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:rfc3960

Network Working Group G. Camarillo Request for Comments: 3960 Ericsson Category: Informational H. Schulzrinne

                                                   Columbia University
                                                         December 2004
              Early Media and Ringing Tone Generation
              in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)

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 (2004).

Abstract

 This document describes how to manage early media in the Session
 Initiation Protocol (SIP) using two models: the gateway model and the
 application server model.  It also describes the inputs one needs to
 consider in defining local policies for ringing tone generation.

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
 2.  Session Establishment in SIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
 3.  The Gateway Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1.  Forking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.2.  Ringing Tone Generation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.3.  Absence of an Early Media Indicator. . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.4.  Applicability of the Gateway Model . . . . . . . . . . .  8
 4.  The Application Server Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1.  In-Band Versus Out-of-Band Session Progress Information.  9
 5.  Alert-Info Header Field. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
 6.  Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
 7.  Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
 8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Camarillo & Schulzrinne Informational [Page 1] RFC 3960 Early Media and Ringing Tone Generation December 2004

1. Introduction

 Early media refers to media (e.g., audio and video) that is exchanged
 before a particular session is accepted by the called user.  Within a
 dialog, early media occurs from the moment the initial INVITE is sent
 until the User Agent Server (UAS) generates a final response.  It may
 be unidirectional or bidirectional, and can be generated by the
 caller, the callee, or both.  Typical examples of early media
 generated by the callee are ringing tone and announcements (e.g.,
 queuing status).  Early media generated by the caller typically
 consists of voice commands or dual tone multi-frequency (DTMF) tones
 to drive interactive voice response (IVR) systems.
 The basic SIP specification (RFC 3261 [1]) only supports very simple
 early media mechanisms.  These simple mechanisms have a number of
 problems which relate to forking and security, and do not satisfy the
 requirements of most applications.  This document goes beyond the
 mechanisms defined in RFC 3261 [1] and describes two models of early
 media implementations using SIP: the gateway model and the
 application server model.
 Although both early media models described in this document are
 superior to the one specified in RFC 3261 [1], the gateway model
 still presents a set of issues.  In particular, the gateway model
 does not work well with forking.  Nevertheless, the gateway model is
 needed because some SIP entities (in particular, some gateways)
 cannot implement the application server model.
 The application server model addresses some of the issues present in
 the gateway model.  This model uses the early-session disposition
 type, which is specified in [2].
 The remainder of this document is organized as follows: Section 2
 describes the offer/answer model in the absence of early media, and
 Section 3 introduces the gateway model.  In this model, the early
 media session is established using the early dialog established by
 the original INVITE.  Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.4 describe the
 limitations of the gateway model and the scenarios where it is
 appropriate to use this model.  Section 4 introduces the application
 server model, which, as stated previously, resolves some of the
 issues present in the gateway model.  Section 5 discusses the
 interactions between the Alert-Info header field in both early media
 models.
 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", " NOT",
 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
 document are to be interpreted as described in [9].

Camarillo & Schulzrinne Informational [Page 2] RFC 3960 Early Media and Ringing Tone Generation December 2004

2. Session Establishment in SIP

 Before presenting both early media models, we will briefly summarize
 how session establishment works in SIP.  This will let us keep
 separate features that are intrinsic to SIP (e.g., media being played
 before the 200 (OK) to avoid media clipping) from early media
 operations.
 SIP [1] uses the offer/answer model [3] to negotiate session
 parameters.  One of the user agents - the offerer - prepares a
 session description that is called the offer.  The other user agent
 - the answerer - responds with another session description called the
 answer.  This two-way handshake allows both user agents to agree upon
 the session parameters to be used to exchange media.
 The offer/answer model decouples the offer/answer exchange from the
 messages used to transport the session descriptions.  For example,
 the offer can be sent in an INVITE request and the answer can arrive
 in the 200 (OK) response for that INVITE, or, alternatively, the
 offer can be sent in the 200 (OK) for an empty INVITE and the answer
 can be sent in the ACK.  When reliable provisional responses [4] and
 UPDATE requests [5] are used, there are many more possible ways to
 exchange offers and answers.
 Media clipping occurs when the user (or the machine generating media)
 believes that the media session is already established, but the
 establishment process has not finished yet.  The user starts speaking
 (i.e., generating media) and the first few syllables or even the
 first few words are lost.
 When the offer/answer exchange takes place in the 200 (OK) response
 and in the ACK, media clipping is unavoidable.  The called user
 starts speaking at the same time the 200 (OK) is sent, but the UAS
 cannot send any media until the answer from the User Agent Client
 (UAC) arrives in the ACK.
 On the other hand, media clipping does not appear in the most common
 offer/answer exchange (an INVITE with an offer and a 200 (OK) with an
 answer).  UACs are ready to play incoming media packets as soon as
 they send an offer, because they cannot count on the reception of the
 200 (OK) to start playing out media for the caller; SIP signalling
 and media packets typically traverse different paths, and so, media
 packets may arrive before the 200 (OK) response.
 Another form of media clipping (not related to early media either)
 occurs in the caller-to-callee direction.  When the callee picks up
 and starts speaking, the UAS sends a 200 (OK) response with an
 answer, in parallel with the first media packets.  If the first media

Camarillo & Schulzrinne Informational [Page 3] RFC 3960 Early Media and Ringing Tone Generation December 2004

 packets arrive at the UAC before the answer and the caller starts
 speaking, the UAC cannot send media until the 200 (OK) response from
 the UAS arrives.

3. The Gateway Model

 SIP uses the offer/answer model to negotiate session parameters (as
 described in Section 2).  An offer/answer exchange that takes place
 before a final response for the INVITE is sent establishes an "early"
 media session.  Early media sessions terminate when a final response
 for the INVITE is sent.  If the final response is a 200 (OK), the
 early media session transitions to a regular media session.  If the
 final response is a non-200 class final response, the early media
 session is simply terminated.
 Not surprisingly, media exchanged within an early media session is
 referred to as early media.  The gateway model consists of managing
 early media sessions using offer/answer exchanges in reliable
 provisional responses, PRACKs, and UPDATEs.
 The gateway model is seriously limited in the presence of forking, as
 described in Section 3.1.  Therefore, its use is only acceptable when
 the User Agent (UA) cannot distinguish between early and regular
 media, as described in Section 3.4.  In any other situation (the
 majority of UAs), use of the application server model described in
 Section 4 is strongly recommended instead.

3.1. Forking

 In the absence of forking, assuming that the initial INVITE contains
 an offer, the gateway model does not introduce media clipping.
 Following normal SIP procedures, the UAC is ready to play any
 incoming media as soon as it sends the initial offer in the INVITE.
 The UAS sends the answer in a reliable provisional response and can
 send media as soon as there is media to send.  Even if the first
 media packets arrive at the UAC before the 1xx response, the UAC will
 play them.
    Note that, in some situations, the UAC needs to receive the answer
    before being able to play any media.  UAs in such a situation
    (e.g., QoS, media authorization, or media encryption is required)
    use preconditions to avoid media clipping.
 On the other hand, if the INVITE forks, the gateway model may
 introduce media clipping.  This happens when the UAC receives
 different answers to its offer in several provisional responses from
 different UASs.  The UAC has to deal with bandwidth limitations and
 early media session selection.

Camarillo & Schulzrinne Informational [Page 4] RFC 3960 Early Media and Ringing Tone Generation December 2004

 If the UAC receives early media from different UASs, it needs to
 present it to the user.  If the early media consists of audio,
 playing several audio streams to the user at the same time may be
 confusing.  On the other hand, other media types (e.g., video) can be
 presented to the user at the same time.  For example, the UAC can
 build a mosaic with the different inputs.
 However, even with media types that can be played at the same time to
 the user, if the UAC has limited bandwidth, it will not be able to
 receive early media from all the different UASs at the same time.
 Therefore, many times, the UAC needs to choose a single early media
 session and "mute" those sending UPDATE requests.
    It is difficult to decide which early media sessions carry more
    important information from the caller's perspective.  In fact, in
    some scenarios, the UA cannot even correlate media packets with
    their particular SIP early dialog.  Therefore, UACs typically pick
    one early dialog randomly and mute the rest.
 If one of the early media sessions that was muted transitions to a
 regular media session (i.e., the UAS sends a 2xx response), media
 clipping is likely.  The UAC typically sends an UPDATE with a new
 offer (upon reception of the 200 (OK) for the INVITE) to unmute the
 media session.  The UAS cannot send any media until it receives the
 offer from the UAC.  Therefore, if the caller starts speaking before
 the offer from the UAC is received, his words will get lost.
    Having the UAS send the UPDATE to unmute the media session
    (instead of the UAC) does not avoid media clipping in the backward
    direction and it causes possible race conditions.

3.2. Ringing Tone Generation

 In the PSTN, telephone switches typically play ringing tones for the
 caller, indicating that the callee is being alerted.  When, where,
 and how these ringing tones are generated has been standardized
 (i.e., the local exchange of the callee generates a standardized
 ringing tone while the callee is being alerted).  It makes sense for
 a standardized approach to provide this type of feedback for the user
 in a homogeneous environment such as the PSTN, where all the
 terminals have a similar user interface.
 This homogeneity is not found among SIP user agents.  SIP user agents
 have different capabilities, different user interfaces, and may be
 used to establish sessions that do not involve audio at all.  Because
 of this, the way a SIP UA provides the user with information about
 the progress of session establishment is a matter of local policy.
 For example, a UA with a Graphical User Interface (GUI) may choose to

Camarillo & Schulzrinne Informational [Page 5] RFC 3960 Early Media and Ringing Tone Generation December 2004

 display a message on the screen when the callee is being alerted,
 while another UA may choose to show a picture of a phone ringing
 instead.  Many SIP UAs choose to imitate the user interface of the
 PSTN phones.  They provide a ringing tone to the caller when the
 callee is being alerted.  Such a UAC is supposed to generate ringing
 tones locally for its user as long as no early media is received from
 the UAS.  If the UAS generates early media (e.g., an announcement or
 a special ringing tone), the UAC is supposed to play it rather than
 generate the ringing tone locally.
 The problem is that, sometimes, it is not an easy task for a UAC to
 know whether it will be receiving early media or it should generate
 local ringing.  A UAS can send early media without using reliable
 provisional responses (very simple UASs do that) or it can send an
 answer in a reliable provisional response without any intention of
 sending early media (this is the case when preconditions are used).
 Therefore, by only looking at the SIP signalling, a UAC cannot be
 sure whether or not there will be early media for a particular
 session.  The UAC needs to check if media packets are arriving at a
 given moment.
    An implementation could even choose to look at the contents of the
    media packets, since they could carry only silence or comfort
    noise.
 With this in mind, a UAC should develop its local policy regarding
 local ringing generation.  For example, a POTS ("Plain Old Telephone
 Service")-like SIP User Agent (UA) could implement the following
 local policy:
    1. Unless a 180 (Ringing) response is received, never generate
       local ringing.
    2. If a 180 (Ringing) has been received but there are no incoming
       media packets, generate local ringing.
    3. If a 180 (Ringing) has been received and there are incoming
       media packets, play them and do not generate local ringing.
       Note that a 180 (Ringing) response means that the callee is
       being alerted, and a UAS should send such a response if the
       callee is being alerted, regardless of the status of the early
       media session.
 At first sight, such a policy may look difficult to implement in
 decomposed UAs (i.e., media gateway controller and media gateway),
 but this policy is the same as the one described in Section 2, which
 must be implemented by any UA.  That is, any UA should play incoming

Camarillo & Schulzrinne Informational [Page 6] RFC 3960 Early Media and Ringing Tone Generation December 2004

 media packets (and stop local ringing tone generation if it was being
 performed) in order to avoid media clipping, even if the 200 (OK)
 response has not arrived.  So, the tools to implement this early
 media policy are already available to any UA that uses SIP.
 Note that, while it is not desirable to standardize a common local
 policy to be followed by every SIP UA, a particular subset of more or
 less homogeneous SIP UAs could use the same local policy by
 convention.  Examples of such subsets of SIP UAs may be "all the
 PSTN/SIP gateways" or "every 3GPP IMS (Third Generation Partnership
 Project Internet Multimedia System) terminal".  However, defining the
 particular common policy that such groups of SIP devices may use is
 outside the scope of this document.

3.3. Absence of an Early Media Indicator

 SIP, as opposed to other signalling protocols, does not provide an
 early media indicator.  That is, there is no information about the
 presence or absence of early media in SIP.  Such an indicator could
 be potentially used to avoid the generation of local ringing tone by
 the UAC when UAS intends to provide an in-band ringing tone or some
 type of announcement.  However, in the majority of the cases, such an
 indicator would be of little use due to the way SIP works.
 One important reason limiting the benefit of a potential early media
 indicator is the loose coupling between SIP signalling and the media
 path.  SIP signalling traverses a different path than the media.  The
 media path is typically optimized to reduce the end-to-end delay
 (e.g., minimum number of intermediaries), while the SIP signalling
 path typically traverses a number of proxies providing different
 services for the session.  Hence, it is very likely that the media
 packets with early media reach the UAC before any SIP message that
 could contain an early media indicator.
 Nevertheless, sometimes SIP responses arrive at the UAC before any
 media packet.  There are situations in which the UAS intends to send
 early media but cannot do it straight away.  For example, UAs using
 Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) [6] may need to exchange
 several Simple Traversals of the UDP Protocol through NAT (STUN)
 messages before being able to exchange media.  In this situation, an
 early media indicator would keep the UAC from generating a local
 ringing tone during this time.  However, while the early media is not
 arriving at the UAC, the user would not be aware that the remote user
 is being alerted, even though a 180 (Ringing) had been received.
 Therefore, a better solution would be to apply a local ringing tone
 until the early media packets could be sent from the UAS to the UAC.
 This solution does not require any early media indicator.

Camarillo & Schulzrinne Informational [Page 7] RFC 3960 Early Media and Ringing Tone Generation December 2004

    Note that migrations from local ringing tone to early media at the
    UAC happen in the presence of forking as well; one UAS sends a 180
    (Ringing) response, and later, another UAS starts sending early
    media.

3.4. Applicability of the Gateway Model

 Section 3 described some of the limitations of the gateway model.  It
 produces media clipping in forking scenarios and requires media
 detection to generate local ringing properly.  These issues are
 addressed by the application server model, described in Section 4,
 which is the recommended way of generating early media that is not
 continuous with the regular media generated during the session.
 The gateway model is, therefore, acceptable in situations where the
 UA cannot distinguish between early media and regular media.  A PSTN
 gateway is an example of this type of situation.  The PSTN gateway
 receives media from the PSTN over a circuit, and sends it to the IP
 network.  The gateway is not aware of the contents of the media, and
 it does not exactly know when the transition from early to regular
 media takes place.  From the PSTN perspective, the circuit is a
 continuous source of media.

4. The Application Server Model

 The application server model consists of having the UAS behave as an
 application server to establish early media sessions with the UAC.
 The UAC indicates support for the early-session disposition type
 (defined in [2]) using the early-session option tag.  This way, UASs
 know that they can keep offer/answer exchanges for early media
 (early-session disposition type) separate from regular media (session
 disposition type).
 Sending early media using a different offer/answer exchange than the
 one used for sending regular media helps avoid media clipping in
 cases of forking.  The UAC can reject or mute new offers for early
 media without muting the sessions that will carry media when the
 original INVITE is accepted.  The UAC can give priority to media
 received over the latter sessions.  This way, the application server
 model transitions from early to regular media at the right moment.
 Having a separate offer/answer exchange for early media also helps
 UACs decide whether or not local ringing should be generated.  If a
 new early session is established and that early session contains at
 least an audio stream, the UAC can assume that there will be incoming
 early media and it can then avoid generating local ringing.

Camarillo & Schulzrinne Informational [Page 8] RFC 3960 Early Media and Ringing Tone Generation December 2004

    An alternative model would include the addition of a new stream,
    with an "early media" label, to the original session between the
    UAC and the UAS using an UPDATE instead of establishing a new
    early session.  We have chosen to establish a new early session to
    be coherent with the mechanism used by application servers that
    are NOT
    co-located with the UAS.  This way, the UAS uses the same
    mechanism as any application server in the network to interact
    with the UAC.

4.1. In-Band Versus Out-of-Band Session Progress Information

 Note that, even when the application server model is used, a UA will
 have to choose which early media sessions are muted and which ones
 are rendered to the user.  In order to make this choice easier for
 UAs, it is strongly recommended that information that is not
 essential for the session not be transmitted using early media.  For
 instance, UAs should not use early media to send special ringing
 tones.  The status code and the reason phrase in SIP can already
 inform the remote user about the progress of session establishment,
 without incurring the problems associated with early media.

5. Alert-Info Header Field

 The Alert-Info header field allows specifying an alternative ringing
 content, such as ringing tone, to the UAC.  This header field tells
 the UAC which tone should be played in case local ringing is
 generated, but it does not tell the UAC when to generate local
 ringing.  A UAC should follow the rules described above for ringing
 tone generation in both models.  If, after following those rules, the
 UAC decides to play local ringing, it can then use the Alert-Info
 header field to generate it.

6. Security Considerations

 SIP uses the offer/answer model [3] to establish early sessions in
 both the gateway and the application server models.  User Agents
 (UAs) generate a session description, which contains the transport
 address (i.e., IP address plus port) where they want to receive
 media, and send it to their peer in a SIP message.  When media
 packets arrive at this transport address, the UA assumes that they
 come from the receiver of the SIP message carrying the session
 description.  Nevertheless, attackers may attempt to gain access to
 the contents of the SIP message and send packets to the transport
 address contained in the session description.  To prevent this
 situation, UAs SHOULD encrypt their session descriptions (e.g., using
 S/MIME).

Camarillo & Schulzrinne Informational [Page 9] RFC 3960 Early Media and Ringing Tone Generation December 2004

 Still, even if a UA encrypts its session descriptions, an attacker
 may try to guess the transport address used by the UA and send media
 packets to that address.  Guessing such a transport address is
 sometimes easier than it may seem because many UAs always pick up the
 same initial media port.  To prevent this situation, UAs SHOULD use
 media-level authentication mechanisms such as the Secure Realtime
 Transport Protocol (SRTP)[7].  In addition, UAs that wish to keep
 their communications confidential SHOULD use media-level encryption
 mechanisms (e.g, SRTP [7]).
 Attackers may attempt to make a UA send media to a victim as part of
 a DoS attack.  This can be done by sending a session description with
 the victim's transport address to the UA.  To prevent this attack,
 the UA SHOULD engage in a handshake with the owner of the transport
 address received in a session description (just verifying willingness
 to receive media) before sending a large amount of data to the
 transport address.  This check can be performed by using a connection
 oriented transport protocol, by using STUN [8] in an end-to-end
 fashion, or by the key exchange in SRTP [7].
 In any event, note that the previous security considerations are not
 early media specific, but apply to the usage of the offer/answer
 model in SIP to establish sessions in general.
 Additionally, an early media-specific risk (roughly speaking,
 equivalent to forms of "toll fraud" in the PSTN) attempts to exploit
 the different charging policies some operators apply to early and
 regular media.  When UAs are allowed to exchange early media for
 free, but are required to pay for regular media sessions, rogue UAs
 may try to establish a bidirectional early media session and never
 send a 200 (OK) response for the INVITE.
 On the other hand, some application servers (e.g., Interactive Voice
 Response systems) use bidirectional early media to obtain information
 from the callers (e.g., the PIN code of a calling card).  So, we do
 not recommend that operators disallow bidirectional early media.
 Instead, operators should consider a remedy of charging early media
 exchanges that last too long, or stopping them at the media level
 (according to the operator's policy).

7. Acknowledgments

 Jon Peterson provided useful ideas on the separation between the
 gateway model and the application server model.
 Paul Kyzivat, Christer Holmberg, Bill Marshall, Francois Audet, John
 Hearty, Adam Roach, Eric Burger, Rohan Mahy, and Allison Mankin
 provided useful comments and suggestions.

Camarillo & Schulzrinne Informational [Page 10] RFC 3960 Early Media and Ringing Tone Generation December 2004

8. References

8.1. Normative References

 [1] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
     Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:
     Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.
 [2] Camarillo, G., "The Early Session Disposition Type for the
     Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3959, December 2004.
 [3] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with
     Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June 2002.

8.2. Informative References

 [4] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Reliability of Provisional
     Responses in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3262, June
     2002.
 [5] Rosenberg, J., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) UPDATE
     Method", RFC 3311, October 2002.
 [6] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive connectivity establishment (ICE): a
     methodology for network address translator (NAT) traversal for
     the session initiation protocol (SIP)",  Work in progress, July
     2003.
 [7] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
     Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC
     3711, March 2004.
 [8] Rosenberg, J., Weinberger, J., Huitema, C., and R. Mahy,
     "STUN - Simple Traversal of User Datagram Protocol (UDP) Through
     Network Address Translators (NATs)", RFC 3489, March 2003.
 [9] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
     Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

Camarillo & Schulzrinne Informational [Page 11] RFC 3960 Early Media and Ringing Tone Generation December 2004

Authors' Addresses

 Gonzalo Camarillo
 Ericsson
 Advanced Signalling Research Lab.
 FIN-02420 Jorvas
 Finland
 EMail:  Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com
 Henning Schulzrinne
 Dept. of Computer Science
 Columbia University 1214 Amsterdam Avenue, MC 0401
 New York, NY 10027
 USA
 EMail:  schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu

Camarillo & Schulzrinne Informational [Page 12] RFC 3960 Early Media and Ringing Tone Generation December 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 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF 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.

Camarillo & Schulzrinne Informational [Page 13]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc3960.txt · Last modified: 2004/12/16 19:22 (external edit)