GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc3506

Network Working Group K. Fujimura Request for Comments: 3506 NTT Category: Informational D. Eastlake

                                                              Motorola
                                                            March 2003
      Requirements and Design for Voucher Trading System (VTS)

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 (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

 Crediting loyalty points and collecting digital coupons or gift
 certificates are common functions in purchasing and trading
 transactions.  These activities can be generalized using the concept
 of a "voucher", which is a digital representation of the right to
 claim goods or services.  This document presents a Voucher Trading
 System (VTS) that circulates vouchers securely and its terminology;
 it lists design principles and requirements for VTS and the Generic
 Voucher Language (GVL), with which diverse types of vouchers can be
 described.

Conventions used in this document

 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

Table of Contents

 1.  Background ....................................................2
 2.  Terminology and Model .........................................3
     2.1 Voucher ...................................................3
     2.2 Participants ..............................................3
     2.3 Voucher Trading System (VTS) ..............................4
 3.  VTS Requirements ..............................................5
     3.1 Capability to handle diversity ............................6
     3.2 Ensuring security .........................................6
     3.3 Ensuring practicality .....................................7

Fujimura & Eastlake Informational [Page 1] RFC 3506 Voucher Trading System (VTS) March 2003

 4.  Scope of VTS Specifications ...................................7
     4.1 Voucher Trading Protocol ..................................7
     4.2 VTS-API ...................................................8
     4.3 Generic Voucher Language ..................................8
 5.  GVL Requirements ..............................................8
     5.1 Semantics .................................................8
     5.2 Syntax ....................................................9
     5.3 Security .................................................10
     5.4 Efficiency ...............................................10
     5.5 Coordination .............................................10
     5.6 Example of GVL ...........................................10
 6.  Application Scenarios ........................................11
 7.  Q & A ........................................................13
 8.  Security Considerations ......................................13
 9.  Acknowledgments ..............................................13
 10. References ...................................................13
 11. Authors' Addresses ...........................................14
 12. Full Copyright Statement......................................15

1. Background

 It is often necessary to credit loyalty points, collect digital
 coupons or gift certificates, etc, to complete purchases or other
 trading transactions in the real world.  The importance of these
 activities is also being recognized in Internet Commerce.  If a
 different issuing or collecting system to handle such points or
 coupons must be developed for each individual application, the
 implementation cost will be excessive, inhibiting the use of such
 mechanisms in electronic commerce.  Consumers may also be forced to
 install a number of software modules to handle these points or
 coupons.
 A voucher is a digital representation of the right to claim services
 or goods.  Using vouchers, a wide-range of electronic-values,
 including points or coupons, can be handled in a uniform manner with
 one trading software module.
 This document presents the terminology and model for a Voucher
 Trading System (VTS) that circulates vouchers securely; it also lists
 design principles and requirements for a VTS and the Generic Voucher
 Language (GVL), with which diverse types of vouchers can be
 described.

Fujimura & Eastlake Informational [Page 2] RFC 3506 Voucher Trading System (VTS) March 2003

2. Terminology and Model

2.1 Voucher

 A voucher is a digital representation of the right to claim goods or
 services.  To clarify the difference between vouchers and electronic
 money/digital certificates, we introduce a formal definition of
 vouchers in this document.
    Let I be a voucher issuer, H be a voucher holder, P be the
    issuer's promise to the voucher holder.  A voucher is defined as
    the 3-tuple of <I, P, H>.
 Examples of P are as follows:
 o  Two loyalty points are added to the card per purchase.  If you
    collect 50 points, you'll get one item free.  (Loyalty points)
 o  Take 10% off your total purchase by presenting this card.
    (Membership card)
 o  Take 50% off your total purchase with this coupon.  The purchase
    transaction uses up the coupon.  (Coupon)
 o  The bearer can access "http://..." for one month free.  (Free
    ticket for sales promotion)
 o  The bearer can exchange this ticket for the ordered clothes.
    (Exchange ticket or Delivery note)
 o  Seat number A-24 has been reserved for "a-concert" on April 2.
    (Event ticket)
 Note that P does not need to be described in terms of a natural
 language as long as the contents of the vouchers are specified.  For
 example, a set of attribute name and value pairs described in XML can
 be employed to define the contents.

2.2 Participants

 There are four types of participants in the voucher trading model:
 issuer, holder, collector, and VTS provider.  Their roles are as
 follows:
 Issuer: Creates and issues a voucher.  Guarantees contents of
    the voucher.

Fujimura & Eastlake Informational [Page 3] RFC 3506 Voucher Trading System (VTS) March 2003

 Holder (or user): Owns the vouchers.  Transfers and redeems
    the voucher to other users or collector.
 Collector (or examiner): Collects or examines the voucher and
    implements its promise.  In general, compensated by goods or
    services rendered.
 VTS Provider: Provides a VTS and guarantees that a particular
    voucher is not assigned to multiple holders or used multiple times
    unless permitted for that voucher type.
 The IOTP model [IOTP] includes merchant, deliverer, consumer and
 other participants.  They take various roles in the settlement
 because a merchant, for example, can be considered as an issuer, or
 holder depending on whether the merchant creates the voucher
 her/himself or purchases it from a wholesaler or manufacturer.  A
 merchant can also be a collector if the shop collects gift
 certificate or coupons.

2.3 Voucher Trading System (VTS)

 A voucher is generated by the issuer, traded among holders (users),
 and finally is collected by the collector:
        <I, P, H>        <I, P, H'>         <I, P, H'>
 Issuer I --------> User H ---------> User H' ---------> Collector
         Issue            Transfer           Redemption
                   Figure 1. Life cycle of vouchers
 The VTS provider supplies a VTS that enables vouchers to be
 circulated among the participants securely.
 A formal definition of VTS is as follows:
    A voucher trading system (VTS) is a system that logically manages
    a set of valid vouchers VVS, which is a subset of {<I, P, H> | I
    in IS, P in PS, H in HS} where IS is the set of issuers, PS is the
    set of promises, and HS is the set of holders; VTS prevents them
    from being modified or reproduced except by the following three
    transactions: issue, transfer, and redemption.  The initial state
    of the VVS is an empty set.
    Note that this does not imply that VVS is stored physically in a
    centralized database.  For example, one implementation may store
    vouchers in distributed smart cards carried by each holder [T00],

Fujimura & Eastlake Informational [Page 4] RFC 3506 Voucher Trading System (VTS) March 2003

    or may store them in multiple servers managed by each issuer or
    trusted third parties.  This is a trust policy and/or
    implementation issue [MF99].
 Issue
    An issue transaction is the action that creates the tuple of <I,
    P, H> and adds it to the VVS with the issuer's intention.
 Transfer
    A transfer transaction is the action that rewrites the tuple of
    <I, P, H> (in VVS) as <I, P, H'> (H<>H') to reflect the original
    holder H's intention.
 Redemption
    There are two redemption transactions: presentation and
    consumption.
    A presentation transaction is the action that shows the tuple of
    <I, P, H> (in VVS) to reflect the holder H's intention.  In this
    case, the ownership of the voucher is retained when the voucher is
    redeemed, e.g., redemption (presentation) of licenses or
    passports.
    A consumption transaction is the action that deletes the tuple of
    <I, P, H> (in VVS) to reflect the holder H's intention and
    properties of the voucher.  The ownership of the voucher may be
    voided or the number of times it is valid reduced when the voucher
    is redeemed, e.g., redemption of event tickets or telephone cards.
 Note that one or more of these transactions can be executed as part
 of the same IOTP purchase transaction.  See details in Section 6.

3. VTS Requirements

 A VTS must meet the following requirements
 (1) It MUST handle diverse types of vouchers issued by different
     issuers.
 (2) It MUST prevent illegal acts such as alteration, forgery, and
     reproduction, and ensure privacy.
 (3) It MUST be practical in terms of implementation/operation cost
     and efficiency.
 Each of these requirements is discussed below in detail.

Fujimura & Eastlake Informational [Page 5] RFC 3506 Voucher Trading System (VTS) March 2003

3.1 Capability of handling diversity

 (a) Different issuers
 Unlike a digital cash system that handles only the currency issued by
 a specific issuer such as a central bank, the voucher trading system
 MUST handle vouchers issued by multiple issuers.
 (b) Various types of vouchers
 Unlike a digital cash system that only handles a currency, the system
 MUST handle various types of vouchers, such as gift certificates,
 coupons, and loyalty points.

3.2 Ensuring security

 (c) Preventing forgery
 Only the issuer can cause a valid voucher to be issued.  It MUST NOT
 be possible for other parties to cause a valid voucher to be created.
 (d) Preventing alteration
 Voucher MUST NOT be altered during circulation except that the
 transfer transaction, in which the voucher holder is rewritten, is
 permitted.  Only the current holder can initiate a transfer
 transaction.
 (e) Preventing duplicate-redemption
 A voucher MUST NOT be redeemable once it has been consumed (the
 result of some redemption transactions).  Only the holder can
 initiate a redemption transaction.
 (f) Preventing reproduction
 Voucher MUST NOT be reproduced while in circulation.  That is, there
 must be only one valid holder of any particular voucher at any
 particular time.
 (g) Non-repudiation
 It SHOULD NOT be possible to the issuer to repudiate the issuance, or
 the holder to repudiate the transfer or redemption of a voucher,
 after it is issued, transferred or redeemed.

Fujimura & Eastlake Informational [Page 6] RFC 3506 Voucher Trading System (VTS) March 2003

 (h) Ensuring privacy
 Current and previous holders of a voucher SHOULD be concealed from
 someone coming into possession of the voucher.
 (i) Trust manageability
 If a wide variety of vouchers are in circulation, it might be
 difficult for users to judge whether a voucher can be trusted or not.
 To assist such users, a trust management function that verifies the
 authenticity of a voucher SHOULD be supported.

3.3 Ensuring practicality

 (j) Scalability
 A single centralized broker that sells all types of vouchers, or a
 centralized authority that authenticates all issuers or other
 participants, SHOULD NOT be assumed.  A system that relies on a
 single centralized organization is excessively frail; failure in that
 organization causes complete system failure.
 (k) Efficiency
 It MUST be possible to implement VTS efficiently.  Many applications
 of vouchers, e.g., event ticket or transport passes, require high
 performance, especially when the voucher is redeemed.
 (l) Simplicity
 It SHOULD be possible to implement VTS simply.  Simplicity is
 important to reduce the cost of implementation.  It is also important
 in understanding the system, which is necessary for trust in the
 system.

4. Scope of VTS Specifications

 To implement a VTS, Voucher Trading Protocol (VTP), VTS Application
 Programming Interface (VTS-API), and Generic Voucher Language (GVL)
 must be developed.  The objectives, benefits, and limitations of
 standardization for each specification are discussed below.

4.1 Voucher Trading Protocol

 To achieve interoperability among multiple VTSs developed by
 independent VTS Providers, standard protocols for issuing,
 transferring, or redeeming vouchers will be needed.  However, there
 are several ways of implementing VTS.  For discount coupons or event

Fujimura & Eastlake Informational [Page 7] RFC 3506 Voucher Trading System (VTS) March 2003

 tickets, for example, the smart-card-based decentralized offline VTS
 is often preferred, whereas for bonds or securities, the centralized
 online VTS may be preferred.  It is impractical to define any
 standard protocol at this moment.

4.2 VTS-API

 To provide freedom in terms of VTS selection for issuers and
 application developers, a standard Voucher Trading System Application
 Programming Interface (VTS-API) that can encapsulate VTS
 implementations should be specified.  It allows a caller application
 to issue, transfer, and redeem voucher in a uniform manner
 independent of the VTS implementation.  Basic functions, i.e., issue,
 transfer, and redeem, provided by VTS-API can be straightforwardly
 derived from the VTS model described in this document.  More design
 details of the VTS-API will be discussed in a separate document or a
 separate VTS-API specification.

4.3 Generic Voucher Language

 To satisfy the diverse requirements placed on VTS (see Section 3), a
 standard Generic Voucher Language (GVL) that realizes various voucher
 properties should be specified.  This approach ensures that VTS is
 application independent.  The language should be able to define
 diverse Promises P of the voucher <I, P, H> to cover tickets,
 coupons, loyalty points, and gift certificates uniformly.  Specifying
 I and H is a VTS implementation issue and can be achieved by using a
 public key, hash of a public key, URI or other names with scope rule.
 In the following section, we discuss GVL Requirements in detail.

5. GVL Requirements

5.1 Semantics

 Semantics supported by the language and their requirements levels are
 described below in detail.
 (a) Validity control
 The invalidation (punching) method that is executed when the voucher
 is redeemed depends on the type of the voucher.  For example, a
 loyalty point will be invalidated if the point is redeemed but a
 membership card can be used repeatedly regardless of the number of
 times presented.  The language MUST be able to define how validity is
 modified.  Additionally, the language MUST be able to define the
 validity period, start date and end date.

Fujimura & Eastlake Informational [Page 8] RFC 3506 Voucher Trading System (VTS) March 2003

 (b) Transferability control
 Some types of vouchers require transferability.  The language MUST be
 able to specify if a voucher can be transferred.
 (c) Circulation control
 Depending on the type of the voucher, various circulation
 requirements or restrictions must be satisfied [F99], for example,
 only qualified shops can issue particular vouchers or only a certain
 service provider can punch (invalidate) particular vouchers.  The
 language SHOULD be able to specify such circulation requirements.
 (d) Anonymity control
 Different types of voucher will require different levels of
 anonymity.  The language SHOULD be able to achieve the required level
 of anonymity.
 (e) Understandability
 The terms and description of a voucher SHOULD be objectively
 understood by the participants, because this will contribute to
 reducing the number of disputes on the interpretation of the vouchers
 promised.
 (f) State manageability
 Some types of vouchers have properties the values of which may change
 dynamically while in circulation, e.g., payment status, reservation
 status, or approval status.  The language MAY support the definition
 of such properties.
 (g) Composability
 Some types of vouchers consist of several sub-vouchers, which may be
 issued separately from the original vouchers typically because the
 vouchers are issued by different organizations or issued at different
 times.  The language MAY support compound vouchers composed of
 multiple sub-vouchers.

5.2 Syntax

 To achieve consistency with other related standards shown below, the
 syntax of the language MUST be based on XML [XML].

Fujimura & Eastlake Informational [Page 9] RFC 3506 Voucher Trading System (VTS) March 2003

 The language syntax MUST enable any application-specific property,
 e.g., seat number, flight number, etc. to be defined.  A schema
 definition language that can be translated into application-specific
 DTDs may be needed.

5.3 Security

 The language MUST provide the parameters necessary to establish
 security.  Security requirements, however, mainly follow VTS
 requirements described in Section 3 rather than GVL requirements.

5.4 Efficiency

 The vouchers may be stored in a smart card or PDA with a restricted
 amount of memory.  Large definitions may incur long transfer and
 processing times, which may not be acceptable.  The language SHOULD
 enable the efficient definition of vouchers

5.5 Coordination

 The language specification SHOULD be consistent with the following
 specifications:
    (1)  Internet Open Trading Protocol v1.0 [IOTP]
    (2)  XML-Signature [XMLDSIG]
    (3)  Extensible Markup Language (XML) Recommendation [XML]
    (4)  ECML Version 2 [ECML]

5.6 Example of GVL

 An example of a voucher definition in GVL is described below.  This
 example defines a five dollar discount coupon for specific
 merchandise, a book with ISBN number 0071355014.  This coupon is
 circulated using a VTS called "Voucher Exchanger".  To claim this
 offer, one coupon must be spent.  The coupon is valid from April 1st
 in 2001 to March 31st in 2002.
 <?xml version="1.0"?>
 <Voucher xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:vts-lang"
          xmlns:vts="http://www.example.com/vts">
   <Title>IOTP Book Coupon</Title>
   <Description>$5 off IOTP Book</Description>
   <Provider name="Voucher Exchanger">
     <vts:Version>VE2.31</vts:Version>
   </Provider>
   <Value type="discount" spend="1">
     <Fixed amount="5" currency="USD"/>
   </Value>

Fujimura & Eastlake Informational [Page 10] RFC 3506 Voucher Trading System (VTS) March 2003

   <Merchandise>
     <bk:Book xmlns:bk="http://www.example.com/bk"
              bk:isbn="0071355014"/>
   </Merchandise>
   <ValidPeriod start="2001-04-01" end="2002-03-31"/>
 </Voucher>

6. Application Scenarios

 This section describes, as a typical electronic commerce example
 involving advertisement, payment, and delivery transactions, the use
 of vouchers and VTS, and shows that vouchers can be used as an
 effective way to coordinate autonomous services that have not yet
 established trust among each other.
 Figure 2 shows a typical electronic commerce example of a consumer
 searching for goods or services and making a purchase:
  1. ———
  2. ——————————————>| Ad |

| (1) Acquire a coupon | Agency |

      |                                             ----------
      |
      |      (2) Send payment information           ----------
      |    --------------------------------------->| Payment  |
      |   |      Acquire a gift certificate        | Handler  |
      |   |                                         ----------
      v   v  (3) Transfer the coupon &
  ----------     gift certificate                   ----------
 | Consumer |<------------------------------------>| Merchant |
  ----------     Acquire an exchange ticket &       ----------
      ^          loyalty points
      |
      |      (4) Transfer the exchange ticket       ----------
       ------------------------------------------->| Deliverer|
                 Supply goods or services          | Handler  |
                                                    ----------
              Figure 2.  Application example of vouchers
 (1) Use a search engine to find the desired goods or services and
     acquire a coupon from an ad agency that represents the right to
     purchase the goods or services at a discounted price.
 (2) Acquire a gift certificate from a payment handler in exchange for
     cash or payment information.

Fujimura & Eastlake Informational [Page 11] RFC 3506 Voucher Trading System (VTS) March 2003

 (3) Transfer the coupon and gift certificate to the merchant, and in
     exchange acquire an exchange ticket and loyalty points.
 (4) Transfer the exchange ticket to the deliverer handler and receive
     the goods or services.
 In this example, the coupon, gift certificate, and exchange ticket
 each represent the media that yields the above four transactions.
 Note that it is not necessary to trust the participants involved in
 the transactions, but to trust the vouchers themselves.  In other
 words, there is no need to exchange contracts among the participants
 beforehand if the vouchers themselves are trusted.
 Take the exchange ticket as an example; even if the delivery handler
 does not trust the consumer, the merchant that issued the exchange
 ticket is trusted, and if the VTS guarantees that there is no
 duplication in the trading process of the exchange ticket, there is
 no problem in swapping the exchange ticket for the goods or services.
 In the same way, even if the merchant does not trust the delivery
 handler, the issuance of the exchange ticket can be verified, and if
 the VTS guarantees that there is no duplication in the trading
 process of the exchange ticket, there is no problem in swapping the
 exchange ticket for the goods or services (Fig. 3).  In other words,
 if there is trust in the issuer and the VTS, trust among the
 participants involved in the transactions is not required.
                    Exchange             Exchange
        ----------  ticket   ----------  ticket   ----------
       | Consumer |-------->| Delivery |-------->| Merchant |
       |          |<--------| Handler  |<--------|          |
        ----------  Goods or ----------  Goods or ----------
                    services             services
         Figure 3. Coordination of untrusted participants
                            using exchange ticket
 In general, it is more difficult to trust individuals than companies,
 so this characteristic of VTS is especially important.
 Moreover, the transactions involving vouchers have desirable features
 with respect to privacy protection.  For example, in the above
 exchange ticket scenario, the consumer can designate the delivery
 service for himself, so the merchant does not even need to know any
 personal information such as the delivery address.  Furthermore, by
 designating a convenience store etc. as the receiving point, the
 delivery service does not need to know the address of the consumer.

Fujimura & Eastlake Informational [Page 12] RFC 3506 Voucher Trading System (VTS) March 2003

7. Q & A

  1. Is it possible to implement a VTS using digital certificates?
    If transferability is not required, a voucher can be easily
    implemented as a digital certificate, i.e., Signed_I(I, P, H),
    where the phrase "Signed_I" means that the entire block is signed
    by the issuer's digital signature.  If transferability is
    required, then H is changed during the transfer, i.e., the
    signature is broken. Additionally, online data base checking or
    tamper-resistant devices are required to prevent duplicate-
    redemption.
  1. What is the difference from digital-cash?
    VTS must handle various types of vouchers, such as gift
    certificates, coupons, or loyalty points unlike a digital cash
    system which handles only currency.  Additionally, vouchers are
    issued by different issuers.
  1. Is it possible to support "digital property rights?
    Digital property rights can be represented as a voucher and can be
    traded using VTS.  However, some protected rendering system would
    be required to regenerate the digital contents securely in order
    to support digital property rights.  These requirements are out of
    scope of VTS.

8. Security Considerations

 Security issues are discussed in Section 3.2 and 5.3.

9. Acknowledgments

 I would like to thank Masayuki Terada and Perry E. Metzger, for their
 valuable comments.

10. References

 [ECML]    ECML Version 2, Work in Progress.
 [F99]     K. Fujimura, H. Kuno, M. Terada, K. Matsuyama, Y. Mizuno,
           and J.  Sekine, "Digital-Ticket-Controlled Digital Ticket
           Circulation", 8th USENIX Security Symposium, August 1999.
 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
           Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

Fujimura & Eastlake Informational [Page 13] RFC 3506 Voucher Trading System (VTS) March 2003

 [IOTP]    Burdett, D., "The Internet Open Trading Protocol", RFC
           2801, April 2000.
 [MF99]    K. Matsuyama and K. Fujimura, "Distributed Digital-Ticket
           Management for Rights Trading System", 1st ACM Conferences
           on Electronic Commerce, November 1999.
 [T00]     M. Terada, H. Kuno, M. Hanadate, and K. Fujimura, "Copy
           Prevention Scheme for Rights Trading Infrastructure", 4th
           Smart Card Research and Advanced Application Conference
           (CARDIS 2000), September 2000.
 [XML]     "Extensible Mark Up Language (XML) 1.0 (Second Edition)", A
           W3C Recommendation, <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml>, October
           2000.
 [XMLDSIG] "XML-Signature Syntax and Processing", A W3C Proposed
           Recommendation, <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core>, August
           2001.

11. Authors' Addresses

 Ko Fujimura
 NTT Corporation
 1-1 Hikari-no-oka
 Yokosuka-shi
 Kanagawa, 239-0847 JAPAN
 Phone: +81-(0)468-59-3814
 Fax:   +81-(0)468-59-8329
 EMail: fujimura@isl.ntt.co.jp
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
 Motorola
 155 Beaver Street
 Milford, MA 01757 USA
 Phone:  +1-508-851-8280
 EMail:  Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com

Fujimura & Eastlake Informational [Page 14] RFC 3506 Voucher Trading System (VTS) March 2003

12. Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  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.

Fujimura & Eastlake Informational [Page 15]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc3506.txt · Last modified: 2003/03/07 20:53 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki