets in length. Its format is as
        follows:</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[ 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|              Type             |             Length            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                       Remote AS Number                        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           Figure 4: Remote AS Number TLV Format    ]]></artwork>
          </figure>The Remote AS Number field has 4 octets. When only 2 octets
        are used for the AS number (for example, when such information is
        advertised from OSPF, as in current deployments), the left
        (high-order) 2 octets MUST be set to 0. The Remote AS Number TLV MUST
        be included when a router advertises an inter-AS link.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="sec7.2" title="IPv4 Remote ASBR ID">
        <t>A new TLV, referred to as the IPv4 Remote ASBR ID TLV, is defined
        for inclusion in the Link Descriptor when advertising inter-AS links.
        The IPv4 Remote ASBR ID TLV specifies the IPv4 identifier of the
        remote ASBR to which the advertised inter-AS link connects. This can
        be any stable, routable IPv4 address of the remote ASBR. The use of
        the TE Router ID, as specified in the Traffic Engineering Router ID
        TLV <xref target="RFC9346"/> is RECOMMENDED.</t>

        <t>The IPv4 Remote ASBR ID TLV is TLV Type 271 (see <xref
        target="s-IANA"/>) and is 4 octets in length. Its format is as
        follows:</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[ 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|              Type             |             Length            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                       Remote ASBR ID                          |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
            Figure 5:  IPv4 Remote ASBR ID TLV Format ]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>

        <t>The IPv4 Remote ASBR ID TLV MUST be included if the neighboring
        ASBR has an IPv4 address. If the neighboring ASBR does not have an
        IPv4 address (including no IPv4 TE Router ID), the IPv6 Remote ASBR ID
        TLV MUST be included instead. Both an IPv4 Remote ASBR ID TLV and an
        IPv6 Remote ASBR ID TLV MAY be present in an inter-AS Stub Link
        NLRI.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="sec7.3" title="IPv6 Remote ASBR ID">
        <t>A new TLV, referred to as the IPv6 Remote ASBR ID TLV, is defined
        for inclusion in the Link Descriptor when advertising inter-AS links.
        The IPv6 Remote ASBR ID TLV specifies the IPv6 identifier of the
        remote ASBR to which the advertised inter-AS link connects. This can
        be any stable, routable IPv6 address of the remote ASBR. The use of
        the TE Router ID, as specified in the IPv6 Traffic Engineering Router
        ID TLV <xref target="RFC9346"/> is RECOMMENDED.</t>

        <t>The IPv6 Remote ASBR ID TLV is TLV Type 272 (see <xref
        target="s-IANA"/>) and is 16 octets in length. Its format is as
        follows:</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[ 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|              Type             |             Length            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                       Remote ASBR ID                          |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                       Remote ASBR ID (continued)              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                       Remote ASBR ID (continued)              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                       Remote ASBR ID (continued)              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           Figure 6:  IPv6 Remote ASBR ID TLV Format]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>

        <t>The IPv6 Remote ASBR ID TLV MUST be included if the neighboring
        ASBR has an IPv6 address. If the neighboring ASBR does not have an
        IPv6 address, the IPv4 Remote ASBR ID TLV MUST be included instead.
        Both an IPv4 Remote ASBR ID TLV and an IPv6 Remote ASBR ID TLV MAY be
        present in an inter-AS Stub Link NLRI.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Security Considerations">
      <t>BGP-LS security is specified in <xref target="RFC9552"/>. This
      extension to BGP-LS focuses on scenarios where a single entity-operated
      network includes multiple IGP domains composed of its backbone network,
      several Metro-Area Networks (MANs), and Internet Data Centers (IDCs).
      The configuration of these networks, operated by a single administrative
      entity, creates a "walled garden". Within this single administrative
      domain, the network operator needs to monitor and engineer traffic flows
      traversing a network that spans multiple Autonomous Systems (ASes). The
      network operator can obtain this inter-AS topology information via the
      procedure described in this document.</t>

      <t>A single administrative domain consisting of two ASes that passes
      information about Stub Link characteristics does not cause issues within
      a "walled garden". However, the Stub Link NLRI and its characteristics
      (Link/Local Identifier, IPv4 Interface Address, IPv4 Neighbor Address,
      IPv6 Interface Address, IPv6 Neighbor Address, Multi-Topology
      Identifier, Remote-AS Number, IPv4 Remote ASBR ID, and IPv6 Remote ASBR
      ID) constitute critical network information. As such, operators SHOULD
      handle this critical information in a manner that restricts it to the
      walled garden.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="s-IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>This document defines:</t>

      <t><list style="symbols">
          <t>A new BGP NLRI Type: Stub Link NLRI. The codepoint is from the
          "BGP-LS NLRI Types"</t>

          <t>Three new Link Descriptors TLV: Remote AS Number TLV, IPv4 Remote
          ASBR ID, IPv6 Remote ASBR ID. The codepoint are from "BGP-LS Node
          Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs"
          registry.</t>
        </list></t>

      <section title="New BGP-LS NLRI type">
        <t>This document defines a new value in the registry "BGP-LS NLRI
        Types":</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|    Code Point |   Description |           Status              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|       7       | Stub Link NLRI|    Allocation from IANA       |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           Figure 7:  Stub Link NLRI Codepoint]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>
      </section>

      <section title="New Stub Link Descriptors">
        <t>This document defines three new values in the registry "BGP-LS NLRI
        and Attribute TLVs":</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|    Code Point |   Description         |             Status      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|      270      | Remote AS Number      | Allocation from IANA    |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|      271      |  IPv4 Remote ASBR ID  | Allocation from IANA    |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|      272      |  IPv6 Remote ASBR ID  | Allocation from IANA    |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           Figure 8:  BGP-LS Link Descriptors TLV]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Acknowledgement">
      <t>The author would like to thank Susan Hares, Acee Lindem, Jie Dong,
      Shaowen Ma, Jeff Tantsura and Dhruv Dhody for their valuable comments
      and suggestions.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5392"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9346"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9552"?>
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9086"?>
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>
