BLISS WG J. Elwell Internet-Draft Siemens Enterprise Communications Intended status: Informational GmbH & Co KG Expires: August 24, 2008 February 21, 2008 An Analysis of Automatic Call Handling Implementation Issues in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) draft-ietf-bliss-ach-analysis-01.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 24, 2008. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Abstract This discusses problems associated with automatic call handling (ACH) when using the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). This work is being discussed on the bliss@ietf.org mailing list. Elwell Expires August 24, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Automatic Call Handling February 2008 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Examples of ACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Known problem areas with ACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Conflict between proxy and UA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Conflict between UAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3. Obtaining information from UA for ACH at proxy . . . . . . 6 3.4. Informing the calling UA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.5. Scope of conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.6. Configuring the proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1. Proxy versus UA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2. Avoiding inconsistent configurations . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.3. Enterprise and carrier environments . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Potential measures that could be taken . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.1. Conflict between proxy and UA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2. Conflict between UAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.3. Obtaining information from UA for ACH at proxy . . . . . . 12 5.4. Informing the calling UA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.5. Scope of conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.6. Configuring the proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 15 Elwell Expires August 24, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Automatic Call Handling February 2008 1. Introduction The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] establishes calls or sessions for real-time communication between users. When a call is targeted at a called user, often the call is subject to some automatic treatment to determine whether to present the call to the user or take some alternative action such as forwarding to voicemail. Similarly, if some condition arises after presenting a call to the called user but before answer, automatic treatment can lead to some alternative action. Automatic treatment is in accordance with policy determined in advance by the user or the user's organization. This automatic treatment of incoming calls is referred to as automatic call handling (ACH) in this document. In order to encourage innovation, ACH is deliberately not specified in RFC 3261 or in RFCs that specify extensions to SIP. However, the flexibility that this affords has sometimes led to problems, where different implementations have approached the issue in different ways, leading to unexpected and often unwanted behavior when those implementations are deployed together. This document analyses the sources of problems with ACH. A survey was conducted prior to IETF70 to get a feeling for what are common practices in this area. Although the number of responses was disappointingly small (see results [1]), in some cases it did give a clue as to the most common practices. In the remainder of this document, this is referred to as "the survey". 2. Examples of ACH ACH can occur prior to or instead of presenting an incoming call to a called user or after presentation but before the called user answers the call. The particular treatment applied to a call is generally dependent on a number of factors, examples of which are as follows: o Whether there are other registered contacts that can handle the call (e.g., a registered audio UA for an audio call). o Whether the user's UA (or UAs) is known to be busy on another call. o Whether the user has failed to answer the call within a given number of seconds. o Whether the user is known to be unwilling to receive calls at the present time (a condition often known as Do Not Disturb, DND). Elwell Expires August 24, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Automatic Call Handling February 2008 o Whether the user is known not to be available (e.g., on vacation). o Whether an alternative user (e.g., a colleague, an assistant, another family member) is known to be available. o Whether the AoR at which the call is targeted represents a single user or a team or group of users. o Time of day, day of the week, date, etc.. o The type of call (e.g., audio, audio plus video, messaging, etc.). o The source of the call (e.g., whether the caller is anonymous, whether the caller is blacklisted or whitelisted, which organization the caller belongs to, etc.). The conditions above are detected though local information at the entity performing ACH, by access to presence information or through information received via SIP signalling (e.g., a UA's response to an INVITE request). Examples of particular treatment to be applied to a call if appropriate conditions are met are as follows: o Reject the call, with an appropriate indication to the caller. This indication may or may not reveal the actual condition that led to rejection. o Forward the call to another UA serving that user (e.g., voicemail, a mobile UA, a UA at another location). o Forward the call to another user, e.g., the next member of a team, an assistant. o Modify the nature of the call (e.g., downgrade from audio to messaging). o Any of the above, but impacting presentation of the call at a given UA, without impacting presentation at other UAs serving the user. A user can specify quite complex sets of rules for ACH. For example, "if presence indicates I am in a meeting, or if my desk phone is busy, or if I do not reply within 15 seconds, forward calls to my assistant between the hours of 09.00 and 17.00, Monday to Friday, but at other times forward to my voicemail, unless the call is from my home or my partner's mobile phone, in which case forward to my mobile phone". Elwell Expires August 24, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Automatic Call Handling February 2008 3. Known problem areas with ACH 3.1. Conflict between proxy and UA A significant problem area with ACH is interactions between proxies (or B2BUAs) that perform ACH and UAs that perform ACH. The domain proxy for a user is configured to treat incoming calls in a certain way under certain conditions. One of the user's UAs is configured to treat incoming calls in a different way under the same or overlapping conditions. If the condition can be detected by the proxy without presenting the call to the UA, the proxy will win and the user may wonder why the action configured at the UA is not being taken. For example, if the proxy detects a DND condition from a presence server and forwards calls to voicemail, any script at the UA to forward private calls to a mobile phone would never execute. This may or may not be what the user (or his/her organization) desires to happen. Alternatively, if a condition is detected by a UA before it is detected at the proxy, the action determined by the UA will "win", unless the proxy is somehow able to figure out what has happened and apply its own action. For example, if a phone determines it is busy and returns a 302 response code to forward the call elsewhere or performs "call waiting" action, this might prevent the proxy taking whatever action it would have taken on receipt of a 486 response. This may or may not be what the user (or his/her organization) desires to happen. If a UA attempts ACH, it may be possible for proxy to override it, e.g., by taking account of the response code returned or, in the case of a 3xx response code, whether the UA has provided further information concerning the reason for redirection in accordance with RFC 4458 [RFC4458]. The survey showed that the majority of proxies perform ACH without first presenting the call to the UA, at least for certain types of ACH. The survey also showed that the majority of UAs implement some form of UA. This does seem to confirm the potential for conflict between proxy and UA. If, as a result of ACH, the call required redirection, 302 was the response code used in the majority of situations. Only a minority of such implementations used RFC 4458 to provide more information about the reason for redirection. 3.2. Conflict between UAs Where an incoming call is forked to multiple UAs, there is potential for different UAs to be configured to perform different actions under Elwell Expires August 24, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Automatic Call Handling February 2008 the same or overlapping conditions. With parallel forking (where the INVITE request is sent to each UA at approximately the same time), results can be indeterminate and might depend on which UA responds first. With serial forking, this is likely to be more deterministic, but UAs would need to be configured taking into account the order in which the proxy presents calls to the UAs. When a proxy forks a call, it can invoke ACH based on the first UA to respond, can wait for all UAs to respond or behave in some other way (e.g., act immediately on certain response codes). The survey did not show a bias towards any one behavior. 3.3. Obtaining information from UA for ACH at proxy When ACH is performed at a proxy, it sometimes requires information from the UA, in response to the INVITE request. If this information does not arrive in the form expected by the proxy (e.g, a particular response code), ACH will be adversely impacted. For example, if the proxy is configured to perform forwarding on DND and relies on the DND condition to be indicated in the INVITE response, it depends on the UA indicating the condition in the form expected by the proxy. As there is no standardized means of indicating DND in a response (see [I-D.elwell-bliss-dnd]), this can be a problem. Furthermore, there might be more than one flavour of DND (e.g., with/without forwarding to voicemail), requiring different responses. The survey showed that 486 (Busy Here) is the response code most commonly expected by proxies for indicating DND, but that accounted for less than half of the responses. Other known response codes in use include 406 (Not Accepetable), 480 (Temporarily Unavailable), 600 (Busy Everywhere) and 603 (Decline). The survey also showed that even for the busy condition, proxies expected different response codes. Although a small majority expected 486 (Busy Here), other expectations included 480 (Temporarily Unavailable) and 600 (Busy Everywhere). The survey did not yield significant information concerning response codes issued by UAs. 3.4. Informing the calling UA A related problem is informing the calling UA, and hence the caller, what has happened. In the case where ACH results in rejection of the call, this might be just a case of sending back an appropriate response code. Considerations are similar to those for a proxy in Section 3.3, except that privacy might require the proxy to send a different response code rather than the one reflecting the condition Elwell Expires August 24, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Automatic Call Handling February 2008 encountered. For example, the user might not wish the caller to know about his absence. The choice of response code might not be an interoperability issue if the calling UA is relatively dumb, but might be an issue if there is an application that takes the response code into account. Where there is forking proxy between the entity performing ACH and the calling UA, information may be lost because of the Heterogeneous Error Response Forking Problem (HERFP). Where ACH results in forwarding (to a different AoR or a different contact for the same AoR), this can be achieved by retargeting or redirection. In the case of retargeting, the calling UA receives no information, apart from a final response and perhaps identity from the retargeted-to user. On the other hand, if redirection is used, the calling UA will receive a 3xx response, the contact URI in which could indicate the source of the redirection and the reason, in accordance with [RFC4458]. 3.5. Scope of conditions When an INVITE request is forked to multiple UAs, the user may or may not require a condition at one UA to be considered as applying to other branches. This includes branches already active (through parallel forking) or branches yet to be activated (through serial forking). This can impact when to invoke ACH at the proxy, i.e., whether to perform ACH when one UA reports an appropriate condition (cancelling other active branches if necessary) or to wait for the outcome on other branches. Although to a large extent this issue can be handled by appropriate scripting at the proxy, an important consideration is how to treat the 6xx class of responses. For example, if a UA issues a 600 Busy Everywhere response (as opposed to a 486 Busy response), what is the scope of "everywhere"? A simple interpretation is that it literally means "everywhere", and all other branches should be abandoned and the 6xx response passed back to the caller if no other ACH is prescribed for this condition. However, this interpretation is not always reasonable. If a user has several phones, it might be reasonable to interpret a 600 response from one phone as meaning that all other phones are busy, but if the user also has voicemail it is unlikely that that too should be treated as busy. Also, if ACH requires forwarding to a different user (different AoR) on busy, it might be expected that this would take place even on receipt of a 600 response from a UA. Another example is the 603 Decline response code. This is often is intended to be applied everywhere. Elwell Expires August 24, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Automatic Call Handling February 2008 There is also a question of whether a proxy should trust a UA to decide that all other branches need to be abandoned, particularly in applications like call centres, where the different branches might be different agents, rather than leading to different devices belonging to the same user. It might wise to consider this a policy matter. The survey gave only a very small number of answers on the issue of handling 6xx responses, with no conclusions to be drawn other than that forwarding to voice mail is sometimes allowed following a 6xx response. 3.6. Configuring the proxy If ACH is performed at the proxy, the user needs a means to configure the proxy with the required rules. There is no SIP means of doing this, but a number of mechanisms can perform the basis for this task, e.g.: o Via a web page. o By uploading a CPL [RFC3880] script. o Via a web services interface based on SOAP. o Via Computer Supported Telecommunication Applications (CSTA) [CSTA]. The survey showed that web pages and SOAP-based web services were the most common mechanisms supported by proxies, but the sample was very small. The majority of UA implementations provided a web user interface. Without a single standardized way of configuring a proxy, there is a danger that the UA and proxy might not support a common method, requiring the user to employ other means (e.g., using a different device, contacting a support centre). Furthermore, it might lead the user to configuring ACH at the UA when in practice ACH at the proxy would serve the user's needs better. Related to this is the means by which a UA (and hence the user) can discover how the proxy is configured. Most of the mechanisms listed above are applicable, and also a SIP SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY mechanism could be used. The survey indicated that only a minority of proxies provided support in this respect. Elwell Expires August 24, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Automatic Call Handling February 2008 4. Discussion 4.1. Proxy versus UA The end-to-end principle of SIP would suggest that ACH at the UA is more appropriate than ACH at the proxy. However, certain considerations make ACH at the proxy more viable or even essential. ACH in the event that there is no registered contact obviously can only be performed by the proxy. A proxy is more easily able to take account of the state of other UAs, e.g., by waiting for all branches of a forked call to respond before invoking ACH. Although a UA can use techniques such as the registration event package [RFC3680] in combination with the dialog event package [RFC4235] to determine the state of other UAs, this is complex, may not yield the information required, and may suffer from timing-related inconsistencies. A proxy needs to be configured once and can perform ACH independently of the number of UAs involved. Obtaining consistent behaviour using ACH at the UA may involve configuring multiple UAs and keeping their configurations aligned. The UA configuration framework [I-D.ietf-sipping-config-framework] may be a suitable mechanism for this and would require a means for the user to configure the profile delivery server. However, there can be no guarantee that all UAs will download a revised configuration at the same time, so it can lead to a time window when inconsistent behaviour may occur. With these considerations in mind, a proxy will often turn out to be a more suitable place for performing ACH. On the other hand, there may be situations in which UA-specific ACH may be required, and it may not be feasible to configure the proxy to provide this level of granularity. For example, it may be required to take one action if the desk UA is busy but a different action if the mobile UA is busy. Convincing use cases for this are hard to find, but it cannot be ruled out. A possible approach here is to use proxy-based ACH as the default handling for all UAs and UA-based ACH for any UA-specific exceptions. 4.2. Avoiding inconsistent configurations Given that there is frequently a need to perform ACH at the proxy, problems can be avoided by turning off ACH at all UAs. There may be exceptions to this, e.g., where there is need for a specific UA to perform actions different from default actions carried out by the proxy, or where there is a requirement for behavior not supported by Elwell Expires August 24, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Automatic Call Handling February 2008 the proxy. Where ACH does need to be configured at one or more UAs, care must be taken to avoid unintentional conflicts. Use of the SIP configuration framework can help to ensure consistent handling at all UAs. One consideration during the work on profiles for use with the SIP configuration framework might be the downloading of policy relating to ACH, such that ACH could be suppressed in order to ensure that proxy-based ACH operates correctly. 4.3. Enterprise and carrier environments Considerations for ACH will often differ between enterprise and carrier environments. In enterprise environments, enterprise policy will often govern what a user can and cannot do. This does not necessarily mean that ACH will be done at a proxy, because the enterprise will probably manage UAs too and ensure that they behave in line with policy, although proxy-based ACH will often be easier to accomplish. In a carrier environment, everything can be expected to be under the control of the user. Proxy-based ACH is still relevant, however, particularly for mobile devices that are often out of reach or turned off. Handling such as team calls (where any team member can be selected according to availability) is perhaps more likely in enterprise, although in a residential environment it could be used for finding any family member. Despite these different considerations, requirements are similar to a large extent and the same solution should be sought for both environments. 5. Potential measures that could be taken In this section we explore potential measures that can be taken to some of the problems identified above 5.1. Conflict between proxy and UA This appears to be an important problem to solve, in order to have proxies and UAs from mixed vendors. One approach is to specify that particular features that must or must not be implemented in a proxy and particular features that must or must not be implemented in UA. This is likely to fail for a number of reasons: Elwell Expires August 24, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Automatic Call Handling February 2008 o There are far too many possible features, and enumerating and standardizing individual features is contrary to the philosophy of SIP and likely to inhibit innovation. o For a given feature, there will be some deployments where it makes sense to do it at the proxy and other deployments where it makes sense to do it at the UA. It will often be impracticable to choose one. o Proxy vendors and UA vendors will want to provide as many features as possible on their products and are likely to ignore any recommendation not to implement a particular feature. Stipulating that ACH as a whole must always be done at the proxy or must always be done at the UA is clearly out of the question, because each has some advantages, depending on circumstances, and also because vendors of one or the other will not be prepared to give up producing features that play an important part in differentiating their products. Therefore it has to be accepted that ACH will be implemented on proxies and UAs, with feature overlap between the two. The challenge then is to ensure that, when deployed, the two can co-exist in a sensible way. It should be possible to control whether a proxy defers to a UA or vice versa. For a proxy to defer to a UA, it requires the proxy to deliver an INVITE request to a UA before taking any ACH action. Depending on the response of the UA, the proxy may then perform its own ACH action. For a UA to defer to a proxy, it should report any conditions back to the proxy (e.g., by means of a suitable response to the INVITE request) rather than taking unilateral action such as redirecting or placing the call in a waiting state. In other words, it should be possible to turn off ACH at a UA. There are several ways to achieve this control: o Configure the UA and proxy independently. The SIP configuration framework [I-D.ietf-sipping-config-framework] could be used to configure the UA. o Configure the UA (e.g., by means of the SIP configuration framework [I-D.ietf-sipping-config-framework]) and use SIP to instruct the proxy (e.g., by means of an indicator in REGISTER requests). o Configure the proxy and use SIP to instruct the UA (e.g., by means of an indicator in inbound INVITE requests or in the 200 response Elwell Expires August 24, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Automatic Call Handling February 2008 to a REGISTER request). 5.2. Conflict between UAs This can really only be addressed by configuration. The SIP configuration framework can help here. In fact, that would normally configure all UAs having the same AoR with the same information. Configuration outside this framework (e.g., local actions at the device) might introduce differences (intentional or otherwise). There seems little action that BLISS can take to address this issue. 5.3. Obtaining information from UA for ACH at proxy There seems to be a case for more precisely defining or at least recommending response codes to be used in certain conditions. The most obvious condition is DND. Alternatively it could be approached from the other direction, i.e., more precisely defining the semantics of various response codes. 5.4. Informing the calling UA Whilst this might be interesting, it is unlikely to impact interoperability and is not seen as a priority issue for BLISS. 5.5. Scope of conditions There seems to be a case for specifying the intended scope of 6xx response codes. Ideally this should be a single specification for the entire class, although we may find that individual members of the class require special consideration. Probably a 6xx response code should apply only to other contacts registered for that same AoR, and should probably also exclude special contacts such as voice mail systems. At present a [RFC3840] defines a feature tag to indicate that a UA is an automaton, and another to indicate that it supports audio. Consideration should be given as to whether these are sufficient to determine that a UA is a voicemail server. 5.6. Configuring the proxy General methods for configuring proxies (including synchronization of multiple proxies serving a domain) are considered outside the scope of BLISS work. There may be justification for studying methods by which a user or UA can discover and possibly change the configuration of the proxy as far as ACH is concerned. Often a user can do this by means such as web pages. Such methods are not suitable for the UA. Perhaps the indication proposed in Section 5.1 is sufficient. Elwell Expires August 24, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Automatic Call Handling February 2008 6. Conclusions TODO: populate this section 7. IANA considerations None. 8. Security considerations This document just discusses interoperability issues relating to ACH. It does not define any new protocol or practices and therefore does not introduce any security issues, other than the possible user desire not to disclose ACH actions to callers. 9. Acknowledgements The author would like to acknowledge the assistance of Jason Fischl, Shida Schubert and Srivatsa Srinivasan in writing this draft, and also input on specific implementations from various members of the BLISS WG. 10. Informative References [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. [RFC3680] Rosenberg, J., "A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Package for Registrations", RFC 3680, March 2004. [RFC3840] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and P. Kyzivat, "Indicating User Agent Capabilities in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3840, August 2004. [RFC3880] Lennox, J., Wu, X., and H. Schulzrinne, "Call Processing Language (CPL): A Language for User Control of Internet Telephony Services", RFC 3880, October 2004. [RFC4235] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and R. Mahy, "An INVITE- Initiated Dialog Event Package for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4235, November 2005. Elwell Expires August 24, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Automatic Call Handling February 2008 [RFC4458] Jennings, C., Audet, F., and J. Elwell, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) URIs for Applications such as Voicemail and Interactive Voice Response (IVR)", RFC 4458, April 2006. [I-D.elwell-bliss-dnd] Elwell, J. and S. Srinivasan, "An Analysis of Do Not Disturb (DND) Implementations in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", draft-elwell-bliss-dnd-01 (work in progress), November 2007. [I-D.ietf-sipping-config-framework] Channabasappa, S., "A Framework for Session Initiation Protocol User Agent Profile Delivery", draft-ietf-sipping-config-framework-15 (work in progress), February 2008. [CSTA] "International Standard ISO/IEC 18051 "Information Technology - Telecommunications and information exchange between systems - Services for Computer Supported Telecommunications Applications (CSTA) Phase III"". [1] <http://www.bliss-ietf.org/ach_survey.html> Author's Address John Elwell Siemens Enterprise Communications GmbH & Co KG Hofmannstrasse 51 D-81379 Munich Germany Phone: +44 115 943 4989 Email: john.elwell@siemens.com Elwell Expires August 24, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Automatic Call Handling February 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 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Elwell Expires August 24, 2008 [Page 15]
