idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-hip-registration-01.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 18. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 578. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 555. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 562. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 568. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- 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 16, 2005) is 6696 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-ietf-hip-base-04 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental draft: draft-ietf-hip-base (ref. 'I-D.ietf-hip-base') ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-ietf-hip-rvs-04 Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group J. Laganier 3 Internet-Draft DoCoMo Euro-Labs 4 Expires: June 19, 2006 T. Koponen 5 HIIT 6 L. Eggert 7 NEC 8 December 16, 2005 10 Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Registration Extension 11 draft-ietf-hip-registration-01 13 Status of this Memo 15 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 16 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 17 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 18 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 21 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 22 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 23 Drafts. 25 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 26 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 27 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 28 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 30 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 31 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 33 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 34 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 36 This Internet-Draft will expire on June 19, 2006. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 42 Abstract 44 This document specifies a registration mechanism for the Host 45 Identity Protocol (HIP) that allows hosts to register with services, 46 such as HIP rendezvous servers or middleboxes. 48 1. Introduction 50 This document specifies an extension to the Host Identity Protocol 51 (HIP) [I-D.ietf-hip-arch]. The extension provides a generic means 52 for a host to register with a service. The service may, for example, 53 be a HIP rendezvous server [I-D.ietf-hip-rvs] or a middlebox 54 [RFC3234]. 56 This document makes no further assumptions about the exact type of 57 service. Likewise, this document does not specify any mechanisms to 58 discover the presence of specific services or means to interact with 59 them after registration. Future documents may describe those 60 operations. 62 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 63 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 64 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 66 2. Terminology 68 This section defines terminology that is used throughout the 69 remainder of this document. Please note that terminology shared with 70 other documents is defined elsewhere [I-D.ietf-hip-arch]. 72 Requester: 73 a HIP node registering with a HIP registrar to request 74 registration for a service. 76 Registrar: 77 a HIP node offering registration for one or more services. 79 Service: 80 a facility that provides requesters with new capabilities or 81 functionalities operating at the HIP layer. Examples include 82 firewalls that support HIP traversal or HIP rendezvous servers. 84 Registration: 85 shared state stored by a requester and a registrar, allowing the 86 requester to benefit from one or more HIP services offered by the 87 registrar. Each registration has an associated finite lifetime. 88 Requesters can extend established registrations through re- 89 registration (i.e., perform a refresh). 91 Registration Type: 92 an identifier for a given service in the registration protocol. 93 For example, the rendezvous service is identified by a specific 94 registration type. 96 3. HIP Registration Extension Overview 98 This document does not specify the means by which a requester 99 discovers the availability of a service, or how a requester locates a 100 registrar. After a requester has discovered a registrar, it either 101 initiates HIP base exchange or uses an existing HIP association with 102 the registrar. In both cases, registrars use additional parameters 103 that the remainder of this document defines to announce their quality 104 and grant or refuse registration. Requesters use corresponding 105 parameters to register with the service. Both the registrar and the 106 requester MAY also include in the messages exchanged additional HIP 107 parameters specific to the registration type implicated. Other 108 documents will define parameters and how they shall be used. The 109 following sections describe the differences between this registration 110 handshake and the standard HIP base exchange [I-D.ietf-hip-base] . 112 3.1. Registrar Announcing its Ability 114 A host that is capable and willing to act as a registrar SHOULD 115 include a REG_INFO parameter in the R1 packets it sends during all 116 base exchanges. If it is currently unable to provide services due to 117 transient conditions, it SHOULD include an empty REG_INFO, i.e., one 118 with no services listed. If services can be provided later, it 119 SHOULD send UPDATE packets indicating the current set of services 120 available in a new REG_INFO parameter to all hosts it is associated 121 with. 123 3.2. Requester Requesting Registration 125 To request registration with a service, a requester constructs and 126 includes a corresponding REG_REQUEST parameter in an I2 or UPDATE 127 packet it sends to the registrar. 129 If the requester has no HIP association established with the 130 registrar, it SHOULD already send the REG_REQUEST in the I2 packet. 131 This minimizes the number of packets that need to be exchanged with 132 the registrar. A registrar MAY end a HIP association that does not 133 carry a REG_REQUEST by including a NOTIFY with the type REG_REQUIRED 134 in the R2. In this case, no HIP association is created between the 135 hosts. The REG_REQUIRED notification error type is TBD. 137 3.3. Registrar Granting or Refusing Service(s) Registration 139 Once registration has been requested, the registrar is able to 140 authenticate the requester based on the host identity included in I2. 141 It then verifies the host identity is authorized to register with the 142 requested service(s), based on local policies. The details of this 143 authorization procedure depend on the type of requested service(s) 144 and on the local policies of the registrar, and are therefore not 145 further specified in this document. 147 After authorization, the registrar includes in its response (i.e., an 148 R2 or an UPDATE, respectively, depending on whether the registration 149 was requested during the base exchange, or using an existing 150 association) a REG_RESPONSE parameter containing the service(s) 151 type(s) for which it has authorized registration, and zero or more 152 REG_FAILED parameter containing the service(s) type(s) for which it 153 has not authorized registration or registration has failed for other 154 reasons. In particular, REG_FAILED with a failure type of zero 155 indicates the service(s) type(s) that require further credentials for 156 registration. 158 If the registrar requires further authorization and the requester has 159 additional credentials available, the requester SHOULD try to again 160 register with the service after the HIP association has been 161 established. The precise means of establishing and verifying 162 credentials are beyond the scope of this document and are expected to 163 be defined in other documents. 165 Successful processing of a REG_RESPONSE parameter creates 166 registration state at the requester. In a similar manner, successful 167 processing of a REG_REQUEST parameter creates registration state at 168 the registrar and possibly at the service. Both the requester and 169 registrar can cancel a registration before it expires, if the 170 services afforded by a registration are no longer needed by the 171 requester, or cannot be provided any longer by the registrar (for 172 instance, because its configuration has changed). 174 +-----+ I1 +-----+-----+ 175 | |--------------------->| | S1 | 176 | |<---------------------| | | 177 | | R1(REG_INFO:S1,S2) | +-----+ 178 | RQ | | R | S2 | 179 | | I2(REG_REQ:S1) | | | 180 | |--------------------->| +-----+ 181 | |<---------------------| | S3 | 182 | | R2(REG_RESP:S1) | | | 183 +-----+ +-----+-----+ 184 +-----+ +-----+-----+ 185 | | UPDATE(REG_INFO:S) | | | 186 | |<---------------------| | | 187 | RQ |--------------------->| R | S | 188 | | UPDATE(REG_REQ:S) | | | 189 | | UPDATE(REG_RESP:S) | | | 190 | |<---------------------| | | 191 +-----+ +-----+-----+ 193 4. Parameter Formats and Processing 195 This section describes the format and processing of the new 196 parameters introduced by the HIP registration extension. 198 4.1. Encoding Registration Lifetimes with Exponents 200 The HIP registration uses an exponential encoding of registration 201 lifetimes. This allows compact encoding of 255 different lifetime 202 values ranging from 4 ms to 178 days into an 8-bit integer field. 203 The lifetime exponent field used throughout this document MUST be 204 interpreted as representing the lifetime value 2^((lifetime - 64)/8) 205 seconds. 207 4.2. REG_INFO 209 0 1 2 3 210 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 211 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 212 | Type | Length | 213 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 214 | Min Lifetime | Max Lifetime | Reg Type #1 | Reg Type #2 | 215 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 216 | ... | ... | Reg Type #n | | 217 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Padding + 218 | | 219 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 221 Type [ TBD by IANA (930) ] 222 Length Length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and Padding. 223 Min Lifetime Minimum registration lifetime. 224 Max Lifetime Maximum registration lifetime. 225 Reg Type The registration types offered by the registrar. 227 Other documents will define specific values for registration types. 229 Reg Type Service 230 -------- ------- 231 0-200 Reserved by IANA 232 201-255 Reserved by IANA for private use 234 Registrars include the parameter in R1 packets in order to announce 235 their registration capabilities. The registrar SHOULD include the 236 parameter in UPDATE packets when its service offering has changed. 237 HIP_SIGNATURE_2 protects the parameter within the R1 packets. 239 4.3. REG_REQUEST 241 0 1 2 3 242 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 243 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 244 | Type | Length | 245 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 246 | Lifetime | Reg Type #1 | Reg Type #2 | Reg Type #3 | 247 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 248 | ... | ... | Reg Type #n | | 249 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Padding + 250 | | 251 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 253 Type [ TBD by IANA (932) ] 254 Length Length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and Padding. 255 Lifetime Requested registration lifetime. 256 Reg Type The preferred registration types in order of preference. 258 Other documents will define specific values for registration types. 260 Reg Type Service 261 -------- ------- 262 0-200 Reserved by IANA 263 201-255 Reserved by IANA for private use 265 A requester includes the REG_REQUEST parameter in I2 or UPDATE 266 packets to register with a registrar's service(s). If the 267 REG_REQUEST parameter is in an UPDATE packet, the registrar MUST NOT 268 modify the registrations of registration types which are not listed 269 in the parameter. Moreover, the requester MUST NOT include the 270 parameter unless the registrar's R1 packet or latest received UPDATE 271 packet has contained a REG_INFO parameter with the requested 272 registration types. 274 The requester MUST NOT include more than one REG_REQUEST parameter in 275 its I2 or UPDATE packets, while the registrar MUST be able to process 276 one or more REG_REQUEST parameters in received I2 or UPDATE packets. 278 When the registrar is requested a registration which lifetime is 279 either smaller or greater than the minimum or maximum lifetime, 280 respectively, then it SHOULD grant the registration for the minimum 281 or maximum lifetime, respectively. 283 HIP_SIGNATURE protects the parameter within the I2 and UPDATE 284 packets. 286 4.4. REG_RESPONSE 288 0 1 2 3 289 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 290 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 291 | Type | Length | 292 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 293 | Lifetime | Reg Type #1 | Reg Type #2 | Reg Type #3 | 294 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 295 | ... | ... | Reg Type #n | | 296 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Padding + 297 | | 298 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 300 Type [ TBD by IANA (934) ] 301 Length Length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and Padding. 302 Lifetime Granted registration lifetime. 303 Reg Type The granted registration types in order of preference. 305 Other documents will define specific values for registration types. 307 Reg Type Service 308 -------- ------- 309 0-200 Reserved by IANA 310 201-255 Reserved by IANA for private use 312 The registrar SHOULD includes an REG_RESPONSE parameter in its R2 or 313 UPDATE packet only if a registration has successfully completed. 315 The registrar MUST NOT include more than one REG_RESPONSE parameter 316 in its R2 or UPDATE packets, while the requester MUST be able to 317 process one or more REG_RESPONSE parameters in received R2 or UPDATE 318 packets. 320 The requester MUST be prepared to receive any registration lifetime, 321 included ones beyond the minimum and maximum lifetime indicated in 322 the REG_INFO parameter. It MUST NOT expect that the returned 323 lifetime will be the requested one, even in the case that the 324 requested lifetime falls within the announced minimum and maximum. 326 HIP_SIGNATURE protects the parameter within the R2 and UPDATE 327 packets. 329 4.5. REG_FAILED 331 0 1 2 3 332 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 333 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 334 | Type | Length | 335 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 336 | Failure Type | Reg Type #1 | Reg Type #2 | Reg Type #3 | 337 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 338 | ... | ... | Reg Type #n | | 339 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Padding + 340 | | 341 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 343 Type [ TBD by IANA (936) ] 344 Length Length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and Padding. 345 Failure Type Reason for failure. 346 Reg Type The registration types that failed with the specified 347 reason. 349 Other documents will define specific values for registration types. 351 Reg Type Service 352 -------- ------- 353 0-200 Reserved by IANA 354 201-255 Reserved by IANA for private use 356 Failure Type Reason 357 ------------ -------------------------------------------- 358 0 Registration requires additional credentials 359 1 Registration type unavailable 360 2-200 Reserved by IANA 361 201-255 Reserved by IANA for private use 363 A failure type of zero means a registrar requires additional 364 credentials to authorize a requester to register with the 365 registration types listed in the parameter. A failure type of one 366 means that the requested service type is unavailable at the 367 registrar. Other failure types than zero (0) and one (1) have not 368 been defined. 370 The registrar SHOULD include the REG_FAILED parameter in its R2 or 371 UPDATE packet, if registration with the registration types listed has 372 not completed successfully and a requester is asked to try again with 373 additional credentials. 375 HIP_SIGNATURE protects the parameter within the R2 and UPDATE 376 packets. 378 5. Establishing and Maintaining Registrations 380 Establishing and/or maintaining a registration may require additional 381 information not available in the transmitted REG_REQUEST or 382 REG_RESPONSE parameters. Therefore, registration type definitions 383 MAY define dependencies for HIP parameters that are not defined in 384 this document. Their semantics are subject to the specific 385 registration type specifications. 387 The minimum lifetime both registrars and requesters MUST support is 388 10 seconds, while they SHOULD support a maximum lifetime of 120 389 seconds, at least. These values define a baseline for the 390 specification of services based on the registration system. They 391 were chosen to be neither to short nor too long, and to accommodate 392 for existing timeouts of state established in middleboxes (e.g. NATs 393 and firewalls.) 395 A zero lifetime is reserved for canceling purposes. Requesting a 396 zero lifetime for a registration type equals to canceling the 397 registration of that type. A requester MAY cancel a registration 398 before it expires by sending a REG_REQ to the registrar with a zero 399 lifetime. A registrar SHOULD respond and grant a registration with a 400 zero lifetime. A registrar (and an attached service) MAY cancel a 401 registration before it expires, at its own discretion. However, if 402 it does so, it SHOULD send a REG_RESPONSE with a zero lifetime to all 403 registered requesters. 405 6. Security Considerations 407 This section discusses the threats on the HIP registration protocol, 408 and their implications on the overall security of HIP. In 409 particular, it argues that the extensions described in this document 410 do not introduce additional threats to HIP. 412 The extensions described in this document rely on the HIP base 413 exchange and do not modify its security characteristics, e.g., 414 digital signatures or HMAC. Hence, the only threat introduced by 415 these extensions are related to the creation of soft registration 416 state at the registrar. 418 Registrars act on a voluntary basis and are willing to accept to be a 419 responder and to then create HIP associations with a number of 420 previously unknown hosts. Because they have to store HIP association 421 state anyway, adding a certain amount of time-limited HIP 422 registration state should not introduce and serious additional 423 threats, especially because HIP registrars may cancel registrations 424 at any time at their own discretion, e.g., because of resource 425 constraints during an attack. 427 7. IANA Considerations 429 This section is to be interpreted according to [RFC2434]. 431 This document updates the IANA Registry for HIP Parameters Types by 432 assigning new HIP Parameter Types values for the new HIP Parameters 433 defined in this document: 435 o REG_INFO (defined in Section 4.2) 437 o REG_REQUEST (defined in Section 4.3) 439 o REG_RESPONSE (defined in Section 4.4) 441 o REG_FAILED (defined in Section 4.5) 443 IANA needs to open a new registry for registration types. This 444 document does not define registration types but makes the following 445 reservations: 447 Reg Type Service 448 -------- ------- 449 0-200 Reserved by IANA 450 201-255 Reserved by IANA for private use 452 Adding a new type requires new IETF specifications. 454 IANA needs to open a new registry for registration failure types. 455 This document makes the following failure types definitions and 456 reservations: 458 Failure Type Reason 459 ------------ -------------------------------------------- 460 0 Registration requires additional credentials 461 1 Registration type unavailable 462 2-200 Reserved by IANA 463 201-255 Reserved by IANA for private use 465 Adding a new type requires new IETF specifications. 467 8. Acknowledgments 469 The following people (in alphabetical order) have provided thoughtful 470 and helpful discussions and/or suggestions that have helped to 471 improve this document: Jeffrey Ahrenholz, Miriam Esteban, Mika Kousa, 472 Pekka Nikander and Hannes Tschofenig. 474 Julien Laganier and Lars Eggert are partly funded by Ambient 475 Networks, a research project supported by the European Commission 476 under its Sixth Framework Program. The views and conclusions 477 contained herein are those of the authors and should not be 478 interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or 479 endorsements, either expressed or implied, of the Ambient Networks 480 project or the European Commission. 482 9. References 484 9.1. Normative References 486 [I-D.ietf-hip-base] 487 Moskowitz, R., "Host Identity Protocol", 488 draft-ietf-hip-base-04 (work in progress), October 2005. 490 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 491 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 493 [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 494 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, 495 October 1998. 497 9.2. Informative References 499 [I-D.ietf-hip-arch] 500 Moskowitz, R. and P. Nikander, "Host Identity Protocol 501 Architecture", draft-ietf-hip-arch-03 (work in progress), 502 August 2005. 504 [I-D.ietf-hip-rvs] 505 Laganier, J. and L. Eggert, "Host Identity Protocol (HIP) 506 Rendezvous Extension", draft-ietf-hip-rvs-04 (work in 507 progress), October 2005. 509 [RFC3234] Carpenter, B. and S. Brim, "Middleboxes: Taxonomy and 510 Issues", RFC 3234, February 2002. 512 Authors' Addresses 514 Julien Laganier 515 DoCoMo Communications Laboratories Europe GmbH 516 Landsberger Strasse 312 517 Munich 80687 518 Germany 520 Phone: +49 89 56824 231 521 Email: julien.ietf@laposte.net 522 URI: http://www.docomolab-euro.com/ 524 Teemu Koponen 525 Helsinki Institute for Information Technology 526 Advanced Research Unit (ARU) 527 P.O. Box 9800 528 Helsinki FIN-02015-HUT 529 Finland 531 Phone: +358 9 45 1 532 Email: teemu.koponen@hiit.fi 533 URI: http://www.hiit.fi/ 535 Lars Eggert 536 NEC Network Laboratories 537 Kurfuerstenanlage 36 538 Heidelberg 69115 539 Germany 541 Phone: +49 6221 90511 43 542 Fax: +49 6221 90511 55 543 Email: lars.eggert@netlab.nec.de 544 URI: http://www.netlab.nec.de/ 546 Intellectual Property Statement 548 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 549 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 550 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 551 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 552 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 553 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 554 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 555 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 557 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 558 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 559 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 560 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 561 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 562 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 564 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 565 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 566 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 567 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 568 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 570 Disclaimer of Validity 572 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 573 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 574 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 575 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 576 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 577 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 578 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 580 Copyright Statement 582 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject 583 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 584 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 586 Acknowledgment 588 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 589 Internet Society.