path: root/doc/rfc/rfc4355.txt

Network Working Group                                        R. Brandner
Request for Comments: 4355                                    Siemens AG
Category: Standards Track                                      L. Conroy
                                             Siemens Roke Manor Research
                                                              R. Stastny
                                                                   Oefeg
                                                            January 2006


    IANA Registration for Enumservices email, fax, mms, ems, and sms

Status of This Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   This document registers the Enumservices "email", "fax", "sms",
   "ems", and "mms" using the URI schemes 'tel:' and 'mailto:' as per
   the IANA registration process defined in the ENUM specification RFC
   3761.






















Brandner, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 1]
^L
RFC 4355           IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations       January 2006


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
   2. Terminology .....................................................3
   3. Email Service Registration ......................................4
   4. Fax Service Registration ........................................4
   5. MMS, EMS, SMS Service ...........................................5
      5.1. Introduction ...............................................5
      5.2. SMS Service Registrations ..................................6
           5.2.1. SMS Service Registration with tel: URI ..............6
           5.2.2. SMS Service Registration with mailto: URI ...........6
      5.3. EMS Service Registrations ..................................7
           5.3.1. EMS Service Registration with tel: URI ..............7
           5.3.2. EMS Service Registration with mailto: URI ...........8
      5.4. MMS Service Registrations ..................................9
           5.4.1. MMS Service Registration with tel: URI ..............9
           5.4.2. MMS Service Registration with mailto: URI ..........10
   6. Security Considerations ........................................11
   7. Acknowledgements ...............................................13
   8. References .....................................................13
      8.1. Normative References ......................................13
      8.2. Informative References ....................................14

1.  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 to be used for provisioning in the services field
   of a NAPTR [5] resource record to indicate what class of
   functionality a given endpoint 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.

   The following Enumservices are registered with this document:
   "email", "fax", "sms", "ems", and "mms".  These share a common
   feature in that they each indicate that the functionality of the
   given endpoints and the associated resources are capable of receiving
   discrete messages, albeit of different types.

   According to RFC 3761, the Enumservice registered must be able to
   function as a selection mechanism when choosing one NAPTR resource
   record from another.  That means that the registration MUST specify



Brandner, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 2]
^L
RFC 4355           IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations       January 2006


   what is expected when using that very NAPTR record, and the Uniform
   Resource Identifier (URI) scheme that is the outcome of the use of
   it.

   Therefore, an Enumservice acts as a hint, indicating the kind of
   service with which the URI constructed using the regexp field is
   associated.  There can be more than one Enumservice included within a
   single NAPTR; this indicates that there is more than one service that
   can be achieved using the associated URI scheme.

   The common thread with this set of definitions is that they reflect
   the kind of service that the end-user will hope to achieve with the
   communication using the associated URI.

   The services specified here are intended not to specify the protocol
   or even method of connection that must be used to achieve each
   service.  Instead they define the kind of interactive behaviour that
   an end-user will expect, leaving the end system to decide (based on
   policies outside the remit of this specification) how to execute the
   service.

   Since the same URI scheme may be used for different services (e.g.,
   'tel:'), and the same kind of service may use different URI schemes
   (e.g., for VoIP 'h323:' and 'tel:' may be used), it is necessary in
   some cases to specify the service and the URI scheme used.

   The service parameters defined in RFC 3761 allow, therefore, a "type"
   and a "subtype" to be specified.  Within this set of specifications,
   the convention is assumed that the "type" (being the more generic
   term) defines the service and the "subtype" defines the URI scheme.

   Even where currently only one URI scheme is associated with a given
   service, it should be considered that an additional URI scheme to be
   used with this service may be added later.  Thus, the subtype is
   needed to identify the specific Enumservice intended.

   In this document, there are two URI schemes that are used within the
   various services.  These are 'tel:', as specified in RFC 3966 [10]
   and 'mailto:', as specified in RFC 2368 [11].

2.  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, RFC 2119 [1].






Brandner, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 3]
^L
RFC 4355           IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations       January 2006


3.  Email Service Registration

   Enumservice Name: "email"

   Enumservice Type: "email"

   Enumservice Subtypes: "mailto"

   URI Scheme: 'mailto:'

   Functional Specification:

      This Enumservice indicates that the remote resource can be
      addressed by the associated URI scheme in order to send an email.

   Security Considerations:

      See Section 6.

   Intended Usage: COMMON

   Authors:

      Rudolf Brandner, Lawrence Conroy, Richard Stastny (for author
      contact detail, see Authors' Addresses section)

   Any other information the author deems interesting:

      None

4.  Fax Service Registration

   Enumservice Name: "fax"

   Enumservice Type: "fax"

   Enumservice Subtype: "tel"

   URI Scheme: 'tel:'

   Functional Specification:

      This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified by the
      associated URI scheme is capable of being contacted to provide a
      communication session during which facsimile documents can be
      sent.





Brandner, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 4]
^L
RFC 4355           IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations       January 2006


      Clients selecting this NAPTR will have support for generating and
      sending facsimile documents to the recipient using the Public
      Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) session and transfer protocols
      specified in [12] and [13].  In short, they will have a fax
      program with a local or shared PSTN access over which they can
      send faxes.

   Security Considerations:

      See Section 6.

   Intended Usage: COMMON

   Authors:

      Rudolf Brandner, Lawrence Conroy, Richard Stastny (for author
      contact detail see Authors' Addresses section)

   Any other information the author deems interesting:

      None

5.  MMS, EMS, SMS Service

5.1.  Introduction

   An ENUM NAPTR indicates ability on the part of the Subscriber to
   receive specified communication service (or services) provided via
   the contact address (shown in the generated URI).

   In the case of MMS, EMS, and SMS services, the capability of these
   services is a nested superset; thus, a service supporting MMS can
   support also delivery of EMS or SMS message content to a recipient
   that is receiving a Multimedia Message, whilst a service supporting
   EMS can also deliver SMS message content to a recipient that can
   accept receipt of EMS Messages.

   Thus, even if a client wants only to generate and send content that
   could be carried in an SMS message, the client MAY choose to consider
   also NAPTRs holding EMS and/or MMS Enumservices, as these indicate
   that the destination can accept EMS and/or MMS messages.  These
   services will be able to deliver SMS content to the recipient
   address.

   Conversely, a client capable of sending MMS messages may choose to
   consider also NAPTRs indicating support for EMS or SMS messages
   (assuming that the network to which it is connected provides these
   services as well, or is capable of providing a gateway to systems



Brandner, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 5]
^L
RFC 4355           IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations       January 2006


   that do provide these services).  In taking this choice, it would
   have to "downgrade" its User Interface to allow only generation of
   content that conforms to SMS or EMS standards.

   These behaviours on the part of the client are purely optional and
   are NOT the subject of any protocol standardisation.

5.2.  SMS Service Registrations

5.2.1.  SMS Service Registration with tel: URI

   Enumservice Name: "sms"

   Enumservice Type: "sms"

   Enumservice Subtypes: "tel"

   URI Scheme: 'tel:'

   Functional Specification:

      This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified by the
      associated URI scheme is capable of receiving a message using the
      Short Message Service (SMS) [14].

   Security Considerations:

      There are no specific security issues with this Enumservice.
      However, the general considerations of Section 6 apply.

   Intended Usage: COMMON

   Authors:

      Rudolf Brandner, Lawrence Conroy, Richard Stastny (for author
      contact detail, see Authors' Addresses section)

   Any other information the author deems interesting:

      None

5.2.2.  SMS Service Registration with mailto: URI

   Enumservice Name: "sms"

   Enumservice Type: "sms"

   Enumservice Subtypes: "mailto"



Brandner, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 6]
^L
RFC 4355           IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations       January 2006


   URI Scheme: 'mailto:'

   Functional Specification:

      This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified by the
      associated URI scheme is capable of receiving a message using an
      email protocol.

      SMS content is sent over SMTP using the format specified by TS
      23.140 [15] Section 8.4.4 and TS 26.140 [16] Section 4, as an MMS
      message.  Within such a message, SMS content is carried as either
      a text or application/octet-stream MIME sub-part (see TS 26.140
      [16] Section 4.1).

   Security Considerations:

      There are no specific security issues with this Enumservice.
      However, the general considerations of Section 6 apply.

   Intended Usage: COMMON

   Authors:

      Rudolf Brandner, Lawrence Conroy, Richard Stastny (for author
      contact detail, see Authors' Addresses section)

   Any other information the author deems interesting:

      None

5.3.  EMS Service Registrations

5.3.1.  EMS Service Registration with tel: URI

   Enumservice Name: "ems"

   Enumservice Type: "ems"

   Enumservice Subtype: "tel"

   URI Scheme: 'tel:'

   Functional Specification:

      This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified by the
      associated URI scheme is capable of receiving a message using the
      Enhanced Message Service (EMS) [14].




Brandner, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 7]
^L
RFC 4355           IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations       January 2006


   Security Considerations:

      There are no specific security issues with this Enumservice.
      However, the general considerations of Section 6 apply.

   Intended Usage: COMMON

   Authors:

      Rudolf Brandner, Lawrence Conroy, Richard Stastny (for author
      contact detail, see Authors' Addresses section)

   Any other information the author deems interesting:

      Note that an indication of EMS can be taken as implying that the
      recipient is capable of receiving SMS messages at this address as
      well.

5.3.2.  EMS Service Registration with mailto: URI

   Enumservice Name: "ems"

   Enumservice Type: "ems"

   Enumservice Subtypes: "mailto"

   URI Scheme: 'mailto:'

   Functional Specification:

      This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified by the
      associated URI scheme is capable of receiving a message using an
      email protocol.

      EMS content is sent over SMTP using the format specified by TS
      23.140 [15] Section 8.4.4 and TS 26.140 [16] Section 4, as an MMS
      message.  Within such a message, EMS content is carried as either
      a text or application/octet-stream MIME sub-part (see TS 26.140
      [16] section 4.1).

   Security Considerations:

      There are no specific security issues with this Enumservice.
      However, the general considerations of Section 6 apply.

   Intended Usage: COMMON





Brandner, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 8]
^L
RFC 4355           IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations       January 2006


   Authors:

      Rudolf Brandner, Lawrence Conroy, Richard Stastny (for author
      contact detail, see Authors' Addresses section)

   Any other information the author deems interesting:

      None

5.4.  MMS Service Registrations

5.4.1.  MMS Service Registration with tel: URI

   Enumservice Name: "mms"

   Enumservice Type: "mms"

   Enumservice Subtype: "tel"

   URI Scheme: 'tel:'

   Functional Specification:

      This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified by the
      associated URI scheme is capable of receiving a message using the
      Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS) [15].

   Security Considerations:

      There are no specific security issues with this Enumservice.
      However, the general considerations of Section 6 apply.

   Intended Usage: COMMON

   Authors:

      Rudolf Brandner, Lawrence Conroy, Richard Stastny (for author
      contact detail, see Authors' Addresses section)

   Any other information the author deems interesting:

      Note that MMS can be used as an alternative to deliver an SMS
      RP-DATA RPDU if, for example, the SMS bearer is not supported.  If
      an entry includes this Enumservice, then in effect this can be
      taken as implying that the recipient is capable of receiving EMS
      or SMS messages at this address.  Such choices on the end system
      design do have two small caveats; whilst in practice all terminals




Brandner, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 9]
^L
RFC 4355           IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations       January 2006


      supporting MMS today support SMS as well, it might not necessarily
      be the case in the future, and there may be tariff differences in
      using the MMS rather than using the SMS or EMS.

5.4.2.  MMS Service Registration with mailto: URI

   Enumservice Name: "mms"

   Enumservice Type: "mms"

   Enumservice Subtypes: "mailto"

   URI Scheme: 'mailto:'

   Functional Specification:

      This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified by the
      associated URI scheme is capable of receiving a message using an
      email protocol.

      MMS messages are sent over SMTP using the format specified by TS
      23.140 [15] Section 8.4.4 and TS 26.140 [16] Section 4.

      Within and between MMS Environments (MMSE, network infrastructures
      that support the MultiMedia Service), other pieces of state data
      (for example, charging-significant information) are exchanged
      between MMS Relay Servers.  Thus, although these servers use SMTP
      as the "bearer" for their application exchanges, they map their
      internal state to specialised headers carried in the SMTP message
      exchanges.  The headers used in such MMSE are described in detail
      in [17].

   Security Considerations:

      There are no specific security issues with this Enumservice.
      However, the general considerations of Section 6 apply.

   Intended Usage: COMMON

   Authors:

      Rudolf Brandner, Lawrence Conroy, Richard Stastny (for author
      contact detail see Authors' Addresses section)

   Any other information the author deems interesting:

      The MMS Architecture describes an interface between the MMSE and
      "legacy messaging systems" (labelled as MM3) that accepts



Brandner, et al.            Standards Track                    [Page 10]
^L
RFC 4355           IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations       January 2006


      "standard" SMTP messages.  Thus, although the MMS Relay Server
      that supports this interface appears as a standard SMTP server
      from the perspective of an Internet-based mail server, it acts as
      a gateway and translator, adding the internal state data that is
      used within and between the MMS Environments.  This mechanism is
      described in [17], which also includes references to the
      specifications agreed by those bodies responsible for the design
      of the MMS.

6.  Security Considerations

   DNS, as used by ENUM, is a global, distributed database.  Thus, any
   information stored there is visible to anyone anonymously.  Whilst
   this is not qualitatively different from publication in a Telephone
   Directory, it does open data subjects to having "their" information
   collected automatically without any indication that this has been
   done or by whom.

   Such data harvesting by third parties is often used to generate lists
   of targets for unrequested information; in short, they are used to
   address "spam".  Anyone who uses a Web-archived mailing list is aware
   that the volume of "spam" email they are sent 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 posting to such lists to help
   filter out unrequested emails sent to them.  This is not so easy with
   published telephone numbers; the PSTN E.164 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, data subjects MUST give their explicit
   informed consent to data being published in ENUM.

   In addition, they 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 data subjects
   can at any time request that the data is removed from publication and
   that their consent for its publication is explicitly confirmed at
   regular intervals.



Brandner, et al.            Standards Track                    [Page 11]
^L
RFC 4355           IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations       January 2006


   When placing a fax call via the PSTN or a sending a message via the
   Public Land Mobile Network, the sender may be charged for this
   action.  In both kinds of network, calling or messaging to some
   numbers is more expensive than sending to others; both networks have
   "premium rate" services that can charge considerably more than a
   "normal" call or message destination.  As such, it is important that
   end-users be asked to confirm sending the message and that the
   destination number be presented to them.  It is the originating
   user's choice on whether or not to send a message to this destination
   number, but end-users SHOULD be shown the destination number so that
   they can make this decision.

   Although a fax number, like other E.164 numbers, doesn't appear to
   reveal as much identity information about a user as a name in the
   format user@host (e.g., an email or SIP address), the information is
   still publicly available; thus, there is still the risk of unwanted
   communication.

   An analysis of threats specific to the dependence of ENUM on the DNS,
   and the applicability of DNSSEC [18] to these, is provided in RFC
   3761 [2].  A thorough analysis of threats to the DNS itself is
   covered in RFC 3833 [19].

   An email address is a canonical address by which a user is known.
   Placing this address in ENUM is comparable to placing a SIP or H.323
   address in the DNS.

   DNS does not make any policy decisions about the records that it
   shares with an inquirer.  All DNS records must be assumed to be
   available to all inquirers at all times.  The information provided
   within an ENUM NAPTR resource record must, therefore, be considered
   to be open to the public, which is a cause for some privacy
   considerations.

   Therefore, ENUM Subscribers should be made aware of this risk.  Since
   it is within the responsibility of the ENUM Subscriber which data is
   entered in ENUM, it is within the ENUM Subscriber's control if he
   enters email addresses:

   1.  allowing inference of private data, e.g., his first and last name
   2.  at all

   It should also be considered that it is the purpose of public
   communication identifiers to be publicly known.  To reduce spam and
   other unwanted communication, other means should be made available,
   such as incoming message filtering.





Brandner, et al.            Standards Track                    [Page 12]
^L
RFC 4355           IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations       January 2006


   Some Value Added Service Providers use receipt of a short message to
   a given special service telephone number as a trigger to start
   delivery of data messages to the calling number.  By sending an SMS
   (or, in principle, an EMS or MMS) to one of these special service
   numbers, one is entering into a contract to pay for receipt of a set
   of messages containing information (e.g., news, sports results, "ring
   tones").

   Thus, it is very important that the end terminal presents the
   destination number to which any message is to be sent using the "sms:
   tel", "ems:tel", or "mms:tel" Enumservices, to allow the end-user to
   cancel any message before it is sent to one of these numbers.

   At present, these systems use the circuit switched network trusted
   calling line identifier to identify the destination for the
   subsequent charged information messages, and so it is believed that
   sending using the "sms:mailto", "ems:mailto", or "mms:mailto"
   Enumservices does not have this risk currently.

7.  Acknowledgements

   Many thanks to Ville Warsta for his close reading of the document and
   extracting the right references.  Thanks also to those who are
   involved in the parallel effort to specify the requirements for "real
   world" ENUM trials resulting in TS 102 172 [20], in which this and
   other Enumservices are referenced.

8.  References

8.1.  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.




Brandner, et al.            Standards Track                    [Page 13]
^L
RFC 4355           IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations       January 2006


   [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]  Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers", RFC 3966,
         December 2004.

   [11]  Hoffman, P., Masinter, L., and J. Zawinski, "The mailto URL
         scheme", RFC 2368, July 1998.

   [12]  ITU-T, "Standardization of Group 3 facsimile terminals for
         document transmission", Recommendation T.4, April 1999.

   [13]  ITU-T, "Procedures for document facsimile transmission in the
         general switched telephone network", Recommendation T.30,
         April 1999.

   [14]  3GPP, "Technical realization of the Short Message Service
         (SMS);  (Release5)", 3GPP TS 23.040.

   [15]  3GPP, "Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS); Functional
         description; Stage 2 (Release 5)", 3GPP TS 23.140.

   [16]  3GPP, "Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS); Media formats and
         codecs; (Release 5)", 3GPP TS 26.140.

   [17]  Gellens, R., "Mapping Between the Multimedia Messaging Service
         (MMS) and Internet Mail", RFC 4356, January 2006.

8.2.  Informative References

   [18]  Arends, R. and et al. , "Protocol Modifications for the DNS
         Security Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.

   [19]  Atkins, D. and R. Austein, "Threat Analysis of the Domain Name
         System (DNS)", RFC 3833, August 2004.

   [20]  ETSI, "Minimum Requirements for Interoperability of ENUM
         Implementations", ETSI TS 102 172, January 2005.



Brandner, et al.            Standards Track                    [Page 14]
^L
RFC 4355           IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations       January 2006


Authors' Addresses

   Rudolf Brandner
   Siemens AG
   Hofmannstr. 51
   81359 Munich
   Germany

   Phone: +49-89-722-51003
   EMail: rudolf.brandner@siemens.com


   Lawrence Conroy
   Siemens Roke Manor Research
   Roke Manor
   Romsey
   United Kingdom

   Phone: +44-1794-833666
   EMail: lwc@roke.co.uk


   Richard Stastny
   Oefeg
   Postbox 147
   1103 Vienna
   Austria

   Phone: +43-664-420-4100
   EMail: Richard.stastny@oefeg.at





















Brandner, et al.            Standards Track                    [Page 15]
^L
RFC 4355           IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations       January 2006


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   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.

   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.

Intellectual Property

   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.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).







Brandner, et al.            Standards Track                    [Page 16]
^L