idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-10.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 16. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 561. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 572. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 579. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 585. 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 draft header indicates that this document updates RFC3834, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC3834, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2002-06-07) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (December 4, 2008) is 5615 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: 'Knitting' is mentioned on line 302, but not defined ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (ref. 'IANA') (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 8 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Sieve Working Group B. Leiba 3 Internet-Draft IBM T.J. Watson Research Center 4 Updates: 3834 (if approved) M. Haardt 5 Intended status: Standards Track freenet.de GmbH 6 Expires: June 7, 2009 December 4, 2008 8 Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto 9 draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-10 11 Status of this Memo 13 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 14 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 15 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 16 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 18 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 19 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 20 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 21 Drafts. 23 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 24 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 25 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 26 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 28 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 31 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on June 7, 2009. 36 Abstract 38 This document describes a profile of the Sieve extension for 39 notifications, to allow notifications to be sent by electronic mail. 41 Table of Contents 43 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 44 1.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 45 1.2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 47 2. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 48 2.1. Notify parameter "method" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 49 2.2. Test notify_method_capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 50 2.3. Notify tag ":from" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 51 2.4. Notify tag ":importance" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 52 2.5. Notify tag ":options" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 53 2.6. Notify tag ":message" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 54 2.7. Other Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 55 2.7.1. The Auto-Submitted header field . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 57 3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 59 4. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 10 61 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 63 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 64 6.1. Registration of notification mechanism . . . . . . . . . . 13 65 6.2. New registry for Auto-Submitted header field keywords . . 13 66 6.3. Initial registration of Auto-Submitted header field 67 keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 69 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 70 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 71 7.2. Non-Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 73 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 74 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . 17 76 1. Introduction 78 1.1. Overview 80 The [Notify] extension to the [Sieve] mail filtering language is a 81 framework for providing notifications by employing URIs to specify 82 the notification mechanism. This document defines how [mailto] URIs 83 are used to generate notifications by e-mail. 85 1.2. Conventions used in this document 87 Conventions for notations are as in [Sieve] section 1.1, including 88 the use of [Kwds]. 90 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 91 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 92 document are to be interpreted as described in [Kwds]. 94 2. Definition 96 The mailto mechanism results in the sending of a new email message (a 97 "notification message") to notify a recipient about a "triggering 98 message". 100 2.1. Notify parameter "method" 102 The mailto notification mechanism uses standard mailto URIs as 103 specified in [mailto]. mailto URIs may contain header fields 104 consisting of a header name and value. These header fields are 105 called "URI headers" to distinguish them from "message headers". 107 2.2. Test notify_method_capability 109 The notify_method_capability test for "online" may return "yes" or 110 "no" only if the Sieve processor can determine with certainty whether 111 or not the recipients of the notification message are online and 112 logged in. Otherwise, the test returns "maybe" for this notification 113 method. 115 2.3. Notify tag ":from" 117 The :from tag overrides the default sender of the notification 118 message. "Sender", here, refers to the value used in the [RFC5322] 119 "From" header. Implementations MAY also use this value in the 120 [RFC5321] "MAIL FROM" command (the "envelope sender"), or they may 121 prefer to establish a mailbox that receives bounces from notification 122 messages. 124 2.4. Notify tag ":importance" 126 The :importance tag has no special meaning for this notification 127 mechanism, and this specification puts no restriction on its use. 128 Implementations MAY use the value of :importance to set a priority or 129 importance indication on the notification message (perhaps a visual 130 indication, or perhaps making use of one of the non-standard but 131 commonly used message headers). 133 2.5. Notify tag ":options" 135 This tag is not used by the mailto method. 137 2.6. Notify tag ":message" 139 The value of this tag, if it is present, is used as the subject of 140 the notification message, and overrides all other mechanisms for 141 determining the subject (as described below). Its value SHOULD NOT 142 normally be truncated, though it may be sensible to truncate an 143 excessively long value. 145 2.7. Other Definitions 147 Because the receipt of an email message is generating another email 148 message, implementations MUST take steps to avoid mail loops. The 149 REQUIRED inclusion of an "Auto-Submitted:" field, as described in the 150 message composition guidelines, will also help in loop detection and 151 avoidance. 153 Implementations SHOULD NOT trigger notifications for messages 154 containing "Auto-Submitted:" header fields with any value other than 155 "No". 157 Implementations MUST allow messages with empty envelope senders to 158 trigger notifications. 160 Because this notification method uses a store-and-forward system for 161 delivery of the notification message, the Sieve processor should not 162 have a need to retry notifications. Therefore, implementations of 163 this method SHOULD use normal mechanisms for submitting SMTP messages 164 and for retrying the initial submission. Once the notification 165 message is submitted, implementations MUST NOT resubmit it, as this 166 is likely to result in multiple notifications, and increases the 167 danger of message loops. 169 The overall notification message is composed using the following 170 guidelines (see [RFC5322] for references to message header fields): 172 o If the envelope sender of the triggering message is empty, the 173 envelope sender of the notification message MUST be empty as well, 174 to avoid message loops. Otherwise, the envelope sender of the 175 notification message SHOULD be set to the value of the ":from" 176 parameter to the notify action, if one is specified, has email 177 address syntax and is valid according to the implementation 178 specific security checks (see Section 3.3 of [Notify]). If 179 ":from" is not specified or is not valid, the envelope sender of 180 the notification message SHOULD be set either to the envelope "to" 181 field from the triggering message, as used by Sieve, or to an 182 email address associated with the notification system, at the 183 discretion of the implementation. This MUST NOT be overridden by 184 a "from" URI header, and any such URI header MUST be ignored. 186 o The envelope recipient(s) of the notification message SHOULD be 187 set to the address(es) specified in the URI (including any URI 188 headers where the hname is "to" or "cc"). 190 o The header field "Auto-Submitted: auto-notified" MUST be included 191 in the notification message (see Section 2.7.1). This is to 192 reduce the likelihood of message loops, by tagging this as an 193 automatically generated message. Among other results, it will 194 inform other notification systems not to generate further 195 notifications. mailto URI headers with hname "auto-submitted" are 196 considered unsafe and MUST be ignored. 198 o The "From:" header field of the notification message SHOULD be set 199 to the value of the ":from" parameter to the notify action, if one 200 is specified, has email address syntax and is valid according to 201 the implementation specific security checks (see Section 3.3 of 202 [Notify]). If ":from" is not specified or is not valid, the 203 "From:" header field of the notification message SHOULD be set 204 either to the envelope "to" field from the triggering message, as 205 used by Sieve, or to an email address associated with the 206 notification system, at the discretion of the implementation. 207 This MUST NOT be overridden by a "from" URI header, and any such 208 URI header MUST be ignored. 210 o The "To:" header field of the notification message SHOULD be set 211 to the address(es) specified in the URI (including any URI headers 212 where the hname is "to"). 214 o The "Subject:" field of the notification message SHOULD contain 215 the value defined by the :message notify tag, as described in 216 [Notify]. If there is no :message tag and there is a "subject" 217 header on the URI, then that value SHOULD be used. If that is 218 also absent, the subject SHOULD be retained from the triggering 219 message. Note that Sieve [Variables] can be used to advantage 220 here, as shown in the example in Section 3. 222 o The "References:" field of the notification message MAY be set to 223 refer to the triggering message, and MAY include references from 224 the triggering message. 226 o If the mailto URI contains a "body" header, the value of that 227 header SHOULD be used as the body of the notification message. If 228 there is no "body" header, it is up to the implementation whether 229 to leave the body empty or to use an excerpt of the original 230 message. 232 o The "Received:" fields from the triggering message MAY be retained 233 in the notification message, as these could provide useful trace/ 234 history/diagnostic information. The "Auto-Submitted" header field 235 MUST be placed above these (see Section 2.7.1). URI headers with 236 hname "received" are considered unsafe, and MUST be ignored. 238 o Other header fields of the notification message that are normally 239 related to an individual new message (such as "Message-ID" and 240 "Date") are generated for the notification message in the normal 241 manner, and MUST NOT be copied from the triggering message. Any 242 URI headers with those names MUST be ignored. Further, the "Date" 243 header serves as the notification timestamp defined in [Notify]. 245 o All other header fields of the notification message either are as 246 specified by URI headers, or have implementation-specific values; 247 their values are not defined here. It is suggested that the 248 implementation capitalize the first letter of URI headers and add 249 a space character after the colon between the mail header name and 250 value when adding URI headers to the message, to be consistent 251 with common practice in email headers. 253 2.7.1. The Auto-Submitted header field 255 The header field "Auto-Submitted: auto-notified" MUST be included in 256 the notification message (see [RFC3834]). The "Auto-Submitted" 257 header field is considered a "trace field", similar to "Received" 258 header fields (see [RFC5321]). If the implementation retains the 259 "Received" fields from the triggering message (see above), the "Auto- 260 Submitted" field MUST be placed above those "Received" fields, 261 serving as a boundary between the ones from the triggering message 262 and those that will be part of the notification message. 264 The auto-notified Auto-Submitted field MUST include one or both of 265 the following parameters: 267 o owner-email - specifies an email address of the owner of the Sieve 268 script that generated this notification. If specified, it might 269 be used to identify or contact the script's owner. The parameter 270 attribute is "owner-email", and the parameter value is a quoted 271 string containing an email address, as defined by "addr-spec" in 272 [RFC5322]. Example: 273 Auto-Submitted: auto-notified; owner-email="me@example.com" 275 o owner-token - specifies an opaque token that the administrative 276 domain of the owner of the Sieve script that generated this 277 notification can identify the owner with. This might be used to 278 allow identification of the owner while protecting the owner's 279 privacy. The parameter attribute is "owner-token", and the 280 parameter value is as defined by "token" in [RFC3834]. Example: 281 Auto-Submitted: auto-notified; owner-token=af3NN2pK5dDXI0W 283 See Section 5 for discussion of possible uses of these parameters. 285 3. Examples 287 Triggering message (received by recipient@example.org): 289 Return-Path: 290 Received: from mail.example.com by mail.example.org 291 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:02 -0500 292 Received: from hobbies.example.com by mail.example.com 293 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 02:00:26 -0800 294 Message-ID: <1234567.89ABCDEF@example.com> 295 Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:59:19 +0100 296 Precedence: list 297 List-Id: Knitting Mailing List 298 Sender: knitting-bounces@example.com 299 Errors-To: knitting-bounces@example.com 300 From: "Jeff Smith" 301 To: "Knitting Mailing List" 302 Subject: [Knitting] A new sweater 304 I just finished a great new sweater! 306 Sieve script (run on behalf of recipient@example.org): 308 require ["notify", "variables"]; 310 if header :contains "list-id" "knitting.example.com" { 311 if header :matches "Subject" "[*] *" { 312 notify :message "From ${1} list: ${2}" 313 :importance "3" 314 "mailto:0123456789@sms.example.net?to=backup@example.com"; 315 } 316 } 318 Notification message: 320 Auto-Submitted: auto-notified; owner-email="recipient@example.org" 321 Received: from mail.example.com by mail.example.org 322 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:02 -0500 323 Received: from hobbies.example.com by mail.example.com 324 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 02:00:26 -0800 325 Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:55 -0500 326 Message-ID: 327 From: recipient@example.org 328 To: 0123456789@sms.example.net, backup@example.com 329 Subject: From Knitting list: A new sweater 331 Note that: 333 o Fields such as "Message-ID:" and "Date:" were generated afresh for 334 the notification message, and do not relate to the triggering 335 message. 337 o Additional "Received:" fields will be added to the notification 338 message in transit; the ones shown were copied from the triggering 339 message. New ones will be added above the "Auto-Submitted:" 340 field. 342 o If this message should appear at the mail.example.org server 343 again, the server can use the presence of a "mail.example.org" 344 received line to recognize that. The Auto-Submitted header field 345 is also present to tell the server to avoid sending another 346 notification, and it includes an optional owner-email parameter 347 for identification. 349 4. Internationalization Considerations 351 This specification introduces no specific internationalization issues 352 that are not already addressed in [Sieve] and in [Notify]. 354 5. Security Considerations 356 Sending a notification is comparable with forwarding mail to the 357 notification recipient. Care must be taken when forwarding mail 358 automatically, to ensure that confidential information is not sent 359 into an insecure environment. 361 The automated sending of email messages exposes the system to mail 362 loops, which can cause operational problems. Implementations of this 363 specification MUST protect themselves against mail loops; see 364 Section 2.7 for discussion of this and some suggestions. Other 365 possible mitigations for mail loops involve types of service 366 limitations. For example, the number of notifications generated for 367 a single user might be limited to no more than, say, 30 in a 60- 368 minute period. Of course, this technique presents its own problems, 369 in that the actual rate limit must be selected carefully, to allow 370 most legitimate situations in the given environment, and even with 371 careful selection it's inevitable that there will be false positives 372 -- and false negatives. 374 Ultimately, human intervention may be necessary to re-enable 375 notifications that have been disabled because a loop was detected, or 376 to terminate a very slow loop that's under the automatic-detection 377 radar. Administrative mechanisms MUST be available to handle these 378 sorts of situations. 380 Email addresses specified as recipients of notifications might not be 381 owned by the entity that owns the Sieve script. As a result, a 382 notification recipient could wind up as the target of unwanted 383 notifications, either through intent (using scripts to mount a mail- 384 bomb attack) or by accident (an address was mistyped or has been 385 reassigned). The situation is arguably no worse than any other in 386 which a recipient gets unwanted email, and some of the same 387 mechanisms can be used in this case. But those deploying this 388 extension have to be aware of the potential extra problems here, 389 where scripts might be created through means that do not adequately 390 validate email addresses, and such scripts might then be forgotten 391 and left to run indefinitely. 393 In particular, note that the Auto-Submitted header field is required 394 to include a value that a recipient can use when contacting the 395 source domain of the notification message (see Section 2.7.1). That 396 value will allow the domain to track down the script's owner and have 397 the script corrected or disabled. Domains that enable this extension 398 MUST be prepared to respond to such complaints, in order to limit the 399 damage caused by a faulty script. 401 Problems can also show up if notification messages are sent to a 402 gateway into another service, such as SMS. Information from the 403 email message is often lost in the gateway translation, and in this 404 case critical information needed to avoid loops, to contact the 405 script owner, and to resolve other problems might be lost. 406 Developers of email gateways should consider these issues, and try to 407 preseve as much information as possible, including what appears in 408 email trace headers and Auto-Submitted. 410 Additional security considerations are discussed in [Sieve] and in 411 [Notify]. 413 6. IANA Considerations 415 6.1. Registration of notification mechanism 417 The following template specifies the IANA registration of the Sieve 418 notification mechanism specified in this document: 420 To: iana@iana.org 421 Subject: Registration of new Sieve notification mechanism 422 Mechanism name: mailto 423 Mechanism URI: RFC2368 424 Mechanism-specific tags: none 425 Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: this RFC 426 Person and email address to contact for further information: 427 Michael Haardt 429 This information should be added to the list of sieve notification 430 mechanisms given on 431 http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-notification. 433 6.2. New registry for Auto-Submitted header field keywords 435 Because [RFC3834] does not define a registry for new keywords used in 436 the Auto-Submitted header field, we define one here, to be created as 437 http://www.iana.org/assignments/auto-submitted-keywords. Keywords 438 are registered using the "Specification Required" policy [IANA]. 440 This defines the template to be used to register new keywords. 441 Initial entries to this registry follow in Section 6.3. 443 To: iana@iana.org 444 Subject: Registration of new auto-submitted header field keyword 445 Keyword value: [the text value of the field] 446 Description: [a brief explanation of the purpose of this value] 447 Parameters: [list any keyword-specific parameters, specify their 448 meanings, specify whether they are required or optional; use "none" 449 if there are none] 450 Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: [identifies 451 the specification that defines the value being registered] 452 Contact: [name and email address to contact for further information] 454 6.3. Initial registration of Auto-Submitted header field keywords 456 The following are the initial keywords to be registered for the Auto- 457 Submitted header field, to be entered in 458 http://www.iana.org/assignments/auto-submitted-keywords. 460 Keyword value: no 461 Description: Indicates that a message was NOT automatically 462 generated, but was created by a human. It is the equivalent to the 463 absence of an Auto-Submitted header altogether. 464 Parameters: none 465 Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: RFC3834 466 Contact: Keith Moore 468 Keyword value: auto-generated 469 Description: Indicates that a message was generated by an automatic 470 process, and is not a direct response to another message. 471 Parameters: none 472 Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: RFC3834 473 Contact: Keith Moore 475 Keyword value: auto-replied 476 Description: Indicates that a message was automatically generated as 477 a direct response to another message. 478 Parameters: none 479 Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: RFC3834 480 Contact: Keith Moore 482 Keyword value: auto-notified 483 Description: Indicates that a message was generated by a Sieve 484 notification system. 485 Parameters: owner-email, owner-token. Both optional, both refer to 486 the owner of the Sieve script that generated this message. See the 487 relevant RFC for details. 488 Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: this RFC 489 Contact: Michael Haardt 491 7. References 493 7.1. Normative References 495 [IANA] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 496 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 497 May 2008. 499 [Kwds] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 500 Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. 502 [Notify] Melnikov, A., Ed., Leiba, B., Ed., Segmuller, W., and T. 503 Martin, "Sieve Extension: Notifications", work in 504 progress, draft-ietf-sieve-notify, December 2007. 506 [RFC3834] Moore, K., "Recommendations for Automatic Responses to 507 Electronic Mail", RFC 3834, August 2004. 509 [RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322, 510 October 2008. 512 [Sieve] Guenther, P., Ed. and T. Showalter, Ed., "Sieve: An Email 513 Filtering Language", RFC 5228, January 2008. 515 [mailto] Hoffman, P., Masinter, L., and J. Zawinski, "The mailto 516 URL scheme", RFC 2368, July 1998. 518 7.2. Non-Normative References 520 [RFC5321] Klensin, J., Ed., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", 521 RFC 5321, October 2008. 523 [Variables] 524 Homme, K., "Sieve Extension: Variables", RFC 5229, 525 January 2008. 527 Authors' Addresses 529 Barry Leiba 530 IBM T.J. Watson Research Center 531 19 Skyline Drive 532 Hawthorne, NY 10532 533 US 535 Phone: +1 914 784 7941 536 Email: leiba@watson.ibm.com 538 Michael Haardt 539 freenet.de GmbH 540 Willstaetter Str. 13 541 Duesseldorf, NRW 40549 542 Germany 544 Phone: +49 241 53087 520 545 Email: michael.haardt@freenet.ag 547 Full Copyright Statement 549 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 551 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 552 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 553 retain all their rights. 555 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 556 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 557 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 558 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 559 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 560 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 561 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 563 Intellectual Property 565 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 566 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 567 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 568 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 569 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 570 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 571 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 572 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 574 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 575 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 576 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 577 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 578 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 579 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 581 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 582 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 583 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 584 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 585 ietf-ipr@ietf.org.