idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits53531/draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-02.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 584. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 595. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 602. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 608. 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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 12 characters in excess of 72. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC4844, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC4844, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2006-05-23) -- 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 (October 17, 2008) is 4963 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC3978' is defined on line 468, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3979' is defined on line 473, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4748' is defined on line 447, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4749' is defined on line 450, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis has been published as RFC 5742 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3 (Obsoleted by RFC 10) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1150 (Obsoleted by RFC 6360) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2223 (Obsoleted by RFC 7322) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2629 (Obsoleted by RFC 7749) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4748 (ref. 'RFC3978') (Obsoleted by RFC 5378) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4844 (Obsoleted by RFC 8729) -- Duplicate reference: RFC4748, mentioned in 'RFC4748', was also mentioned in 'RFC3978'. -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4748 (Obsoleted by RFC 5378) -- Duplicate reference: RFC4749, mentioned in 'RFC4749', was also mentioned in 'RFC3979'. -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5143 (Obsoleted by RFC 4842) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 18 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group L. Daigle, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft O. Kolkman, Ed. 4 Updates: 4844, 2223 5 (if approved) Internet Architecture Board 6 Intended status: Informational (IAB) 7 Expires: April 20, 2009 October 17, 2008 9 On RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates 10 draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-02 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 April 20, 2009. 37 Abstract 39 RFC documents contain a number of fixed elements such as the title 40 page header, standard boilerplates and copyright/IPR statements. 41 This document describes them and introduces some updates to reflect 42 current usage and requirements of RFC publication. In particular, 43 this updated structure is intended to communicate clearly the source 44 of RFC creation and review. 46 Table of Contents 48 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 49 2. RFC Streams and Internet Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 50 3. RFC Structural Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 51 3.1. The title page header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 52 3.2. The Status of this Memo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 53 3.3. Additional Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 54 3.4. Other structural information in RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . 8 55 4. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 56 5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 57 6. RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 58 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 59 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 60 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 61 Appendix A. IAB members at time of approval . . . . . . . . . . . 11 62 Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 63 Appendix C. Document Editing Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 64 C.1. version 00->01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 65 C.2. version 01->02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 66 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 67 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 14 69 1. Introduction 71 Previously RFCs (e.g. [RFC4844]) contained a number of elements that 72 were there for historical, practical, and legal reasons. They also 73 contained boilerplate material to clearly indicate the status of the 74 document and possibly contained "Notes" to indicate how the document 75 interacts with IETF Standards-Track documents. 77 As the RFC Series has evolved over the years, there has been 78 increasing concern over appropriate labelling of the publications to 79 make clear the status of each RFC and the status of the work it 80 describes. Chiefly, there is a requirement that RFCs published as 81 part of the IETF's review process not be easily confused with RFCs 82 that may have had a very different review and approval process. 83 Various adjustments have been made over the years, including evolving 84 text of "Notes" included in the published RFC. 86 With the definition of the different RFC streams [RFC4844] it is 87 appropriate to formalize the definition of the various pieces of 88 standard RFC boilerplate and introduce some adjustments to ensure 89 better clarity of expression of document status, aligned with the 90 review and approval processes defined for each stream. 92 This memo identifies and describes the common elements of RFC 93 boilerplate structure, and provides a comprehensive approach to 94 updating and using those elements to communicate, with clarity, RFC 95 document and content status. Most of the historical structure 96 information is collected from [RFC2223]. 98 The changes introduced by this memo should be implemented as soon as 99 practically possible after the document has been approved for 100 publication. 102 2. RFC Streams and Internet Standards 104 Users of RFCs should be aware that while all Internet standards- 105 related documents are published as RFCs, not all RFCs are Internet 106 standards-related documents. 108 The IETF is responsible for maintaining the Internet Standards 109 Process, which includes the requirements for developing, reviewing 110 and approving Standards Track and BCP RFCs. These, and any other 111 standards-related documents (Informational or Experimental) are 112 reviewed by appropriate IETF bodies and published as part of the IETF 113 Stream. 115 Documents published in streams other than the IETF Stream are not 116 reviewed by the IETF for such things as security, congestion control, 117 or inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols. They have also 118 not been subject to approval by the Internet Engineering Steering 119 Group (IESG), including an IETF-wide last call. Therefore, the IETF 120 disclaims, for any of the non-IETF Stream documents, any knowledge of 121 the fitness of those RFCs for any purpose. 123 Refer to [RFC2026], [I-D.housley-iesg-rfc3932bis], and [RFC4844] and 124 their successors for current details of the IETF process and RFC 125 streams. 127 3. RFC Structural Elements 129 3.1. The title page header 131 An RFC title page header can be described as follows: 133 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 134 135 Request for Comments: [] 136 [ ] [more author info as appropriate] 137 [:] 138 Category: 139 141 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 143 For example, a sample earlier RFC header is as follows: 145 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 146 Network Working Group T. Dierks 147 Request for Comments: 4346 Independent 148 Obsoletes: 2246 E. Rescorla 149 Category: Standards Track RTFM, Inc. 150 April 2006 152 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 154 The right column contains author name and affiliation information as 155 well as RFC publication date. Conventions and restrictions for these 156 elements are described in RFC style norms and some individual stream 157 definitions. 159 This section is primarily concerned with the information in the left 160 column: 162 This describes the area where the work originates. 163 Historically, all RFCs were labeled Network Working Group. 164 "Network Working Group" refers to the original version of today's 165 IETF when people from the original set of ARPANET sites and 166 whomever else was interested -- the meetings were open -- got 167 together to discuss, design and document proposed protocols 168 [RFC0003]. Here, we obsolete the term "Network Working Group" in 169 order to indicate the originating stream. 171 The is the name of the RFC stream, as defined in 172 [RFC4844] and its successors. At the time of this publication, 173 the streams, and therefore the possible entries are: 175 * Internet Engineering Task Force 177 * Internet Architecture Board 179 * Internet Research Task Force 181 * Independent 183 Request for Comments: This indicates the RFC number, 184 assigned by the RFC Editor upon publication of the document. This 185 element is unchanged. 187 Some document categories are also 188 labeled as a subseries of RFCs. These elements appear as 189 appropriate for such categories, indicating the subseries and the 190 documents number within that series. Currently, there are 191 subseries for BCPs [RFC2026], STDs[RFC1311], and FYIs [RFC1150]. 192 These subseries numbers may appear in several RFCs. For example, 193 when a new RFC obsoletes or updates an old one, the same subseries 194 number is used. Also, several RFCs may be assigned the same 195 subseries number: a single STD, for example, may be composed of 196 several RFCs, each of which will bear the same STD number. This 197 element is unchanged. 199 [:] Some relations between RFCs in the 200 series are explicitly noted in the RFC header. For example, a new 201 RFC may update one or more earlier RFCs. Currently two 202 relationships are defined: "Updates", and "Obsoletes" [RFC2223]. 203 Variants like "Obsoleted by" are also used (e.g in [RFC5143]). 204 Other types of relations may be defined elsewhere. 206 Category: This indicates the initial RFC document 207 category of the publication. These are defined in [RFC2026]. 208 Currently, this is always one of: Standards Track, Best Current 209 Practice, Experimental, Informational, or Historic. This element 210 is unchanged. 212 3.2. The Status of this Memo 214 The "Status of This Memo" describes the category of the RFC, 215 including the distribution statement. This text is included 216 irrespective of the source stream of the RFC. 218 From now on, the "Status of This Memo" will start with a single 219 sentence describing the status. It will also include a statement 220 describing the stream-specific review of the material (which is 221 stream-dependent). This is an important component of status, insofar 222 as it clarifies the breadth and depth of review, and gives the reader 223 an understanding of how to consider its content. 225 The first paragraph of the Status of this Memo section contains a 226 single sentence, clearly standing out. It depends on the category of 227 the document. 229 This memo is an Internet Standards Track document. 231 This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice 233 This memo is not an Internet Standards Track specification, . 236 For Informational, Experimental, Historic and future categories of 237 RFCs, the RFC editor will maintain an appropriate text for . For example, with an Informational 239 document this could read "it is published for informational 240 purposes". 242 The second paragraph contains text as follows that is specific to the 243 initial category: 245 Standards Track: "This document specifies an Internet standards 246 track protocol for the Internet community. Please see the 247 "Updates to the RFC" section of this document for information on 248 where to find the status of this document and the availability of 249 errata for this memo." 251 Best Current Practice: "This document specifies an Internet Best 252 Current Practices for the Internet Community. Please see the 253 "Updates to the RFC" section of this document for information on 254 where to find the status of this document and the availability of 255 errata for this memo." 257 Experimental: "This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the 258 Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet 259 standard of any kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement 260 are requested." 262 Informational: "This memo provides information for the Internet 263 community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any 264 kind. " 266 Historic: "This memo defines a Historic Document for the Internet 267 community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." 269 Note that the texts in paragraph 1 and 2 of the boilerplate indicate 270 the initial status of a document. During their lifetime documents 271 can change status to e.g. Historic. This cannot be reflected in the 272 document itself and will need be reflected in the information refered 273 to in Section 3.4. 275 The third paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" will now include a 276 paragraph describing the type of review and exposure the document has 277 received. This is defined on a per-stream basis. From now on, these 278 paragraphs will be defined as part of RFC stream definitions. 280 The following texts may be updated if the stream definitions are 281 updated, but initial paragraphs for the existing streams are: 283 IETF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Engineering 284 Task Force (IETF). " 286 If there has been an IETF consensus call per IETF process, an 287 additional sentence should be added: "This document represents a 288 consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review 289 and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering 290 Steering Group." 292 IAB Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Architecture 293 Board (IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed 294 valuable to provide for permanent record. This document has been 295 approved for publication by the IAB and is therefore not a 296 candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see section 297 Section 2 of RFCXXXX." 299 IRTF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Research 300 Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet- 301 related research and development activities. These results might 302 not be suitable for deployment. This document has been approved 303 for publication by the IRSG. It is not a product of the IETF and 304 is therefore not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; 305 see section Section 2 of RFCXXXX." 307 In addition a sentence indicating the consensus base within the 308 IRTF may be added: "This RFC represents the consensus of the 309 Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force 310 (IRTF)." or alternatively "This RFC represents the individual 311 opinion(s) of one or more members of the Research 312 Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)". 314 Independent Stream: "This document is a contribution to the RFC 315 Series, independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has 316 chosen to publish this document at its discretion and makes no 317 statement about its value for implementation or deployment. It is 318 therefore not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see 319 section Section 2 of RFCXXXX." 321 3.3. Additional Notes 323 Exceptionally, a review and publication process may prescribe 324 additional notes that will appear as labelled notes after the "Status 325 of This Memo". 327 While this has been a common feature of recent RFCs, it is the goal 328 of this document to make the overall RFC structure adequately clear 329 to remove the need for such notes, or at least make their usage truly 330 exceptional. 332 3.4. Other structural information in RFCs 334 RFCs contain other structural informational elements. The RFC Editor 335 is responsible for the positioning and layout of these structural 336 element. Note also that new elements may be introduced or obsoleted 337 using a process consistent with [RFC4844]. These additions may or 338 may not require documentation in an RFC. 340 Currently the following structural information is available or is 341 being considered for inclusion in RFCs 343 Copyright Notice A copyright notice with a reference to BCP78 344 [BCP78] and an Intellectual Property statement referring to BCP78 345 and BCP79 [BCP79]. The content of these statements are defined by 346 those BCPs. 348 ISSN The International Standard Serial Number [ISO3297]: ISSN 2070- 349 1721. The ISSN uniquely identifies the RFC series as title 350 regardless of language or country in which it is published. The 351 ISSN itself has no significance other than the unique 352 identification of a serial publication. 354 Updates to the RFC A reference identifying where more information 355 about the document can be found. This may include information 356 whether the RFC has been updated or obsoleted, the RFC's 357 originating stream, a listing of possible errata, and information 358 on how to submit errata as described in 359 [I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process]. 361 4. Security considerations 363 This document tries to clarify the descriptions of the status of an 364 RFC. Misunderstanding the status of a memo could cause 365 interoperability problems, hence security and stability problems. 367 5. IANA considerations 369 None. 371 6. RFC Editor Considerations 373 The RFC Editor is responsible for maintaining the consistency of the 374 RFC series. To that end the RFC Editor maintains a style manual 375 [RFC-style]. In this memo we mention a few explicit structural 376 elements that the RFC editor needs to maintain. The conventions for 377 the content and use of all current and future elements are to be 378 documented in the style manual. 380 Adding a reference to the stream in the header of RFCs is only one 381 method for clarifying from which stream an RFC originated. The RFC 382 editor is encouraged to add such indication in e.g. indices and 383 interfaces. 385 [The rest of this section contains specific instructions towards 386 editing this document and can be removed before publication] 388 The documents has two sections, including this one that need to be 389 removed before publication as an RFC. This one and Appendix C. 391 This memo introduces a number of modifications that will have to be 392 implemented in various tools, such as the xml2rfc tool, the nit 393 tracker and the rfc-erratum portal. 395 The number "XXXX" is to be replaced with RFC number of this memo. 397 References [RFC-style], [BCP78] and [BCP79] have been constructed. 398 Please bring these in line with RFC Editorial conventions. 400 In section Section 3.4: For the final publication, it should be 401 warranted that the ISSN is *not* split by a line break, for clarity. 403 7. References 405 7.1. Normative References 407 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 408 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 410 [I-D.housley-iesg-rfc3932bis] 411 Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for 412 Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions", 413 draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-04 (work in progress), 414 October 2008. 416 7.2. Informative References 418 [ISO3297] Technical Committee ISO/TC 46, Information and 419 documentation, Subcommittee SC 9, Identification and 420 description. , "Information and documentation - 421 International standard serial number (ISSN)" , 09 2007 . 423 [RFC0003] Crocker, S. , "Documentation conventions" , RFC 3 , 424 April 1969 . 426 [RFC1311] Postel, J. , "Introduction to the STD Notes" , RFC 1311 427 , March 1992 . 429 [RFC1150] Malkin, G. and J. Reynolds , "FYI on FYI: Introduction 430 to the FYI Notes" , RFC 1150 , March 1990 . 432 [RFC2223] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds , "Instructions to RFC 433 Authors" , RFC 2223 , October 1997 . 435 [RFC2629] Rose, M. , "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML" , RFC 2629 436 , June 1999 . 438 [RFC3978] Bradner, S. , "IETF Rights in Contributions" , BCP 78 , 439 RFC 3978 , March 2005 . 441 [RFC3979] Bradner, S. , "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF 442 Technology" , BCP 79 , RFC 3979 , March 2005 . 444 [RFC4844] Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board , "The RFC 445 Series and RFC Editor" , RFC 4844 , July 2007 . 447 [RFC4748] Bradner, S. , "RFC 3978 Update to Recognize the IETF 448 Trust" , BCP 78 , RFC 4748 , October 2006 . 450 [RFC4749] Sollaud, A. , "RTP Payload Format for the G.729.1 Audio 451 Codec" , RFC 4749 , October 2006 . 453 [RFC5143] Malis, A. , Brayley, J. , Shirron, J. , Martini, L. , 454 and S. Vogelsang , "Synchronous Optical Network/ 455 Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) Circuit 456 Emulation Service over MPLS (CEM) Encapsulation" , 457 RFC 5143 , February 2008 . 459 [I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process] 460 Ginoza, S. , Hagens, A. , and R. Braden , "RFC Editor 461 Proposal for Handling RFC Errata" , 462 draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-02 (work in progress) , 463 May 2008 . 465 [BCP78] Bradner, S., Ed. , "IETF Rights in Contributions" , 466 BCP 78 , October 2006 . 468 [RFC3978]and[RFC4748] 470 [BCP79] Bradner, S., Ed. and T. Narten, Ed., "Intellectual 471 Property Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, April 2007. 473 [RFC3979]and[RFC4749] 475 [RFC-style] 476 RFC Editor, "RFC Style Guide", 477 . 479 Appendix A. IAB members at time of approval 481 The IAB members at the time the RFC Editor model was approved were 482 (in alphabetical order): Loa Andersson, Gonzalo Camarillo, Stuart 483 Cheshire, Russ Housley, Olaf Kolkman, Gregory Lebovitz, Barry Leiba, 484 Kurtis Lindqvist, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran, Dave 485 Thaler, and Lixia Zhang. In addition, the IAB included two ex- 486 officio members: Dow Street, who was serving as the IAB Executive 487 Director, and Aaron Falk, who was serving as the IRTF Chair. 489 Appendix B. Acknowledgements 491 Thanks to Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Steve Crocker, Sandy Ginoza, 492 and John Klensin who provided background information and inspiration. 494 Various people have made suggestions that improved the document. 495 Among them are: Lars Eggert and Alfred Hoenes. 497 This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629]. 499 Appendix C. Document Editing Details 501 [To Be Removed before publication] 503 $Id: draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-02.txt 42 2008-10-17 06:27:55Z olaf $ 505 C.1. version 00->01 507 Fixed the header so it appropriately shows that the document updates 508 RFC 4844, 2223. And added a link to 3932-bis that should appear in 509 tandem with this publication. 511 Introduced the "Other structural information in RFCs" section and 512 moved the ISSN number from the front matter to this section. The 513 "Other structural information in RFCs" intends to give very rough 514 guidance providing the RFC editor with sufficient freedom to move 515 pieces around and edit them to please the eye and mind. 517 Modified the last sentence 3rd paragraph of the Status of this memo 518 section for the IRTF Stream in accordance to a suggestion by Aaron 519 Falk; Indicating that review happened by the IRSG and not indicating 520 that review did not happen by the IESG. 522 Introduced the square brackets around the in the 523 header. To highlight this is an optional element. 525 The definition of the "Clarifies" relation has been taken out. There 526 are arguments that introducing the relation needs a bit more thought 527 and is better done by a separate document. 529 Provided the RFC Editor with responsibility to maintain several text 530 pieces. 532 In Section 3.2 some modifications were applied to the text. 534 The contains the full name of the stream. 536 RFC2223 and 4844 moved to the informative reference section. 537 Although I am not sure if those are not normative. Guidance!!! 539 C.2. version 01->02 541 Fixed some editorial nits and missing references. 543 Clarified that the status and category are initial. 545 Added boilerplate text for documents that are initially published as 546 Historic. 548 Added members of IAB, and removed those members from acknowledgements 550 Added References to BCP78 and BCP79. The exact formatting of those 551 references may need to be done by the RFC editor. 553 Added text to recognize occurrences of variations of "Obsolete" and 554 "Update" 556 Authors' Addresses 558 Leslie Daigle (editor) 560 Email: daigle@isoc.org, leslie@thinkingcat.com 562 Olaf M. Kolkman (editor) 564 Email: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl 566 Internet Architecture Board 568 Email: iab@iab.org 570 Full Copyright Statement 572 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 574 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 575 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 576 retain all their rights. 578 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 579 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 580 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 581 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 582 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 583 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 584 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 586 Intellectual Property 588 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 589 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 590 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 591 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 592 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 593 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 594 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 595 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 597 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 598 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 599 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 600 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 601 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 602 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 604 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 605 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 606 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 607 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 608 ietf-ipr@ietf.org.