idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-08.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 16. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 516. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 527. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 534. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 540. 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 exact meaning of the all-uppercase expression 'MAY NOT' is not defined in RFC 2119. If it is intended as a requirements expression, it should be rewritten using one of the combinations defined in RFC 2119; otherwise it should not be all-uppercase. == The expression 'MAY NOT', while looking like RFC 2119 requirements text, is not defined in RFC 2119, and should not be used. Consider using 'MUST NOT' instead (if that is what you mean). Found 'MAY NOT' in this paragraph: o If the envelope sender of the triggering message is empty, the envelope sender of the notification message MUST be empty as well, to avoid message loops. Otherwise, the envelope sender of the notification message SHOULD be set to the value of the ":from" parameter to the notify action, if one is specified, has email address syntax and is valid according to the implementation specific security checks (see Section 3.3 of [Notify]). If ":from" is not specified or is not valid, the envelope sender of the notification message SHOULD be set either to the envelope "to" field from the triggering message, as used by Sieve, or to an email address associated with the notification system, at the discretion of the implementation. This MAY NOT be overridden by a "from" URI header, and any such URI header MUST be ignored. == The expression 'MAY NOT', while looking like RFC 2119 requirements text, is not defined in RFC 2119, and should not be used. Consider using 'MUST NOT' instead (if that is what you mean). Found 'MAY NOT' in this paragraph: o The "From:" header field of the notification message SHOULD be set to the value of the ":from" parameter to the notify action, if one is specified, has email address syntax and is valid according to the implementation specific security checks (see Section 3.3 of [Notify]). If ":from" is not specified or is not valid, the "From:" header field of the notification message SHOULD be set either to the envelope "to" field from the triggering message, as used by Sieve, or to an email address associated with the notification system, at the discretion of the implementation. This MAY NOT be overridden by a "from" URI header, and any such URI header MUST be ignored. -- 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 (July 9, 2008) is 5767 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'Knitting' is mentioned on line 302, but not defined ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2822 (Obsoleted by RFC 5322) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2434 (ref. 'IANA') (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2821 (Obsoleted by RFC 5321) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 10 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Sieve Working Group B. Leiba 3 Internet-Draft IBM T.J. Watson Research Center 4 Intended status: Standards Track M. Haardt 5 Expires: January 10, 2009 freenet AG 6 July 9, 2008 8 Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto 9 draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-08 11 Status of this Memo 13 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 14 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 15 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 16 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 18 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 19 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 20 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 21 Drafts. 23 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 24 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 25 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 26 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 28 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 31 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 10, 2009. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 40 Abstract 42 This document describes a profile of the Sieve extension for 43 notifications, to allow notifications to be sent by electronic mail. 45 Table of Contents 47 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 48 1.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 49 1.2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 51 2. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 52 2.1. Notify parameter "method" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 53 2.2. Test notify_method_capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 54 2.3. Notify tag ":from" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 2.4. Notify tag ":importance" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 2.5. Notify tag ":options" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 2.6. Notify tag ":message" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 2.7. Other Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 2.7.1. The Auto-Submitted header field . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 61 3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 63 4. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 10 65 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 67 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 68 6.1. Registration of notification mechanism . . . . . . . . . . 12 69 6.2. New registry for Auto-Submitted header field keywords . . 12 70 6.3. Initial registration of Auto-Submitted header field 71 keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 73 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 74 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 75 7.2. Non-Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 77 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 78 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . 16 80 1. Introduction 82 1.1. Overview 84 The [Notify] extension to the [Sieve] mail filtering language is a 85 framework for providing notifications by employing URIs to specify 86 the notification mechanism. This document defines how [mailto] URIs 87 are used to generate notifications by e-mail. 89 1.2. Conventions used in this document 91 Conventions for notations are as in [Sieve] section 1.1, including 92 the use of [Kwds]. 94 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 95 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 96 document are to be interpreted as described in [Kwds]. 98 2. Definition 100 The mailto mechanism results in the sending of a new email message (a 101 "notification message") to notify a recipient about a "triggering 102 message". 104 2.1. Notify parameter "method" 106 The mailto notification mechanism uses standard mailto URIs as 107 specified in [mailto]. 109 2.2. Test notify_method_capability 111 The notify_method_capability test for "online" may return "yes" or 112 "no" only if the Sieve processor can determine with certainty whether 113 or not the recipients of the notification message are online and 114 logged in. Otherwise, the test returns "maybe" for this notification 115 method. 117 2.3. Notify tag ":from" 119 The :from tag overrides the default sender of the notification 120 message. "Sender", here, refers to the value used in the [RFC2822] 121 "From" header. Implementations MAY also use this value in the 122 [RFC2821] "MAIL FROM" command (the "envelope sender"), or they may 123 prefer to establish a mailbox that receives bounces from notification 124 messages. 126 2.4. Notify tag ":importance" 128 The :importance tag has no special meaning for this notification 129 mechanism, and this specification puts no restriction on its use. 130 Implementations MAY use the value of :importance to set a priority or 131 importance indication on the notification message (perhaps a visual 132 indication, or perhaps making use of one of the non-standard but 133 commonly used message headers). 135 2.5. Notify tag ":options" 137 This tag is not used by the mailto method. 139 2.6. Notify tag ":message" 141 The value of this tag, if it is present, is used as the subject of 142 the notification message, and overrides all other mechanisms for 143 determining the subject (as described below). Its value SHOULD NOT 144 normally be truncated, though it may be sensible to truncate an 145 excessively long value. 147 2.7. Other Definitions 149 Because the receipt of an email message is generating another email 150 message, implementations MUST take steps to avoid mail loops. The 151 REQUIRED inclusion of an "Auto-Submitted:" field, as described in the 152 message composition guidelines, will also help in loop detection and 153 avoidance. 155 Implementations MUST NOT trigger notifications for messages 156 containing "Auto-Submitted:" header fields with any value other than 157 "No". 159 Implementations MUST allow messages with empty envelope senders to 160 trigger notifications. 162 Because this notification method uses a store-and-forward system for 163 delivery of the notification message, the Sieve processor should not 164 have a need to retry notifications. Therefore, implementations of 165 this method SHOULD use normal mechanisms for submitting SMTP messages 166 and for retrying the initial submission. Once the notification 167 message is submitted, implementations MUST NOT resubmit it, as this 168 is likely to result in multiple notifications, and increases the 169 danger of message loops. 171 The overall notification message is composed using the following 172 guidelines (see [RFC2822] for references to message header fields): 174 o If the envelope sender of the triggering message is empty, the 175 envelope sender of the notification message MUST be empty as well, 176 to avoid message loops. Otherwise, the envelope sender of the 177 notification message SHOULD be set to the value of the ":from" 178 parameter to the notify action, if one is specified, has email 179 address syntax and is valid according to the implementation 180 specific security checks (see Section 3.3 of [Notify]). If 181 ":from" is not specified or is not valid, the envelope sender of 182 the notification message SHOULD be set either to the envelope "to" 183 field from the triggering message, as used by Sieve, or to an 184 email address associated with the notification system, at the 185 discretion of the implementation. This MAY NOT be overridden by a 186 "from" URI header, and any such URI header MUST be ignored. 188 o The envelope recipient(s) of the notification message SHOULD be 189 set to the address(es) specified in the URI (including any URI 190 headers where the hname is "to" or "cc"). 192 o The header field "Auto-Submitted: auto-notified" MUST be included 193 in the notification message (see Section 2.7.1). This is to 194 reduce the likelihood of message loops, by tagging this as an 195 automatically generated message. Among other results, it will 196 cause the notification message not to generate further 197 notifications. mailto URI headers with hname "auto-submitted" are 198 considered unsafe and MUST be ignored. 200 o The "From:" header field of the notification message SHOULD be set 201 to the value of the ":from" parameter to the notify action, if one 202 is specified, has email address syntax and is valid according to 203 the implementation specific security checks (see Section 3.3 of 204 [Notify]). If ":from" is not specified or is not valid, the 205 "From:" header field of the notification message SHOULD be set 206 either to the envelope "to" field from the triggering message, as 207 used by Sieve, or to an email address associated with the 208 notification system, at the discretion of the implementation. 209 This MAY NOT be overridden by a "from" URI header, and any such 210 URI header MUST be ignored. 212 o The "To:" header field of the notification message SHOULD be set 213 to the address(es) specified in the URI (including any URI headers 214 where the hname is "to"). 216 o The "Subject:" field of the notification message SHOULD contain 217 the value defined by the :message notify tag, as described in 218 [Notify]. If there is no :message tag and there is a "subject" 219 header on the URI, then that value SHOULD be used. If that is 220 also absent, the subject SHOULD be retained from the triggering 221 message. Note that Sieve [Variables] can be used to advantage 222 here, as shown in the example in Section 3. 224 o The "References:" field of the notification message MAY be set to 225 refer to the triggering message, and MAY include references from 226 the triggering message. 228 o If the mailto URI contains a "body" header, the value of that 229 header SHOULD be used as the body of the notification message. If 230 there is no "body" header, it is up to the implementation whether 231 to leave the body empty or to use an excerpt of the original 232 message. 234 o The "Received:" fields from the triggering message MAY be retained 235 in the notification message, as these could provide useful trace/ 236 history/diagnostic information. The "Auto-Submitted" header field 237 MUST be placed above these (see Section 2.7.1). URI headers with 238 hname "received" are considered unsafe, and MUST be ignored. 240 o Other header fields of the notification message that are normally 241 related to an individual new message (such as "Message-ID" and 242 "Date") are generated for the notification message in the normal 243 manner, and MUST NOT be copied from the triggering message. Any 244 URI headers with those names MUST be ignored. Further, the "Date" 245 header serves as the notification timestamp defined in [Notify]. 247 o All other header fields of the notification message either are as 248 specified by URI headers, or have implementation-specific values; 249 their values are not defined here. It is suggested that the 250 implementation capitalize the first letter of URI headers and add 251 a space character after the colon between the mail header name and 252 value when adding URI headers to the message, to be consistent 253 with common practice in email headers. 255 2.7.1. The Auto-Submitted header field 257 The header field "Auto-Submitted: auto-notified" MUST be included in 258 the notification message (see [RFC3834]). The "Auto-Submitted" 259 header field is considered a "trace field", similar to "Received" 260 header fields (see [RFC2821]). If the implementation retains the 261 "Received" fields from the triggering message (see above), the "Auto- 262 Submitted" field MUST be placed above those "Received" fields, 263 serving as a boundary between the ones from the triggering message 264 and those that will be part of the notification message. 266 The auto-notified Auto-Submitted field MAY include one or both of the 267 following OPTIONAL parameters: 269 o owner-email - specifies an email address of the owner of the Sieve 270 script that generated this notification. If specified, it might 271 be used to identify or contact the script's owner. The parameter 272 attribute is "owner-email", and the parameter value is a quoted 273 string containing an email address, as defined by "addr-spec" in 274 [RFC2822]. Example: 275 Auto-Submitted: auto-notified; owner-email="me@example.com" 277 o owner-token - specifies an opaque token that the administrative 278 domain of the owner of the Sieve script that generated this 279 notification can identify the owner with. This might be used to 280 allow identification of the owner while protecting the owner's 281 privacy. The parameter attribute is "owner-token", and the 282 parameter value is as defined by "token" in [RFC3834]. Example: 283 Auto-Submitted: auto-notified; owner-token=af3NN2pK5dDXI0W 285 3. Examples 287 Triggering message (received by recipient@example.org): 289 Return-Path: 290 Received: from mail.example.com by mail.example.org 291 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:02 -0500 292 Received: from hobbies.example.com by mail.example.com 293 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 02:00:26 -0800 294 Message-ID: <1234567.89ABCDEF@example.com> 295 Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:59:19 +0100 296 Precedence: list 297 List-Id: Knitting Mailing List 298 Sender: knitting-bounces@example.com 299 Errors-To: knitting-bounces@example.com 300 From: "Jeff Smith" 301 To: "Knitting Mailing List" 302 Subject: [Knitting] A new sweater 304 I just finished a great new sweater! 306 Sieve script (run on behalf of recipient@example.org): 308 require ["notify", "variables"]; 310 if header :contains "list-id" "knitting.example.com" { 311 if header :matches "Subject" "[*] *" { 312 notify :message "From ${1} list: ${2}" 313 :importance "3" 314 "mailto:0123456789@sms.example.net?to=backup@example.com"; 315 } 316 } 318 Notification message: 320 Auto-Submitted: auto-notified; owner-email="recipient@example.org" 321 Received: from mail.example.com by mail.example.org 322 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:02 -0500 323 Received: from hobbies.example.com by mail.example.com 324 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 02:00:26 -0800 325 Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:55 -0500 326 Message-ID: 327 From: recipient@example.org 328 To: 0123456789@sms.example.net, backup@example.com 329 Subject: From Knitting list: A new sweater 330 Note that: 332 o Fields such as "Message-ID:" and "Date:" were generated afresh for 333 the notification message, and do not relate to the triggering 334 message. 336 o Additional "Received:" fields will be added to the notification 337 message in transit; the ones shown were copied from the triggering 338 message. New ones will be added above the "Auto-Submitted:" 339 field. 341 o If this message should appear at the mail.example.org server 342 again, the server can use the presence of a "mail.example.org" 343 received line to recognize that. The Auto-Submitted header field 344 is also present to tell the server to avoid sending another 345 notification, and it includes an optional owner-email parameter 346 for identification. 348 4. Internationalization Considerations 350 This specification introduces no specific internationalization issues 351 that are not already addressed in [Sieve] and in [Notify]. 353 5. Security Considerations 355 Sending a notification is comparable with forwarding mail to the 356 notification recipient. Care must be taken when forwarding mail 357 automatically, to ensure that confidential information is not sent 358 into an insecure environment. 360 The automated sending of email messages exposes the system to mail 361 loops, which can cause operational problems. Implementations of this 362 specification MUST protect themselves against mail loops (see 363 Section 2.7). 365 Additional security considerations are discussed in [Sieve] and in 366 [Notify]. 368 6. IANA Considerations 370 6.1. Registration of notification mechanism 372 The following template specifies the IANA registration of the Sieve 373 notification mechanism specified in this document: 375 To: iana@iana.org 376 Subject: Registration of new Sieve notification mechanism 377 Mechanism name: mailto 378 Mechanism URI: RFC2368 379 Mechanism-specific tags: none 380 Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: this RFC 381 Person and email address to contact for further information: 382 Michael Haardt 384 This information should be added to the list of sieve notification 385 mechanisms given on 386 http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-notification. 388 6.2. New registry for Auto-Submitted header field keywords 390 Because [RFC3834] does not define a registry for new keywords used in 391 the Auto-Submitted header field, we define one here, to be created as 392 http://www.iana.org/assignments/auto-submitted-keywords. Keywords 393 are registered using the "Specification Required" policy [IANA]. 395 This defines the template to be used to register new keywords. 396 Initial entries to this registry follow in Section 6.3. 398 To: iana@iana.org 399 Subject: Registration of new auto-submitted header field keyword 400 Keyword value: [the text value of the field] 401 Description: [a brief explanation of the purpose of this value] 402 Parameters: [list any keyword-specific parameters, specify their 403 meanings, specify whether they are required or optional; use "none" 404 if there are none] 405 Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: [identifies 406 the specification that defines the value being registered] 407 Contact: [name and email address to contact for further information] 409 6.3. Initial registration of Auto-Submitted header field keywords 411 The following are the initial keywords to be registered for the Auto- 412 Submitted header field, to be entered in 413 http://www.iana.org/assignments/auto-submitted-keywords. 415 Keyword value: no 416 Description: Indicates that a message was NOT automatically 417 generated, but was created by a human. It is the equivalent to the 418 absence of an Auto-Submitted header altogether. 419 Parameters: none 420 Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: RFC3834 421 Contact: Keith Moore 423 Keyword value: auto-generated 424 Description: Indicates that a message was generated by an automatic 425 process, and is not a direct response to another message. 426 Parameters: none 427 Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: RFC3834 428 Contact: Keith Moore 430 Keyword value: auto-replied 431 Description: Indicates that a message was automatically generated as 432 a direct response to another message. 433 Parameters: none 434 Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: RFC3834 435 Contact: Keith Moore 437 Keyword value: auto-notified 438 Description: Indicates that a message was generated by a Sieve 439 notification system. 440 Parameters: owner-email, owner-token. Both optional, both refer to 441 the owner of the Sieve script that generated this message. See the 442 relevant RFC for details. 443 Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: this RFC 444 Contact: Michael Haardt 446 7. References 448 7.1. Normative References 450 [Kwds] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 451 Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. 453 [Notify] Melnikov, A., Ed., Leiba, B., Ed., Segmuller, W., and T. 454 Martin, "Sieve Extension: Notifications", work in 455 progress, draft-ietf-sieve-notify, December 2007. 457 [RFC2822] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, 458 April 2001. 460 [RFC3834] Moore, K., "Recommendations for Automatic Responses to 461 Electronic Mail", RFC 3834, August 2004. 463 [Sieve] Guenther, P., Ed. and T. Showalter, Ed., "Sieve: An Email 464 Filtering Language", RFC 5228, January 2008. 466 [mailto] Hoffman, P., Masinter, L., and J. Zawinski, "The mailto 467 URL scheme", RFC 2368, July 1998. 469 7.2. Non-Normative References 471 [IANA] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 472 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, 473 October 1998. 475 [RFC2821] Klensin, J., Ed., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", 476 RFC 2821, April 2001. 478 [Variables] 479 Homme, K., "Sieve Extension: Variables", RFC 5229, 480 January 2008. 482 Authors' Addresses 484 Barry Leiba 485 IBM T.J. Watson Research Center 486 19 Skyline Drive 487 Hawthorne, NY 10532 488 US 490 Phone: +1 914 784 7941 491 Email: leiba@watson.ibm.com 493 Michael Haardt 494 freenet AG 495 Willstaetter Str. 13 496 Duesseldorf, NRW 40549 497 Germany 499 Phone: +49 241 53087 520 500 Email: michael.haardt@freenet.ag 502 Full Copyright Statement 504 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 506 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 507 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 508 retain all their rights. 510 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 511 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 512 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 513 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 514 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 515 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 516 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 518 Intellectual Property 520 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 521 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 522 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 523 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 524 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 525 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 526 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 527 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 529 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 530 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 531 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 532 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 533 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 534 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 536 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 537 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 538 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 539 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 540 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 542 Acknowledgment 544 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 545 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).