Internet DRAFT - draft-ra-shin-enum-mobileweb
draft-ra-shin-enum-mobileweb
ENUM J. Ra
Internet-Draft S. Shin
Expires: January 18, 2006 Y. Ju
W. Kim
NIDA
L. Conroy
Roke Manor Research
July 17, 2005
IANA Registration for Enumservice Mobile Webpage
<draft-ra-shin-enum-mobileweb-01.txt>
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 18, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
This document registers the ENUMservice "mobileweb" using the URI
schemes 'http:' and 'https:' as per the IANA registration process
defined in the ENUM specification RFC3761.
Ra, et al. Expires January 18, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Mobileweb Enumservice Registration July 2005
Table of Contents
1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Current Status of Mobile Web Services . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Mobile Web Service Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2 Diverse Mobile Web Service Registration with
'http:','https:' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3 Uniform Mobile Web Service Registration with
'http:','https:' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Considerations for the 'WAP' registration . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Expected Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 21
Ra, et al. Expires January 18, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Mobileweb Enumservice Registration July 2005
1. Terminology
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 BCP 14, RFC2119 [1].
Ra, et al. Expires January 18, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Mobileweb Enumservice Registration July 2005
2. Introduction
ENUM (E.164 Number Mapping, RFC 3761 [2]) is a system that transforms
E.164 numbers [3] into domain names and then uses DNS (Domain Name
Service, RFC 1034 [4]) services like delegation through NS records
and NAPTR records to look up what services are available for a
specific domain name.
This document registers 'Enumservices' according to the guidelines
given in RFC 3761 [2] to be used for provisioning in the services
field of a NAPTR [5] resource record to indicate what class of
functionality a given end point offers. The registration is defined
within the DDDS (Dynamic Delegation Discovery System [6] [7] [5] [8]
[9] ) hierarchy, for use with the "E2U" DDDS Application, defined in
RFC 3761 [2].
This document registers the ENUMservice "mobileweb" using the URI
schemes 'http:' and 'https:' as per the IANA registration process
defined in the ENUM specification RFC 3761.
The ITU (International Telecommunication Union) collates reports of
world mobile usage. The total number of mobile subscribers has
reached more than 1.3 billion as of 2003, according to its
statistics.
As the market of mobile telephony service has kept growing, the
number of mobile internet users has been gradually increasing.
Mobile ENUM usage will be of high importance according to its
convenience and portability; the number of mobile devices with
Internet access that can take advantage of its convenience may well
outweigh those with fixed connectivity.
Mobile devices do have some special characteristics that lead to
optimisation of content; they tend to have smaller screens, and at
present their access bandwidth is relatively low whilst the latency
over this access is relatively high.
In particular, a number of schemes have been developed to provide
web-based content that is optimised for these characteristics - these
schemes can be described as providing "Mobile Webpages".
Such Special purpose Mobile Webpages are smaller and simpler than web
pages for general use; the Mobile Webpage is designed to fit within
the pocket-sized display of mobile terminals, and to reflect the
"long pipes" by which these terminals are connected.
Mobile web services are being provided using different protocol
Ra, et al. Expires January 18, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Mobileweb Enumservice Registration July 2005
architectures. Currently there are three representative different
protocol architectures for the mobile web service : WAP [10], ME [11]
and i-mode [12].
This document registers mobile web-service (mobileweb) as an
ENUMservice with veriants to reflect these three protocols (WAP, ME
and i-mode), together with "uniform" variants that indicate that the
content is optimised for mobile use, but uses a standard protocol
architecture.
Ra, et al. Expires January 18, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Mobileweb Enumservice Registration July 2005
3. Current Status of Mobile Web Services
A Mobile Webpage is a simplified form of general web page, designed
to be displayed in the small screen of a Mobile Terminal.
Currently, there are three representative protocol architectures used
for a mobile terminal to access mobile web-pages. These three
protocols are WAP (Wireless Application Protocol)[9], ME (Mobile
Explorer)[10] and i-mode[11]. These differ in the method they use
for the mobile terminal to request and receive a mobile webpage, and
the markup language in which the mobile webpage is presented.
The following figures show brief specifications of the WAP, ME and
i-mode protocol architectures:
WAP Protocol Architecture
[WAP 1.x and 2.0]
------------ --------------------------- ------------
| Device | | WAP Gateway | |Web Server |
------------ --------------------------- ------------
| WSP | Encoded | WSP | | | |
------------ WML -------------- HTTP | WML | HTTP |
| WTP | Page | WTP | | Page | |
------------ <--------.------------------------- <--- ------------
| WTLS | | WTLS | SSL | | SSL |
------------ --------------------------- ------------
| WDP | | WDP | TCP | | TCP |
------------ --------------------------- ------------
| Bearer | | Bearer | IP | | IP |
------------ --------------------------- ------------
[WAP 2.0 only]
------------ ------------
| Device | |Web Server |
------------ ------------
| WP HTTP | | HTTP |
------------ WML or --------------------------- WML ------------
| TLS | XHTML MP | WAP Proxy | or | TLS |
------------ Page --------------------------- XHTML------------
| WP TCP | <------- | WP TCP | TCP | MP | TCP |
------------ --------------------------- Page ------------
| IP | | IP | IP |<----| IP |
------------ --------------------------- ------------
| Wireless | | Wireless | Wired | | Wired |
------------ --------------------------- ------------
Ra, et al. Expires January 18, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Mobileweb Enumservice Registration July 2005
Figure 1
ME Protocl Architecture
[ME]
------------ ------------
| Device | |Web Server |
------------ ------------
| HTTP | | HTTP |
------------ m-HTML or ---------------------- m-HTML or ------------
| SSL/TLS | WML | G/W | WML | SSL |
------------ Page --------------------- Page ------------
| TCP | <------- | TCP | TCP | <-------- | TCP |
------------ --------------------- ------------
| IP | | IP | IP | | IP |
------------ --------------------- ------------
| Wireless | |Wireless | Wired | | Wired |
------------ --------------------- ------------
Figure 2
i-Mode Protocol Architecture
[i-mode]
-------- ----------
| Device| |WebServer|
-------- ---------------- ----------
| HTTP | | M-PGW | | HTTP |
-------- ---------------- c- ----------
| TLS |c-HTML c-HTML | TLS | TLS | HTML| TLS |
-------- Page ----------------- Page ---------------- Page----------
| TL |<----| PPM |<----| TL | TCP |<----| TCP |
-------- ----------------- --------------- ----------
|CallCtl| |CallCtl|IP(PMAP)| |IP(PMAP)| IP | | IP |
-------- ----------------- --------------- ----------
|Wireless| |Wireless|Wired | |Wired | Wired | | Wired |
-------- ----------------- -------------- ----------
Figure 3
Without special application support, Mobile webpages are not be
displayed properly on other terminals (such as desktops and laptops);
Ra, et al. Expires January 18, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Mobileweb Enumservice Registration July 2005
they are designed for mobile terminals that have such support.
Conversely, "general purpose" web pages are often not displayed
properly on mobile terminals.
If mobile web-services use ENUMServices in accordance with RFC4002
[13] ("IANA Registration for ENUMServices web and ft"), it is very
hard for the mobile service provider, terminal and its user to
distinguish optimised Mobile Webpages from "general use" webpages.
Moreover, there is no way to discriminate the protocol architecture
(WAP, ME or i-mode) used by the mobile web-service, and so that needs
to be supported by the terminal.
Consequently, the ENUMservice registration used by a mobile web-
service must be classified according to the protocol architecture
that web-service uses; it needs to use another Enumservice from those
specified in RFC 4002.
Ra, et al. Expires January 18, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Mobileweb Enumservice Registration July 2005
4. Mobile Web Service Registration
4.1 Introduction
The Enumservice variants registered in this section indicate that the
resource identified by the associated URI is capable of being a
source of information through a mobile webpage.
There are two choices of ENUMservices registration of mobile web-
services. These are 'Diverse Mobile Web Service Registration' and
'Uniform Mobile Web Service Registration'.
The 'Diverse Mobile Web Service Registration' variants use
Enumservice Type 'mobileweb' and different Enumservice Subtypes
according to the mobile protocol architecture (WAP, ME, i-mode)
employed by mobile web-services. So far, for those Enumservices that
have both a type and subtype, the type reflected the kind of service
provided, and the subtype reflected the URI scheme needed.
However, this document specifies the protocol architecture used for
the mobile web-service as the subtype because it is impossible to
discern among the protocols of mobile web-service through specifying
URI scheme as the subtype (for example, ME and i-mode both use the
same URI scheme, http(s)). As you can see in section 2.4.2.1 (ENUM
Services) of RFC 3761, Enumservice specifications contain the
functional specification, the valid protocols, and the URI schemes
that may be returned. There is no implicit mapping between the
textual string "type" or "subtype" in the grammar for the Enumservice
and URI schemes or protocols. Accordingly, it is not wrong to
specify the protocol architecture of mobile web-service as the
subtype. If there is a mobile web-site, and that mobile web-service
is provided using different URIs depending on the protocol
architectures used by the mobile web-service, then that mobile web-
service provider uses the appropriate 'Diverse Mobile Web Service
Registration' variant.
On the other hand, the 'Uniform Mobile Web Service Registration' uses
Enumservice Type 'mobileweb' but does not use any Enumservice
Subtypes. If there is one mobile web-site, and the mobile web-
service is provided using a same URI regardless of the protocols of
mobile web-service (namely, if mobile web-server is intelligent and
able to branch the connection to the proper web-page according to the
supported protocol of mobile web-service), then the mobile web-
service provider uses the 'Uniform Mobile Web Service Registration'
variant
Besides, in accordance with the trend that the protocols of mobile
web-service are being unified and converged, this document proposes
Ra, et al. Expires January 18, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Mobileweb Enumservice Registration July 2005
that the unified and converged mobile web-service be registered using
'Uniform Mobile Web Service Registration'.
4.2 Diverse Mobile Web Service Registration with 'http:','https:'
Enumservice Name: "mobileweb"
Enumservice Type: "mobileweb"
Enumservice Subtype: "wap", "me", "imode"
URI Scheme: 'http:', 'https:'
Functional Specification:
This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified by the
associated URI scheme is capable of being a source of
information through a mobile webpage, using the specified
mobile protocol architecture.
Security Considerations:
There are no specific security issues with this 'Enumservice'.
However, the general considerations of Section 7 apply.
Intended Usage: COMMON
Author:
JongYun Ra, Sungwoo Shin, Yongwan Ju, Weon Kim, Lawrence Conroy
(for author contact detail, see the Authors' Addresses section)
Any other information the author deems interesting:
None
4.3 Uniform Mobile Web Service Registration with 'http:','https:'
Enumservice Name: "mobileweb"
Enumservice Type: "mobileweb"
Enumservice Subtype: N/A
URI Scheme: 'http:', 'https:'
Ra, et al. Expires January 18, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Mobileweb Enumservice Registration July 2005
Functional Specification:
This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified by the
associated URI scheme is capable of being a source of
information through a mobile webpage.
Security Considerations:
There are no specific security issues with this 'Enumservice'.
However, the general considerations of Section 7 apply.
Intended Usage: COMMON
Author:
JongYun Ra, Sungwoo Shin, Yongwan Ju, Weon Kim, Lawrence Conroy
(for author contact detail, see the Authors' Addresses section)
Ra, et al. Expires January 18, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Mobileweb Enumservice Registration July 2005
5. Considerations for the 'WAP' registration
In 4.2, mobile web-service conforming to WAP protocol is registered
with 'http(s)' URI scheme. As you can see in the brief WAP
specification above, for WAP 2.0, it is reasonable to use 'http(s)'
URI scheme, whilst it might look unreasonable to use 'http(s)' URI
scheme for WAP 1.x because WAP 1.x uses WSP/WTP for transport on
terminal-side. However, it is noted that the terminal has a function
that transforms http(s) requests in the browser (application) level
to WSP/WTP forms, and the WAP Gateway has a function that restores
the WSP/WTP forms to the original http(s) requests again. Therefore,
the fact that a mobile web-service conforming to WAP is registered
with 'http(s)' URI scheme doesn't raise any issues. However, if a
URI scheme (e.g wap, wsp, wtp, wsl and so on) for WAP is to be
devised in the future, mobile web-service conforming to WAP could
instead be registered with the new URI scheme. This would require an
update to this registration if that ever occurs.
Ra, et al. Expires January 18, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Mobileweb Enumservice Registration July 2005
6. Expected Behaviour
Browser (application) for mobile web-services and its user must know
what protocol of mobile web-services is supported. Only so, it is
possible to register and connect to a web-service properly.
After a ENUM resolution of a E.164 associated with mobile web-
service, there are three likely results.
In case that only URIs registered by 'Diverse Mobile Web Service
Registration' are returned as the resolution result,
browser(application) or its user selects the URI registered by a
proper Enumservice Subtype(wap, me or imode) and tries making
connection with the URI. If there are several proper URIs,
browser(application) or its user can select a URI, based on the value
of Order and Preference field of NAPTR or the own rule.
In case that only URIs registered by 'Uniform Mobile Web Service
Registration' are returned as the resolution result,
browser(application) or its user selects a URI, based on the value of
Order and Preference field of NAPTR or the own rule. If the mobile
web-server connected is intelligent and has an appropriate branch
web-page, browser(application) and its user can be provided with
mobile web-service. If the mobile web-server connected is
intelligent and has no appropriate branch web-page,
browser(application) and its user can not be provided with mobile
web-service. If mobile web-service uses only the unified and
converged protocol, and browser(application) supports it,
browser(application) and its user can be provided with the mobile
web-service. If mobile web-service uses only the unified and
converged protocol, and browser(application) does not support it,
browser(application) and its user can not be provided with the mobile
web-service.
In case that URIs registered by 'Diverse Mobile Web Service
Registration' and URIs registered by 'Uniform Mobile Web Service
Registration' are returned simultaneously as the resolution result,
browser(application) or its user must select preferentially a URI
registered by 'Diverse Mobile Web Service Registration', based on the
value of Order and Preference field of NAPTR or the own rule because
it gurantees that browser(application) and its user are provided with
mobile web-service.
If there is no proper URI registered by 'Diverse Mobile Web Service
Registration', browser(application) or its user can select a URI
registered by 'Uniform Mobile Web Service Registration', based on the
value of Order and Preference field of NAPTR or the own rule. If the
mobile web-server connected is intelligent and has an appropriate
Ra, et al. Expires January 18, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Mobileweb Enumservice Registration July 2005
branch web-page, browser (application) and its user can be provided
with mobile web-service. If the mobile web-server connected is
intelligent and has no appropriate branch web-page, browser
(application) and its user can not be provided with mobile web-
service. If the mobile web-service uses only the unified and
converged protocol, and the browser (application) supports it, then
the browser (application) and its user can be provided with the
mobile web-service. If mobile web-service uses only the unified and
converged protocol, and the browser (application) does not support
that, then the browser (application) and its user can not be provided
with the mobile web-service.
Ra, et al. Expires January 18, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Mobileweb Enumservice Registration July 2005
7. Security Considerations
As used by ENUM, DNS is a global, distributed database. Thus any
information stored there is visible to anyone anonymously. Although
this is not qualitatively different from publication in a telephone
directory, it does expose the data subject to having "their"
information collected automatically without any indication that this
has been done, or by whom.
Data harvesting by third parties is often used to generate lists of
targets for unrequested information; in short, it is used to address
"spam". Anyone who uses a Web-archived mailing list is aware that
the volume of "spam" email they receive increases when they post to
the mailing list; publication of a telephone number in ENUM is no
different and may be used to send "junk faxes" or "junk SMS", for
example.
Many mailing list users have more than one email address and use
"sacrificial" email accounts when they post to these lists to help
filter out unrequested emails. This is not so easy with published
telephone numbers; the PSTN E.164 [12] number assignment process is
much more involved, and usually a single E.164 number (or a fixed
range of numbers) is associated with each PSTN access. Thus,
providing a "sacrificial" phone number in any publication is not
possible.
Due to the implications of publishing data on a globally accessible
database, as a principle the data subject MUST give explicit informed
consent when data is published in ENUM.
In addition, the data subject should be made aware that, due to
storage of such data during harvesting by third parties, removal of
the data from publication will not remove any copies that have been
taken; in effect, any publication may be permanent.
However, regulations in many regions will require that the data
subject can at any time request that the data is removed from
publication, and that consent for its publication is explicitly
confirmed at regular intervals.
The user SHOULD be asked to confirm opening a mobile webpage because
it could impose a charge on the user.
Using 'http' URI scheme to connect with a mobile webpage is not
secure, so the user should apply the same caution when entering
personal data as they would do if using a client application started
with any other method. Although this is not a feature of ENUM or
these Enumservices, the ENUM-using application on the end system may
Ra, et al. Expires January 18, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Mobileweb Enumservice Registration July 2005
appear different from the user's "normal" browser, so the user SHOULD
receive an indication of whether their communication is secured.
As evaluating a mobile web page can involve execution of embedded (or
linked) content that may include executable code, evaluating a mobile
web URL involves risks. If automatic evaluation of a mobile web link
were to be used, the querying user would be exposed to risks
associated with that automatic download and execution of content.
Thus, the client MUST ask the querying user for confirmation before
evaluating the mobile web URL; the client MUST NOT download and
evaluate the mobile web content automatically.
An analysis of threats specific to the dependence of ENUM on the DNS,
(threats against which are covered in [17]) and the applicability of
DNSSEC to these, is provided in RFC 3761.
Ra, et al. Expires January 18, 2006 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Mobileweb Enumservice Registration July 2005
8. IANA Considerations
This document registers the 'mobileweb' ENUMservice according to
specifications and guidelines in RFC 3761 and the definitions in this
document.
Ra, et al. Expires January 18, 2006 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Mobileweb Enumservice Registration July 2005
9. References
9.1 Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997.
[2] Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform Resource
Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
Application (ENUM)", RFC 3761, April 2004.
[3] ITU-T, "The International Public Telecommunication Number
Plan", Recommendation E.164, May 1997.
[4] Mockapetris, P., "DOMAIN NAMES - CONCEPTS AND FACILITIES",
RFC 1034, November 1987.
[5] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part
Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database", RFC 3403,
October 2002.
[6] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part
One: The Comprehensive DDDS", RFC 3401, October 2002.
[7] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part
Two: The Algorithm", RFC 3402, October 2002.
[8] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part
Four: The Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)", RFC 3404,
October 2002.
[9] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part
Five: URI.ARPA Assignment Procedures", RFC 3405, October 2002.
[10] WAP Forum, "Wireless Application Protocol".
[11] Microsoft, "Mobile Explorer (ME)".
[12] NTT Docomo, "i-Mode".
[13] Brandner, R., Conroy, L., and R. Stastny, "IANA Registration
for Enumservice 'web' and 'ft'", RFC 4002, February 2005.
[14] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 3986,
January 2005.
[15] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L.,
Ra, et al. Expires January 18, 2006 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Mobileweb Enumservice Registration July 2005
Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -
HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[16] Rescola, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.
9.2 Informative References
[17] Atkins, D. and R. Austein, "Threat Analysis of the Domain Name
System (DNS)", RFC 3833, August 2004.
[18] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, RFC 3978,
March 2005.
[19] Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology",
BCP 79, RFC 3979, March 2005.
Authors' Addresses
Jongyun Ra
National Internet Development Agency of Korea
1321-11, Seocho2-dong, Seocho-gu
Seoul
Korea
Phone: +82-2-2186-4599
Email: rajy@nida.or.kr
Sungwoo Shin
National Internet Development Agency of Korea
1321-11, Seocho2-dong, Seocho-gu
Seoul
Korea
Phone: +82-2-2186-4546
Email: ssw@nida.or.kr
YoungWan Ju
National Internet Development Agency of Korea
1321-11, Seocho2-dong, Seocho-gu
Seoul
Korea
Phone: +82-2-2186-4536
Email: ywju@nida.or.kr
Ra, et al. Expires January 18, 2006 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Mobileweb Enumservice Registration July 2005
Weon Kim
National Internet Development Agency of Korea
1321-11, Seocho2-dong, Seocho-gu
Seoul
Korea
Lawrence Conroy
Roke Manor Research
Roke Manor
Romsey
United Kingdom
Phone: +44-1794-833666
Email: lwc@roke.co.uk
Ra, et al. Expires January 18, 2006 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Mobileweb Enumservice Registration July 2005
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Ra, et al. Expires January 18, 2006 [Page 21]
