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).