Network Working Group                                       G. Camarillo
Request for Comments: 5362                                      Ericsson
Category: Standards Track                                   October 2008


The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Pending Additions Event Package

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.

Abstract

  This document defines the SIP Pending Additions event package.  This
  event package is used by SIP relays to inform user agents about the
  consent-related status of the entries to be added to a resource list.































Camarillo                   Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 2008


Table of Contents

  1. Introduction ....................................................3
  2. Terminology .....................................................3
  3. Overview of Operation ...........................................3
  4. XML Schema Definition ...........................................3
  5. Pending Additions Event Package Definition ......................5
     5.1. Event Package Name .........................................5
          5.1.1. Event Package Parameters ............................5
          5.1.2. SUBSCRIBE Bodies ....................................5
          5.1.3. Subscription Duration ...............................5
          5.1.4. NOTIFY Bodies .......................................5
          5.1.5. Notifier Processing of SUBSCRIBE Requests ...........6
          5.1.6. Notifier Generation of NOTIFY Requests ..............6
          5.1.7. Subscriber Processing of NOTIFY Requests ............6
          5.1.8. Handling of Forked Requests .........................7
          5.1.9. Rate of Notifications ...............................7
          5.1.10. State Agents .......................................7
          5.1.11. Example ............................................7
  6. Partial Notifications ...........................................8
     6.1. Generation of Partial Notifications ........................8
     6.2. Processing of Partial Notifications ........................9
     6.3. XML Schema for Partial Notifications .......................9
     6.4. Examples ..................................................11
  7. IANA Considerations ............................................11
     7.1. SIP Event Package Registration ............................11
     7.2. URN Sub-Namespace Registration: consent-status ............12
     7.3. XML Schema Registration: consent-status ...................12
     7.4. XML Schema Registration: resource-lists ...................13
     7.5. MIME Type Registration:
          application/resource-lists-diff+xml .......................13
  8. Security Considerations ........................................14
  9. Acknowledgments ................................................14
  10. Normative References ..........................................14

















Camarillo                   Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 2008


1.  Introduction

  The framework for consent-based communications in SIP [RFC5360]
  identifies the need for users manipulating the translation logic at a
  relay (e.g., adding a new recipient) to be informed about the
  consent-related status of the recipients of a given translation.
  That is, the user manipulating the translation logic needs to know
  which recipients have given the relay permission to send them SIP
  requests.

  This document defines a SIP event package whereby user agents can
  subscribe to the consent-related state of the resources that are
  being added to a resource list that defines a translation.

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 [RFC2119].

  Relay:  Any SIP server, be it a proxy, B2BUA (Back-to-Back User
     Agent), or some hybrid, that receives a request, translates its
     Request-URI into one or more next-hop URIs (i.e., recipient URIs),
     and delivers the request to those URIs.

3.  Overview of Operation

  A user agent subscribes to a relay using the Pending Additions event
  package.  NOTIFY requests within this event package can carry an XML
  document in the "application/resource-lists+xml" format [RFC4826] or
  in the "application/resource-lists-diff+xml" format, which is based
  on XML patch operations [RFC5261].

  A document in the "application/resource-lists+xml" format provides
  the user agent with the whole list of resources being added to a
  resource list along with the consent-related status of those
  resources.  A document in the "application/resource-lists-diff+xml"
  format provides the user agent with the changes the list of resources
  being added has experimented with since the last notification sent to
  the user agent.

4.  XML Schema Definition

  This section defines the <consent-status> element, which provides
  consent-related information about a resource to be added to a relay's
  translation logic.





Camarillo                   Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 2008


  A consent-status document is an XML document that MUST be well-formed
  and SHOULD be valid.  Consent-status documents MUST be based on XML
  1.0 and MUST be encoded using UTF-8.  This specification makes use of
  XML namespaces for identifying consent-status documents.  The
  namespace URI for elements defined for this purpose is a URN, using
  the namespace identifier 'ietf'.  This URN is:

                  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:consent-status

  <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
  <xs:schema targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:consent-status"
    elementFormDefault="qualified"
    attributeFormDefault="unqualified"
    xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
    xmlns:tns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:consent-status">
     <xs:element name="consent-status">
        <xs:simpleType>
          <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
            <xs:enumeration value="pending"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="waiting"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="error"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="denied"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="granted"/>
          </xs:restriction>
        </xs:simpleType>
     </xs:element>
  </xs:schema>

  The <consent-status> element can take on the following values:

  Pending:  the relay has received a request to add a resource to its
     translation logic and will ask for permission to do so.

  Waiting:  the relay has requested permission to add the resource to
     its translation logic but has not gotten any answer from the
     resource yet.

  Error:  the relay has requested permission to add the resource to its
     translation logic and has received an error response (e.g., a SIP
     error response to the MESSAGE request sent to request permission).
     That is, the permission document requesting permission could not
     be delivered to the resource.

  Denied:  the resource has denied the relay permission to add the
     resource to the relay's translation logic.

  Granted:  the resource has granted the relay permission to add the
     resource to the relay's translation logic.



Camarillo                   Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 2008


  Section 5.1.11 contains an example of an "application/resource-
  lists+xml" document that carries consent-related state information
  using <consent-status> elements.

5.  Pending Additions Event Package Definition

  This section provides the details for defining a SIP [RFC3261] event
  notification package, as specified by [RFC3265].  Support for this
  section (i.e., Section 5) is REQUIRED for implementations of this
  specification.  Support for partial notifications is optional, but if
  a subscriber signals support for partial notifications, Section 6
  MUST be implemented.

5.1.  Event Package Name

  The name of this event package is "consent-pending-additions".  This
  package name is carried in the Event and Allow-Events header, as
  defined in [RFC3265].

5.1.1.  Event Package Parameters

  This package does not define any event package parameters.

5.1.2.  SUBSCRIBE Bodies

  A SUBSCRIBE for Pending Additions events MAY contain a body.  This
  body would serve the purpose of filtering the subscription.  Filter
  documents are not specified in this document and, at the time of
  writing, they are expected to be the subject of future
  standardization activity.

  A SUBSCRIBE for the Pending Additions event package MAY be sent
  without a body.  This implies that the default session policy
  filtering policy has been requested.  The default policy is that
  notifications are generated every time there is any change in the
  state of a resource in the list.

5.1.3.  Subscription Duration

  The default expiration time for a subscription is one hour (3600
  seconds).

5.1.4.  NOTIFY Bodies

  In this event package, the body of the notifications contains a
  resource list document.  This document describes the resources being
  added as recipients to a translation operation.  All subscribers and
  notifiers MUST support the "application/resource-lists+xml" data



Camarillo                   Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 2008


  format [RFC4826] and its extension to carry consent-related state
  information, which is specified in Section 4.  The SUBSCRIBE request
  MAY contain an Accept header field.  If no such header field is
  present, it has a default value of "application/resource-lists+xml".
  If the header field is present, it MUST include
  "application/resource-lists+xml", and MAY include any other types
  capable of representing consent-related state.

  Additionally, all subscribers and notifiers SHOULD support the
  "application/resource-lists-diff+xml" format.  Section 6 discusses
  the usage of the Pending Additions event package with this format.

5.1.5.  Notifier Processing of SUBSCRIBE Requests

  The state of the resources to be added to a relay's translation logic
  can reveal sensitive information.  Therefore, all subscriptions
  SHOULD be authenticated and then authorized before approval.
  Authorization policy is at the discretion of the administrator.

5.1.6.  Notifier Generation of NOTIFY Requests

  A notifier for the Pending Additions event package SHOULD include the
  <consent-status> element, which is defined in Section 4.  The
  <consent-status> element MUST be positioned as an instance of the
  <any> element within the <entry> element.

  Notifications SHOULD be generated for the Pending Additions package
  whenever there is a change in the consent-related state of a
  resource.  When a resource moves to the error, denied, or granted
  states, and once a NOTIFY request is sent, the resource is removed
  from further notifications.

5.1.7.  Subscriber Processing of NOTIFY Requests

  As stated in Section 3, a document in the "application/resource-
  lists+xml" format provides the subscriber with the whole list of
  resources being added to a resource list along with the consent-
  related status of those resources.  On receiving a NOTIFY request
  with such a document, the subscriber SHOULD update its local
  information about the resources being added to the resource list with
  the information in the document.  NOTIFY requests contain full state.
  The subscriber does not need to perform any type of information
  aggregation.  Section 6 discusses the use of the Pending Additions
  event package with partial notifications.







Camarillo                   Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 2008


5.1.8.  Handling of Forked Requests

  The state of a given resource list is normally handled by a server
  and stored in a repository.  Therefore, there is usually a single
  place where the resource-list state is resident.  This implies that a
  subscription for this information is readily handled by a single
  element with access to this repository.  There is, therefore, no
  compelling need for a subscription to pending additions information
  to fork.  As a result, a subscriber MUST NOT create multiple dialogs
  as a result of a single subscription request.  The required
  processing to guarantee that only a single dialog is established is
  described in Section 4.4.9 of [RFC3265].

5.1.9.  Rate of Notifications

  For reasons of congestion control, it is important that the rate of
  notifications not become excessive.  As a result, it is RECOMMENDED
  that the server does not generate notifications for a single
  subscriber at a rate faster than once every 5 seconds.

5.1.10.  State Agents

  State agents have no role in the handling of this package.

5.1.11.  Example

  The following is an example of an "application/resource-lists+xml"
  document that carries consent-related state information using
  <consent-status> elements:

     <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
     <resource-lists xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists"
      xmlns:cs="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:consent-status">
      <list>
       <entry uri="sip:[email protected]">
        <display-name>Bill Doe</display-name>
        <cs:consent-status>pending</cs:consent-status>
       </entry>
       <entry uri="sip:[email protected]">
        <display-name>Joe Smith</display-name>
        <cs:consent-status>pending</cs:consent-status>
       </entry>
       <entry uri="sip:[email protected]">
        <display-name>Nancy Gross</display-name>
        <cs:consent-status>granted</cs:consent-status>
       </entry>
      </list>
     </resource-lists>



Camarillo                   Standards Track                     [Page 7]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 2008


6.  Partial Notifications

  The lists of resources reported by this event package may contain
  many resources.  When the "application/resource-lists+xml" format is
  used and there is a change in the consent-related status of a
  resource, the server generates a notification with the whole list.
  Generating large notifications to report small changes does not meet
  the efficiency requirements of some bandwidth-constrained
  environments.  The partial notifications mechanism specified in this
  section is a more efficient way to report changes in the status of
  resources.

  Subscribers signal support for partial notifications by including the
  "application/resource-lists-diff+xml" format in the Accept header
  field of the SUBSCRIBE requests they generate.  If a client
  subscribing to the Pending Additions event package generates an
  Accept header field that includes the MIME type
  "application/resource-lists-diff+xml", the server has the option of
  returning documents in this format (instead of in the
  "application/resource-lists+xml" format).

6.1.  Generation of Partial Notifications

  Once a subscription is accepted and installed, the server MUST
  deliver full state in its first notification.  To report full state,
  the server uses the regular format for resource lists.  Consequently,
  the server MUST set the Content-Type header field to the value
  'application/resource-lists+xml'.

  In order to deliver a partial notification, the server MUST set the
  Content-Type header field to the value 'application/resource-lists-
  diff+xml'.  When the server generates a partial notification, the
  server SHOULD only include the information that has changed since the
  previous notification.  It is up to the server's local policy to
  determine what is considered as a change to the previous state.

  The server MUST construct partial notifications according to the
  following logic: all information that has been added to the document
  is listed inside <add> elements, all information that has been
  removed from the document is listed inside <remove> elements, and all
  information that has been changed is listed under <replace> elements.

  The server MUST NOT send a new NOTIFY request with a partial
  notification until it has received a final response from the
  subscriber for the previous one or the previous NOTIFY request has
  timed out.





Camarillo                   Standards Track                     [Page 8]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 2008


  When the server receives a SUBSCRIBE request (refresh or termination)
  within the associated subscription, it SHOULD send a NOTIFY request
  containing the full document using the 'application/resource-
  lists+xml' content type.

  If the server has used a content type other than
  'application/resource-lists+xml' in notifications within the existing
  subscription and changes to deliver partial notifications, the server
  MUST deliver full state using the 'application/resource-lists+xml'
  content type before generating its first partial notification.

6.2.  Processing of Partial Notifications

  When a subscriber receives the first notification containing full
  state in a 'application/resource-lists+xml' MIME body, the subscriber
  MUST store the received full document as its local copy.

  When the subscriber receives a subsequent notification, the
  subscriber MUST modify its locally stored information according to
  the following logic:

  o  If the notification carries an %'application/resource-lists+xml'
     document, the subscriber MUST replace its local copy of the
     document with the document received in notification.

  o  If the notification carries an 'application/resource-lists-
     diff+xml' document, the subscriber MUST apply the changes
     indicated in the received 'application/resource-lists-diff+xml'
     document to its local copy of the full document.

  If a subscriber encounters a processing error while processing an
  'application/resource-lists-diff+xml' encoded document, the
  subscriber SHOULD renew its subscription.  A subscriber can fall back
  to normal operations by not including the 'application/resource-
  lists-diff+xml' format in a new SUBSCRIBE request.

  If the server changes the content type used in notifications within
  the existing subscription, the subscriber MUST discard all the
  previously received information and process the new content as
  specified for that content type.

6.3.  XML Schema for Partial Notifications

  This is the XML schema for the "application/resource-lists-diff+xml"
  data format.  The "urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:xml-patch-ops" schema
  is defined in [RFC5261].





Camarillo                   Standards Track                     [Page 9]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 2008


  <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
    <xs:schema
           targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists"
           xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists"
           xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
           elementFormDefault="qualified">

       <!-- include patch-ops type definitions -->
        <xs:include
             schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:patch-ops"/>

       <!-- partial updates -->
     <xs:element name="resource-lists-diff">
      <xs:sequence minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
       <xs:choice>
        <xs:element name="add">
         <xs:complexType mixed="true">
          <xs:complexContent>
           <xs:extension base="add">
            <xs:anyAttribute processContents="lax"/>
           </xs:extension>
          </xs:complexContent>
         </xs:complexType>
        </xs:element>
        <xs:element name="remove">
         <xs:complexType>
          <xs:complexContent>
           <xs:extension base="remove">
            <xs:anyAttribute processContents="lax"/>
           </xs:extension>
          </xs:complexContent>
         </xs:complexType>
        </xs:element>
        <xs:element name="replace">
         <xs:complexType mixed="true">
          <xs:complexContent>
           <xs:extension base="replace">
            <xs:anyAttribute processContents="lax"/>
           </xs:extension>
          </xs:complexContent>
         </xs:complexType>
        </xs:element>
        <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax"/>
       </xs:choice>
      </xs:sequence>
      <xs:anyAttribute processContents="lax"/>
     </xs:element>
    </xs:schema>



Camarillo                   Standards Track                    [Page 10]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 2008


6.4.  Examples

  Section 5.1.11 contains an example of an 'application/resource-
  lists+xml' document, which carries full state.  The following is an
  'application/resource-lists-diff+xml' partial update document:

  <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
  <resource-lists-diff xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists"
   xmlns:cs="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:consent-status">

  <replace
sel="*/list/entry[@uri='sip:[email protected]']/cs:consent-status/text()"
  >granted</replace>

  </resource-lists-diff>

  The following is the resulting 'application/resource-lists+xml'
  document after applying the partial update:

     <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
     <resource-lists xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists"
      xmlns:cs="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:consent-status">
      <list>
       <entry uri="sip:[email protected]">
        <display-name>Bill Doe</display-name>
        <cs:consent-status>granted</cs:consent-status>
       </entry>
       <entry uri="sip:[email protected]">
        <display-name>Joe Smith</display-name>
        <cs:consent-status>pending</cs:consent-status>
       </entry>
       <entry uri="sip:[email protected]">
        <display-name>Nancy Gross</display-name>
        <cs:consent-status>granted</cs:consent-status>
       </entry>
      </list>
     </resource-lists>

7.  IANA Considerations

  There are five IANA considerations associated with this
  specification.

7.1.  SIP Event Package Registration

  This specification registers a SIP event package per the procedures
  in [RFC3265].




Camarillo                   Standards Track                    [Page 11]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 2008


  Package name: consent-pending-additions

  Type: package

  Contact: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email protected]>

  Published Specification: RFC 5362.

7.2.  URN Sub-Namespace Registration: consent-status

  This section registers a new XML namespace per the procedures in
  [RFC3688].

  URI: The URI for this namespace is
  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:consent-status

  Registrant Contact: IETF SIPPING working group <[email protected]>,
  Gonzalo Camarillo <[email protected]>

  XML:

  <?xml version="1.0"?>
  <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN"
            "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic10.dtd">
  <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="content-type"
       content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1"/>
    <title>Pending Additions Extension Namespace</title>
  </head>
  <body>
    <h1>Namespace for Consent-related Status Information Extension</h1>
    <h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:consent-status</h2>
    <p>See <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5362.txt">RFC 5362
      </a>.</p>
   </body>
  </html>

7.3.  XML Schema Registration: consent-status

  This section registers an XML schema per the procedures in [RFC3688].

  URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:consent-status

  Registrant Contact: IETF SIPPING working group <[email protected]>,
  Gonzalo Camarillo <[email protected]>

  The XML for this schema can be found in Section 4.



Camarillo                   Standards Track                    [Page 12]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 2008


7.4.  XML Schema Registration: resource-lists

  This section registers an XML schema per the procedures in [RFC3688].
  This XML schema is an extension to the XML schema (whose ID is
  resource-list) defined in [RFC4826].  The IANA has added a row in the
  XML schema registry with the following values:

     ID: resource-lists-diff
     URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:resource-lists-diff
     Filename: resource-lists-diff
     Reference [RFC5362]

  Registrant Contact: IETF SIPPING working group <[email protected]>,
  Gonzalo Camarillo <[email protected]>

  The XML for this schema can be found in Section 6.3.

7.5.  MIME Type Registration: application/resource-lists-diff+xml

  This section registers the 'application/resource-lists-diff+xml' MIME
  type.

  MIME media type name:  application
  MIME subtype name:  resource-lists-diff+xml
  Mandatory parameters: none
     Optional parameters:  Same as charset parameter application/xml as
     specified in [RFC3023].
  Encoding considerations:  Same as encoding considerations of
     application/xml as specified in [RFC3023].
  Security considerations: See Section 10 of [RFC3023] and Section 7 of
     [RFC4826].

  Interoperability considerations:  none
  Published specification:  RFC 5362
  Applications that use this media type:  This document type has been
     defined to support partial notifications in subscriptions to
     resource lists.

  Additional Information:

  Magic number:  none
  File extension:  .rld
  Macintosh file type code:  "TEXT"
  Personal and email address for further information:  Gonzalo
     Camarillo <[email protected]>
  Intended usage:  COMMON
  Author/Change controller:  The IETF




Camarillo                   Standards Track                    [Page 13]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 2008


8.  Security Considerations

  "A Framework for Consent-Based Communications in the Session
  Initiation Protocol (SIP)" [RFC5360] discusses security-related
  issues that are related to this specification.

  Subscriptions to the Pending Additions event package can reveal
  sensitive information.  For this reason, it is RECOMMENDED that
  relays use strong means for authentication and information
  confidentiality.  Additionally, attackers may attempt to modify the
  contents of the notifications sent by a relay to its subscribers.
  Consequently, it is RECOMMENDED that relays use a strong means for
  information integrity protection.

  It is RECOMMENDED that relays authenticate subscribers using the
  normal SIP authentication mechanisms, such as Digest, as defined in
  [RFC3261].

  The mechanism used for conveying information to subscribers SHOULD
  ensure the integrity and confidentially of the information.  In order
  to achieve these, an end-to-end SIP encryption mechanism, such as
  S/MIME, as described in [RFC3261], SHOULD be used.

  If strong end-to-end security means (such as above) is not available,
  it is RECOMMENDED that hop-by-hop security based on TLS and SIPS
  URIs, as described in [RFC3261], is used.

9.  Acknowledgments

  Jonathan Rosenberg provided useful ideas on this document.  Ben
  Campbell and Mary Barnes performed a thorough review of this
  document.  Jari Urpalainen helped improve the partial notifications
  mechanism.

10.  Normative References

  [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

  [RFC3023]  Murata, M., St. Laurent, S., and D. Kohn, "XML Media
             Types", RFC 3023, January 2001.

  [RFC3261]  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.





Camarillo                   Standards Track                    [Page 14]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 2008


  [RFC3265]  Roach, A.B., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific
             Event Notification", RFC 3265, June 2002.

  [RFC3688]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
             January 2004.

  [RFC4826]  Rosenberg, J., "Extensible Markup Language (XML) Formats
             for Representing Resource Lists", RFC 4826, May 2007.

  [RFC5261]  Urpalainen, J., "An Extensible Markup Language (XML) Patch
             Operations Framework Utilizing XML Path Language (XPath)
             Selectors", RFC 5261, September 2008.

  [RFC5360]  Rosenberg, J., Camarillo, G., and D. Willis, "A Framework
             for Consent-Based Communications in the Session Initiation
             Protocol (SIP)", RFC 5360, October 2008.

Author's Address

  Gonzalo Camarillo
  Ericsson
  Hirsalantie 11
  Jorvas  02420
  Finland

  EMail: [email protected]

























Camarillo                   Standards Track                    [Page 15]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 2008


Full Copyright Statement

  Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

  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, THE IETF TRUST 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
  [email protected].












Camarillo                   Standards Track                    [Page 16]