idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis-07.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC5721, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was first submitted on or after 10 November 2008. The disclaimer is usually necessary only for documents that revise or obsolete older RFCs, and that take significant amounts of text from those RFCs. If you can contact all authors of the source material and they are willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, you can and should remove the disclaimer. Otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (July 31, 2012) is 4280 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in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'RFC2047' is defined on line 516, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-eai-5738bis-03 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3454 (Obsoleted by RFC 7564) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4013 (Obsoleted by RFC 7613) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5721 (Obsoleted by RFC 6856) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group R. Gellens 3 Internet-Draft QUALCOMM Incorporated 4 Obsoletes: 5721 (if approved) C. Newman 5 Intended status: Standards Track Oracle 6 Expires: February 1, 2013 J. Yao 7 CNNIC 8 K. Fujiwara 9 JPRS 10 July 31, 2012 12 POP3 Support for UTF-8 13 draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis-07.txt 15 Abstract 17 This specification extends the Post Office Protocol version 3 (POP3) 18 to support UTF-8 encoded international string in user names, 19 passwords, mail addresses, message headers, and protocol-level 20 textual strings. 22 Status of This Memo 24 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 25 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 29 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 30 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on February 1, 2013. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 42 document authors. All rights reserved. 44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 46 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 47 publication of this document. Please review these documents 48 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 49 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 50 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 51 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 52 described in the Simplified BSD License. 54 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF 55 Contributions published or made publicly available before November 56 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 57 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow 58 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. 59 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling 60 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified 61 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may 62 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format 63 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other 64 than English. 66 Table of Contents 68 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 69 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 70 2. UTF8 Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 2.1. The UTF8 Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 72 2.2. USER Argument to UTF8 Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 73 3. LANG Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 74 4. Non-ASCII character Maildrops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 75 5. UTF8 Response Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 76 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 77 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 78 8. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 79 8.1. draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis: Version 00 . . . . . . . . . . 10 80 8.2. draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis: Version 01 . . . . . . . . . . 10 81 8.3. draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis: Version 02 . . . . . . . . . . 11 82 8.4. draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis: Version 03 . . . . . . . . . . 11 83 8.5. draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis: Version 04 . . . . . . . . . . 11 84 8.6. draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis: Version 05 . . . . . . . . . . 11 85 8.7. draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis: Version 06 . . . . . . . . . . 11 86 8.8. draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis: Version 07 . . . . . . . . . . 11 87 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 88 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 89 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 90 Appendix A. Design Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 91 Appendix B. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 93 1. Introduction 95 This document forms part of the Email Address Internationalization 96 protocols described in the Email Address Internationalization 97 Framework document [RFC6530]. As part of the overall Email Address 98 Internationalization work, email messages could be transmitted and 99 delivered containing Unicode string encoded in UTF-8 in the header 100 and/or body, and maildrops that are accessed using POP3 [RFC1939] 101 might natively store UTF-8. 103 This specification extends POP3 [RFC1939] using the POP3 extension 104 mechanism [RFC2449] to permit un-encoded UTF-8 [RFC3629] in headers, 105 and bodies (e.g., transferred using 8-bit Content Transfer Encoding) 106 as described in "Internationalized Email Headers" [RFC6532]. It also 107 adds a mechanism to support login names and passwords containing 108 UTF-8 string and a mechanism to support UTF-8 string in protocol 109 level response strings as well as the ability to negotiate a language 110 for such response strings. 112 This specification also adds a new response code to indicate that a 113 message was not delivered because it required UTF-8 mode discussed in 114 section 2 and the server was unable or unwilling to create and 115 deliver a variant form of the message as discussed in Section 7 of 116 [I-D.ietf-eai-5738bis]. 118 This specification replaces an earlier, experimental, approach to the 119 same problem RFC 5721 [RFC5721]. 121 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document 123 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 124 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 125 document are to be interpreted as described in "Key words for use in 126 RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels" [RFC2119]. 128 The terms "UTF-8 string" or "UTF-8 character" are used to refer to 129 Unicode characters, which may or may not be members of the ASCII 130 subset, in UTF-8 RFC3629 [RFC3629], a standard Unicode Encoding Form. 131 All other specialized terms used in this specification are defined in 132 the Email Address Internationalization framework document. 134 In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and 135 server, respectively. If a single "C:" or "S:" label applies to 136 multiple lines, then the line breaks between those lines are for 137 editorial clarity only and are not part of the actual protocol 138 exchange. 140 Note that examples always use ASCII characters due to limitations of 141 this document format; otherwise, some examples for the "LANG" command 142 may appear incorrectly. 144 2. UTF8 Capability 146 This specification adds a new POP3 Extension [RFC2449] capability 147 response tag and command to specify support for header field 148 information in UTF-8 rather than only ASCII. The capability tag and 149 new command and functionality are described below. 151 CAPA tag: 152 UTF8 154 Arguments with CAPA tag: 155 USER 157 Added Commands: 158 UTF8 160 Standard commands affected: 161 USER, PASS, APOP, LIST, TOP, RETR 163 Announced states / possible differences: 164 both / no 166 Commands valid in states: 167 AUTHORIZATION 169 Specification reference: 170 this document 172 Discussion: 174 This capability adds the "UTF8" command to POP3. The UTF8 command 175 switches the session from the ASCII-only mode of RFC 1939 to UTF-8 176 mode. The UTF-8 mode means that, all messages transmitted between 177 servers and clients are UTF-8 strings, and both servers and clients 178 can send and accept UTF-8 string. 180 2.1. The UTF8 Command 182 The UTF8 command enables UTF-8 mode. The UTF8 command has no 183 parameters. 185 UTF-8 mode has no effect on messages in an ASCII-only maildrop. 186 Messages in native UTF-8 maildrops can be ASCII or UTF-8 using 187 internationalized headers [RFC6532] and/or 8bit content-transfer- 188 encoding, as defined in MIME Section 2.8 [RFC2045]. The character 189 encoding format of maildrops may not be UTF-8 or ASCII. In UTF-8 190 mode, if the character encoding format of maildrops is UTF-8 or 191 ASCII, the messages are sent to the client as-is; if the character 192 encoding format of maildrops is format other than UTF-8 or ASCII, the 193 messages' encoding format SHOULD be converted to be UTF-8 before they 194 are sent to the client. When not in UTF-8 mode, non-ASCII string 195 messages including UTF-8 string messages in the maildrop MUST NOT be 196 sent to the client as-is. If a client requests a UTF-8 message when 197 not in UTF-8 mode, the server MUST either create the message content 198 variant (discussed in Section 7 of [I-D.ietf-eai-5738bis]) it sends 199 to the client to comply with unextended POP and Internet Mail Format 200 without UTF-8 mode support, or fail the request with a -ERR response 201 containing the UTF-8 response code (see section 5). The UTF8 command 202 MAY fail. 204 Note that even in UTF-8 mode, MIME binary content-transfer-encoding 205 as defined in MIME Section 6.2 [RFC2045] is still not permitted. 207 The octet count (size) of a message reported in a response to the 208 LIST command SHOULD match the actual number of octets sent in a RETR 209 response (not counting byte-stuffing). Sizes reported elsewhere, 210 such as in STAT responses and non-standardized, free-form text in 211 positive status indicators (following "+OK") need not be accurate, 212 but it is preferable if they were. 214 Normal operation for maildrops that natively support non-ASCII 215 characters will be for both servers and clients to support the 216 extension discussed in this specification. Upgrading of both clients 217 and servers is the only fully satisfactory way to support the 218 capabilities offered by the "UTF8" extension and SMTPUTF8 mail more 219 generally. Servers must, however, anticipate the possibility of a 220 client attempting to access a message that requires this extension 221 without having issued the "UTF8" command. There are no completely 222 satisfactory responses for that case other than upgrading the client 223 to support this specification. One solution, unsatisfactory because 224 the user may be confused by being able to access the message through 225 some means and not others, is that a server MAY choose to reject the 226 command to retrieve the message as discussed in Section 5. Other 227 alternatives, including the possibility of creating and delivering 228 variant form of the message, are discussed in Section 7 of 229 [I-D.ietf-eai-5738bis]. 231 Clients MUST NOT issue the STLS command [RFC2595] after issuing UTF8; 232 servers MAY (but are not required to) enforce this by rejecting with 233 an "-ERR" response an STLS command issued subsequent to a successful 234 UTF8 command. (Because this is a protocol error as opposed to a 235 failure based on conditions, an extended response code [RFC2449] is 236 not specified.) 238 2.2. USER Argument to UTF8 Capability 240 If the USER argument is included with this capability, it indicates 241 that the server accepts UTF-8 user names and passwords. 243 Servers that include the USER argument in the UTF8 capability 244 response SHOULD apply SASLprep [RFC4013] or one of its standards- 245 track successors to the arguments of the USER and PASS commands. 247 A client or server that supports APOP and permits UTF-8 in user names 248 or passwords MUST apply SASLprep [RFC4013] or one of its standards- 249 track successors to the user name and password used to compute the 250 APOP digest. 252 When applying SASLprep [RFC4013], servers MUST reject UTF-8 user 253 names or passwords that contain a UTF-8 character listed in Section 254 2.3 of SASLprep. When applying SASLprep to the USER argument, the 255 PASS argument, or the APOP username argument, a compliant server or 256 client MUST treat them as a query string [RFC3454]. When applying 257 SASLprep to the APOP password argument, a compliant server or client 258 MUST treat them as a stored string [RFC3454]. 260 The client does not need to issue the UTF8 command prior to using 261 UTF-8 in authentication. However, clients MUST NOT use UTF-8 string 262 in USER, PASS, or APOP commands unless the USER argument is included 263 in the UTF8 capability response. 265 The server MUST reject UTF-8 user names or passwords that fail to 266 comply with the formal syntax in UTF-8 [RFC3629]. 268 Use of UTF-8 string in the AUTH command is governed by the POP3 SASL 269 [RFC5034] mechanism. 271 3. LANG Capability 273 This document adds a new POP3 Extension [RFC2449] capability response 274 tag to indicate support for a new command: LANG. The capability tag 275 and new command are described below. 277 CAPA tag: 278 LANG 280 Arguments with CAPA tag: 281 none 283 Added Commands: 284 LANG 286 Standard commands affected: 287 All 289 Announced states / possible differences: 290 both / no 292 Commands valid in states: 293 AUTHORIZATION, TRANSACTION 295 Specification reference: 296 this document 298 Discussion: 300 POP3 allows most +OK and -ERR server responses to include human- 301 readable text that, in some cases, might be presented to the user. 302 But that text is limited to ASCII by the POP3 specification 303 [RFC1939]. The LANG capability and command permit a POP3 client to 304 negotiate which language the server uses when sending human-readable 305 text. 307 The LANG command requests that human-readable text included in all 308 subsequent +OK and -ERR responses be localized to a language matching 309 the language range argument (the "Basic Language Range" as described 310 by [RFC4647]). If the command succeeds, the server returns a +OK 311 response followed by a single space, the exact language tag selected, 312 another space. Human-readable text in the appropriate language then 313 appears in the rest of the line. This and subsequent protocol-level 314 human-readable text is encoded in the UTF-8 charset. 316 If the command fails, the server returns an -ERR response and 317 subsequent human-readable response text continues to use the language 318 that was previously used. 320 If the client issues a LANG command with the special "*" language 321 range argument, it indicates a request to use a language designated 322 as preferred by the server administrator. The preferred language MAY 323 vary based on the currently active user. 325 If no argument is given and the POP3 server issues a positive 326 response, that response will usually consist of multi-lines. After 327 the initial +OK, for each language tag the server supports, the POP3 328 server responds with a line for that language. This line is called a 329 "language listing". 331 In order to simplify parsing, all POP3 servers are required to use a 332 certain format for language listings. A language listing consists of 333 the language tag [RFC5646] of the message, optionally followed by a 334 single space and a human-readable description of the language in the 335 language itself, using the UTF-8 charset. There are no specific 336 listing order of languages, which may depend on configuration or 337 implementation. 339 Examples: 341 Note that some examples do not include the correct character 342 accents due to limitations of this document format. 344 C: USER karen 345 S: +OK Hello, karen 346 C: PASS password 347 S: +OK karen's maildrop contains 2 messages (320 octets) 349 Client requests deprecated MUL language. Server replies 350 with -ERR response. 352 C: LANG MUL 353 S: -ERR invalid language MUL 355 A LANG command with no parameters is a request for 356 a language listing. 358 C: LANG 359 S: +OK Language listing follows: 360 S: en English 361 S: en-boont English Boontling dialect 362 S: de Deutsch 363 S: it Italiano 364 S: es Espanol 365 S: sv Svenska 366 S: . 368 A request for a language listing might fail. 370 C: LANG 371 S: -ERR Server is unable to list languages 373 Once the client selects the language, all responses will be in 374 that language, starting with the response to the LANG command. 376 C: LANG es 377 S: +OK es Idioma cambiado 378 If a server returns an -ERR response to a LANG command 379 that specifies a primary language, the current language 380 for responses remains in effect. 382 C: LANG uga 383 S: -ERR es Idioma <> no es conocido 385 C: LANG sv 386 S: +OK sv Kommandot "LANG" lyckades 388 C: LANG * 389 S: +OK es Idioma cambiado 391 4. Non-ASCII character Maildrops 393 When a POP3 server uses a native non-ASCII character maildrop, it is 394 the responsibility of the server to comply with the POP3 base 395 specification [RFC1939] and Internet Message Format [RFC5322] when 396 not in UTF-8 mode. When the server is not in UTF-8 mode and the 397 message requires that mode, requests to download the message MAY be 398 rejected (as specified in the next section) or the various other 399 alternatives outlined in Section 2.1 above, including creation and 400 delivery of variations on the original message, MAY be considered. 402 5. UTF8 Response Code 404 Per "POP3 Extension Mechanism" [RFC2449], this document adds a new 405 response code: UTF8, described below. 407 Complete response code: 408 UTF8 410 Valid for responses: 411 -ERR 413 Valid for commands: 414 LIST, TOP, RETR 416 Response code meaning and expected client behavior: 418 The UTF8 response code indicates that a failure is due to a request 419 when not in UTF-8 mode for message content containing UTF-8 string. 421 The client MAY reissue the command after entering UTF-8 mode. 423 6. IANA Considerations 425 Section 2 and 3 of this specification update two capabilities ("UTF8" 426 and "LANG") to the POP3 capability registry [RFC2449]. 428 Section 5 of this specification also adds one new response code 429 ("UTF8") to the POP3 response codes registry [RFC2449]. 431 7. Security Considerations 433 The security considerations of UTF-8 [RFC3629], SASLprep [RFC4013] 434 and Unicode Format for Network Interchange [RFC5198] apply to this 435 specification, particularly with respect to use of UTF-8 in user 436 names and passwords. 438 The "LANG *" command might reveal the existence and preferred 439 language of a user to an active attacker probing the system if the 440 active language changes in response to the USER, PASS, or APOP 441 commands prior to validating the user's credentials. Servers are 442 strongly advised to implement a configuration to prevent this 443 exposure. 445 It is possible for a man-in-the-middle attacker to insert a LANG 446 command in the command stream, thus making protocol-level diagnostic 447 responses unintelligible to the user. A mechanism to protect the 448 integrity of the session, such as Transport Layer Security (TLS) 449 [RFC2595] can be used to defeat such attacks. 451 As with other internationalization upgrades, modifications to server 452 authentication code (in this case, to support non-ASCII strings) 453 needs to be done with care to avoid introducing vulnerabilities (for 454 example, in string parsing or matching). This is particularly 455 important if the native databases or mailstore of the operating 456 system use some character set or encoding other than Unicode in 457 UTF-8. 459 8. Change History 461 8.1. draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis: Version 00 463 following the new charter 465 8.2. draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis: Version 01 467 refine the texts 469 8.3. draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis: Version 02 471 update the texts based on Joseph's comments 473 8.4. draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis: Version 03 475 improve the texts 477 text instructing servers to either downconvert or reject 479 new UTF-8 response code for use 481 8.5. draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis: Version 04 483 improve the texts 485 8.6. draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis: Version 05 487 updated according to jabber interim meeting result 489 updated according to john and apparea's review comments 491 8.7. draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis: Version 06 493 improve the texts, updated section 3.2 to provide for SASL successor 494 specs. 496 8.8. draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis: Version 07 498 updated according to John's comments 500 9. References 502 9.1. Normative References 504 [I-D.ietf-eai-5738bis] Resnick, P., Newman, C., and S. Shen, "IMAP 505 Support for UTF-8", draft-ietf-eai-5738bis-03 506 (work in progress), December 2011. 508 [RFC1939] Myers, J. and M. Rose, "Post Office Protocol 509 - Version 3", STD 53, RFC 1939, May 1996. 511 [RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose 512 Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: 513 Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC 2045, 514 November 1996. 516 [RFC2047] Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail 517 Extensions) Part Three: Message Header 518 Extensions for Non-ASCII Text", RFC 2047, 519 November 1996. 521 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to 522 Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, 523 RFC 2119, March 1997. 525 [RFC2449] Gellens, R., Newman, C., and L. Lundblade, 526 "POP3 Extension Mechanism", RFC 2449, 527 November 1998. 529 [RFC3454] Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Preparation of 530 Internationalized Strings ("stringprep")", 531 RFC 3454, December 2002. 533 [RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format 534 of ISO 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, 535 November 2003. 537 [RFC4013] Zeilenga, K., "SASLprep: Stringprep Profile 538 for User Names and Passwords", RFC 4013, 539 February 2005. 541 [RFC4647] Phillips, A. and M. Davis, "Matching of 542 Language Tags", BCP 47, RFC 4647, 543 September 2006. 545 [RFC5198] Klensin, J. and M. Padlipsky, "Unicode Format 546 for Network Interchange", RFC 5198, 547 March 2008. 549 [RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", 550 RFC 5322, October 2008. 552 [RFC5646] Phillips, A. and M. Davis, "Tags for 553 Identifying Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, 554 September 2009. 556 [RFC6530] Klensin, J. and Y. Ko, "Overview and 557 Framework for Internationalized Email", 558 RFC 6530, February 2012. 560 [RFC6532] Yang, A., Steele, S., and N. Freed, 561 "Internationalized Email Headers", RFC 6532, 562 February 2012. 564 9.2. Informative References 566 [RFC2595] Newman, C., "Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and 567 ACAP", RFC 2595, June 1999. 569 [RFC5034] Siemborski, R. and A. Menon-Sen, "The Post 570 Office Protocol (POP3) Simple Authentication 571 and Security Layer (SASL) Authentication 572 Mechanism", RFC 5034, July 2007. 574 [RFC5721] Gellens, R. and C. Newman, "POP3 Support for 575 UTF-8", RFC 5721, February 2010. 577 Appendix A. Design Rationale 579 This non-normative section discusses the reasons behind some of the 580 design choices in the above specification. 582 Due to interoperability problems with RFC 2047 and limited deployment 583 of RFC 2231, it is hoped these 7-bit encoding mechanisms can be 584 deprecated in the future when UTF-8 header support becomes prevalent. 586 The USER capability (Section 2.2) and hence the upgraded USER command 587 and additional support for non-ASCII credentials, are optional 588 because the implementation burden of SASLprep [RFC4013] is not well 589 understood, and mandating such support in all cases could negatively 590 impact deployment. 592 Appendix B. Acknowledgments 594 Thanks to John Klensin, Joseph Yee, Tony Hansen, Alexey Melnikov and 595 other Email Address Internationalization working group participants 596 who provided helpful suggestions and interesting debate that improved 597 this specification. 599 Authors' Addresses 601 Randall Gellens 602 QUALCOMM Incorporated 603 5775 Morehouse Drive 604 San Diego, CA 92651 605 US 607 EMail: rg+ietf@qualcomm.com 608 Chris Newman 609 Oracle 610 800 Royal Oaks 611 Monrovia, CA 91016-6347 612 US 614 EMail: chris.newman@oracle.com 616 Jiankang YAO 617 CNNIC 618 No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun 619 Beijing 621 Phone: +86 10 58813007 622 EMail: yaojk@cnnic.cn 624 Kazunori Fujiwara 625 Japan Registry Services Co., Ltd. 626 Chiyoda First Bldg. East 13F, 3-8-1 Nishi-Kanda 627 Tokyo 629 Phone: +81 3 5215 8451 630 EMail: fujiwara@jprs.co.jp