idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by 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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There is 1 instance of lines with control characters in the document. ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 120: '...tion means that OPES tracing SHOULD be...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 129: '...cation end point MUST be able to ident...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 132: '...cation end point SHOULD be able to ide...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 145: '... o An OPES system MUST be traceable...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 147: '... An OPES processor SHOULD be traceable...' (21 more instances...) Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 121 has weird spacing: '... on per messa...' == Line 160 has weird spacing: '...ing and enfor...' == Line 189 has weird spacing: '...be able to tr...' == Line 221 has weird spacing: '...ication to th...' == Line 223 has weird spacing: '...e trace ident...' == (11 more instances...) -- 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 (June 11, 2003) is 7617 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: '1' is defined on line 481, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '3' is defined on line 488, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '4' is defined on line 492, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '5' is defined on line 495, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '6' is defined on line 498, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '7' is defined on line 502, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '9' is defined on line 512, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '10' is defined on line 517, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '1' ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3238 (ref. '2') ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2616 (ref. '3') (Obsoleted by RFC 7230, RFC 7231, RFC 7232, RFC 7233, RFC 7234, RFC 7235) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '4' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '5' ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-opes-protocol-reqs (ref. '6') -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '7' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '8' Summary: 6 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 16 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group A. Barbir 3 Internet-Draft Nortel Networks 4 Expires: December 10, 2003 June 11, 2003 6 OPES processor and end points communications 7 draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-00 9 Status of this Memo 11 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 12 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 14 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 15 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other 16 groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 18 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 19 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 20 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 21 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 23 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// 24 www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 26 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 27 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 29 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 10, 2003. 31 Copyright Notice 33 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. 35 Abstract 37 This memo documents tracing requirements for Open Pluggable Edge 38 Services (OPES). 40 Table of Contents 42 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 43 2. OPES Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 44 2.1 What is traceable in an OPES Flow? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 45 2.2 Requirements for Information Related to Traceable 46 Entities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 47 3. Requirements for OPES systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 48 4. Requirements for OPES processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 49 5. Requirements for callout servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 50 6. Privacy considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 51 6.1 Tracing and Trust Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 52 7. How to Support Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 53 7.1 Tracing and OPES System Granularity . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 54 7.2 Requirements for In-Band Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 55 7.2.1 Tracing Information Granularity and Persistence levels 56 Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 57 7.3 Protocol Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 58 7.4 Tracing scenarios and examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 59 8. IAB considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 60 8.1 Notification Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 61 8.1.1 Addressing IAB Consideration 3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 62 8.1.2 Addressing IAB Consideration 3.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 63 9. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 64 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 65 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 66 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 67 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 68 A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 69 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 22 71 1. Introduction 73 The Open Pluggable Edge Services (OPES) architecture [8] enables 74 cooperative application services (OPES services) between a data 75 provider, a data consumer, and zero or more OPES processors. The 76 application services under consideration analyze and possibly 77 transform application-level messages exchanged between the data 78 provider and the data consumer. 80 The execution of such services is governed by a set of rules 81 installed on the OPES processor. The rules enforcement can trigger 82 the execution of service applications local to the OPES processor. 83 Alternatively, the OPES processor can distribute the responsibility 84 of service execution by communicating and collaborating with one or 85 more remote callout servers. As described in [8], an OPES processor 86 communicates with and invokes services on a callout server by using a 87 callout protocol. 89 The work specify the requirements for providing tracing functionality 90 for the OPES architecture [8]. This document specifies tracing 91 mechanisms that the OPES architecture could provide that enable data 92 provider application to detect inappropriate clinet centric actions 93 by OPES entities. The work focus on developing tracing requirements 94 that can be used to fulfil the notification and Non-Blocking 95 requirements [2]. 97 In the OPES architecture document [8], there is a requirement of 98 relaying tracing information in-band. This work investigates this 99 possibility and discusses possible methods that could be used to 100 detect faulty OPES processors or callout servers by end points in an 101 OPES flow. 103 The document is organized as follows: ....... 105 2. OPES Tracing 107 Before discussing what is traceable in an OPES flow, it is beneficial 108 to define what tracing means. Tracing is defined as the inclusion of 109 necessary information within a message in an OPES flow that could be 110 used to identify the set of transformations or adpatations that have 111 been performed on its content before its delivery to an end point 112 (the data consumer application). 114 o OPES trace: application message information about OPES entities 115 that adapted that message 117 o OPES tracing: the process of including, manipulating, and 118 interpreting an OPES trace 120 To emphasize, the above definition means that OPES tracing SHOULD be 121 performed on per message basis. Trace format is dependent on the 122 application protocol being adapted by OPES. Data consumer application 123 can use OPES trace to infer the actions that have been performed by 124 OPES system(s). The architecture document requires [8] that tracing 125 be supported in-band. 127 2.1 What is traceable in an OPES Flow? 129 o The data consumer application end point MUST be able to identify 130 the OPES processors that have acted on an application message. 132 o The data consumer application end point SHOULD be able to identify 133 OPES services (including callout services) that were performed on 134 request/responses that are part of an application message. 136 o TBD 138 o TBD 140 For a given trace, an OPES entity involved in handling the 141 corresponding application message is "traceable" or "traced" if 142 information about it appears in that trace. OPES entities have 143 different levels of traceability requirements. Specifically, 145 o An OPES system MUST be traceable 147 o An OPES processor SHOULD be traceable 149 o An OPES service MAY be traceable 151 o Editor Note: Need to define an OPES System properly 153 2.2 Requirements for Information Related to Traceable Entities? 155 The requirements for information as related to entities that are 156 terceable in an OPES flow are: 158 o The privacy policy at the time it dealt with the message 160 o Identification of the party responsible for setting and enforcing 161 that policy 163 o Information pointing to a technical contact 165 o Information that identifies, to the technical contact, the OPES 166 processors involved in processing the messag 168 o TBD 170 3. Requirements for OPES systems 172 Editor Note: Need to define OPES System and state requirements 174 4. Requirements for OPES processors 176 TBD 178 5. Requirements for callout servers 180 If it is the task of an OPES processor to add trace records to 181 application messages, then callout servers that uses the OCP protocol 182 are not affected by tracing requirements.In order for an OCP protocol 183 to be tracing neutral, the OPES server SHOULD be able to meet the 184 following requirements: 186 o Callout services adapt payload regardless of the application 187 protocol in use and leave header adjustment to OPES processor. 189 o OPES processor SHOULD be able to trace its own invocation and 190 service(s) execution because OPES processor understand the 191 application protocol. 193 o Callout servers MAY be able to add their own OPES trace records 194 to application level messages. 196 o TBD 198 6. Privacy considerations 200 6.1 Tracing and Trust Domains 202 A trust domain may include several OPES systems and entities. Within 203 a trust domain, there MUST be at least support for one trace entry 204 per system. Entities outside of that system may or may not see any 205 traces, depending on domain policies or configuration. For example, 206 if an OPES system is on the content provider "side", end-users are 207 not guaranteed any traces. If an OPES system is working inside 208 end-user domain, the origin server is not guaranteed any traces 209 related to user requests. 211 7. How to Support Tracing 213 In order to support tracing, the following aspects must be addressed: 215 o There MUST be a System Identifier that identify a domain that is 216 employing an OPES system. 218 o An OPES processor MUST be able to be uniquely identified (MUST 219 have an Identifier) within a system. 221 o An OPES processor MUST add its identification to the trace. 223 o An OPES processor SHOULD add to the trace identification of every 224 callout service that received the application message. 226 o An OPES processor MUST add to the trace identification of the 227 "system/entity" it belongs to. "System" ID MUST make it possible 228 to access "system" privacy policy. 230 o An OPES processor MAY group the above information for sequential 231 trace entries having the same "system/entity" ID. In other words, 232 trace entries produced within the same "system/entity" MAY be 233 merged/aggregated into a single less detailed trace entry. 235 o An OPES processor MAY delegate trace management to a callout 236 service within the same "system/entity". 238 TBD 240 7.1 Tracing and OPES System Granularity 242 There are two distinct uses of traces. First, is to SHOULD enable the 243 "end (content producer or consumer) to detect OPES processor presence 244 within end's trust domain. Such "end" should be able to see a trace 245 entry, but does not need to be able to interpret it beyond 246 identification of the trust domain(s). 248 Second, the domain administrator SHOULD be able to take a trace entry 249 (possibly supplied by an "end? as an opaque string) and interpret it. 250 The administrator must be able to identify OPES processor(s) involved 251 and may be able to identify applied adaptation services along with 252 other message-specific information. That information SHOULD help to 253 explain what OPES agent(s) were involved and what they did. It may be 254 impractical to provide all the required information in all cases. 255 This document view a trace record as a hint, as opposed to an 256 exhaustive audit. 258 Since the administrators of various trust domains can have various 259 ways of looking into tracing, they MAY require the choice of freedom 260 in what to put in trace records and how to format them. Trace records 261 should be easy to extend beyond basic OPES requirements. Trace 262 management algorithms should treat trace records as opaque data to 263 the extent possible. 265 It is not expected that entities in one trust domain to be able to 266 get all OPES-related feedback from entities in other trust domains. 267 For example, if an end-user suspects that a served is corrupted by a 268 callout service, there is no guarantee that the use will be able to 269 identify that service, contact its owner, or debug it _unless_ the 270 service is within my trust domain. This is no different from the 271 current situation where it is impossible, in general, to know the 272 contact person for an application on an origin server that generates 273 corrupted HTML; and even if the person is known, one should not 274 expect that person to respond to end-user queries. 276 7.2 Requirements for In-Band Tracing 278 The OPES architecture [8] states that traces must be in-band. The 279 support of this design specification is dependent on the specifics of 280 the message application level protocol that is being used in an OPES 281 flow. In-band tracing limits the type of application protocols that 282 OPES can support. The details of what a trace record can convey is 283 also dependent on the choice of the application level protocol. 285 For these reasons, the work will document requirements for 286 application protocols that need to support OPES traces. However, the 287 architecture does not prevent implementers of developing out-of-band 288 protocols and techniques to address the above limitation. 290 7.2.1 Tracing Information Granularity and Persistence levels 291 Requirements 293 In order to be able to trace entities that have acted on an 294 application message in an OPES flow, there may be requirements to 295 keep information that is related to the following: 297 o Message-related informatio: All data that describes specific 298 actions performed on the message SHOULD be provided with that 299 message, as there is no other way to find message level details 300 later. 302 o Session related information: Session level data MUST be preserved 303 for the duration of the session. OPES processor is responsible for 304 inserting notifications if session-level information changes. 306 o End-point related data: What profile is activated? Where to get 307 profile details? Where to set preferences? 309 o TBD 311 7.3 Protocol Binding 313 How tracing is added is application protocol-specific and will be 314 documented in separate drafts. This work documents what tracing 315 information is required and some common tracing elements. 317 7.4 Tracing scenarios and examples 319 TBD 321 8. IAB considerations 323 This section examines IAB [2] considerations (3.1) and (3.2) 324 regarding notification in an OPES architecture. The IAB 325 considerations are reiterated here for ease of reference. 327 Notification propagates in opposite direction of tracing and cannot 328 be attached to application messages that it notifies about. 329 Notification can be done out-band and may require the development of 330 a new protocol. The direction of data flow for tracing and 331 notification are deoicted in Figure 1. 333 Notification 334 +----------------------------------------------- 335 | | 336 | V 337 +---------------+ +-------+ +---------------+ 338 | | | | | Data Provider | 339 | Data Consumer | Tracing | OPES |<----->| Application | 340 | Application |<-----------| | +---------------+ 341 +---------------+ +-------+ 342 ^ 343 |OCP 344 | 345 V 346 +---------+ 347 | Callout | 348 | Server | 349 +---------+ 351 Figure 1: Notification Flow 353 8.1 Notification Concerns 355 Notifications for every HTTP request can burden some content 356 providers. Therefore, it might be preferable to consider mechanisms 357 that allow for the explicit request of notification. Hence, a 358 mechanism for explicit request of notification May be required. 360 Furthermore, end point privacy is a concern. An end user may consider 361 information about OPES services applied on their behalf as private. 362 For example, if translation for braille device has been applied, it 363 can be concluded that the user is having eyesight problems; such 364 information may be misused if the user is applying for a job online. 365 Similarly, a content provider may consider information about its OPES 366 services private. For example, use of a specific OPES intermediary by 367 a high traffic volume site may indicate business alliances that have 368 not been publicly announced yet. Another example of privacy, include 369 situations where a user may not want to reveal to any content 370 provider all the OPES services that have been applied on their 371 behalf. For example, why should every content provider know what 372 exact virus scanner a user is using? 374 Security is also a concern. An attacker may benefit from knowledge 375 of internal OPES services layout, execution order, software versions 376 and other information that are likely to be present in automated 377 notifications. 379 The level of available details in notifications versus content 380 provider interest in supporting notification is a concern. 381 Experience shows that content providers often require very detailed 382 information about user actions to be interested in notifications at 383 all. For example, Hit Metering protocol [11] has been designed to 384 supply content providers with proxy cache hit counts, in an effort to 385 reduce cache busting behavior which was caused by content providers 386 desire to get accurate site "access counts". However, the Hit 387 Metering protocol is currently not widely deployed. This is because 388 the protocol does not supply content providers with information such 389 as client IP addresses, browser versions, or cookies. 391 The Hit Metering experience is relevant because Hit Metering 392 protocol was designed to do for HTTP caching intermediaries what 393 OPES notifications are meant to do for OPES intermediaries. Thus, it 394 is important to have the right balance when specifying the 395 notofication requirements for OPES. 397 In this document, IAB choice of "Notification" label is interpreted 398 as "Notification assistance" (i.e. making notifications meaningful) 399 and is not be interpreted as a "Notification protocol". Therefore, 400 the work treats IAB considerations (3.1 and 3.2) as informative (not 401 normative). 403 8.1.1 Addressing IAB Consideration 3.1 405 The consideration is restated below for ease of reference. 407 (3.1) Notification: The overall OPES framework needs to assist 408 content providers in detecting and responding to client-centric 409 actions by OPES intermediaries that are deemed inappropriate by the 410 content provider. 412 IAB consideration (3.1) suggests that the overall OPES framework 413 needs to assist content providers in detecting and responding to 414 client-centric actions by OPES intermediaries that are deemed 415 inappropriate by the content provider. 417 It is important to note that most client-centric actions happen after 418 the application message has left the content provider(s). Thus, 419 notifications cannot be piggy-backed to application messages and have 420 to travel in the opposite direction of traces, see Figure 1. To 421 address this requirement directly, one would have to develop an out 422 of band protocol to support notification. 424 At this stage, there is no need to develop an out of band protocol to 425 support notification, since requiring the OPES architecture to having 426 a tracing facility can fulfil the objectives of notification. In 427 this regard, it is recommended that tracing MUST be always-on, just 428 like HTTP Via headers. This should eliminate notification as a 429 separate requirement. 431 8.1.2 Addressing IAB Consideration 3.2 433 The consideration is restated below for ease of reference. 435 (3.2) Notification: The overall OPES framework should assist end 436 users in detecting the behavior of OPES intermediaries, potentially 437 allowing them to identify imperfect or compromised intermediaries. 439 TBD 441 If the OPES end points cooperate then notification can be supported 442 by tracing. Content providers that suspect or experience difficulties 443 can do any of the following: 445 o Check whether requests they receive pass through OPES 446 intermediaries. Presence of OPES tracing info will determine that. 447 This check is only possible for request/response protocols. For 448 other protocols (e.g., broadcast or push), the provider would have 449 to assume that OPES intermediaries are involved until proven 450 otherwise. 452 o If OPES intermediaries are suspected, request OPES traces from 453 potentially affected user(s). The trace will be a part of the 454 application message received by the user software. If users 455 cooperate, the provider(s) have all the information they need. If 456 users do not cooperate, the provider(s) cannot do much about it 457 (they might be able to deny service to uncooperative users in 458 some cases). 460 o Some traces may indicate that more information is available by 461 accessing certain resources on the specified OPES intermediary or 462 elsewhere. Content providers may query for more information in 463 that case. 465 o If everything else fails, providers can enforce no-adaptation 466 policy using appropriate OPES bypass mechanisms and/or end-to-end 467 mechanisms. 469 9. Security considerations 471 TBD 473 10. IANA Considerations 475 The proposed work will evaluate current protocols for OCP. If the 476 work determines that a new protocol need to be developed, then there 477 may be a need to request new numbers from IANA. 479 Normative References 481 [1] McHenry, S., et. al, "OPES Scenarios and Use Cases", 482 Internet-Draft TBD, May 2002. 484 [2] Floyd, S. and L. Daigle, "IAB Architectural and Policy 485 Considerations for Open Pluggable Edge Services", RFC 3238, 486 January 2002. 488 [3] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H., Masinter, L., 489 Leach, P. and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- 490 HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. 492 [4] OPES working group, "OPES Service Authorization and Enforcement 493 Requirements", Internet-Draft TBD, May 2002. 495 [5] OPES working group, "OPES Ruleset Schema", Internet-Draft TBD, 496 May 2002. 498 [6] A. Beck et al., "Requirements for OPES Callout Protocols", 499 Internet-Draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ 500 draft-ietf-opes-protocol-reqs-03.txt, December 2002. 502 [7] A. Barbir et al., "Security Threats and Risks for Open Pluggable 503 Edge Services", Internet-Draft http://www.ietf.org/ 504 internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opes-threats-00.txt, October 2002. 506 [8] A. Barbir et al., "An Architecture for Open Pluggable Edge 507 Services (OPES)", Internet-Draft http://www.ietf.org/ 508 internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opes-architecture-04, December 2002. 510 Informative References 512 [9] Westerinen, A., Schnizlein, J., Strassner, J., Scherling, M., 513 Quinn, B., Herzog, S., Huynh, A., Carlson, M., Perry, J. and S. 514 Waldbusser, "Terminology for Policy-Based Management", RFC 515 3198, November 2001. 517 [10] L. Cranor, et. al, "The Platform for Privacy Preferences 1.0 518 (P3P1.0) Specification", W3C Recommendation 16 http:// 519 www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-P3P-20020416/ , April 2002. 521 [11] "Hit Metering", RFC . 523 Author's Address 525 Abbie Barbir 526 Nortel Networks 527 3500 Carling Avenue 528 Nepean, Ontario K2H 8E9 529 Canada 531 Phone: +1 613 763 5229 532 EMail: abbieb@nortelnetworks.com 534 Appendix A. Acknowledgements 536 TBD 538 Intellectual Property Statement 540 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 541 intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to 542 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 543 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 544 might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it 545 has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the 546 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and 547 standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of 548 claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of 549 licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to 550 obtain a general license or permission for the use of such 551 proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can 552 be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. 554 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 555 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 556 rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice 557 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive 558 Director. 560 Full Copyright Statement 562 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. 564 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 565 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 566 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 567 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 568 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 569 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 570 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 571 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 572 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 573 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 574 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 575 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 576 English. 578 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 579 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. 581 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 582 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 583 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 584 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 585 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 586 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 588 Acknowledgment 590 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 591 Internet Society.