Network Working Group M. Luby
Request for Comments: 3695 Digital Fountain
Category: Experimental L. Vicisano
Cisco
February 2004
Compact Forward Error Correction (FEC) Schemes
Status of this Memo
This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document introduces some Forward Error Correction (FEC) schemes
that supplement the FEC schemes described in RFC 3452. The primary
benefits of these additional FEC schemes are that they are designed
for reliable bulk delivery of large objects using a more compact FEC
Payload ID, and they can be used to sequentially deliver blocks of an
object of indeterminate length. Thus, they more flexibly support
different delivery models with less packet header overhead.
This document also describes the Fully-Specified FEC scheme
corresponding to FEC Encoding ID 0. This Fully-Specified FEC scheme
requires no FEC coding and is introduced primarily to allow simple
interoperability testing between different implementations of
protocol instantiations that use the FEC building block.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Packet Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. FEC Payload ID for FEC Encoding IDs 0 and 130. . . . . . 4
2.2. Compact No-Code FEC scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Compact FEC scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Compact No-Code FEC scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Source Block Logistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Sending and Receiving a Source Block . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Usage Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Reliable Bulk Data Delivery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Luby & Vicisano Experimental [Page 1]
RFC 3695 FEC Schemes February 2004
4.2. Block-Stream Delivery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. IANA Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
This document describes two new Forward Error Correction (FEC)
schemes corresponding to FEC Encoding IDs 0 and 130 which supplement
the FEC schemes corresponding to FEC Encoding IDs 128 and 129
described in the FEC Building Block [4].
The new FEC schemes are particularly applicable when an object is
partitioned into equal-length source blocks. In this case, the
source block length common to all source blocks can be communicated
out-of-band, thus saving the additional overhead of carrying the
source block length within the FEC Payload ID of each packet. The
new FEC schemes are similar to the FEC schemes with FEC Encoding ID
128 defined in RFC 3452 [4], except that the FEC Payload ID is half
as long. This is the reason that these new FEC schemes are called
Compact FEC schemes.
The primary focus of FEC Encoding IDs 128 and 129 is to reliably
deliver bulk objects of known length. The FEC schemes described in
this document are designed to be used for both reliable delivery of
bulk objects of known length, and for the delivery of a stream of
source blocks for an object of indeterminate length. Within the
block-stream delivery model, reliability guarantees can range from
acknowledged reliable delivery of each block to unacknowledged
enhanced-reliability delivery of time-sensitive blocks, depending on
the properties of the protocol instantiation in which the FEC scheme
is used. Acknowledged reliable block-stream delivery is similar in
spirit to the byte-stream delivery that TCP offers, except that the
unit of delivery is a block of data instead of a byte of data. In
the spirit of a building block (see RFC 3048 [6]), the FEC schemes
described in this document can be used to provide reliability for
other service models as well.
The two new FEC Encoding IDs 0 and 130 are described in Section 2,
and this supplements Section 5 of the FEC building block [4].
Section 3 of this document describes the Fully-Specified FEC scheme
corresponding to the FEC Encoding ID 0. This Fully-Specified FEC
Luby & Vicisano Experimental [Page 2]
RFC 3695 FEC Schemes February 2004
scheme requires no FEC coding and is specified primarily to allow
simple interoperability testing between different implementations of
protocol instantiations that use the FEC building block.
This document inherits the context, language, declarations and
restrictions of the FEC building block [4]. This document also uses
the terminology of the companion document [7] which describes the use
of FEC codes within the context of reliable IP multicast transport
and provides an introduction to some commonly used FEC codes.
Building blocks are defined in RFC 3048 [6]. This document is a
product of the IETF RMT WG and follows the general guidelines
provided in RFC 3269 [3].
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 RFC 2119 [2].
Statement of Intent
This memo contains part of the definitions necessary to fully specify
a Reliable Multicast Transport (RMT) protocol in accordance with RFC
2357 [5]. As per RFC 2357, the use of any reliable multicast
protocol in the Internet requires an adequate congestion control
scheme.
While waiting for such a scheme to be available, or for an existing
scheme to be proven adequate, the RMT working group publishes this
Request for Comments in the "Experimental" category.
It is the intent of RMT to re-submit this specification as an IETF
Proposed Standard as soon as the above condition is met.
2. Packet Header Fields
This section specifies FEC Encoding IDs 0 and 130 and the associated
FEC Payload ID formats and the specific information in the
corresponding FEC Object Transmission Information. The FEC scheme
associated with FEC Encoding ID 0 is Fully-Specified whereas the FEC
schemes associated with FEC Encoding ID 130 are Under-Specified.
FEC Encoding IDs 0 and 130 have the same FEC Payload ID format, which
is described in the following subsection. The FEC Object
Transmission Information for FEC Encoding IDs 0 and 130 is different,
and is described in the subsequent two subsections.
Luby & Vicisano Experimental [Page 3]
RFC 3695 FEC Schemes February 2004
2.1. FEC Payload ID for FEC Encoding IDs 0 and 130
The FEC Payload ID for FEC Encoding IDs 0 and 130 is composed of a
Source Block Number and an Encoding Symbol ID structured as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Block Number | Encoding Symbol ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The 16-bit Source Block Number is used to identify from which source
block of the object the encoding symbol in the payload of the packet
is generated. There are two possible modes: In the unique SBN mode
each source block within the object has a unique Source Block Number
associated with it, and in the non-unique SBN mode the same Source
Block Number may be used for more than one source block within the
object. Which mode is being used for an object is outside the scope
of this document and MUST be communicated, either explicitly or
implicitly, out-of-band to receivers.
If the unique SBN mode is used then successive Source Block Numbers
are associated with consecutive source blocks of the object starting
with Source Block Number 0 for the first source block of the object.
In this case, there are at most 2^16 source blocks in the object.
If the non-unique SBN mode is used then the mapping from source
blocks to Source Block Numbers MUST be communicated out-of-band to
receivers, and how this is done is outside the scope of this
document. This mapping could be implicit, for example determined by
the transmission order of the source blocks. In non-unique SBN
mode, packets for two different source blocks mapped to the same
Source Block Number SHOULD NOT be sent within an interval of time
that is shorter than the transport time of a source block. The
transport time of a source block includes the amount of time the
source block is processed at the transport layer by the sender, the
network transit time for packets, and the amount of time the source
block is processed at the transport layer by a receiver. This allows
the receiver to clearly decide which packets belong to which source
block.
The 16-bit Encoding Symbol ID identifies which specific encoding
symbol generated from the source block is carried in the packet
payload. The exact details of the correspondence between Encoding
Symbol IDs and the encoding symbols in the packet payload for FEC
Encoding ID 0 are specified in Section 3. The exact details of the
correspondence between Encoding Symbol IDs and the encoding symbol(s)
in the packet payload for FEC Encoding ID 130 are dependent on the
Luby & Vicisano Experimental [Page 4]
RFC 3695 FEC Schemes February 2004
particular encoding algorithm used as identified by the FEC Encoding
ID and by the FEC Instance ID.
2.2. Compact No-Code FEC scheme
This subsection reserves FEC Encoding ID 0 for the Compact No-Code
FEC scheme described in this subsection and in Section 3. This is a
Fully-Specified FEC scheme that is primarily intended to be used for
simple interoperability testing between different implementations of
protocol instantiations that use the FEC building block. The value
of this FEC scheme is that no FEC encoding or decoding is required to
implement it and therefore it is easy to test interoperability
between protocols that may use different proprietary FEC schemes in
production in their first implementations.
The FEC Payload ID format for FEC Encoding ID 0 is described in
Subsection 2.1. The FEC Object Transmission Information has the
following specific information:
o The FEC Encoding ID 0.
o For each source block of the object, the length in bytes of the
encoding symbol carried in the packet payload. This length MUST be
the same for all packets sent for the same source block, but MAY be
different for different source blocks in the same object.
o For each source block of the object, the length of the source block
in bytes. Typically, each source block for the object has the same
length and thus only one length common to all source blocks need be
communicated, but this is not a requirement. For convenience, the
source block length MAY be a multiple of the length of the encoding
symbol carried in one packet payload.
How this out-of-band information is communicated is outside the scope
of this document.
Other information, such as the object length and the number of source
blocks of the object for an object of known length may be needed by a
receiver to support some delivery models, i.e., reliable bulk data
delivery.
2.3. Compact FEC scheme
This subsection reserves FEC Encoding ID 130 for the Compact FEC
scheme that is described in this subsection. This is an
Under-Specified FEC scheme. This FEC scheme is similar in spirit to
the Compact No-Code FEC scheme, except that a non-trivial FEC
encoding (that is Under-Specified) may be used to generate encoding
Luby & Vicisano Experimental [Page 5]
RFC 3695 FEC Schemes February 2004
symbol(s) placed in the payload of each packet and a corresponding
FEC decoder may be used to produce the source block from received
packets.
The FEC Payload ID format for FEC Encoding ID 0 is described in
Subsection 2.1. The FEC Object Transmission Information has the
following specific information:
o The FEC Encoding ID 130.
o The FEC Instance ID associated with the FEC Encoding ID 130 to be
used.
o For each source block of the object, the aggregate length of the
encoding symbol(s) carried in one packet payload. This length MUST
be the same for all packets sent for the same source block, but MAY
be different for different source blocks in the same object.
o For each source block of the object, the length of the source block
in bytes. Typically, each source block for the object has the same
length and thus only one length common to all source blocks need to
be communicated, but this is not a requirement. For convenience,
the source block length MAY be a multiple of the aggregate length
of the encoding symbol(s) carried in one packet payload.
How this out-of-band information is communicated is outside the scope
of this document.
Other information, such as the object length and the number of source
blocks of the object for an object of known length may be needed by a
receiver to support some delivery models, i.e., reliable bulk data
delivery.
3. Compact No-Code FEC scheme
In this section we describe a Fully-Specified FEC scheme
corresponding to FEC Encoding ID 0. The primary purpose for
introducing these FEC schemes is to allow simple interoperability
testing between different implementations of the same protocol
instantiation that uses the FEC building block.
The Compact No-Code FEC scheme does not require FEC encoding or
decoding. Instead, each encoding symbol consists of consecutive
bytes of a source block of the object. The FEC Payload ID consists
of two fields, the 16-bit Source Block Number and the 16-bit Encoding
Symbol ID, as described in Subsection 2.1. The relative lengths of
these fields were chosen for their similarity with the corresponding
fields of the FEC Payload ID associated with FEC Encoding ID 130, and
Luby & Vicisano Experimental [Page 6]
RFC 3695 FEC Schemes February 2004
because of this testing interoperability of the FEC scheme associated
with FEC Encoding ID 0 provides a first basic step to testing
interoperability of an FEC scheme associated with FEC Encoding ID
130.
Subsection 2.1. describes mapping between source blocks of an object
and Source Block Numbers. The next two subsections describe the
details of how the Compact No-Code FEC scheme operates for each
source block of an object. These subsections are not meant to
suggest a particular implementation, but just to illustrate the
general algorithm through the description of a simple, non-optimized
implementation.
3.1. Source Block Logistics
Let X > 0 be the length of a source block in bytes. The value of X
is part of the FEC Object Transmission Information, and how this
information is communicated to a receiver is outside the scope of
this document.
Let L > 0 be the length of the encoding symbol contained in the
payload of each packet. There are several possible ways the length
of the encoding symbol L can be communicated to the receiver, and how
this is done is outside the scope of this document. As an example, a
sender could fix the packet payload length to be L in order to place
the encoding symbol of length L into the packet, and then a receiver
could infer the value of L from the length of the received packet
payload. It is REQUIRED that L be the same for all packets sent for
the same source block but MAY be different for different source
blocks within the same object.
For a given source block X bytes in length with Source Block Number
I, let N = X/L rounded up to the nearest integer. The encoding
symbol carried in the payload of a packet consists of a consecutive
portion of the source block. The source block is logically
partitioned into N encoding symbols, each L bytes in length, and the
corresponding Encoding Symbol IDs range from 0 through N-1 starting
at the beginning of the source block and proceeding to the end.
Thus, the encoding symbol with Encoding Symbol ID Y consists of bytes
L*Y through L*(Y+1)-1 of the source block, where the bytes of the
source block are numbered from 0 through X-1. If X/L is not integral
then the last encoding symbol with Encoding Symbol ID = N-1 consists
of bytes L*(N-1) through the last byte X-1 of the source block, and
the remaining L*N - X bytes of the encoding symbol can by padded out
with zeroes.
Luby & Vicisano Experimental [Page 7]
RFC 3695 FEC Schemes February 2004
As an example, suppose that the source block length X = 20,400 and
encoding symbol length L = 1,000. The encoding symbol with Encoding
Symbol ID = 10 contains bytes 10,000 through 10,999 of the source
block, and the encoding symbol with Encoding Symbol ID = 20 contains
bytes 20,000 through the last byte 20,399 of the source block and the
remaining 600 bytes of the encoding symbol can be padded with zeroes.
There are no restrictions beyond the rules stated above on how a
sender generates encoding symbols to send from a source block.
However, it is recommended that an implementor of refer to the
companion document [7] for general advice.
In the next subsection a procedure is recommended for sending and
receiving source blocks.
3.2. Sending and Receiving a Source Block
The following carousel procedure is RECOMMENDED for a sender to
generate packets containing FEC Payload IDs and corresponding
encoding symbols for a source block with Source Block Number I. Set
the length in bytes of an encoding symbol to a fixed value L which is
reasonable for a packet payload (e.g., ensure that the total packet
size does not exceed the MTU) and that is smaller than the source
block length X, e.g., L = 1,000 for X >= 1,000. Initialize Y to a
value randomly chosen in the interval [0..N-1]. Repeat the following
for each packet of the source block to be sent.
o If Y < N-1 then generate the encoding symbol consisting of the L
bytes of the source block numbered L*Y through L*(Y+1)-1.
o If Y = N-1 then generate the encoding symbol consisting of the last
X - L*(N-1) bytes of the source block numbered L*(N-1) through X-1
followed by L*N - X padding bytes of zeroes.
o Set the Source Block Length to X, set the Source Block Number = I,
set the Encoding Symbol ID = Y, place the FEC Payload ID and the
encoding symbol into the packet to send.
o In preparation for the generation of the next packet: if Y < N-1
then increment Y by one else if Y = N-1 then reset Y to zero.
The following procedure is RECOMMENDED for a receiver to recover the
source block based on receiving packets for the source block from a
sender that is using the carousel procedure describe above. The
receiver can determine from which source block a received packet was
generated by the Source Block Number carried in the FEC Payload ID.
Upon receipt of the first FEC Payload ID for a source block, the
receiver uses the source block length received out-of-band as part of
Luby & Vicisano Experimental [Page 8]
RFC 3695 FEC Schemes February 2004
the FEC Object Transmission Information to determine the length X in
bytes of the source block, and allocates space for the X bytes that
the source block requires. The receiver also computes the length L
of the encoding symbol in the payload of the packet by substracting
the packet header length from the total length of the received packet
(and the receiver checks that this length is the same in each
subsequent received packet from the same source block). After
calculating N = X/L rounded up to the nearest integer, the receiver
allocates a boolean array RECEIVED[0..N-1] with all N entries
initialized to false to track received encoding symbols. The
receiver keeps receiving packets for the source block as long as
there is at least one entry in RECEIVED still set to false or until
the application decides to give up on this source block and move on
to other source blocks. For each received packet for the source
block (including the first packet) the steps to be taken to help
recover the source block are as follows. Let Y be the value of the
Encoding Symbol ID within FEC Payload ID of the packet. If Y < N-1
then the receiver copies the L bytes of the encoding symbol into
bytes numbered L*Y through L*(Y+1)-1 of the space reserved for the
source block. If Y = N-1 then the receiver copies the first
X - L*(N-1) bytes of the encoding symbol into bytes numbered L*(N-1)
through X-1 of the space reserved for the source block. In either
case, the receiver sets RECEIVED[Y] = true. At each point in time,
the receiver has successfully recovered bytes L*Y through L*(Y+1)-1
of the source block for all Y in the interval [0..N-1] for which
RECEIVED[Y] is true. If all N entries of RECEIVED are true then the
receiver has recovered the entire source block.
4. Usage Examples
The following subsections outline some usage examples for FEC
Encoding IDs 0 and 130.
4.1. Reliable Bulk Data Delivery
One possible delivery model that can be supported using any FEC
scheme described in this document is reliable bulk data delivery. In
this model, one or more potentially large objects are delivered
reliably to potentially multiple receivers using multicast. For this
delivery model the unique SBN mode is often used. Using this mode
the maximum length of an object that can be delivered is at most the
number of possible source blocks times the maximum length of a source
block. If the aggregate length of encoding symbols carried in a
packet payload is L bytes then the maximum length of a source block
is the number of distinct Encoding Symbol IDs times L, or 2^16 * L
for FEC Encoding IDs 0 and 130. If for example L = 1 KB then the
length of a source block can be up to around 65 MB. However, in
practice the length of the source block is usually shorter than the
Luby & Vicisano Experimental [Page 9]
RFC 3695 FEC Schemes February 2004
number of distinct Encoding Symbol IDs times L, and thus generally
the length of a source block is a fraction of 65 MB. Since the
number of distinct Source Block Numbers is 2^16, for this example an
object can be more than a terabyte.
The non-unique SBN mode of delivery can also be effectively used for
reliably delivering large object. In this case, the length of the
object delivered could be arbitrarily large, depending on the
out-of-band mapping between source blocks and Source Block Numbers.
4.2. Block-Stream Delivery
Another possible delivery model that can be supported using FEC
Encoding ID 0 or 130 is block-stream delivery of an object. In this
model, the source blocks of a potentially indeterminate length object
are to be reliably delivered in sequence to one or multiple
receivers. Thus, the object could be partitioned into source blocks
on-the-fly at the sender as the data arrives, and all packets
generated for one source block are sent before any packets are sent
for the subsequent source block. In this example, all source blocks
could be of the same length and this length could be communicated
out-of-band to a receiver before the receiver joins the session. For
this delivery model it is not required that the Source Block Numbers
for all source blocks are unique. However, a suggested usage is to
use all 2^16 Source Block Numbers for consecutive source blocks of
the object, and thus the time between reuse of a Source Block Number
is the time it takes to send the packets for 2^16 source blocks.
This delivery model can be used to reliably deliver an object to one
or multiple receivers, using either an ACK or NACK based
acknowledgement based scheme for each source block. As another
example the sender could send a fixed number of packets for each
source block without any acknowledgements from receivers, for example
in a live streaming without feedback application.
5. Security Considerations
The security considerations for this document are the same as they
are for RFC 3452 [4].
6. IANA Considerations
Values of FEC Encoding IDs and FEC Instance IDs are subject to IANA
registration. For general guidelines on IANA considerations as they
apply to this document, see RFC 3452 [4]. This document assigns the
Fully-Specified FEC Encoding ID 0 under the ietf:rmt:fec:encoding
name-space to "Compact No-Code". The FEC Payload ID format and
corresponding FEC Object Transmission Information associated with FEC
Luby & Vicisano Experimental [Page 10]
RFC 3695 FEC Schemes February 2004
Encoding ID 0 is described in Subsections 2.1 and 2.2, and the
corresponding FEC scheme is described in Section 3.
This document assigns the Under-Specified FEC Encoding ID 130 under
the ietf:rmt:fec:encoding name-space to "Compact FEC". The FEC
Payload ID format and corresponding FEC Object Transmission
Information associated with FEC Encoding ID 130 are described in
Subsections 2.1 and 2.3.
As FEC Encoding ID 130 is Under-Specified, a new "FEC Instance ID"
sub-name-space must be established, in accordance to RFC 3452. Hence
this document also establishes a new "FEC Instance ID" registry named
ietf:rmt:fec:encoding:instance:130
and scoped by
ietf:rmt:fec:encoding = 130 (Compact FEC)
As per RFC 3452, the values that can be assigned within
ietf:rmt:fec:encoding:instance:130 are non-negative numeric indices.
Assignment requests are granted on a "First Come First Served" basis.
RFC 3452 specifies additional criteria that MUST be met for the
assignment within the generic ietf:rmt:fec:encoding:instance name-
space. These criteria also apply to
ietf:rmt:fec:encoding:instance:130.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP
9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[3] Kermode, R. and L. Vicisano, "Author Guidelines for Reliable
Multicast Transport (RMT) Building Blocks and Protocol
Instantiation Documents", RFC 3269, April 2002.
[4] Luby, M., Vicisano, L., Gemmell, J., Rizzo, L., Handley, M. and
J. Crowcroft, "Forward Error Correction (FEC) Building Block",
RFC 3452, December 2002.
Luby & Vicisano Experimental [Page 11]
RFC 3695 FEC Schemes February 2004
[5] Mankin, A., Romanow, A., Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IETF
Criteria for Evaluating Reliable Multicast Transport and
Application Protocols", RFC 2357, June 1998.
[6] Whetten, B., Vicisano, L., Kermode, R., Handley, M., Floyd, S.
and M. Luby, "Reliable Multicast Transport Building Blocks for
One-to-Many Bulk-Data Transfer", RFC 3048, January 2001.
7.2. Informative References
[7] Luby, M., Vicisano, L., Gemmell, J., Rizzo, L., Handley, M. and
J. Crowcroft, "The Use of Forward Error Correction (FEC) in
Reliable Multicast", RFC 3453, December 2002.
8. Authors' Addresses
Michael Luby
Digital Fountain, Inc.
39141 Civic Center Drive
Suite 300
Fremont, CA 94538
EMail:
[email protected]
Lorenzo Vicisano
cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Dr.,
San Jose, CA, USA, 95134
EMail:
[email protected]
Luby & Vicisano Experimental [Page 12]
RFC 3695 FEC Schemes February 2004
9. 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-
[email protected].
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Luby & Vicisano Experimental [Page 13]
