GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc4355

Network Working Group R. Brandner Request for Comments: 4355 Siemens AG Category: Standards Track L. Conroy

                                           Siemens Roke Manor Research
                                                            R. Stastny
                                                                 Oefeg
                                                          January 2006
  IANA Registration for Enumservices email, fax, mms, ems, and sms

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 (2006).

Abstract

 This document registers the Enumservices "email", "fax", "sms",
 "ems", and "mms" using the URI schemes 'tel:' and 'mailto:' as per
 the IANA registration process defined in the ENUM specification RFC
 3761.

Brandner, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 4355 IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations January 2006

Table of Contents

 1. Introduction ....................................................2
 2. Terminology .....................................................3
 3. Email Service Registration ......................................4
 4. Fax Service Registration ........................................4
 5. MMS, EMS, SMS Service ...........................................5
    5.1. Introduction ...............................................5
    5.2. SMS Service Registrations ..................................6
         5.2.1. SMS Service Registration with tel: URI ..............6
         5.2.2. SMS Service Registration with mailto: URI ...........6
    5.3. EMS Service Registrations ..................................7
         5.3.1. EMS Service Registration with tel: URI ..............7
         5.3.2. EMS Service Registration with mailto: URI ...........8
    5.4. MMS Service Registrations ..................................9
         5.4.1. MMS Service Registration with tel: URI ..............9
         5.4.2. MMS Service Registration with mailto: URI ..........10
 6. Security Considerations ........................................11
 7. Acknowledgements ...............................................13
 8. References .....................................................13
    8.1. Normative References ......................................13
    8.2. Informative References ....................................14

1. Introduction

 ENUM (E.164 Number Mapping, RFC 3761 [2]) is a system that transforms
 E.164 numbers [3] into domain names and then uses DNS (Domain Name
 Service, RFC 1034 [4]) services like delegation through NS records
 and NAPTR records to look up what services are available for a
 specific domain name.
 This document registers Enumservices according to the guidelines
 given in RFC 3761 to be used for provisioning in the services field
 of a NAPTR [5] resource record to indicate what class of
 functionality a given endpoint offers.  The registration is defined
 within the DDDS (Dynamic Delegation Discovery System [6][7][5][8][9])
 hierarchy, for use with the "E2U" DDDS Application defined in RFC
 3761.
 The following Enumservices are registered with this document:
 "email", "fax", "sms", "ems", and "mms".  These share a common
 feature in that they each indicate that the functionality of the
 given endpoints and the associated resources are capable of receiving
 discrete messages, albeit of different types.
 According to RFC 3761, the Enumservice registered must be able to
 function as a selection mechanism when choosing one NAPTR resource
 record from another.  That means that the registration MUST specify

Brandner, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 4355 IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations January 2006

 what is expected when using that very NAPTR record, and the Uniform
 Resource Identifier (URI) scheme that is the outcome of the use of
 it.
 Therefore, an Enumservice acts as a hint, indicating the kind of
 service with which the URI constructed using the regexp field is
 associated.  There can be more than one Enumservice included within a
 single NAPTR; this indicates that there is more than one service that
 can be achieved using the associated URI scheme.
 The common thread with this set of definitions is that they reflect
 the kind of service that the end-user will hope to achieve with the
 communication using the associated URI.
 The services specified here are intended not to specify the protocol
 or even method of connection that must be used to achieve each
 service.  Instead they define the kind of interactive behaviour that
 an end-user will expect, leaving the end system to decide (based on
 policies outside the remit of this specification) how to execute the
 service.
 Since the same URI scheme may be used for different services (e.g.,
 'tel:'), and the same kind of service may use different URI schemes
 (e.g., for VoIP 'h323:' and 'tel:' may be used), it is necessary in
 some cases to specify the service and the URI scheme used.
 The service parameters defined in RFC 3761 allow, therefore, a "type"
 and a "subtype" to be specified.  Within this set of specifications,
 the convention is assumed that the "type" (being the more generic
 term) defines the service and the "subtype" defines the URI scheme.
 Even where currently only one URI scheme is associated with a given
 service, it should be considered that an additional URI scheme to be
 used with this service may be added later.  Thus, the subtype is
 needed to identify the specific Enumservice intended.
 In this document, there are two URI schemes that are used within the
 various services.  These are 'tel:', as specified in RFC 3966 [10]
 and 'mailto:', as specified in RFC 2368 [11].

2. Terminology

 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, RFC 2119 [1].

Brandner, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 4355 IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations January 2006

3. Email Service Registration

 Enumservice Name: "email"
 Enumservice Type: "email"
 Enumservice Subtypes: "mailto"
 URI Scheme: 'mailto:'
 Functional Specification:
    This Enumservice indicates that the remote resource can be
    addressed by the associated URI scheme in order to send an email.
 Security Considerations:
    See Section 6.
 Intended Usage: COMMON
 Authors:
    Rudolf Brandner, Lawrence Conroy, Richard Stastny (for author
    contact detail, see Authors' Addresses section)
 Any other information the author deems interesting:
    None

4. Fax Service Registration

 Enumservice Name: "fax"
 Enumservice Type: "fax"
 Enumservice Subtype: "tel"
 URI Scheme: 'tel:'
 Functional Specification:
    This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified by the
    associated URI scheme is capable of being contacted to provide a
    communication session during which facsimile documents can be
    sent.

Brandner, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 4355 IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations January 2006

    Clients selecting this NAPTR will have support for generating and
    sending facsimile documents to the recipient using the Public
    Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) session and transfer protocols
    specified in [12] and [13].  In short, they will have a fax
    program with a local or shared PSTN access over which they can
    send faxes.
 Security Considerations:
    See Section 6.
 Intended Usage: COMMON
 Authors:
    Rudolf Brandner, Lawrence Conroy, Richard Stastny (for author
    contact detail see Authors' Addresses section)
 Any other information the author deems interesting:
    None

5. MMS, EMS, SMS Service

5.1. Introduction

 An ENUM NAPTR indicates ability on the part of the Subscriber to
 receive specified communication service (or services) provided via
 the contact address (shown in the generated URI).
 In the case of MMS, EMS, and SMS services, the capability of these
 services is a nested superset; thus, a service supporting MMS can
 support also delivery of EMS or SMS message content to a recipient
 that is receiving a Multimedia Message, whilst a service supporting
 EMS can also deliver SMS message content to a recipient that can
 accept receipt of EMS Messages.
 Thus, even if a client wants only to generate and send content that
 could be carried in an SMS message, the client MAY choose to consider
 also NAPTRs holding EMS and/or MMS Enumservices, as these indicate
 that the destination can accept EMS and/or MMS messages.  These
 services will be able to deliver SMS content to the recipient
 address.
 Conversely, a client capable of sending MMS messages may choose to
 consider also NAPTRs indicating support for EMS or SMS messages
 (assuming that the network to which it is connected provides these
 services as well, or is capable of providing a gateway to systems

Brandner, et al. Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 4355 IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations January 2006

 that do provide these services).  In taking this choice, it would
 have to "downgrade" its User Interface to allow only generation of
 content that conforms to SMS or EMS standards.
 These behaviours on the part of the client are purely optional and
 are NOT the subject of any protocol standardisation.

5.2. SMS Service Registrations

5.2.1. SMS Service Registration with tel: URI

 Enumservice Name: "sms"
 Enumservice Type: "sms"
 Enumservice Subtypes: "tel"
 URI Scheme: 'tel:'
 Functional Specification:
    This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified by the
    associated URI scheme is capable of receiving a message using the
    Short Message Service (SMS) [14].
 Security Considerations:
    There are no specific security issues with this Enumservice.
    However, the general considerations of Section 6 apply.
 Intended Usage: COMMON
 Authors:
    Rudolf Brandner, Lawrence Conroy, Richard Stastny (for author
    contact detail, see Authors' Addresses section)
 Any other information the author deems interesting:
    None

5.2.2. SMS Service Registration with mailto: URI

 Enumservice Name: "sms"
 Enumservice Type: "sms"
 Enumservice Subtypes: "mailto"

Brandner, et al. Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 4355 IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations January 2006

 URI Scheme: 'mailto:'
 Functional Specification:
    This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified by the
    associated URI scheme is capable of receiving a message using an
    email protocol.
    SMS content is sent over SMTP using the format specified by TS
    23.140 [15] Section 8.4.4 and TS 26.140 [16] Section 4, as an MMS
    message.  Within such a message, SMS content is carried as either
    a text or application/octet-stream MIME sub-part (see TS 26.140
    [16] Section 4.1).
 Security Considerations:
    There are no specific security issues with this Enumservice.
    However, the general considerations of Section 6 apply.
 Intended Usage: COMMON
 Authors:
    Rudolf Brandner, Lawrence Conroy, Richard Stastny (for author
    contact detail, see Authors' Addresses section)
 Any other information the author deems interesting:
    None

5.3. EMS Service Registrations

5.3.1. EMS Service Registration with tel: URI

 Enumservice Name: "ems"
 Enumservice Type: "ems"
 Enumservice Subtype: "tel"
 URI Scheme: 'tel:'
 Functional Specification:
    This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified by the
    associated URI scheme is capable of receiving a message using the
    Enhanced Message Service (EMS) [14].

Brandner, et al. Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 4355 IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations January 2006

 Security Considerations:
    There are no specific security issues with this Enumservice.
    However, the general considerations of Section 6 apply.
 Intended Usage: COMMON
 Authors:
    Rudolf Brandner, Lawrence Conroy, Richard Stastny (for author
    contact detail, see Authors' Addresses section)
 Any other information the author deems interesting:
    Note that an indication of EMS can be taken as implying that the
    recipient is capable of receiving SMS messages at this address as
    well.

5.3.2. EMS Service Registration with mailto: URI

 Enumservice Name: "ems"
 Enumservice Type: "ems"
 Enumservice Subtypes: "mailto"
 URI Scheme: 'mailto:'
 Functional Specification:
    This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified by the
    associated URI scheme is capable of receiving a message using an
    email protocol.
    EMS content is sent over SMTP using the format specified by TS
    23.140 [15] Section 8.4.4 and TS 26.140 [16] Section 4, as an MMS
    message.  Within such a message, EMS content is carried as either
    a text or application/octet-stream MIME sub-part (see TS 26.140
    [16] section 4.1).
 Security Considerations:
    There are no specific security issues with this Enumservice.
    However, the general considerations of Section 6 apply.
 Intended Usage: COMMON

Brandner, et al. Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 4355 IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations January 2006

 Authors:
    Rudolf Brandner, Lawrence Conroy, Richard Stastny (for author
    contact detail, see Authors' Addresses section)
 Any other information the author deems interesting:
    None

5.4. MMS Service Registrations

5.4.1. MMS Service Registration with tel: URI

 Enumservice Name: "mms"
 Enumservice Type: "mms"
 Enumservice Subtype: "tel"
 URI Scheme: 'tel:'
 Functional Specification:
    This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified by the
    associated URI scheme is capable of receiving a message using the
    Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS) [15].
 Security Considerations:
    There are no specific security issues with this Enumservice.
    However, the general considerations of Section 6 apply.
 Intended Usage: COMMON
 Authors:
    Rudolf Brandner, Lawrence Conroy, Richard Stastny (for author
    contact detail, see Authors' Addresses section)
 Any other information the author deems interesting:
    Note that MMS can be used as an alternative to deliver an SMS
    RP-DATA RPDU if, for example, the SMS bearer is not supported.  If
    an entry includes this Enumservice, then in effect this can be
    taken as implying that the recipient is capable of receiving EMS
    or SMS messages at this address.  Such choices on the end system
    design do have two small caveats; whilst in practice all terminals

Brandner, et al. Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 4355 IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations January 2006

    supporting MMS today support SMS as well, it might not necessarily
    be the case in the future, and there may be tariff differences in
    using the MMS rather than using the SMS or EMS.

5.4.2. MMS Service Registration with mailto: URI

 Enumservice Name: "mms"
 Enumservice Type: "mms"
 Enumservice Subtypes: "mailto"
 URI Scheme: 'mailto:'
 Functional Specification:
    This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified by the
    associated URI scheme is capable of receiving a message using an
    email protocol.
    MMS messages are sent over SMTP using the format specified by TS
    23.140 [15] Section 8.4.4 and TS 26.140 [16] Section 4.
    Within and between MMS Environments (MMSE, network infrastructures
    that support the MultiMedia Service), other pieces of state data
    (for example, charging-significant information) are exchanged
    between MMS Relay Servers.  Thus, although these servers use SMTP
    as the "bearer" for their application exchanges, they map their
    internal state to specialised headers carried in the SMTP message
    exchanges.  The headers used in such MMSE are described in detail
    in [17].
 Security Considerations:
    There are no specific security issues with this Enumservice.
    However, the general considerations of Section 6 apply.
 Intended Usage: COMMON
 Authors:
    Rudolf Brandner, Lawrence Conroy, Richard Stastny (for author
    contact detail see Authors' Addresses section)
 Any other information the author deems interesting:
    The MMS Architecture describes an interface between the MMSE and
    "legacy messaging systems" (labelled as MM3) that accepts

Brandner, et al. Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 4355 IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations January 2006

    "standard" SMTP messages.  Thus, although the MMS Relay Server
    that supports this interface appears as a standard SMTP server
    from the perspective of an Internet-based mail server, it acts as
    a gateway and translator, adding the internal state data that is
    used within and between the MMS Environments.  This mechanism is
    described in [17], which also includes references to the
    specifications agreed by those bodies responsible for the design
    of the MMS.

6. Security Considerations

 DNS, as used by ENUM, is a global, distributed database.  Thus, any
 information stored there is visible to anyone anonymously.  Whilst
 this is not qualitatively different from publication in a Telephone
 Directory, it does open data subjects to having "their" information
 collected automatically without any indication that this has been
 done or by whom.
 Such data harvesting by third parties is often used to generate lists
 of targets for unrequested information; in short, they are used to
 address "spam".  Anyone who uses a Web-archived mailing list is aware
 that the volume of "spam" email they are sent increases when they
 post to the mailing list.  Publication of a telephone number in ENUM
 is no different, and may be used to send "junk faxes" or "junk SMS",
 for example.
 Many mailing list users have more than one email address and use
 "sacrificial" email accounts when posting to such lists to help
 filter out unrequested emails sent to them.  This is not so easy with
 published telephone numbers; the PSTN E.164 number assignment process
 is much more involved, and usually a single E.164 number (or a fixed
 range of numbers) is associated with each PSTN access.  Thus,
 providing a "sacrificial" phone number in any publication is not
 possible.
 Due to the implications of publishing data on a globally accessible
 database, as a principle, data subjects MUST give their explicit
 informed consent to data being published in ENUM.
 In addition, they should be made aware that, due to storage of such
 data during harvesting by third parties, removal of the data from
 publication will not remove any copies that have been taken; in
 effect, any publication may be permanent.
 However, regulations in many regions will require that data subjects
 can at any time request that the data is removed from publication and
 that their consent for its publication is explicitly confirmed at
 regular intervals.

Brandner, et al. Standards Track [Page 11] RFC 4355 IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations January 2006

 When placing a fax call via the PSTN or a sending a message via the
 Public Land Mobile Network, the sender may be charged for this
 action.  In both kinds of network, calling or messaging to some
 numbers is more expensive than sending to others; both networks have
 "premium rate" services that can charge considerably more than a
 "normal" call or message destination.  As such, it is important that
 end-users be asked to confirm sending the message and that the
 destination number be presented to them.  It is the originating
 user's choice on whether or not to send a message to this destination
 number, but end-users SHOULD be shown the destination number so that
 they can make this decision.
 Although a fax number, like other E.164 numbers, doesn't appear to
 reveal as much identity information about a user as a name in the
 format user@host (e.g., an email or SIP address), the information is
 still publicly available; thus, there is still the risk of unwanted
 communication.
 An analysis of threats specific to the dependence of ENUM on the DNS,
 and the applicability of DNSSEC [18] to these, is provided in RFC
 3761 [2].  A thorough analysis of threats to the DNS itself is
 covered in RFC 3833 [19].
 An email address is a canonical address by which a user is known.
 Placing this address in ENUM is comparable to placing a SIP or H.323
 address in the DNS.
 DNS does not make any policy decisions about the records that it
 shares with an inquirer.  All DNS records must be assumed to be
 available to all inquirers at all times.  The information provided
 within an ENUM NAPTR resource record must, therefore, be considered
 to be open to the public, which is a cause for some privacy
 considerations.
 Therefore, ENUM Subscribers should be made aware of this risk.  Since
 it is within the responsibility of the ENUM Subscriber which data is
 entered in ENUM, it is within the ENUM Subscriber's control if he
 enters email addresses:
 1.  allowing inference of private data, e.g., his first and last name
 2.  at all
 It should also be considered that it is the purpose of public
 communication identifiers to be publicly known.  To reduce spam and
 other unwanted communication, other means should be made available,
 such as incoming message filtering.

Brandner, et al. Standards Track [Page 12] RFC 4355 IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations January 2006

 Some Value Added Service Providers use receipt of a short message to
 a given special service telephone number as a trigger to start
 delivery of data messages to the calling number.  By sending an SMS
 (or, in principle, an EMS or MMS) to one of these special service
 numbers, one is entering into a contract to pay for receipt of a set
 of messages containing information (e.g., news, sports results, "ring
 tones").
 Thus, it is very important that the end terminal presents the
 destination number to which any message is to be sent using the "sms:
 tel", "ems:tel", or "mms:tel" Enumservices, to allow the end-user to
 cancel any message before it is sent to one of these numbers.
 At present, these systems use the circuit switched network trusted
 calling line identifier to identify the destination for the
 subsequent charged information messages, and so it is believed that
 sending using the "sms:mailto", "ems:mailto", or "mms:mailto"
 Enumservices does not have this risk currently.

7. Acknowledgements

 Many thanks to Ville Warsta for his close reading of the document and
 extracting the right references.  Thanks also to those who are
 involved in the parallel effort to specify the requirements for "real
 world" ENUM trials resulting in TS 102 172 [20], in which this and
 other Enumservices are referenced.

8. References

8.1. Normative References

 [1]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
       Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997.
 [2]   Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform Resource
       Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
       Application (ENUM)", RFC 3761, April 2004.
 [3]   ITU-T, "The International Public Telecommunication Number
       Plan", Recommendation E.164, May 1997.
 [4]   Mockapetris, P., "DOMAIN NAMES - CONCEPTS AND FACILITIES",
       RFC 1034, November 1987.
 [5]   Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)  Part
       Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database", RFC 3403,
       October 2002.

Brandner, et al. Standards Track [Page 13] RFC 4355 IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations January 2006

 [6]   Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)  Part
       One: The Comprehensive DDDS", RFC 3401, October 2002.
 [7]   Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)  Part
       Two: The Algorithm", RFC 3402, October 2002.
 [8]   Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)  Part
       Four: The Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)", RFC 3404,
       October 2002.
 [9]   Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)  Part
       Five: URI.ARPA Assignment Procedures", RFC 3405, October 2002.
 [10]  Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers", RFC 3966,
       December 2004.
 [11]  Hoffman, P., Masinter, L., and J. Zawinski, "The mailto URL
       scheme", RFC 2368, July 1998.
 [12]  ITU-T, "Standardization of Group 3 facsimile terminals for
       document transmission", Recommendation T.4, April 1999.
 [13]  ITU-T, "Procedures for document facsimile transmission in the
       general switched telephone network", Recommendation T.30,
       April 1999.
 [14]  3GPP, "Technical realization of the Short Message Service
       (SMS);  (Release5)", 3GPP TS 23.040.
 [15]  3GPP, "Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS); Functional
       description; Stage 2 (Release 5)", 3GPP TS 23.140.
 [16]  3GPP, "Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS); Media formats and
       codecs; (Release 5)", 3GPP TS 26.140.
 [17]  Gellens, R., "Mapping Between the Multimedia Messaging Service
       (MMS) and Internet Mail", RFC 4356, January 2006.

8.2. Informative References

 [18]  Arends, R. and et al. , "Protocol Modifications for the DNS
       Security Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.
 [19]  Atkins, D. and R. Austein, "Threat Analysis of the Domain Name
       System (DNS)", RFC 3833, August 2004.
 [20]  ETSI, "Minimum Requirements for Interoperability of ENUM
       Implementations", ETSI TS 102 172, January 2005.

Brandner, et al. Standards Track [Page 14] RFC 4355 IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations January 2006

Authors' Addresses

 Rudolf Brandner
 Siemens AG
 Hofmannstr. 51
 81359 Munich
 Germany
 Phone: +49-89-722-51003
 EMail: rudolf.brandner@siemens.com
 Lawrence Conroy
 Siemens Roke Manor Research
 Roke Manor
 Romsey
 United Kingdom
 Phone: +44-1794-833666
 EMail: lwc@roke.co.uk
 Richard Stastny
 Oefeg
 Postbox 147
 1103 Vienna
 Austria
 Phone: +43-664-420-4100
 EMail: Richard.stastny@oefeg.at

Brandner, et al. Standards Track [Page 15] RFC 4355 IANA Msg Enumservice Registrations January 2006

Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
 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 provided by the IETF
 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

Brandner, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc4355.txt · Last modified: 2006/01/06 02:11 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki