idnits 2.17.1 draft-ellermann-idnabis-test-tlds-12.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 17. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 551. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 562. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 569. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 575. 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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- 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 (August 18, 2008) is 5731 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2965 (Obsoleted by RFC 6265) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3490 (Obsoleted by RFC 5890, RFC 5891) == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-iana-rfc3330bis-03 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 9 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group F. Ellermann 3 Internet-Draft xyzzy 4 Obsoletes: 2606 D. Eastlake 5 (if approved) Eastlake Enterprises 6 Intended status: BCP August 18, 2008 7 Expires: February 19, 2009 9 Reserved Top Level DNS Names 10 draft-ellermann-idnabis-test-tlds-12 12 Status of this Memo 14 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 15 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 16 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 17 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 19 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 20 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 21 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 22 Drafts. 24 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 25 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 26 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 27 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 29 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 32 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 33 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 35 This Internet-Draft will expire on February 19, 2009. 37 Abstract 39 To reduce the likelihood of conflict and confusion, a few top level 40 domain names are reserved for use in private testing, as examples in 41 documentation, and the like. In addition, a few second level domain 42 names reserved for use as examples are documented. This memo 43 replaces RFC 2606 reserving 21 additional TLDs. 45 Editorial note 47 This note and Appendix B should be removed before publication. The 48 draft can be discussed on the IETF Discussion mailing 49 list. 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 2. TLDs for Testing, & Documentation Examples . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 2.1. ".example", ".tld" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 2.2. ".invalid" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 2.3. ".localhost" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 2.4. ".test" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 3. Reserved Example Second Level Domain Names . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 4. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 65 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 66 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 67 Appendix A. Educational Info . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 68 Appendix B. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 69 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 70 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 13 72 1. Introduction 74 The global Internet Domain Name System is documented in [RFC1034], 75 [RFC1035], [RFC1123], [RFC1591], [RFC3696], and numerous additional 76 Requests for Comments. It defines a tree of names starting with 77 root, ".", immediately below which are top level domain names such as 78 ".com" and ".us". Below top level domain names there are normally 79 additional levels of names. 81 IPv4 addresses used for tests and in examples are specified in 82 [I-D.iana-rfc3330bis], IPv6 addresses used in examples are described 83 in [RFC3849]; see also [RFC4085]. 85 Fully Qualified Domain Names used in many Internet Protocols allow 86 only LDH (letter, digit, hyphen) domain labels as described in 87 [RFC1123], [RFC3696], and [RFC4343]. The letters are ASCII letters; 88 certain LDH-labels are also known as A-labels in the context of IDN 89 (Internationalization of Domain Names) and [IDNAbis]. 91 The key words "MAY", "RECOMMENDED", and "SHOULD" in this memo are to 92 be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 94 2. TLDs for Testing, & Documentation Examples 96 There is a need for top level domain (TLD) names that can be used for 97 creating names which, without fear of conflicts with current or 98 future actual TLD names in the global DNS, can be used for private 99 testing of existing DNS related code, examples in documentation, DNS 100 related experimentation, invalid DNS names, or other similar uses. 102 For example, without guidance, a site might set up some local 103 additional unused top level domains for testing of its local DNS code 104 and configuration. Later, these TLDs might come into actual use on 105 the global Internet. As a result, local attempts to reference the 106 real data in these zones could be thwarted by the local test 107 versions. Or test or example code might be written that accesses a 108 TLD that is in use with the thought that the test code would only be 109 run in a restricted testbed net or the example never actually run. 110 Later, the test code could escape from the testbed or the example be 111 actually coded and run on the Internet. Depending on the nature of 112 the test or example, it might be best for it to be referencing a TLD 113 permanently reserved for such purposes. 115 To safely satisfy these needs, five domain names are reserved as 116 listed and described below. See also Section 4. 118 2.1. ".example", ".tld" 120 ".example", ".tld", and the example TLDs in Section 4 are RECOMMENDED 121 for use in documentation or as examples. 123 2.2. ".invalid" 125 ".invalid" is intended for use in online construction of domain names 126 that are sure to be invalid, and for which it is obvious at a glance 127 that they are invalid. 129 Applications MAY treat ".invalid" as what the name says. For this 130 technical reason reserving internationalized ".invalid" TLDs would be 131 unwise. 133 2.3. ".localhost" 135 The ".localhost" TLD has traditionally been statically defined in 136 host DNS implementations as having an address record pointing to the 137 loop back IP address and is reserved for such use. Any other use 138 would conflict with widely deployed code which assumes this use. 140 See [RFC1122] for IPv4 and [RFC4291] for IPv6 loop back addresses. 142 2.4. ".test" 144 ".test" and the new test TLDs in Section 4 are RECOMMENDED for use in 145 testing of current or new DNS related code. Applications SHOULD 146 treat these test TLDs like any other TLD; a special handling could 147 defeat the purpose of a test. 149 3. Reserved Example Second Level Domain Names 151 The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) also reserves the 152 three second level domain names ".example.com", ".example.net", and 153 ".example.org", which can be used in examples as explained in 154 Section 2.1. 156 When TLDs offer further second level domains for examples, the TLD 157 administrators are encouraged to publish the relevant policies in 158 their TLD as an informational RFC. 160 The second level domain names "nic", "whois", and "www" are often 161 reserved or used for administrative purposes of the TLD, e.g., 162 "whois.example" for the fully qualified domain name of a host with a 163 whois server. As with second level domains for examples this can be 164 an issue in the case of a TLD redelegation. 166 Please note that there are no globally reserved LDH DNS labels below 167 the top level; see [RFC4367]. 169 4. Internationalization Considerations 171 In 2007 IANA created eleven IDN test TLDs together with corresponding 172 IDN example labels. The A-labels, corresponding languages, and IDN 173 U-labels are listed below; see [RFC3490] or its [IDNAbis] successor 174 for details about IDN. Applications SHOULD treat the IDN test TLDs 175 as explained in Section 2.4. 177 TLD A-label Language Test U-label (hex. code points) 178 ".xn--0zwm56d" Chinese (simplified) 6d4b 8bd5 179 ".xn--11b5bs3a9aj6g" Hindi 92a 930 940 915 94d 937 93e 180 ".xn--80akhbyknj4f" Russian 438 441 43f 44b 442 430 43d 438 435 181 ".xn--9t4b11yi5a" Korean d14c c2a4 d2b8 182 ".xn--deba0ad" Yiddish 5d8 5e2 5e1 5d8 183 ".xn--g6w251d" Chinese (traditional) 6e2c 8a66 184 ".xn--hgbk6aj7f53bba" Persian 622 632 645 627 6cc 634 6cc 185 ".xn--hlcj6aya9esc7a" Tamil baa bb0 bbf b9f bcd b9a bc8 186 ".xn--jxalpdlp" Greek 3b4 3bf 3ba 3b9 3bc 3ae 187 ".xn--kgbechtv" Arabic 625 62e 62a 628 627 631 188 ".xn--zckzah" Japanese 30c6 30b9 30c8 190 The corresponding IDN example labels shown below are reserved as TLDs 191 for examples; compare Section 2.1. Additional IDN example TLDs, 192 notably the final list of IDN example labels after the IDN test, can 193 be reserved later as specified in Section 5. 195 TLD A-label Language Example U-label (hex. code points) 196 ".xn--9n2bp8q" Korean c2e4 b840 197 ".xn--e1afmkfd" Russian 43f 440 438 43c 435 440 198 ".xn--fdbk5d8ap9b8a8d" Yiddish 5d1 5f2 5b7 5e9 5e4 5bc 5d9 5dc 199 ".xn--fsqu00a" Chinese (simplified) 4f8b 5b50 200 ".xn--fsqu00a" Chinese (traditional) 4f8b 5b50 201 ".xn--hxajbheg2az3al" Greek 3c0 3b1 3c1 3ac 3b4 3b5 3b9 3b3 3bc 3b1 202 ".xn--mgbh0fb" Arabic 645 62b 627 644 203 ".xn--mgbh0fb" Persian 645 62b 627 644 204 ".xn--p1b6ci4b4b3a" Hindi 909 926 93e 939 930 923 205 ".xn--r8jz45g" Japanese 4f8b 3048 206 ".xn--zkc6cc5bi7f6e" Tamil b89 ba4 bbe bb0 ba3 bae bcd 208 5. IANA Considerations 210 IANA reserves the TLDs ".example", ".invalid", ".localhost", ".test", 211 ".tld", eleven IDN test TLDs, and nine IDN example TLDs as noted 212 above. IANA reserves the second level domains ".example.com", 213 ".example.net", and ".example.org". 215 IANA creates a registry of reserved TLDs; this can be done alongside 216 existing IANA TLD registries at the discretion of IANA. The registry 217 should contain references to the relevant specifications, for the 25 218 reserved TLDs specified here references to this memo will do. 220 Additional reserved TLDs require IETF review as defined in [RFC5226] 221 section 4.1 in conjunction with clause 4.3 in [RFC2860]. 223 The *technical* purpose of a reserved TLD has to be stated in its 224 specification. 226 Proposals to reserve TLD labels not permitted for ordinary TLDs, as 227 specified in [RFC1123] among others, e.g., labels not starting with a 228 letter, or not following known LDH- and [IDNAbis] rules, are not 229 expected to survive an IETF review without compelling reasons. 231 6. Security Considerations 233 Confusion and conflict can be caused by the use of a current or 234 future top level domain name in experimentation or testing, as an 235 example in documentation, to indicate invalid names, or as a synonym 236 for the loop back address. Test and experimental software can escape 237 and end up being run against the global operational DNS. Even 238 examples used "only" in documentation can end up being coded and 239 released or cause conflicts due to later real use and the possible 240 acquisition of intellectual property rights in such "example" names. 242 The reservation of several top level domain names for these purposes 243 minimizes such confusion and conflict. 245 [RFC4367] discusses various false assumptions based on domain labels, 246 however this doesn't affect the reserved TLDs in this memo. 248 Readers need to be aware that the IANA registry of reserved TLDs in 249 Section 5 won't list all reserved TLDs for specific applications and 250 protocols. The registry can only list reserved TLDs if somebody 251 bothered to propose it, typically in an Internet-Draft, and the 252 proposal was accepted in an IETF review. 254 7. Acknowledgments 256 This memo contains major parts of [RFC2606] written by Donald E. 257 Eastlake and Aliza R. Panitz. 259 Thanks to Alfred Hoenes, Bill McQuillan, Brian Carpenter, 260 Dave Cridland, David Conrad, Debbie Garside, Doug Otis, Joe Abley, 261 John Klensin, John Levine, Lyman Chapin, Marcel Parodi, Mark Andrews, 262 Marshall Eubanks, Michael Dillon, Ole Jacobsen, Paul Hoffman, 263 Peter Saint-Andre, Philip Guenther, Philip Hallam-Baker, SM, 264 Spencer Dawkins, Steve Crocker, Sumit Pandya, Thomas Narten, 265 Tina Dam, Tony Finch, and Tony Hansen for their feedback, 266 contributions, or encouragement. 268 8. References 270 8.1. Normative References 272 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 273 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 275 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 276 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 277 May 2008. 279 8.2. Informative References 281 [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", 282 STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. 284 [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and 285 specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. 287 [RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - 288 Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989. 290 [RFC1123] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application 291 and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989. 293 [RFC1591] Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and Delegation", 294 RFC 1591, March 1994. 296 [RFC2606] Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS 297 Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999. 299 [RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of 300 Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the 301 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000. 303 [RFC2965] Kristol, D. and L. Montulli, "HTTP State Management 304 Mechanism", RFC 2965, October 2000. 306 [RFC3490] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello, 307 "Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)", 308 RFC 3490, March 2003. 310 [RFC3696] Klensin, J., "Application Techniques for Checking and 311 Transformation of Names", RFC 3696, February 2004. 313 [RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix 314 Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, July 2004. 316 [RFC3927] Cheshire, S., Aboba, B., and E. Guttman, "Dynamic 317 Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses", RFC 3927, 318 May 2005. 320 [RFC4085] Plonka, D., "Embedding Globally-Routable Internet 321 Addresses Considered Harmful", BCP 105, RFC 4085, 322 June 2005. 324 [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing 325 Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. 327 [RFC4343] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case Insensitivity 328 Clarification", RFC 4343, January 2006. 330 [RFC4367] Rosenberg, J. and IAB, "What's in a Name: False 331 Assumptions about DNS Names", RFC 4367, February 2006. 333 [I-D.iana-rfc3330bis] 334 Cotton, M., "Special Use IPv4 Addresses", 335 draft-iana-rfc3330bis-03 (work in progress), June 2008. 337 [IDNAbis] IETF, "Internationalized Domain Names in Applications 338 (Revised)", April 2008, 339 . 341 Appendix A. Educational Info 343 This informative appendix tries to answer three frequently asked 344 questions: 346 1. As of 2008 IANA is the registrant of ".example.edu"; TLD ".edu" 347 has no contract with ICANN; its administration is based on a five 348 years contract with the US DoC renewed in 2006; see 349 . Under amendment 350 6 of their current policy generic names cannot be registered. 351 This is not exactly the same situation as for say ".example.org", 352 where IANA is the registrant *and* registrar. 354 2. As of 2008 IANA is the registrant of ".example.info"; TLD ".info" 355 was created by ICANN in 2001. The ".info" registry agreement 356 lists reserved DNS labels including "example"; see 357 appendix 6 (2006) 358 and K (2001), respectively. This is not exactly the same 359 situation as for say ".example.org", where IANA is the registrant 360 *and* registrar. 362 3. Ignoring [RFC2965] the TLD ".local" issue was discussed in a 363 bunch of Internet-Drafts related to AS112, zeroconf, and 364 [RFC3927]. Presumably TLD ".local" should be registered as 365 reserved for technical reasons, but deserves its own document 366 with the fine print. 368 Appendix B. Document History 370 Changes in version 12: 372 o Version 12 adjusts white space introduced in version 10 that 373 should have been removed for version 11. Version 11 attracted no 374 further feedback. 376 o An informal last call on the IDNAbis list for version 10 resulted 377 in one change for version 11 as noted below. Unsurprisingly the 378 IDNAbis WG did not adopt this draft as work item. The WG also did 379 not tackle the issue of IDNA s so far, and this memo is 380 not the place to update [RFC1123] section 2.1. 382 Changes in version 11: 384 o Added nine IDN example labels corresponding to the IDN test labels 385 as reserved TLDs after long discussions with two contributors 386 confirming the stability and desirability of this approach. 388 o Noted that the list of IDN example TLDs might be extended, and a 389 final list can be reserved as specified here after the conclusion 390 of the IDN test. 392 Changes in version 10: 394 o Noted that only certain LDH-labels are or might be A-labels based 395 on feedback. The details are or will be specified in [IDNAbis]. 397 o Moved [RFC2860] back to informative. Folks *apparently* disagree 398 what it should be, more feedback needed to justify a downref. 400 o Added [RFC3696] again, its description of a covers the 401 eleven IDN test TLDs. 403 Changes in version 09: 405 o Fixed [RFC2860] link, clause 4.3 is a section of the MoU, not a 406 section of the RFC containing this MoU. 408 o Added ".tld" as reserved TLD for examples following a proposal by 409 Bill McQuillan supported by some others. 411 o Arguably ".bad" ideas ".bar", ".bat", ".baz", ".foo", and ".lit" 412 not yet added for different reasons, they would need stronger 413 support. 415 Changes in version 08: 417 o Moved [RFC2860] to normative, inspired by feedback and the 418 precedence in another BCP. Added the relevant sections in 419 [RFC2860] and [RFC5226] to Section 5. 421 o Added a long blurb that the purpose of reserved TLDs has to be 422 noted in their specifications, and that reserving TLDs not 423 permitted as ordinary TLDs need very good reasons to survive the 424 required IETF review. 426 o [IDNAbis] hopefully fixes the problem in [RFC1123]. 427 This memo isn't the place to do this, as the issue is not limited 428 to reserved TLDs, tests, and examples. 430 Changes in version 07: 432 o Kept "nic", "whois", and "www" as known examples why there are no 433 globally reserved LDH labels for whatever purpose below the top 434 level. 436 o Proposals to add ".internal", ".local", ".localdomain", and 437 ".uucp" not adopted. This memo covers known test and example 438 TLDs, as well as two other TLDs and three example SLDs inherited 439 from [RFC2606]. Reserved TLDs for other purposes deserve separate 440 documents. 442 o Added a note that internationalizations of ".invalid" are a non- 443 starter, as this TLD is expected to be hardwired in some 444 applications. For ".localhost" that should be obvious. 446 o Review requests sent at different times to the APPS, general, 447 [IDNAbis], INT, and OPS mailing lists. 449 Changes in version 06: 451 o Explanations of the terms LDH, A-label, and IDN added in 452 Section 1. Just in case added a reference to [RFC4343]. 454 o Downgraded [RFC3696] to [RFC1123]; for some months the best 455 documentation of a was available in an erratum. 457 Changes in version 05: 459 o Donald offered to co-author this memo. 461 o Clarified that there are now additional TLDs recommended for 462 tests, not only the original ".test" in Section 2.4. 464 Changes in version 04: 466 o In the "Public Suffix List" debate SM quoted [RFC4085], added to 467 Section 1. 469 o Replaced "A record" by "address record" with references to 470 [RFC1122] and [RFC4291] in Section 2.3. 472 o Added IDN test U-labels (in a crude hex. format due to RFC layout 473 limitations) with the help of and 474 . 476 Changes in version 03: 478 o Swapped IANA and security considerations based on feedback, since 479 version 01 the order anyway did not more follow . 482 o Dave Cridland proposed another [RFC4367] caveat, there are no 483 globally reserved LDH labels below the top level. LDH excludes 484 special cases such as the empty label reserved for the root, and 485 leaf labels starting with an underscore. 487 o The informative Appendix A hopefully answers frequently asked 488 questions about ".example.edu", ".example.info", and ".local". 490 Changes in version 02: 492 o Added the related [RFC3849] and [I-D.iana-rfc3330bis] references. 493 Added an [RFC4367] reference to the security considerations, as 494 this explains one of many issues with any "well-known" label below 495 the top level. 497 o Improved the IANA Considerations Section 5 based on feedback. The 498 registry of reserved TLDs needs references to the relevant 499 specifications. 501 o Added a caveat that the IANA registry of reserved TLDs cannot list 502 all obscure ideas of specific applications and protocols; somebody 503 has to trigger an IETF review for new registrations. 505 Changes in version 01: 507 o Various editorial issues found by Tony Hansen fixed. 509 o Added an [IDNAbis] reference. The authors believe that the IETF 510 is not entitled to decree that ".example.edu" belongs to the set 511 of three example-SLDs reserved by IANA. 513 Changes in version 00: 515 o John Klensin suggested clarifying the guidelines for examples in 516 [RFC2606], referenced by . 517 Documenting the eleven new IDN test TLDs was anyway desirable. 519 Authors' Addresses 521 Frank Ellermann 522 xyzzy 523 Hamburg, Germany 525 Email: hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com 526 URI: http://purl.net/xyzzy/ 528 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd 529 Eastlake Enterprises 530 155 Beaver Street 531 Milford, MA 01757 532 USA 534 Phone: +1-508-634-2066 535 Email: d3e3e3@gmail.com 537 Full Copyright Statement 539 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 541 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 542 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 543 retain all their rights. 545 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 546 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 547 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 548 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 549 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 550 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 551 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 553 Intellectual Property 555 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 556 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 557 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 558 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 559 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 560 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 561 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 562 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 564 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 565 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 566 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 567 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 568 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 569 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 571 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 572 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 573 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 574 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 575 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 577 Acknowledgment 579 This document was produced using xml2rfc v1.33 (of 580 http://xml.resource.org/) from a source in RFC-2629 XML format.