idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits26287/draft-zhang-ccamp-rwa-wson-routing-ospf-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** There are 5 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 9 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 288 has weird spacing: '... Type sub-...' == Line 297 has weird spacing: '... Type sub-...' == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL', 'SHOULD', or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119. Please use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what you mean). Found 'SHOULD not' in this paragraph: In WSON networks, generally all the sub-TLVs above are optional, which depends on the control plane implementations. It is default no restrictions on wavelength, so Port Label Restrictions sub-TLV may not appear in the LSAs. In order to be able to compute RWA, Available Labels sub-TLV may appear in the LSAs. Without available wavelength information, path computation need guess what lambdas may be available (high blocking probability or distributed wavelength assignment may be used). Shared Backup Labels sub-TLV SHOULD not appear in the LSAs, if there is no wavelength backup functionality in the WSON networks. -- The document date (March 5, 2010) is 4453 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RWA-Encode' is mentioned on line 85, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC 3630' is mentioned on line 272, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC 4203' is mentioned on line 272, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC3471' is defined on line 310, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4655 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2370 (Obsoleted by RFC 5250) == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr has been published as RFC 5786 == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels has been published as RFC 6205 -- No information found for draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-WSON-Framework - is the name correct? -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'WSON-Frame' == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info has been published as RFC 7446 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info (ref. 'WSON-Info') == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode has been published as RFC 7579 == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf has been published as RFC 7688 Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 13 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network work group Fatai Zhang 2 Internet Draft Young Lee 3 Intended status: Standards Track Jianrui Han 4 Huawei 5 G. Bernstein 6 Grotto Networking 7 Yunbin Xu 8 CATR 9 Expires: September 4, 2010 March 5, 2010 11 OSPF Extensions in Support of Routing and Wavelength 12 Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs) 14 draft-zhang-ccamp-rwa-wson-routing-ospf-03.txt 16 Status of this Memo 18 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with 19 the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 21 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 22 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 23 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 24 Drafts. 26 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 27 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 28 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 29 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 31 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 34 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 35 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 4, 2010. 39 Abstract 40 This document describes OSPF routing protocols extensions to support 41 Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched 42 Optical Networks (WSON) under the control of Generalized MPLS (GMPLS). 44 Conventions used in this document 46 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 47 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 48 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119]. 50 Table of Contents 52 1. Introduction......................................... 2 53 2. Node Information..................................... 3 54 2.1. Connectivity Matrix..............................4 55 3. Link Information..................................... 4 56 3.1. Port Label Restrictions .........................5 57 3.2. Available Labels.................................5 58 3.3. Shared Backup Labels.............................6 59 4. Routing Procedures....................................6 60 5. Security Considerations...............................7 61 6. IANA Considerations...................................7 62 6.1. Node Information.................................7 63 6.2. Link Information.................................7 64 7. References............................................7 65 8. Authors' Addresses....................................9 66 Acknowledgment ..........................................11 68 1. Introduction 70 [WSON-Frame] provides a framework for applying GMPLS [RFC3945] and 71 the Path Computation Element (PCE) architecture [RFC4655] to the 72 control of WSONs to address the RWA problem. [WSON-Info] describes an 73 information model that specifies the information needed at various 74 points in a WSON in order to compute paths and establish Label 75 Switched Paths (LSPs). Based on the information model of [WSON-Info], 76 [GEN-Encode] and [RWA-Encode] provide efficient protocol-independent 77 encodings of the information needed by the RWA process in a WSON. 78 Such encodings can be used to extend GMPLS signaling and routing 79 protocols. 81 This document provides RWA OSPF extensions based on [GEN-Encode] 82 which provides encodings of the information needed by the routing and 83 label assignment process in technologies such as WSON but that are 84 potentially applicable to a wider range of technologies. Additional 85 RWA OSPF extensions based on [RWA-Encode] which provides encodings of 86 the information specific to WSON technologies such as signal 87 compatibility and wavelength resource encodings are addressed in the 88 other document [WSON-COM-OSPF]. 90 This document defines extensions to the OSPF routing protocol to 91 enhance the Traffic Engineering (TE) properties of GMPLS TE which are 92 defined in [RFC3630], [RFC4202], and [RFC4203]. The enhancements to 93 the Traffic Engineering (TE) properties of GMPLS TE links can be 94 announced in OSPF TE LSAs. The TE LSA, which is an opaque LSA with 95 area flooding scope [RFC3630], has only one top-level 96 Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplet and has one or more nested sub-TLVs 97 for extensibility. The top-level TLV can take one of three values (1) 98 Router Address [RFC3630], (2) Link [RFC3630], (3) Node Attribute 99 [OSPF-Node]. In this document, we enhance the sub-TLVs for the Link 100 TLV and Node Attribute TLV in support of RWA in WSON under the 101 control of GMPLS. 103 The detail encoding of OSPF extensions is not redefined in this 104 document. [GEN-Encode] provides encoding detail. 106 No consideration of optical impairment routing related information is 107 included in this document. 109 2. Node Information 111 According to [WSON-Info] and [GEN-Encode], the node information about 112 WSON nodes includes Node ID, connectivity matrix. Except for the Node 113 ID which should comply with Routing Address described in [RFC3630], 114 the other pieces of information are defined in this document. 116 [OSPF-Node] defines a new top TLV named the Node Attribute TLV which 117 carries attributes related to a router/node. This Node Attribute TLV 118 contains one or more sub-TLVs. 120 Per [GEN-Encode], we have identified the following new Sub-TLVs to 121 the Node Attribute TLV. Detail description for each newly defined 122 Sub-TLV is provided in subsequent sections: 124 Sub-TLV Type Length Name 126 TBD variable Connectivity Matrix 128 In WSON networks, generally the sub-TLVs above is optional, which 129 depends on the control plane implementations. Usually, Connectivity 130 Matrix sub-TLV may appear in the LSAs because WSON switches are 131 asymmetric at present. It is assumed that the switches are symmetric 132 switching, if there is no Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV in the LSAs. 134 2.1. Connectivity Matrix 136 It is necessary to identify which ingress ports and wavelengths can 137 be connected to (the same wavelength on) a specific egress port, 138 because the switching devices in a WSON are highly asymmetric. 140 The Connectivity Matrix is used to identify these restrictions, which 141 can represent either the potential connectivity matrix for asymmetric 142 switches (e.g. ROADMs and such) or fixed connectivity for an 143 asymmetric device such as a multiplexer as defined in [WSON-Info]. 145 The Connectivity Matrix is a sub-TLV (the type is TBD by IANA) of the 146 Node Attribute TLV. The length is the length of value field in octets. 147 The meaning and format of this sub-TLV are defined in Section 5.3 of 148 [GEN-Encode]. One sub-TLV contains one matrix. The Connectivity 149 Matrix sub-TLV may occur more than once to contain multi-matrices 150 within the Node Attribute TLV. 152 3. Link Information 154 The most common link sub-TLVs nested to link top-level TLV are 155 already defined in [RFC3630], [RFC4203]. For example, Link ID, 156 Administrative Group, Interface Switching Capability Descriptor 157 (ISCD), Link Protection Type, Shared Risk Link Group Information 158 (SRLG), and Traffic Engineering Metric are among the typical link 159 sub-TLVs. 161 For WSONs, per [WSON-Info] and [GEN-Encode], we add the following 162 additional link sub-TLVs to the link-TLV in this document. 164 Sub-TLV Type Length Name 166 TBD variable Port Label Restrictions 168 TBD variable Available Labels 170 TBD variable Shared Backup Labels 172 In WSON networks, generally all the sub-TLVs above are optional, 173 which depends on the control plane implementations. It is default no 174 restrictions on wavelength, so Port Label Restrictions sub-TLV may 175 not appear in the LSAs. In order to be able to compute RWA, Available 176 Labels sub-TLV may appear in the LSAs. Without available wavelength 177 information, path computation need guess what lambdas may be 178 available (high blocking probability or distributed wavelength 179 assignment may be used). Shared Backup Labels sub-TLV SHOULD not 180 appear in the LSAs, if there is no wavelength backup functionality in 181 the WSON networks. 183 3.1. Port Label Restrictions 185 Port Label Restrictions describes the wavelength restrictions that 186 the link and various optical devices such as OXCs, ROADMs, and 187 waveband multiplexers may impose on a port in WSON. These 188 restrictions represent what wavelength may or may not be used on a 189 link and are relatively static. The detailed information about Port 190 label restrictions is described in [WSON-Info]. 192 The Port Label Restrictions is a sub-TLV (the type is TBD by IANA) of 193 the Link TLV. The length is the length of value field in octets. The 194 meaning and format of this sub-TLV are defined in Section 5.4 of 195 [GEN-Encode]. The Port Label Restrictions sub-TLV may occur more than 196 once to specify a complex port constraint within the link TLV. 198 3.2. Available Labels 200 Available Labels indicates the wavelengths available for use on a 201 link as described in [GEN-Encode] in WSON. The Available Labels is a 202 sub-TLV (the type is TBD by IANA) of the Link TLV. The length is the 203 length of value field in octets. The meaning and format of this sub- 204 TLV are defined in Section 5.1 of [GEN-Encode]. The Available Labels 205 sub-TLV may occur at most once within the link TLV. 207 Note that there are five approaches for Wavelength (Label) Set which 208 is used to represent the Available Labels described in [GEN-Encode]. 209 Considering that the continuity of the available or unavailable 210 wavelength set can be scattered for the dynamic wavelength 211 availability, so it may burden the routing to reorganize the 212 wavelength set information when the Inclusive (/Exclusive) List 213 (/Range) approaches are used to represent Available Wavelengths 214 information. Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that only the Bitmap Set be 215 used for representation Available Wavelengths information. 217 The "Base Label" and "Last Label" in label set defined in [GEN-Encode] 218 corresponds to base wavelength label and last wavelength label in 219 WSON, the format of which is described as follows: 221 0 1 2 3 222 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 1 223 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 224 |Grid | C.S. | Reserved | n | 225 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 227 The detailed information related to wavelength label can be referred 228 to [Lambda-Labels] 230 3.3. Shared Backup Labels 232 Shared Backup Labels indicates the wavelengths available for shared 233 backup use on a link as described in [GEN-Encode] in WSON. 235 The Shared Backup Labels is a sub-TLV (the type is TBD by IANA) of 236 the Link TLV. The length is the length of value field in octets. The 237 meaning and format of this sub-TLV are defined in Section 5.2 of 238 [GEN-Encode]. The Shared Backup Labels sub-TLV may occur at most once 239 within the link TLV. 241 4. Routing Procedures 243 All the sub-TLVs are nested to top-level TLV(s) and contained in 244 Opaque LSAs. The flooding of Opaque LSAs must follow the rules 245 specified in [RFC2328], [RFC2370], [RFC3630], [RFC4203] and [OSPF- 246 Node]. 248 In the WSON networks, the node information and link information can 249 be classified as two kinds: one is relatively static information such 250 as Node ID, Connectivity Matrix information; the other is dynamic 251 information such as Available Wavelengths information. [GEN-Encode] 252 give recommendations of typical usage of previously defined sub-TLVs 253 which contain relatively static information and dynamic information. 254 An implementation SHOULD take measures to avoid frequent updates of 255 relatively static information when the relatively static information 256 is not changed. A mechanism MAY be applied such that static 257 information and dynamic information are contained in separate Opaque 258 LSAs to avoid unnecessary updates of static information when dynamic 259 information is changed. 261 Note that as with other TE information, an implementation SHOULD take 262 measures to avoid rapid and frequent updates of routing information 263 that could cause the routing network to become swamped. A threshold 264 mechanism MAY be applied such that updates are only flooded when a 265 number of changes have been made to the wavelength availability 266 information within a specific time. Such mechanisms MUST be 267 configurable if they are implemented. 269 5. Security Considerations 271 This document does not introduce any further security issues other 272 than those discussed in [RFC 3630], [RFC 4203]. 274 6. IANA Considerations 276 [RFC3630] says that the top level Types in a TE LSA and Types for 277 sub-TLVs for each top level Types must be assigned by Expert Review, 278 and must be registered with IANA. 280 IANA is requested to allocate new Types for the sub-TLVs as defined 281 in Sections 2.1, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 as follows: 283 6.1. Node Information 285 This document introduces the following sub-TLVs of Node Attribute TLV 286 (Value TBD, see [OSPF-Node]) 288 Type sub-TLV 290 TBD Connectivity Matrix 292 6.2. Link Information 294 This document introduces the following sub-TLVs of TE Link TLV (Value 295 2) 297 Type sub-TLV 299 TBD Port Label Restrictions 301 TBD Available Labels 303 TBD Shared Backup Labels 305 7. References 307 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 308 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 310 [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 311 (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, 312 January 2003. 314 [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and Yeung, D., "Traffic 315 Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 316 3630, September 2003. 318 [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions 319 in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 320 (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005 322 [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in 323 Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 324 (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005. 326 [RFC3945] E. Mannie, Ed., "OGeneralized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) 327 Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. 329 [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path 330 Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture ", RFC 4655, 331 August 2006. 333 [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998. 335 [RFC2370] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370, July 336 1998. 338 [OSPF-Node] R. Aggarwal and K. Kompella, "Advertising a Router's 339 Local Addresses in OSPF TE Extensions", draft-ietf-ospf- 340 te-node-addr, work in progress. 342 [Lambda-Labels] T. Otani, H. Guo, K. Miyazaki, D. Caviglia, " 343 Generalized Labels for Lambda-Switching Capable 344 Label Switching Routers", work in progress: draft- 345 ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-05.txt, 346 December 2009. 348 [WSON-Frame] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, W. Imajuku, "Framework for GMPLS 349 and PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks 350 (WSON)", work in progress: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-WSON- 351 Framework-05.txt, February 2010. 353 [WSON-Info] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, D. Li, W. Imajuku, "Routing and 354 Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength 355 Switched Optical Networks", work in progress: draft-ietf- 356 ccamp-rwa-info-07.txt, February 2010. 358 [RWA-Encode]G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, D. Li, W. Imajuku, "Routing and 359 Wavelength Assignment Information Encoding for 360 Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", work in progress: 361 draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-04.txt, February 2010. 363 [GEN-Encode] G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, D. Li, W. Imajuku, " General 364 Network Element Constraint Encoding for GMPLS 365 Controlled Networks", work in progress: draft-ietf- 366 ccamp-general-constraint-encode-01.txt, March 2010. 368 [WSON-COM-OSPF] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, "OSPF Enhancement for Signal 369 and Network Element Compatibility for Wavelength 370 Switched Optical Networks", work in progress: draft- 371 ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-00.txt, 372 December 8, 2009. 374 8. Authors' Addresses 376 Fatai Zhang 377 Huawei Technologies 378 F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base 379 Bantian, Longgang District 380 Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China 382 Phone: +86-755-28972912 383 Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com 385 Young Lee 386 Huawei Technologies 387 1700 Alma Drive, Suite 100 388 Plano, TX 75075 389 USA 391 Phone: (972) 509-5599 (x2240) 392 Email: ylee@huawei.com 394 Jianrui Han 395 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. 396 F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base 397 Bantian, Longgang District 398 Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China 400 Phone: +86-755-28972913 401 Email: hanjianrui@huawei.com 403 Greg Bernstein 404 Grotto Networking 405 Fremont CA, USA 407 Phone: (510) 573-2237 408 Email: gregb@grotto-networking.com 410 Yunbin Xu 411 China Academy of Telecommunication Research of MII 412 11 Yue Tan Nan Jie Beijing, P.R.China 413 Phone: +86-10-68094134 414 Email: xuyunbin@mail.ritt.com.cn 416 Guoying Zhang 417 China Academy of Telecommunication Research of MII 418 11 Yue Tan Nan Jie Beijing, P.R.China 419 Phone: +86-10-68094272 420 Email: zhangguoying@mail.ritt.com.cn 422 Dan Li 423 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. 424 F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base 425 Bantian, Longgang District 426 Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China 428 Phone: +86-755-28973237 429 Email: danli@huawei.com 431 Ming Chen 432 European Research Center 433 Huawei Technologies 434 Riesstr. 25, 80992 Munchen, Germany 436 Phone: 0049-89158834072 437 Email: minc@huawei.com 439 Yabin Ye 440 European Research Center 441 Huawei Technologies 442 Riesstr. 25, 80992 Munchen, Germany 444 Phone: 0049-89158834074 445 Email: yabin.ye@huawei.com 447 Acknowledgment 449 We thank Ming Chen and Yabin Ye from DICONNET Project who provided 450 valuable information for this document. 452 Intellectual Property 454 The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope of 455 any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be 456 claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology 457 described in any IETF Document or the extent to which any license 458 under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it 459 represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any 460 such rights. 462 Copies of Intellectual Property disclosures made to the IETF 463 Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or 464 the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or 465 permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or 466 users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR 467 repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr 469 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 470 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 471 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 472 any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please 473 address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 475 The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or 476 under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are 477 published by third parties, including those that are translated into 478 other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions 479 of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions 480 is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of 481 these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties, including 482 those that are translated into other languages, should not be 483 considered to be definitive versions of these Legal Provisions. 485 For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards 486 Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of 487 the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the 488 provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms, 489 conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the 490 rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect and 491 shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such 492 Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution. 494 Disclaimer of Validity 496 All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are provided 497 on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE 498 REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE 499 IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL 500 WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY 501 WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE 502 ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS 503 FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 505 Full Copyright Statement 507 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 508 document authors. All rights reserved. 510 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 511 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 512 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 513 publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, 514 as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this 515 document. Code Components extracted from this document must include 516 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust 517 Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in 518 the Simplified BSD License.