GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc3283

Network Working Group B. Mahoney Request for Comments: 3283 MIT Category: Informational G. Babics

                                                               Steltor
                                                              A. Taler
                                                             June 2002
                   Guide to Internet Calendaring

Status of this Memo

 This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
 not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
 memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

 This document describes the various Internet calendaring and
 scheduling standards and works in progress, and the relationships
 between them.  Its intent is to provide a context for these
 documents, assist in their understanding, and potentially aid in the
 design of standards-based calendaring and scheduling systems.  The
 standards addressed are RFC 2445 (iCalendar), RFC 2446 (iTIP), and
 RFC 2447 (iMIP).  The work in progress addressed is "Calendar Access
 Protocol" (CAP).  This document also describes issues and problems
 that are not solved by these protocols, and that could be targets for
 future work.

Table of Contents

 1.    Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
 1.1   Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
 1.2   Concepts and Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
 2.    Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
 2.1   Fundamental Needs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
 2.2   Protocol Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
 3.    Solutions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
 3.1   Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
 3.2   Systems  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
 3.2.1 Standalone Single-user System  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
 3.2.2 Single-user Systems Communicating  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
 3.2.3 Single-user with Multiple CUAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
 3.2.4 Single-user with Multiple Calendars  . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

Mahoney, et. al. Informational [Page 1] RFC 3283 Guide to Internet Calendaring June 2002

 3.2.5 Users Communicating on a Multi-user System . . . . . . . . . 10
 3.2.6 Users Communicating through Different Multi-user Systems . . 10
 4.    Important Aspects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
 4.1   Timezones  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
 4.2   Choice of Transport  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
 4.3   Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
 4.4   Amount of data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
 4.5   Recurring Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
 5.    Open Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
 5.1   Scheduling People, not Calendars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
 5.2   Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
 5.3   Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
 6.    Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
 6.1   Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
 6.2   Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
 6.3   Using E-mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
 6.4   Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1. Introduction

 Calendaring and scheduling protocols are intended to aid individuals
 in obtaining calendaring information and scheduling meetings across
 the Internet, to aid organizations in providing calendaring
 information on the Internet, and to provide for organizations looking
 for a calendaring and scheduling solution to deploy internally.
 It is the intent of this document to provide a context for these
 documents, assist in their understanding, and potentially help in the
 design of standards-based calendaring and scheduling systems.
 Problems not solved by these protocols, as well as security issues to
 be kept in mind, are discussed at the end of the document.

1.1 Terminology

 This memo uses much of the same terminology as iCalendar [RFC-2445],
 iTIP [RFC-2446], iMIP [RFC-2447], and [CAP].  The following
 definitions are provided as an introduction; the definitions in the
 protocol specifications themselves should be considered canonical.

Mahoney, et. al. Informational [Page 2] RFC 3283 Guide to Internet Calendaring June 2002

 Calendar
    A collection of events, to-dos, journal entries, etc.  A calendar
    could be the content of a person or resource's agenda; it could
    also be a collection of data serving a more specialized need.
    Calendars are the basic storage containers for calendaring
    information.
 Calendar Access Rights
    A set of rules defining who may perform what operations, such as
    reading or writing information, on a given calendar.
 Calendar Service
    A running server application that provides access to a number of
    calendar stores.
 Calendar Store (CS)
    A data store of a calendar service.  A calendar service may have
    several calendar stores, and each store may contain several
    calendars, as well as properties and components outside of those
    calendars.
 Calendar User (CU)
    An entity (often a human) that accesses calendar information.
 Calendar User Agent (CUA)
    Software with which the calendar user communicates with a calendar
    service or local calendar store to access calendar information.
 Component
    A piece of calendar data such as an event, a to-do or an alarm.
    Information about components is stored as properties of those
    components.
 Delegator
    A calendar user who has assigned his or her participation in a
    scheduled calendar component (e.g.  a VEVENT) to another calendar
    user (sometimes called the delegate or delegatee).  An example of
    a delegator is a busy executive sending an employee to a meeting
    in his or her place.

Mahoney, et. al. Informational [Page 3] RFC 3283 Guide to Internet Calendaring June 2002

 Delegate
    A calendar user (sometimes called the delegatee) who has been
    assigned to participate in a scheduled calendar component (e.g. a
    VEVENT) in place of one of the attendees in that component
    (sometimes called the delegator).  An example of a delegate is a
    team member sent to a particular meeting.
 Designate
    A calendar user authorized to act on behalf of another calendar
    user.  An example of a designate is an assistant scheduling
    meetings for his or her superior.
 Local Store
    A CS that is on the same device as the CUA.
 Property
    A description of some element of a component, such as a start
    time, title or location.
 Remote Store
    A CS that is not on the same device as the CUA.

1.2 Concepts and Relationships

 iCalendar is the language used to describe calendar objects.  iTIP
 describes a way to use the iCalendar language to do scheduling.  iMIP
 describes how to do iTIP scheduling via e-mail.  CAP describes a way
 to use the iCalendar language to access a calendar store in real-
 time.
 The relationship between calendaring protocols is similar to that
 between e-mail protocols.  In those terms, iCalendar is analogous to
 RFC 2822, iTIP and iMIP are analogous to the Simple Mail Transfer
 Protocol (SMTP), and CAP is analogous to the Post Office Protocol
 (POP) or Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP).

2. Requirements

2.1 Fundamental Needs

 The following scenarios illustrate people and organizations' basic
 calendaring and scheduling needs:

Mahoney, et. al. Informational [Page 4] RFC 3283 Guide to Internet Calendaring June 2002

    a] A doctor wishes to keep track of all her appointments.
    Need: To read and manipulate one's own calendar with only one CUA.
    b] A busy musician wants to maintain her schedule with multiple
    devices, such as through an Internet-based agenda and with a PDA.
    Need: To read and manipulate one's own calendar, possibly with
    solutions from different vendors.
    c] A software development team wishes to more effectively schedule
    their time through viewing each other's calendar information.
    Need: To share calendar information between users of the same
    calendar service.
    d] A teacher wants his students to schedule appointments during
    his office hours.
    Need: To schedule calendar events, to-dos and journals with other
    users of the same calendar service.
    e] A movie theater wants to publish its schedule for prospective
    customers.
    Need: To share calendar information with users of other calendar
    services, possibly from a number of different vendors.
    f] A social club wants to schedule calendar entries effectively
    with its members.
    Need: To schedule calendar events and to-dos with users of other
    calendar services, possibly from a number of different vendors.

2.2 Protocol Requirements

 Some of these needs can be met by proprietary solutions (a, c, d),
 but others can not (b, e, f).  These latter scenarios show that
 standard protocols are required for accessing information in a
 calendar store and scheduling calendar entries.  In addition, these
 protocols require a common data format for representing calendar
 information.
 These requirements are met by the following protocol specifications.

Mahoney, et. al. Informational [Page 5] RFC 3283 Guide to Internet Calendaring June 2002

  1. Data format: iCalendar [RFC-2445]
    iCalendar [RFC-2445] provides a data format for representing
    calendar information, to be used and exchanged by other protocols.
    iCalendar [RFC-2445] can also be used in other contexts, such as a
    drag-and-drop interface, or an export/import feature.  All the
    other calendaring protocols depend on iCalendar [RFC-2445], so all
    elements of a standards-based calendaring and scheduling systems
    will have to be able to interpret iCalendar [RFC-2445].
  1. Scheduling protocol: iTIP [RFC-2446]
    iTIP [RFC-2446] describes the messages used to schedule calendar
    events.  Within iTIP messages, events are represented in iCalendar
    [RFC-2445] format, and have semantics that identify the message as
    being an invitation to a meeting, an acceptance of an invitation,
    or the assignment of a task.
    iTIP [RFC-2446] messages are used in the scheduling workflow,
    where users exchange messages in order to organize things such as
    events and to-dos.  CUAs generate and interpret iTIP [RFC-2446]
    messages at the direction of the calendar user.  With iTIP [RFC-
    2446] users can create, modify, delete, reply to, counter, and
    decline counters to the various iCalendar [RFC-2445] components.
    Furthermore, users can also request the free/busy time of other
    people.
    iTIP [RFC-2446] is transport-independent, and has one specified
    transport binding: iMIP [RFC-2447] binds iTIP to e-mail.  In
    addition [CAP] will provide a real-time binding of iTIP [RFC-
    2446], allowing CUAs to perform calendar management and scheduling
    over a single connection.
  1. Calendar management protocol: [CAP]
    [CAP] describes the messages used to manage calendars on a
    calendar store.  These messages use iCalendar [RFC-2445] to
    describe various components such as events and to-dos.  These
    messages make it possible to perform iTIP [RFC-2446] operations,
    as well as other operations relating to a calendar store such as
    searching, creating calendars, specifying calendar properties, and
    specifying calendar access rights.

Mahoney, et. al. Informational [Page 6] RFC 3283 Guide to Internet Calendaring June 2002

3. Solutions

3.1 Examples

 Returning to the scenarios presented in section 2.1, the calendaring
 protocols can be used in the following ways:
    a] The doctor can use a proprietary CUA with a local store, and
    perhaps use iCalendar [RFC-2445] as a storage mechanism.  This
    would allow her to easily import her data store into another
    application that supports iCalendar [RFC-2445].
    b] The musician who wishes to access her agenda from anywhere can
    use a [CAP]-enabled calendar service accessible over the Internet.
    She can then use any available [CAP] clients to access the data.
    A proprietary system that provides access through a Web-based
    interface could also be employed, but the use of [CAP] would be
    superior in that it would allow the use of third party
    applications, such as PDA synchronization tools.
    c] The development team can use a calendar service which supports
    [CAP], and each member can use a [CAP]-enabled CUA of their
    choice.
    Alternatively, each member could use an iMIP [RFC-2447]-enabled
    CUA, and they could book meetings over e-mail.  This solution has
    the drawback that it is difficult to examine other users' agendas,
    making the organization of meetings more difficult.
    Proprietary solutions are also available, but they require that
    all members use clients by the same vendor, and disallow the use
    of third party applications.
    d] The teacher can set up a calendar service, and have students
    book time through any of the iTIP [RFC-2446] bindings.  [CAP]
    provides real-time access, but could require additional
    configuration.  iMIP [RFC-2447] would be the easiest to configure,
    but may require more e-mail processing.
    If [CAP] access is provided then determining the state of the
    teacher's schedule is straightforward.  If not, this can be
    determined through iTIP [RFC-2446] free/busy requests.  Non-
    standard methods could also be employed, such as serving up
    iCalendar [RFC-2445], HTML, or XML over HTTP.
    A proprietary system could also be used, but would require that
    all students be able to use software from a specific vendor.

Mahoney, et. al. Informational [Page 7] RFC 3283 Guide to Internet Calendaring June 2002

    e] [CAP] would be preferred for publishing a movie theater's
    schedule, since it provides advanced access and search
    capabilities.  It also allows easy integration with customers'
    calendar systems.
    Non-standard methods such as serving data over HTTP could also be
    employed, but would be harder to integrate with customers'
    systems.
    Using a completely proprietary solution would be very difficult,
    if not impossible, since it would require every user to install
    and use the proprietary software.
    f] The social club could distribute meeting information in the
    form of iTIP [RFC-2446] messages, sent via e-mail using iMIP
    [RFC-2447].  The club could distribute meeting invitations, as
    well as a full published agenda.
    Alternatively, the club could provide access to a [CAP]-enabled
    calendar service.  However, this solution would be more expensive
    since it requires the maintenance of a server.

3.2 Systems

 The following diagrams illustrate possible systems and their usage of
 the various protocols.

3.2.1 Standalone Single-user System

 A single user system that does not communicate with other systems
 need not employ any of the protocols.  However, it may use iCalendar
 [RFC-2445] as a data format in some places.
  1. ———- O

| CUA w/ | -+- user

       |local store|      A
        -----------      / \

3.2.2 Single-user Systems Communicating

 Users with single-user systems may schedule meetings with each others
 using iTIP [RFC-2446].  The easiest binding of iTIP [RFC-2446] to use
 would be iMIP [RFC-2447], since messages can be held in the users'
 mail queues, which we assume to already exist.  [CAP] could also be
 used.

Mahoney, et. al. Informational [Page 8] RFC 3283 Guide to Internet Calendaring June 2002

        O   -----------                    -----------   O
       -+- | CUA w/    | -----[iMIP]----- | CUA w/    | -+- user
        A  |local store|     Internet     |local store|  A
       / \  -----------                    -----------  / \

3.2.3 Single-user with Multiple CUAs

 A single user may use more than one CUA to access his or her
 calendar.  The user may use a PDA, a Web client, a PC, or some other
 device, depending on accessibility.  Some of these clients may have
 local stores and others may not.  Those with local stores need to
 synchronize the data on the CUA with the data on the CS.
  1. ———-

| CUA w | —–[CAP]———-+

             |local store|                     |
        O     -----------                    ----------
       -+-                                  |   CS     |
        A                                   |          |
       / \                                   ----------
              -----------                      |
             |  CUA w/o  | -----[CAP]----------+
             |local store|
              -----------

3.2.4 Single-user with Multiple Calendars

 A single user may have many independent calendars; for example, one
 may contain work-related information and another personal
 information.  The CUA may or may not have a local store.  If it does,
 then it needs to synchronize the data of the CUA with the data on
 both of the CS.
  1. ———

+————[CAP]—— | CS |

                   |                        |          |
        O     -----------                    ----------
       -+-   |  CUA      |
        A    |           |
       / \    -----------
                   |                         ----------
                   +------------[CAP]------ |   CS     |
                                            |          |
                                             ----------

Mahoney, et. al. Informational [Page 9] RFC 3283 Guide to Internet Calendaring June 2002

3.2.5 Users Communicating on a Multi-user System

 Users on a multi-user system may schedule meetings with each other
 using [CAP]-enabled CUAs and services.  The CUAs may or may not have
 local stores.  Those with local stores need to synchronize the data
 on the CUAs with the data on the CS.
        O     -----------
       -+-   |   CUA w   | -----[CAP]----------+
        A    |local store|                     |
       / \    -----------                    ----------
                                            |   CS     |
                                            |          |
                                             ----------
        O     -----------                      |
       -+-   |  CUA w/o  | -----[CAP]----------+
        A    |local store|
       / \    -----------

3.2.6 Users Communicating through Different Multi-user Systems

 Users on a multi-user system may need to schedule meetings with users
 on a different multi-user system.  The services can communicate using
 [CAP] or iMIP [RFC-2447].
        O     -----------                    ----------
       -+-   |   CUA w   | -----[CAP]-------|   CS     |
        A    |local store|                  |          |
       / \    -----------                    ----------
                                                 |
                                           [CAP] or [iMIP]
                                                 |
        O     -----------                    ----------
       -+-   |  CUA w/o  | -----[CAP]-------|   CS     |
        A    |local store|                  |          |
       / \    -----------                    ----------

4. Important Aspects

 There are a number of important aspects of these calendaring
 standards of which people, especially implementers, should be aware.

4.1 Timezones

 The dates and times in components can refer to a specific time zone.
 Time zones can be defined in a central store, or they may be defined
 by a user to fit his or her needs.  All users and applications should
 be aware of time zones and time zone differences.  New time zones may

Mahoney, et. al. Informational [Page 10] RFC 3283 Guide to Internet Calendaring June 2002

 need to be added, and others removed.  Two different vendors may
 describe the same time zone differently (such as by using a different
 name).

4.2 Choice of Transport

 There are issues to be aware of in choosing between a network
 protocol such as [CAP], or a store and forward protocol, such as iMIP
 [RFC-2447].
 The use of a network ("on-the-wire") mechanism may require some
 organizations to make provisions to allow calendaring traffic to
 traverse a corporate firewall on the required ports.  Depending on
 the organizational culture, this may be a challenging social
 exercise.
 The use of an email-based mechanism exposes time-sensitive data to
 unbounded latency.  Large or heavily utilized mail systems may
 experience an unacceptable delay in message receipt.

4.3 Security

 See the "Security Considerations" (Section 6) section below.

4.4 Amount of data

 In some cases, a component may be very large, for instance, a
 component with a very large attachment.  Some applications may be
 low-bandwidth or may be limited in the amount of data they can store.
 Maximum component size may be set in [CAP].  It can also be
 controlled in iMIP [RFC-2447] by restricting the maximum size of the
 e-mail that the application can download.

4.5 Recurring Components

 In iCAL [RFC-2445], one can specify complex recurrence rules for
 VEVENTs, VTODOs, and VJOURNALs.  One must be careful to correctly
 interpret these recurrence rules and pay extra attention to being
 able to interoperate using them.

5. Open Issues

 Many issues are not currently resolved by these protocols, and many
 desirable features are not yet provided.  Some of the more prominent
 ones are outlined below.

Mahoney, et. al. Informational [Page 11] RFC 3283 Guide to Internet Calendaring June 2002

5.1 Scheduling People, not Calendars

 Meetings are scheduled with people; however, people may have many
 calendars, and may store these calendars in many places.  There may
 also be many routes to contact them.  The calendaring protocols do
 not attempt to provide unique access for contacting a given person.
 Instead, 'calendar addresses' are booked, which may be e-mail
 addresses or individual calendars.  It is up to the users themselves
 to orchestrate mechanisms to ensure that the bookings go to the right
 place.

5.2 Administration

 The calendaring protocols do not address the issues of administering
 users and calendars on a calendar service.  This must be handled by
 proprietary mechanisms for each implementation.

5.3 Notification

 People often wish to be notified of upcoming events, new events, or
 changes to existing events.  The calendaring protocols do not attempt
 to address these needs in a real-time system.  Instead, the ability
 to store alarm information on events is provided, which can be used
 to provide client-side notification of upcoming events.  To organize
 notification of new or changed events, clients have to poll the data
 store.

6. Security Considerations

6.1 Access Control

 There has to be reasonable granularity in the configuration options
 for access to data through [CAP], so that what should be released to
 requesters is released, and what shouldn't is not.  Details of
 handling this are described in [CAP].

6.2 Authentication

 Access control must be coupled with a good authentication system, so
 that the right people get the right information.  For [CAP], this
 means requiring authentication before any database access can be
 performed, and checking access rights and authentication credentials
 before releasing information.  [CAP] uses the Simple Authentication
 Security Layer (SASL) for this authentication.  In iMIP [RFC-2447],
 this may present some challenges, as authentication is often not a
 consideration in store-and-forward protocols.

Mahoney, et. al. Informational [Page 12] RFC 3283 Guide to Internet Calendaring June 2002

 Authentication is also important for scheduling, in that receivers of
 scheduling messages should be able to validate the apparent sender.
 Since scheduling messages are wrapped in MIME [RFC-2045], signing and
 encryption are freely available.  For messages transmitted over mail,
 this is the only available alternative.  It is suggested that
 developers take care in implementing the security features in iMIP
 [RFC-2447], bearing in mind that the concept and need may be foreign
 or non-obvious to users, yet essential for the system to function as
 they might expect.
 The real-time protocols provide for the authentication of users, and
 the preservation of that authentication information, allowing for
 validation by the receiving end-user or server.

6.3 Using E-mail

 Because scheduling information can be transmitted over mail without
 any authentication information, e-mail spoofing is extremely easy if
 the receiver is not checking for authentication.  It is suggested
 that implementers consider requiring authentication as a default,
 using mechanisms such as are described in Section 3 of iMIP [RFC-
 2447].  The use of e-mail, and the potential for anonymous
 connections, means that 'calendar spam' is possible.  Developers
 should consider this threat when designing systems, particularly
 those that allow for automated request processing.

6.4 Other Issues

 The current security context should be obvious to users.  Because the
 underlying mechanisms may not be clear to users, efforts to make
 clear the current state in the UI should be made.  One example of
 this is the 'lock' icon used in some Web browsers during secure
 connections.
 With both iMIP [RFC-2447] and [CAP], the possibilities of Denial of
 Service attacks must be considered.  The ability to flood a calendar
 system with bogus requests is likely to be exploited once these
 systems become widely deployed, and detection and recovery methods
 will need to be considered.

Acknowledgments

 Thanks to the following, who have participated in the development of
 this document:
    Eric Busboom, Pat Egen, David Madeo, Shawn Packwood, Bruce Kahn,
    Alan Davies, Robb Surridge.

Mahoney, et. al. Informational [Page 13] RFC 3283 Guide to Internet Calendaring June 2002

References

 [RFC-2445] Dawson, F. and D. Stenerson, "Internet Calendaring and
            Scheduling Core Object Specification - iCalendar", RFC
            2445, November 1998.
 [RFC-2446] Silverberg, S., Mansour, S., Dawson, F. and R. Hopson,
            "iCalendar Transport-Independent Interoperability Protocol
            (iTIP):  Scheduling Events, Busy Time, To-dos and Journal
            Entries", RFC 2446, November 1998.
 [RFC-2447] Dawson, F., Mansour, S. and S. Silverberg, "iCalendar
            Message-Based Interoperability Protocol - iMIP", RFC 2447,
            November 1998.
 [RFC-2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
            Extensions (MIME) - Part One: Format of Internet Message
            Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
 [CAP]      Mansour, S., Royer, D., Babics, G., and Hill, P.,
            "Calendar Access Protocol (CAP)", Work in Progress.

Mahoney, et. al. Informational [Page 14] RFC 3283 Guide to Internet Calendaring June 2002

Authors' Addresses

 Bob Mahoney
 MIT
 E40-327
 77 Massachusetts Avenue
 Cambridge, MA  02139
 US
 Phone: (617) 253-0774
 EMail: bobmah@mit.edu
 George Babics
 Steltor
 2000 Peel Street
 Montreal, Quebec  H3A 2W5
 CA
 Phone: (514) 733-8500 x4201
 EMail: georgeb@steltor.com
 Alexander Taler
 EMail: alex@0--0.org

Mahoney, et. al. Informational [Page 15] RFC 3283 Guide to Internet Calendaring June 2002

Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
 included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
 English.
 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
 Internet Society.

Mahoney, et. al. Informational [Page 16]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc3283.txt · Last modified: 2002/06/27 21:37 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki