GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools

Problem, Formatting or Query -  Send Feedback

Was this page helpful?-10+1


rfc:rfc3866

Network Working Group K. Zeilenga, Ed. Request for Comments: 3866 OpenLDAP Foundation Obsoletes: 2596 July 2004 Category: Standards Track

                  Language Tags and Ranges in the
            Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)

Status of this Memo

 This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
 Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
 improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
 Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
 and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).

Abstract

 It is often desirable to be able to indicate the natural language
 associated with values held in a directory and to be able to query
 the directory for values which fulfill the user's language needs.
 This document details the use of Language Tags and Ranges in the
 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP).

1. Background and Intended Use

 The Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) [RFC3377] provides a
 means for clients to interrogate and modify information stored in a
 distributed directory system.  The information in the directory is
 maintained as attributes of entries.  Most of these attributes have
 syntaxes which are human-readable strings, and it is desirable to be
 able to indicate the natural language associated with attribute
 values.
 This document describes how language tags and ranges [RFC3066] are
 carried in LDAP and are to be interpreted by LDAP implementations.
 All LDAP implementations MUST be prepared to accept language tags and
 ranges.
 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 BCP 14 [RFC2119].

Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 3866 Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP July 2004

 This document replaces RFC 2596.  Appendix A summaries changes made
 since RFC 2596.
 Appendix B discusses differences from X.500(1997) "contexts"
 mechanism.
 Appendix A and B are provided for informational purposes only.
 The remainder of this section provides a summary of Language Tags,
 Language Ranges, and Attribute Descriptions.

1.1. Language Tags

 Section 2 of BCP 47 [RFC3066] describes the language tag format which
 is used in LDAP.  Briefly, it is a string of [ASCII] letters and
 hyphens.  Examples include "fr", "en-US" and "ja-JP".  Language tags
 are case insensitive.  That is, the language tag "en-us" is the same
 as "EN-US".
 Section 2 of this document details use of language tags in LDAP.

1.2. Language Ranges

 Section 2.5 of BCP 47 [RFC3066] describes the language ranges.
 Language ranges are used to specify sets of language tags.
 A language range matches a language tag if it is exactly equal to the
 tag, or if it is exactly equal to a prefix of the tag such that the
 first character following the prefix is "-".  That is, the language
 range "de" matches the language tags "de" and "de-CH" but not "den".
 The special language range "*" matches all language tags.
 Due to attribute description option naming restrictions in LDAP, this
 document defines a different language range syntax.  However, the
 semantics of language ranges in LDAP are consistent with BCP 47.
 Section 3 of this document details use of language ranges in LDAP.

1.3. Attribute Descriptions

 This section provides an overview of attribute descriptions in LDAP.
 LDAP attributes and attribute descriptions are defined in [RFC2251].
 An attribute consists of a type, a set of zero or more associated
 tagging options, and a set of one or more values.  The type and the
 options are combined into the AttributeDescription.

Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 3866 Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP July 2004

 AttributeDescriptions can also contain options which are not part of
 the attribute, but indicate some other function (such as range
 assertion or transfer encoding).
 An AttributeDescription with one or more tagging options is a direct
 subtype of each AttributeDescription of the same type with all but
 one of the tagging options.  If the AttributeDescription's type is a
 direct subtype of some other type, then the AttributeDescription is
 also a direct subtype of the AttributeDescription which consists of
 the supertype and all of the tagging options.  That is,
 "CN;x-bar;x-foo" is a direct subtype of "CN;x-bar", "CN;x-foo", and
 "name;x-bar;x-foo".  Note that "CN" is a subtype of "name".

2. Use of Language Tags in LDAP

 This section describes how LDAP implementations MUST interpret
 language tags in performing operations.
 Servers which support storing attributes with language tag options in
 the Directory Information Tree (DIT) SHOULD allow any attribute type
 it recognizes that has the Directory String, IA5 String, or other
 textual string syntaxes to have language tag options associated with
 it.  Servers MAY allow language options to be associated with other
 attributes types.
 Clients SHOULD NOT assume servers are capable of storing attributes
 with language tags in the directory.
 Implementations MUST NOT otherwise interpret the structure of the tag
 when comparing two tags, and MUST treat them simply as strings of
 characters.  Implementations MUST allow any arbitrary string which
 conforms to the syntax defined in BCP 47 [RFC3066] to be used as a
 language tag.

2.1. Language Tag Options

 A language tag option associates a natural language with values of an
 attribute.  An attribute description may contain multiple language
 tag options.  An entry may contain multiple attributes with same
 attribute type but different combinations of language tag (and other)
 options.
 A language tag option conforms to the following ABNF [RFC2234]:
    language-tag-option = "lang-" Language-Tag

Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 3866 Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP July 2004

 where the Language-Tag production is as defined in BCP 47 [RFC3066].
 This production and those it imports from [RFC2234] are provided here
 for convenience:
    Language-Tag = Primary-subtag *( "-" Subtag )
    Primary-subtag = 1*8ALPHA
    Subtag = 1*8(ALPHA / DIGIT)
    ALPHA = %x41-5A / %x61-7A   ; A-Z / a-z
    DIGIT = %x30-39             ; 0-9
 A language tag option is a tagging option.  A language tag option has
 no effect on the syntax of the attribute's values nor their transfer
 encoding.
 Examples of valid AttributeDescription:
    givenName;lang-en-US
    CN;lang-ja
    SN;lang-de;lang-gem-PFL
    O;lang-i-klingon;x-foobar
    description;x-foobar
    CN
 Notes: The last two have no language tag options.  The x-foobar
        option is fictious and used for example purposes.

2.2. Search Filter

 If language tag options are present in an AttributeDescription in an
 assertion, then for each entry within scope, the values of each
 attribute whose AttributeDescription consists of the same attribute
 type or its subtypes and contains each of the presented (and possibly
 other) options is to be matched.
 Thus, for example, a filter of an equality match of type
 "name;lang-en-US" and assertion value "Billy Ray", against the
 following directory entry:
 dn: SN=Ray,DC=example,DC=com
 objectClass: person                 DOES NOT MATCH (wrong type)
 objectClass: extensibleObject       DOES NOT MATCH (wrong type)
 name;lang-en-US: Billy Ray          MATCHES
 name;lang-en-US: Billy Bob          DOES NOT MATCH (wrong value)
 CN;lang-en-US: Billy Ray            MATCHES

Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 3866 Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP July 2004

 CN;lang-en-US;x-foobar: Billy Ray   MATCHES
 CN;lang-en;x-foobar: Billy Ray      DOES NOT MATCH (differing lang-)
 CN;x-foobar: Billy Ray              DOES NOT MATCH (no lang-)
 name: Billy Ray                     DOES NOT MATCH (no lang-)
 SN;lang-en-GB;lang-en-US: Billy Ray MATCHES
 SN: Ray                             DOES NOT MATCH (no lang-,
                                         wrong value)
 Note that "CN" and "SN" are subtypes of "name".
 It is noted that providing a language tag option in a search filter
 AttributeDescription will filter out desirable values where the tag
 does not match exactly.  For example, the filter (name;lang-en=Billy
 Ray) does NOT match the attribute "name;lang-en-US:  Billy Ray".
 If the server does not support storing attributes with language tag
 options in the DIT, then any assertion which includes a language tag
 option will not match as such it is an unrecognized attribute type.
 No error would be returned because of this; a presence assertion
 would evaluate to FALSE and all other assertions to Undefined.
 If no options are specified in the assertion, then only the base
 attribute type and the assertion value need match the value in the
 directory.
 Thus, for example, a filter of an equality match of type "name" and
 assertion value "Billy Ray", against the following directory entry:
    dn: SN=Ray,DC=example,DC=com
    objectClass: person                 DOES NOT MATCH (wrong type)
    objectClass: extensibleObject       DOES NOT MATCH (wrong type)
    name;lang-en-US: Billy Ray          MATCHES
    name;lang-en-US: Billy Bob          DOES NOT MATCH (wrong value)
    CN;lang-en-US;x-foobar: Billy Ray   MATCHES
    CN;lang-en;x-foobar: Billy Ray      MATCHES
    CN;x-foobar: Billy Ray              MATCHES
    name: Billy Ray                     MATCHES
    SN;lang-en-GB;lang-en-US: Billy Ray MATCHES
    SN: Ray                             DOES NOT MATCH (wrong value)

2.3. Requested Attributes in Search

 Clients can provide language tag options in each AttributeDescription
 in the requested attribute list in a search request.
 If language tag options are provided in an attribute description,
 then only attributes in a directory entry whose attribute
 descriptions have the same attribute type or its subtype and contains

Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 3866 Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP July 2004

 each of the presented (and possibly other) language tag options are
 to be returned.  Thus if a client requests just the attribute
 "name;lang-en", the server would return "name;lang-en" and
 "CN;lang-en;lang-ja" but not "SN" nor "name;lang-fr".
 Clients can provide in the attribute list multiple
 AttributeDescriptions which have the same base attribute type but
 different options.  For example, a client could provide both
 "name;lang-en" and "name;lang-fr", and this would permit an attribute
 with either language tag option to be returned.  Note there would be
 no need to provide both "name" and "name;lang-en" since all subtypes
 of name would match "name".
 If a server does not support storing attributes with language tag
 options in the DIT, then any attribute descriptions in the list which
 include language tag options are to be ignored, just as if they were
 unknown attribute types.
 If a request is made specifying all attributes or an attribute is
 requested without providing a language tag option, then all attribute
 values regardless of their language tag option are returned.
 For example, if the client requests a "description" attribute, and a
 matching entry contains the following attributes:
    objectClass: top
    objectClass: organization
    O: Software GmbH
    description: software products
    description;lang-en: software products
    description;lang-de: Softwareprodukte
 The server would return:
    description: software products
    description;lang-en: software products
    description;lang-de: Softwareprodukte

2.4. Compare

 Language tag options can be present in an AttributeDescription used
 in a compare request AttributeValueAssertion.  This is to be treated
 by servers the same as the use of language tag options in a search
 filter with an equality match, as described in Section 2.2.  If there
 is no attribute in the entry with the same attribute type or its
 subtype and contains each of the presented (or possibly other)
 language tag options, the noSuchAttributeType error will be returned.

Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 3866 Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP July 2004

 Thus, for example, a compare request of type "name" and assertion
 value "Johann", against an entry containing the following attributes:
    objectClass: top
    objectClass: person
    givenName;lang-de-DE: Johann
    CN: Johann Sibelius
    SN: Sibelius
 would cause the server to return compareTrue.
 However, if the client issued a compare request of type
 "name;lang-de" and assertion value "Johann" against the above entry,
 the request would fail with the noSuchAttributeType error.
 If the server does not support storing attributes with language tag
 options in the DIT, then any comparison which includes a language tag
 option will always fail to locate an attribute, and
 noSuchAttributeType will be returned.

2.5. Add Operation

 Clients can provide language options in AttributeDescription in
 attributes of a new entry to be created.
 A client can provide multiple attributes with the same attribute type
 and value, so long as each attribute has a different set of language
 tag options.
 For example, the following is a valid request:
    dn: CN=John Smith,DC=example,DC=com
    objectClass: residentialPerson
    CN: John Smith
    CN;lang-en: John Smith
    SN: Smith
    SN;lang-en: Smith
    streetAddress: 1 University Street
    streetAddress;lang-en-US: 1 University Street
    streetAddress;lang-fr: 1 rue Universite
    houseIdentifier;lang-fr: 9e etage
 If a server does not support storing language tag options with
 attribute values in the DIT, then it MUST treat an
 AttributeDescription with a language tag option as an unrecognized
 attribute.  If the server forbids the addition of unrecognized
 attributes then it MUST fail the add request with an appropriate
 result code.

Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 3866 Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP July 2004

2.6. Modify Operation

 A client can provide language tag options in an AttributeDescription
 as part of a modification element in the modify operation.
 Attribute types and language tag options MUST match exactly against
 values stored in the directory.  For example, if the modification is
 a "delete", then if the stored values to be deleted have language tag
 options, then those language tag options MUST be provided in the
 modify operation, and if the stored values to be deleted do not have
 any language tag option, then no language tag option is to be
 provided.
 If the server does not support storing language tag options with
 attribute values in the DIT, then it MUST treat an
 AttributeDescription with a language tag option as an unrecognized
 attribute, and MUST fail the request with an appropriate result code.

3. Use of Language Ranges in LDAP

 Since the publication of RFC 2596, it has become apparent that there
 is a need to provide a mechanism for a client to request attributes
 based upon set of language tag options whose tags all begin with the
 same sequence of language sub-tags.
 AttributeDescriptions containing language range options are intended
 to be used in attribute value assertions, search attribute lists, and
 other places where the client desires to provide an attribute
 description matching of a range of language tags associated with
 attributes.
 A language range option conforms to the following ABNF [RFC2234]:
    language-range-option = "lang-" [ Language-Tag "-" ]
 where the Language-Tag production is as defined in BCP 47 [RFC3066].
 This production and those it imports from [RFC2234] are provided in
 Section 2.1 for convenience.
 A language range option matches a language tag option if the language
 range option less the trailing "-" matches exactly the language tag
 or if the language range option (including the trailing "-") matches
 a prefix of the language tag option.  Note that the language range
 option "lang-" matches all language tag options.

Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 3866 Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP July 2004

 Examples of valid AttributeDescription containing language range
 options:
    givenName;lang-en-
    CN;lang-
    SN;lang-de-;lang-gem-
    O;lang-x-;x-foobar
 A language range option is not a tagging option.  Attributes cannot
 be stored with language range options.  Any attempt to add or update
 an attribute description with a language range option SHALL be
 treated as an undefined attribute type and result in an error.
 A language range option has no effect on the transfer encoding nor on
 the syntax of the attribute values.
 Servers SHOULD support assertion of language ranges for any attribute
 type which they allow to be stored with language tags.

3.1. Search Filter

 If a language range option is present in an AttributeDescription in
 an assertion, then for each entry within scope, the values of each
 attribute whose AttributeDescription consists of the same attribute
 type or its subtypes and contains a language tag option matching the
 language range option are to be returned.
 Thus, for example, a filter of an equality match of type
 "name;lang-en-" and assertion value "Billy Ray", against the
 following directory entry:
    dn: SN=Ray,DC=example,DC=com
    objectClass: person                 DOES NOT MATCH (wrong type)
    objectClass: extensibleObject       DOES NOT MATCH (wrong type)
    name;lang-en-US: Billy Ray          MATCHES
    name;lang-en-US: Billy Bob          DOES NOT MATCH (wrong value)
    CN;lang-en-US: Billy Ray            MATCHES
    CN;lang-en-US;x-foobar: Billy Ray   MATCHES
    CN;lang-en;x-foobar: Billy Ray      MATCHES
    CN;x-foobar: Billy Ray              DOES NOT MATCH (no lang-)
    name: Billy Ray                     DOES NOT MATCH (no lang-)
    SN;lang-en-GB;lang-en-US: Billy Ray MATCHES
    SN: Ray                             DOES NOT MATCH (no lang-,
                                          wrong value)
 Note that "CN" and "SN" are subtypes of "name".

Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 3866 Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP July 2004

 If the server does not support storing attributes with language tag
 options in the DIT, then any assertion which includes a language
 range option will not match as it is an unrecognized attribute type.
 No error would be returned because of this; a presence filter would
 evaluate to FALSE and all other assertions to Undefined.

3.2. Requested Attributes in Search

 Clients can provide language range options in each
 AttributeDescription in the requested attribute list in a search
 request.
 If a language range option is provided in an attribute description,
 then only attributes in a directory entry whose attribute
 descriptions have the same attribute type or its subtype and a
 language tag option matching the provided language range option are
 to be returned.  Thus if a client requests just the attribute
 "name;lang-en-", the server would return "name;lang-en-US" and
 "CN;lang-en;lang-ja" but not "SN" nor "name;lang-fr".
 Clients can provide in the attribute list multiple
 AttributeDescriptions which have the same base attribute type but
 different options.  For example a client could provide both
 "name;lang-en-" and "name;lang-fr-", and this would permit an
 attribute whose type was name or subtype of name and with a language
 tag option matching either language range option to be returned.
 If a server does not support storing attributes with language tag
 options in the DIT, then any attribute descriptions in the list which
 include language range options are to be ignored, just as if they
 were unknown attribute types.

3.3. Compare

 Language range options can be present in an AttributeDescription used
 in a compare request AttributeValueAssertion.  This is to be treated
 by servers the same as the use of language range options in a search
 filter with an equality match, as described in Section 3.1.  If there
 is no attribute in the entry with the same subtype and a matching
 language tag option, the noSuchAttributeType error will be returned.
 Thus, for example, a compare request of type "name;lang-" and
 assertion value "Johann", against the entry with the following
 attributes:

Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 3866 Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP July 2004

    objectClass: top
    objectClass: person
    givenName;lang-de-DE: Johann
    CN: Johann Sibelius
    SN: Sibelius
 will cause the server to return compareTrue.  (Note that the language
 range option "lang-" matches any language tag option.)
 However, if the client issued a compare request of type
 "name;lang-de" and assertion value "Sibelius" against the above
 entry, the request would fail with the noSuchAttributeType error.
 If the server does not support storing attributes with language tag
 options in the DIT, then any comparison which includes a language
 range option will always fail to locate an attribute, and
 noSuchAttributeType will be returned.

4. Discovering Language Option Support

 A server SHOULD indicate that it supports storing attributes with
 language tag options in the DIT by publishing 1.3.6.1.4.1.4203.1.5.4
 as a value of the root DSE.
 A server SHOULD indicate that it supports language range matching of
 attributes with language tag options stored in the DIT by publishing
 1.3.6.1.4.1.4203.1.5.5 as a value of the "supportedFeatures"
 [RFC3674] attribute in the root DSE.
 A server MAY restrict use of language tag options to a subset of the
 attribute types it recognizes.  This document does not define a
 mechanism for determining which subset of attribute types can be used
 with language tag options.

5. Interoperability with Non-supporting Implementations

 Implementators of this specification should take care that their use
 of language tag options does not impede proper function of
 implementations which do not support language tags.
 Per RFC 2251, "an AttributeDescription with one or more options is
 treated as a subtype of the attribute type without any options."  A
 non-supporting server will treat an AttributeDescription with any
 language tag options as an unrecognized attribute type.  A non-
 supporting client will either do the same, or will treat the
 AttributeDescription as it would any other unknown subtype.
 Typically, non-supporting clients simply ignore unrecognized subtypes
 (and unrecognized attribute types) of attributes they request.

Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 11] RFC 3866 Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP July 2004

 To ensure proper function of non-supporting clients, supporting
 clients SHOULD ensure that entries they populate with tagged values
 are also populated with non-tagged values.
 Additionally, supporting clients SHOULD be prepared to handle entries
 which are not populated with tagged values.

6. Security Considerations

 Language tags and range options are used solely to indicate the
 native language of values and in querying the directory for values
 which fulfill the user's language needed.  These options are not
 known to raise specific security considerations.  However, the reader
 should consider general directory security issues detailed in the
 LDAP technical specification [RFC3377].

7. IANA Considerations

 Registration of these protocol mechanisms [RFC3383] has been
 completed by the IANA.
 Subject: Request for LDAP Protocol Mechanism Registration
 Object Identifier: 1.3.6.1.4.1.4203.1.5.4
 Description: Language Tag Options
 Object Identifier: 1.3.6.1.4.1.4203.1.5.5
 Description: Language Range Options
 Person & email address to contact for further information:
      Kurt Zeilenga <kurt@openldap.org>
 Usage: Feature
 Specification: RFC 3866
 Author/Change Controller: IESG
 Comments: none
 These OIDs were assigned [ASSIGN] by OpenLDAP Foundation, under its
 IANA-assigned private enterprise allocation [PRIVATE], for use in
 this specification.

8. Acknowledgments

 This document is a revision of RFC 2596 by Mark Wahl and Tim Howes.
 RFC 2596 was a product of the IETF ASID and LDAPEXT working groups.
 This document also borrows from a number of IETF documents including
 BCP 47 by H. Alvestrand.

Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 12] RFC 3866 Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP July 2004

9. References

9.1. Normative References

 [RFC2119]     Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
 [RFC2234]     Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for
               Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.
 [RFC2251]     Wahl, M., Howes, T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight
               Directory Access Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December
               1997.
 [RFC3066]     Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of
               Languages", BCP 47, RFC 3066, January 2001.
 [RFC3377]     Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access
               Protocol (v3): Technical Specification", RFC 3377,
               September 2002.
 [RFC3674]     Zeilenga, K., "Feature Discovery in Lightweight
               Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)", RFC 3674, December
               2003.
 [ASCII]       Coded Character Set--7-bit American Standard Code for
               Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986.

9.2. Informative References

 [X.501]       International Telecommunication Union -
               Telecommunication Standardization Sector, "The
               Directory -- Models," X.501(1997).
 [RFC3383]     Zeilenga, K., "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
               (IANA) Considerations for Lightweight Directory Access
               Protocol (LDAP)", BCP 64, RFC 3383, September 2002.
 [ASSIGN]      OpenLDAP Foundation, "OpenLDAP OID Delegations",
               http://www.openldap.org/foundation/oid-delegate.txt.
 [PRIVATE]     IANA, "Private Enterprise Numbers",
               http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers.

Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 13] RFC 3866 Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP July 2004

Appendix A. Differences from RFC 2596

 This document adds support for language ranges, provides a mechanism
 that a client can use to discover whether a server supports language
 tags and ranges, and clarifies how attributes with multiple language
 tags are to be treated.  This document is a significant rewrite of
 RFC 2596.

Appendix B. Differences from X.500(1997)

 X.500(1997) [X.501] defines a different mechanism, contexts, as the
 means of representing language tags (codes).  This section summarizes
 the major differences in approach.
 a) An X.500 operation which has specified a language code on a value
    matches a value in the directory without a language code.
 b) LDAP references BCP 47 [RFC3066], which allows for IANA
    registration of new tags as well as unregistered tags.
 c) LDAP supports language ranges (new in this revision).
 d) LDAP does not allow language tags (and ranges) in distinguished
    names.
 e) X.500 describes subschema administration procedures to allow
    language codes to be associated with particular attributes types.

Editor's Address

 Kurt D. Zeilenga
 OpenLDAP Foundation
 EMail: Kurt@OpenLDAP.org

Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 14] RFC 3866 Language Tags and Ranges in LDAP July 2004

Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject
 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.

Intellectual Property

 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
 made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
 http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
 this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
 ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

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

Zeilenga Standards Track [Page 15]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc3866.txt · Last modified: 2004/07/15 16:20 (external edit)