idnits 2.17.1 draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-identity-extensions-06.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 17. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 595. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 606. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 613. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 619. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Too long document name: The document name (without revision number), 'draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-identity-extensions', is 51 characters long, but may be at most 50 characters Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document has examples using IPv4 documentation addresses according to RFC6890, but does not use any IPv6 documentation addresses. Maybe there should be IPv6 examples, too? Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL', 'SHOULD', or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119. Please use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what you mean). Found 'MUST not' in this paragraph: The LIS MUST not accept on behalf of location requests from, or divulge location information to, any third-party that it cannot authenticate or authorize. In most cases on behalf of requests should be restricted to essential services legislated by the local juridiction. -- 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 14, 2008) is 5764 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: 'RFC3966' is defined on line 544, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-08 == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-08 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps (ref. 'I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps') ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2234 (Obsoleted by RFC 4234) == Outdated reference: A later version (-20) exists of draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp-05 == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-thomson-geopriv-held-measurements-02 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 9 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Geopriv J. Winterbottom 3 Internet-Draft M. Thomson 4 Intended status: Standards Track Andrew Corporation 5 Expires: January 15, 2009 H. Tschofenig 6 Nokia Siemens Networks 7 July 14, 2008 9 HELD Identity Extensions 10 draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-identity-extensions-06.txt 12 Status of this Memo 14 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 15 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 16 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 17 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 19 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 20 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 21 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 22 Drafts. 24 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 25 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 26 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 27 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 29 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 32 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 33 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 35 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 15, 2009. 37 Copyright Notice 39 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 41 Abstract 43 When a Location Information Server receives a request for location 44 information (using the locationRequest message), described in the 45 base HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD) specification, it uses the 46 source IP address of arriving message as a pointer to the location 47 determination process. This is appropriate in many environments. 48 However, when an entity acting on behalf of the Target would like to 49 request location information then the source IP address of the 50 request will lead to wrong results. In other cases the IP address is 51 not the only identifier that serves as an input to the location 52 determination procedure. 54 This document extends the HELD protocol to allow the location request 55 message to carry additional identifiers assisting the location 56 determination process. It defines a set of URIs for Target 57 identifiers and an XML containment schema. This extension is used in 58 conjunction with HELD to provide Target identification, and set of 59 criteria of when to use this extensions are provided. Examples and 60 usage in HELD message syntax are also shown. 62 Table of Contents 64 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 3. Criteria for using on behalf of location requests . . . . . . 6 67 4. Identity Extension Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 68 4.1. URI Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 69 4.1.1. Ethernet MAC URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 4.1.2. IP Address URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 71 4.2. Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 72 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 73 5.1. Device-provided identity extensions . . . . . . . . . . . 11 74 5.2. On behalf of requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 75 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 76 6.1. URN Sub-Namespace Registration for 77 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:id . . . . . . . . . . 12 78 6.2. XML Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 79 6.3. Identifier 'type' Attribute values . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 80 6.4. URI Type Attribute Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 81 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 82 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 83 8.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 84 8.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 85 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 86 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 19 88 1. Introduction 90 Location Configuration Protocols, such as HELD 91 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery], need to identify a Target 92 in order to determine its location. The base HELD specification only 93 provides Target identity through the IP address of the requesting 94 Target, while [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps] provides examples of where 95 this may be insufficient. This memo defines a set of URIs and a 96 containment schema that allows the entity requesting location 97 information to indicate a Target identifier beyond the source IP 98 address of the request. 100 In addition to a Target providing additional information about itself 101 in order to aid location determination, a trusted node can use the 102 techniques described in this memo to request location information 103 about a specific Target, on behalf of (OBO) that Target. Use cases 104 for this functionality are described in [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps] 105 and [I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp] and focus on environments where a call- 106 server or proxy resides in the same administrative domain as the LIS, 107 and the Target has either failed, or is unable, to provide location 108 information when it is required to do so. This memo provides a set 109 of criteria that can be applied by operators considering an OBO-based 110 location deployment. 112 2. Terminology 114 This document reuses the term Target, as defined in [RFC3693]. 116 This document uses the term Location Information Server, LIS as 117 described in [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps]. 119 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 120 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 121 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 123 3. Criteria for using on behalf of location requests 125 The general model for acquiring location in the Internet places the 126 onus on the end-point to acquire its location prior to invoking a 127 service that needs this information in order to operate correctly. 128 There is general acceptance from a range of organizations and 129 operators that this approach cannot ensure the operation of essential 130 services in the short to medium term with current terminal and 131 network deployments. Network operators do not, for the most part, 132 control or own user-terminal equipment, which means that they are not 133 in a position to ensure essential services will work correctly for 134 legacy devices connected to the network and this presents a dilema 135 that requires a standarized technical solution. The accepted 136 approach is to have a trusted node be able to request location on- 137 behalf-of of the end-point to facilitate the correct operation of 138 services deemed essential by the local jurisdiction. Examples of 139 essential services include, but are not limited to ambulance, law 140 enforcement, and fire services. 142 To support an on-behalf-of location request mechanism there is a need 143 for a strong trust relationship between the access and service 144 provider entities. This relationship should exist soley for the 145 purposes of providing services considered essential by the 146 jurisdiction. The essential service may be provided inside the local 147 access network, placing the access network and service provider in 148 same administrative domain. Alternatively, the essential service is 149 provided by a jurisdictional authority that has the right to request 150 the location information for a Target in an access network operating 151 in its legal boundaries. 153 In addition to a strong trust relationship the access and service 154 providers need to agree on a Target identifier. This identifier must 155 have the properties of allowing the essential service to identify the 156 LIS in the serving access network, and allowing the LIS to identify 157 the end-device in the access network. 159 4. Identity Extension Details 161 This section defines the details of the schema extension for HELD to 162 support the inclusion of a Target identity in the form of a URI or 163 typed-token. A set of URI definitions that can be used to specify 164 these identities is also provided. 166 4.1. URI Definitions 168 The URIs defined in this section are designed to identify a Target; 169 they do not identify measurements or sighting data associated with a 170 Target, such as the switch and port information to which the Target 171 is attached. This information may, for example, be acquired using 172 DHCP relay information [RFC3046] or LLDP [LLDP]. Device measurements 173 and sighting data are described in 174 [I-D.thomson-geopriv-held-measurements]. The identity provided may 175 be transitory, such as an IP address that is leased from a DHCP 176 server pool. 178 The URIs in the following sub-sections are defined using ABNF 179 (augmented Backus-Naur form) described in [RFC2234]. 181 4.1.1. Ethernet MAC URI 183 This is the Ethernet hardware address of the device, and is defined 184 as per the IEEE 802 specifications. The ABNF for this URI type is 185 defined as: 187 mac-uri = "mac:" 2*2HEXDIG 5*5macdig 188 macdig = "-" 2*2HEXDIG 190 This type of URI is, for example, used in RFC 4479 [RFC4479]. An 191 example of its use is provided in Figure 5. 193 4.1.2. IP Address URIs 195 This section provides the ABNF for IP version 4 and IP version 6 196 URIs. One application of this URI scheme is described in 197 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps], where an outbound SIP proxy needs to 198 make location requests to a LIS on behalf of a Target because, for 199 some reason, the necessary information was not provided by the 200 Target. 202 ip-uri = "ip:" ipv4 / ipv6 203 ipv4 = "IPv4+" IPv4-Address 204 IPv4-Address = 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT 205 ipv6 = "IPv6+" hexpart [ ":" IPv4-Address ] 206 hexpart = hexseq / hexseq "::" [ hexseq ] / "::" [ hexseq ] 207 hexseq = hex4 *( ":" hex4) 208 hex4 = 1*4HEXDIG 210 An example of a location request including a URI in this form to 211 identify the Target device is shown in Figure 3. 213 215 geodetic 216 217 ip:IPv4+192.0.2.5 218 219 221 Figure 3: HELD Location Request Using an IP Address 223 Note that the URI types are not case sensitive and the iP:ipv4+ 224 192.0.2.5 is still a valid URI. 226 4.2. Schema 228 This section defines a schema that is used to provide Target 229 identifiers in a HELD location request. 231 232 239 241 242 243 244 246 247 248 250 252 253 254 255 257 258 259 261 263 264 265 267 269 270 272 274 276 Figure 4: Schema 278 The schema provided in Figure 4 allows a URI and/or token to be 279 provided so that a Target can identify itself by more than just its 280 IP address. The URI can also include an optional "type" attribute so 281 that URIs that might otherwise look the same can be distinguished 282 based on their usage. 284 For example sip:callee@example.com or sip:callee@example.com 287 An IANA registry is established for defining uri token types, and 288 this defined in Section 6.4. 290 When the element is used the "type" attribute is 291 mandatory as it tells the LIS or receiving entity how to interpret 292 the identifier. An IANA registry is established for the central 293 repository for recognized identifier types. The set of initial types 294 is provided in Section 6.3. 296 A HELD location request sent by a device using the schema shown in 297 Figure 4 to provide its identity as a MAC URI would look similar to 298 Figure 5. 300 302 geodetic 303 304 mac:01-ab-34-ef-69-0c 305 306 308 Figure 5: HELD Location Request URI example 310 Similarly a Target identifying itself using its DHCP client 311 identifier (DHCP option 61 in [RFC2132]) in a location request to a 312 LIS would send something similar to Figure 6. 314 316 geodetic 317 318 035552764 319 320 322 Figure 6: HELD Location Request Identifier example 324 5. Security Considerations 326 5.1. Device-provided identity extensions 328 Identity extensions proivded by the Target device are commonly 329 provided to assist the LIS in location determination. Where the LIS 330 is going to use this information it MUST be verifiable by the LIS, 331 the choice to perform this verification or not is left to the 332 operator of the service. A MAC address provided by a target device, 333 for example, can be verified by performing a DHCP lease-query based 334 described in [RFC4388]. Identity extensions such as tel uris and 335 hostnames can be validated using network services such as enum and 336 ldap. 338 Information that cannot be verified, or is found to be false MUST be 339 ignroed by the LIS. 341 5.2. On behalf of requests 343 The on behalf of mechanism allows the access network provider to 344 specify rules for location acqusition for essential local services. 345 The requirement to implement and comply with these rules will often 346 be outside the control of the access provider with legislation 347 mandating adherence. In such circumstances connectivity to the 348 access network by an end-device is an implicit acceptance of these 349 usage rules. Providers of access networks that divulge location in 350 an on behalf of manner should provide an indication of this in it 351 terms and conditions allowing allowing the user of device the option 352 of connecting or not. Where the network may use on behalf of 353 location acqusition for non-essential services, the user of an end- 354 device MUST have the option of restricting the divulging of location 355 to essential services only. How this restriction occurs is outside 356 the scope of this specification. 358 The LIS MUST not accept on behalf of location requests from, or 359 divulge location information to, any third-party that it cannot 360 authenticate or authorize. In most cases on behalf of requests 361 should be restricted to essential services legislated by the local 362 juridiction. 364 6. IANA Considerations 366 This document registers an XML namespace and schema with IANA in 367 accordance with guidelines in [RFC3688]. It also creates a new 368 registry for device identity types, and stipulates how new types are 369 to be added. 371 6.1. URN Sub-Namespace Registration for 372 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:id 374 This section registers a new XML namespace, 375 "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:id", as per the guidelines in 376 [RFC3688]. 378 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:id 380 Registrant Contact: IETF, GEOPRIV working group, 381 (geopriv@ietf.org), James Winterbottom 382 (james.winterbottom@andrew.com). 384 XML: 386 BEGIN 387 388 390 391 392 HELD Device Identity Extensions 393 394 395

Namespace for HELD Device Identity Extensions

396

urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:id

397 [[NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please update RFC URL and replace XXXX 398 with the RFC number for this specification.]] 399

See RFCXXXX.

400 401 402 END 404 6.2. XML Schema Registration 406 This section registers an XML schema as per the guidelines in 407 [RFC3688]. 409 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:geopriv:held:id 411 Registrant Contact: IETF, GEOPRIV working group, (geopriv@ietf.org), 412 James Winterbottom (james.winterbottom@andrew.com). 414 Schema: The XML for this schema can be found as the entirety of 415 Figure 4 of this document. 417 6.3. Identifier 'type' Attribute values 419 This document requests that the IANA create a new registry for 420 identifier 'type' attribute values. These are text strings that 421 clarify how the value identifies the Device. Referring to [RFC2434] 422 this registry operates under the "Expert Review" rule. 424 The following identifier types are registered as part of this memo: 426 o 'dhcpClientId' The DHCP client identifier as defined by DHCP 427 option 61 in [RFC2132] 429 o 'msisdn' The Mobile Station International Subscriber Dial Number. 430 This is an E.164 number made up of 6 to 15 digits 432 o 'imsi' The International Mobile Subscriber identifier. A unique 433 identifier for GSM or UMTS mobile terminal made up of 6 to 15 434 digits that identify the country code, the network code and 435 device. 437 o 'imei' The International Mobile Equipment identifier. This is an 438 electronic serial number for a mobile device and is consists of up 439 to 15 digits 441 o 'min' Mobile Identification Number. A unique equipment identifier 442 assigned to CDMA handsets. 444 o 'mdn' Mobile Dial Number. An E.164 number made up of 6 to 15 445 digits. 447 o 'hostname' The hostname or FQDN of the device. 449 o 'directoryNumber' The directory number of the device. 451 6.4. URI Type Attribute Values 453 This document requests that the IANA create a new registry for uri 454 'type' attribute values. These are text strings that clarify what a 455 URI actually identifies, and MUSt include the URI scheme to which the 456 type applies. Referring to [RFC2434] this registry operates under 457 the "Expert Review" rule. 459 The following identifier types are registered as part of this memo: 461 o 'aor' The SIP address of record as defined [RFC3261]. Applies to 462 'sip:', 'sips:', 'pres:' 464 o 'gruu' The Globally Routable User Agent URI (GRUU) as defined in 465 [I-D.ietf-sip-gruu]. Applies to 'sip:', 'sips:' 467 7. Acknowledgements 469 The authors wish to thank the NENA VoIP location working group for 470 their assistance in the definition of the schema used in this 471 document. Special thanks go to Barbara Stark, Guy Caron, Nadine 472 Abbott, Jerome Grenier and Martin Dawson. Thanks also to Bob Sherry 473 for requesting that URI-types be supported which led to the typedURI 474 form. Thanks to Adam Muhlbauer and Eddy Corbett for providing 475 further corrections. 477 8. References 479 8.1. Normative references 481 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 482 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 484 [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, 485 January 2004. 487 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery] 488 Barnes, M., Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., and B. Stark, 489 "HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)", 490 draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-08 (work in 491 progress), July 2008. 493 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps] 494 Tschofenig, H. and H. Schulzrinne, "GEOPRIV Layer 7 495 Location Configuration Protocol; Problem Statement and 496 Requirements", draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-08 (work in 497 progress), June 2008. 499 [RFC2234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax 500 Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997. 502 [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, 503 A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. 504 Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, 505 June 2002. 507 [I-D.ietf-sip-gruu] 508 Rosenberg, J., "Obtaining and Using Globally Routable User 509 Agent (UA) URIs (GRUU) in the Session Initiation Protocol 510 (SIP)", draft-ietf-sip-gruu-15 (work in progress), 511 October 2007. 513 8.2. Informative references 515 [RFC3693] Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J., and 516 J. Polk, "Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 2004. 518 [RFC2132] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor 519 Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997. 521 [I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp] 522 Rosen, B. and J. Polk, "Best Current Practice for 523 Communications Services in support of Emergency Calling", 524 draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp-05 (work in progress), 525 July 2008. 527 [I-D.thomson-geopriv-held-measurements] 528 Thomson, M. and J. Winterbottom, "Using Device-provided 529 Location-Related Measurements in HELD", 530 draft-thomson-geopriv-held-measurements-02 (work in 531 progress), May 2008. 533 [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 534 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, 535 October 1998. 537 [LLDP] IEEE, "802.1AB, IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan 538 area networks, Station and Media Access Control 539 Connectivity Discovery", June 2005. 541 [RFC3046] Patrick, M., "DHCP Relay Agent Information Option", 542 RFC 3046, January 2001. 544 [RFC3966] Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers", 545 RFC 3966, December 2004. 547 [RFC4479] Rosenberg, J., "A Data Model for Presence", RFC 4479, 548 July 2006. 550 [RFC4388] Woundy, R. and K. Kinnear, "Dynamic Host Configuration 551 Protocol (DHCP) Leasequery", RFC 4388, February 2006. 553 Authors' Addresses 555 James Winterbottom 556 Andrew Corporation 557 PO Box U40 558 University of Wollongong, NSW 2500 559 AU 561 Email: james.winterbottom@andrew.com 563 Martin Thomson 564 Andrew Corporation 565 PO Box U40 566 University of Wollongong, NSW 2500 567 AU 569 Email: martin.thomson@andrew.com 571 Hannes Tschofenig 572 Nokia Siemens Networks 573 Linnoitustie 6 574 Espoo 02600 575 Finland 577 Phone: +358 (50) 4871445 578 Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net 579 URI: http://www.tschofenig.priv.at 581 Full Copyright Statement 583 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 585 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 586 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 587 retain all their rights. 589 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 590 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 591 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 592 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 593 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 594 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 595 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 597 Intellectual Property 599 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 600 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 601 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 602 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 603 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 604 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 605 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 606 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 608 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 609 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 610 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 611 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 612 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 613 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 615 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 616 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 617 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 618 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 619 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 621 Acknowledgment 623 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 624 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).