Network Working Group J. Yao, Ed.
Internet-Draft W. Mao, Ed.
Expires: November 13, 2006 CNNIC
May 12, 2006
SMTP extension for internationalized email address
draft-ietf-eai-smtpext-00.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 November 9, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
Internationalized eMail Address (IMA) includes two parts, the local
part and the domain part. The way email addresses are used by
protocols are different from the way domain names are used. The most
critical difference is that emails are delivered through a chain of
peering clients and servers while domain names are resolved by name
servers by looking up their own tables. In addition to this, email
transport protocols SMTP and ESMTP provide a negotiation mechanism
through which clients can make decisions for further processing. So
Yao & Mao Expires November 9, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IMA May 2006
IMA is different from the internationalized domain name (IDN). IMA
can be solved by exploiting the negotiation mechanism while IDN can
not use the negotiation mechanism. So IMA should be solved in the
mail transport-level using the negotiation mechanism, which is an
architecturally desirable approach. This document specifies the use
of SMTP extension for IMA delivery. It also mentions the backward
compatible mechanism for downgrade procedure, as specified in an
associated specification. The protocol proposed here is MTA-level
solution which is feasible, architecturally more elegant, and not as
difficult to deploy in relevant communities.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Role of this specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Proposal Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Mail Transport-level Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Framework for the Internationalization Extension . . . . . 4
2.2. The Address Internationalization Service Extension . . . . 4
2.3. Extended Mailbox Address Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. The ALT-ADDRESS and ATOMIC parameter . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5. Additional ESMTP Changes and Clarifications . . . . . . . 8
2.5.1. The Initial SMTP Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5.2. Trace Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5.3. Mailing List Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5.4. Message Header Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Potential problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. Impact to IRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. POP and IMAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Impact to RFC 2476 and many email related RFC . . . . . . 9
4. Implementation Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 14
Yao & Mao Expires November 9, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IMA May 2006
1. Introduction
1.1. Role of this specification
An overview document [IMA-overview] specifies the requirements for,
and components of, full internationalization of electronic mail.
This document specifies an element of that work, specifically the
definition of an SMTP extension [RFC1869] for IMA transport delivery.
1.2. Proposal Context
In order to use internationalized email addresses, we need to
internationalize both the domain part and the local part of the email
address. Domain part of the email address has been internationalized
through IDNA [RFC3490]. But the local part of the email address
still remains as non-internationalized.
The syntax of Internet email addresses is restricted to a subset of
7-bit ASCII for the domain-part, with a less-restricted subset for
the local-part. These restrictions are specified in RFC 2821
[RFC2821]. To be able to deliver internationalized email through
SMTP servers, we need to upgrade SMTP server to be able to carry IMA.
Since older SMTP servers and the mail-reading clients and other
systems that are downstream from them may not be prepared to handle
these extended addresses, an SMTP extension is specified to identify
and protect the addressing mechanism.
This specification describes a change to the email transport
mechanism that permits IMA in both the envelope and header fields of
messages. The context for the change is described in [IMA-overview]
and the details of the header changes are described in [IMA-
utf8header].
1.3. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "SHALL", "REQUIRED", "SHOULD", "RECOMMENDED",
and "MAY" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC
2119 [RFC2119].
All specialized terms used in this specification are defined in the
IMA overview [IMA-overview] or in [RFC2821] and [RFC2822].
This document is being discussed on the IMA mailing list. See
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima for information about
subscribing. The list's archive is at
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima/index.html.
Yao & Mao Expires November 9, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IMA May 2006
2. Mail Transport-level Protocol
2.1. Framework for the Internationalization Extension
The following service extension is defined:
1. The name of the SMTP service extension is "Internationalized
Email and Extensions";
2. The EHLO keyword value associated with this extension is
"IEmail";
3. No parameter values are defined for this EHLO keyword value. In
order to permit future (although unanticipated) extensions, the
EHLO response MUST NOT contain any parameters for that keyword.
If a parameter appears, the SMTP client that is conformant to
this version of this specification MUST treat the ESMTP response
as if the IMA keyword did not appear.
4. Two optional parameters are added to the SMTP MAIL and RCPT
commands. The first parameter is named as ALT-ADDRESS. The
second is ATOMIC. The "ALT-ADDRESS" requires an all-ASCII
address as a substitute for the internationalized (UTF-8 coded)
address that we call the primary address; you can learn more in
[IMA-overview] or [IMA-downgrading]. The value of "ALT-ADDRESS"
may be set by sender or be gotten by using some algorithmic
transformation according to the value of "ATOMIC". The "ATOMIC"
has one of two values: y or n. The parameter "ATOMIC" is
designed to assert whether the address is atomic, which means
that the primary address(IMA) can be safely transformed or
converted to the respect ASCII email address via ACE (ASCII
Compatible Encoding) if the value is 'y' or not if the value is
'n'.
5. No additional SMTP verbs are defined by this extension.
6. Servers offering this extension MUST provide support for, and
announce, the 8BITMIME extension [RFC1652].
2.2. The Address Internationalization Service Extension
An SMTP Server that announces this extension MUST be prepared to
accept a UTF-8 string [RFC3629] in any position in which RFC 2821
specifies that a "mailbox" may appear. That string must be parsed
only as specified in RFC 2821, i.e., by separating the mailbox into
source route, local part and domain part, using only the characters
colon (U+003A), comma (U+002C), and at-sign (U+0040) as specified
there. Once isolated by this parsing process, the local part MUST be
treated as opaque unless the SMTP Server is the final delivery MTA.
Any domain names that are to be looked up in the DNS MUST be
processed into the form as specified in IDNA [RFC3490] by means of
the ToASCII() operation unless they are already in that form. Any
domain names that are to be compared to local strings SHOULD be
Yao & Mao Expires November 9, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IMA May 2006
checked for validity and then MUST be compared as specified in
section 3.4 of IDNA.
An SMTP Client that receives the IMA extension keyword MAY transmit a
mailbox name as an internationalized string in UTF-8 form and MAY
send an internationalized mail header [IMA-utf8header]. It MAY
transmit the domain part of that string in either punycode (derived
from the IDNA process) or UTF-8 form. If it sends the domain in
UTF-8 form, the original SMTP client SHOULD first verify that the
string is valid for a domain name according to IDNA rules. As
required by RFC 2821, it MUST not attempt to parse, evaluate, or
transform the local part in any way if the IMA SMTP extension is
offered by the server. If the IMA SMTP extension is not offered by
the Server, the SMTP Client MUST NOT transmit an internationalized
address and MUST NOT transmit a mail body which contains
internationalized mail headers [IMA-utf8header]. Instead, it MUST
either return the message to the user as undeliverable or replace it
with the alternate ASCII address. If it is replaced, the replacement
MUST be either the ASCII-only address specified with the ALT-ADDRESS
parameter or with an address obtained from some algorithmic
conversions of the primary address that conforms to the syntax rules
of RFC 2821, which is defined in [IMA-downgrading].
2.3. Extended Mailbox Address Syntax
RFC 2821, section 4.1.2, defines the syntax of a mailbox as
Mailbox = Local-part "@" Domain
Local-part = Dot-string / Quoted-string
; MAY be case-sensitive
Dot-string = Atom *("." Atom)
Atom = 1*atext
Quoted-string = DQUOTE *qcontent DQUOTE
Domain = (sub-domain 1*("." sub-domain)) / address-literal
sub-domain = Let-dig [Ldh-str]
The key changes made by this specification are, informally, to
o Change the definition of "sub-domain" to permit either the
definition above or a UTF-8 string representing a DNS label that
is conformant with IDNA [RFC3490]. That label MUST NOT contain
Yao & Mao Expires November 9, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IMA May 2006
the characters "@" or ".", even though those characters can
normally be inserted into a DNS label.
o Change the definition of "Atom" to permit either the definition
above or a UTF-8 string. That string MUST NOT contain any of the
ASCII characters (either graphics or controls) that are not
permitted in "atext"; it is otherwise unrestricted.
According to the description above, define the syntax of an IMA
mailbox with ABNF [RFC4234] as
Mailbox = Local-part "@" Domain
Local-part = Dot-string / Quoted-string
; MAY be case-sensitive
Dot-string = Atom *("." Atom)
Atom = 1*Ucharacter
Ucharacter = atext / UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4
Quoted-string = DQUOTE *qcontent DQUOTE
Domain = (sub-domain 1*("." sub-domain)) / address-literal
sub-domain = ULet-dig [ULdh-str]
ULet-dig = Let-dig / Non-ASCII
ULdh-str = *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / Non-ASCII) ULet-dig
Non-ASCII = UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4
; UTF-8 characters prohibited by nameprep
; MUST NOT be used.
Where "atext", "qcontent" and "DQUOTE" are defined in [RFC2822],
"Let-dig", "Ldh-str" and "address-literal" are defined in [RFC2821]
and UTF8-2, UTF8-3 and UTF8-4 are defined in [RFC3629]. The value of
"Local-part" should pass Stringprep [RFC3454]; The value of "domain"
should be verified with [RFC3490]; If failed, The value of "Local-
part" and "domain", the email address can not be regarded as the
valid email address.
2.4. The ALT-ADDRESS and ATOMIC parameter
If the IMA extension is offered, the syntax of the SMTP MAIL and RCPT
commands is extended to support both the optional "ALT-ADDRESS" and
"ATOMIC" parameter.
Yao & Mao Expires November 9, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IMA May 2006
The "ALT-ADDRESS" requires an all-ASCII address, which may set by the
sender or some algorithmic transformation.
The big problem with applying an ACE to all local-parts is that the
sending or converting system doesn't know if there are some specific
data or instructions embedded in the address that the ACE process
would hide. Some SMTP servers may depend on these specific data or
instructions to do some operations while the local parts applied with
ACE will lose or hide these data or instructions. SMTP [RFC2821]
prohibits SMTP relays from converting local parts because the level
of SMTP relays' knowledge on the structure of local parts is assumed
to be zero. However, we can raise the knowledge level by supplying
additional information. Many human users' email addresses do not
have any embedded structure processed by the final delivery MTA. In
that case, the sender can specify that these email addresses are safe
to be converted in predefined way. The final delivery SMTP server
can revert the addresses even though they are as in all ASCII form.
In such cases, a potential recipient might be able to tell someone to
whom the address is given "it is ok, there is no embedded information
here and you can convert it to an ACE address without danger". If
the recipient says that, then if the sender can pass that assertion
along to his or her own (originator) MTA and the MTA can pass it down
the line, then an MTA that needs to do downgrading would know that
ACE-encoding is safe. The "ATOMIC" parameter is designed for the
above aim. Transmission of local-parts of UTF-8 avoids having to
deal with the problem.
The use of the ALT-ADDRESS will be according to the following
priority if SMTP servers can not support IMA capability. If the
sender has already set the ALT-ADDRESS value in spite of the value of
ATOMIC, the client SMTP server will use this address as the email
address when the SMTP server does the subsequent operations. If the
ALT-ADDRESS value is not set by the sender but the value of ATOMIC is
'y', the sender SMTP server should apply some algorithmic
transformation such as punycode to the entire local part of IMA; IDNA
should also be applied to the domain part of IMA; these operations
will get an ASCII email address for the subsequent SMTP operations
related to the email address. If the ALT-ADDRESS value is not set by
the sender and the value of ATOMIC is 'n' which means that the local
part of IMA can not be converted to the ASCII email address safely,
the email must be bounced to the original sender.
The suggested algorithmic transformation is punycode if the value of
ALT-ADDRESS is not set by sender and the value of ATOMIC is 'y' when
SMTP servers can not support IMA. Since the prefix "xn--" had been
used for IDNA, it is better that other prefix such as "bq--" is used
for the local part of converted version of the primary address to
avoid the potential confusion.
Yao & Mao Expires November 9, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IMA May 2006
2.5. Additional ESMTP Changes and Clarifications
The mail transport process involves addresses ("mailboxes") and
domain names in contexts in addition to the MAIL and RCPT commands
and extended alternatives to them. In general, the rule is that,
when RFC 2821 specifies a mailbox, this document expects UTF-8 to be
used for the entire string; when RFC 2821 specifies a domain name,
the name should be in punycode form if its raw form is non-ASCII.
The following subsections list and discuss all of the relevant cases.
Support and use of this extension requires support for 8BITMIME. It
means that 8BITMIME must be advertised by the IMA capability SMTP
server.
2.5.1. The Initial SMTP Exchange
When an SMTP or ESMTP connection is opened, the server sends a
"banner" response consisting of the 220 reply code and some
information. The client then sends the EHLO command. Since the
client cannot know whether the server supports IMA until after it
receives the response from EHLO, any domain names that appear in this
dialogue, or in responses to EHLO, must be in hostname form, i.e.,
internationalized ones must be in punycode form.
2.5.2. Trace Fields
Internationalized domain names in Received fields must be transmitted
in the punycode form. Addresses in "for" clauses need further
examination and might be treated differently depending on [IMA-
utf8header]. The reasoning in the introductory portion of [IMA-
overview] strongly suggests that these addresses be in UTF-8 form,
rather than some specialized encoding.
2.5.3. Mailing List Question
How a mixture of traditional and internationalized addresses on a
mailing list will impact message flows, error reports, and delivery
notifications in all plausible combinations of IMA capability and un-
capability servers is still not clear. This is an issue, which we
can delve into in detail in the future discussion. We will proposed
the detail solution to it in another document, and do some
experiments to find the best solution to it.
2.5.4. Message Header Label
There is a hot discussion about message header label when SMTP
messages are transmitted on wire. How to identify them and
Yao & Mao Expires November 9, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IMA May 2006
distinguish them from the normal message. Many referred the famous
"MIME-Version:1.0" as the example. In order to get the robustness in
the absence of context, we should consider the issue whether or not
we need a mechanism(such as self-label) or some indicator to
distinguish or recognize the format of a "stored" message: new
format(i.e. IMA compliant) or old one (i.e. RFC 822 compliant).
[Note in draft: The detail discussion of this issue will be available
in [IMA-utf8header].]
3. Potential problems
3.1. Impact to IRI
The mailto: schema in IRI [RFC3987] may need to be modified when IMA
is standardized.
3.2. POP and IMAP
While SMTP mainly takes care of the transportation of messages and
the header fields on wire, POP essentially handles the retrieval of
mail objects from the server by a client. In order to use
internationalized user names based on IMA for the retrieval of
messages from a mail server using the POP protocol, a new capability
should be introduced following the POP3 extension mechanism
[RFC2449].
IMAP [RFC3501] uses the traditional user name which is based on
ASCII. IMAP should be updated to support the internationalized user
names based on IMA for the retrieval of messages from a mail server.
3.3. Impact to RFC 2476 and many email related RFC
The IMA protocol will impact on many email related RFC such as
Message Submission [RFC2476] and SMTP Service Extension for DSNs
[RFC3461]. These protocol should be considered when implementing the
IMA protocol.
4. Implementation Advice
In the absence of this extension, SMTP clients and servers are
constrained to using only those addresses permitted by RFC 2821. The
local parts of those addresses may be made up of any ASCII
characters, although certain of them must be quoted as specified
there. It is notable in an internationalization context that there
is a long history on some systems of using overstruck ASCII
characters (a character, a backspace, and another character) within a
Yao & Mao Expires November 9, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IMA May 2006
quoted string to approximate non-ASCII characters. This form of
internationalization should be phased out as this extension becomes
widely deployed but backward-compatibility considerations require
that it continue to be supported.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to add "IEmail" to the SMTP extensions registry
with the entry pointing to this specification for its definition.
6. Security considerations
See the extended security considerations discussion in [IMA-overview]
7. Acknowledgements
Much of the text in the initial version of this document was derived
or copied from [Klensin-emailaddr] with the permission of the author.
Significant comments and suggestions were received from Xiaodong LEE,
Nai-Wen Hsu, Yangwoo KO, Yoshiro YONEYA, and other members of the JET
team and were incorporated into the document. Special thanks to
those contributors for this version of document, those includes (but
not limited to) John C Klensin, Charles Lindsey, Dave Crocker, Harald
Tveit Alvestrand, Marcos Sanz, Chris Newman, Martin Duerst, Edmon
Chung.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[ASCII] American National Standards Institute (formerly United
States of America Standards Institute), "USA Code for
Information Interchange", ANSI X3.4-1968, 1968.
ANSI X3.4-1968 has been replaced by newer versions with
slight modifications, but the 1968 version remains
definitive for the Internet.
[IMA-overview]
Klensin, J. and Y. Ko, "Overview and Framework for
Internationalized Email", draft-klensin-ima-framework-01
(work in progress), February 2006.
[]
Yao & Mao Expires November 9, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IMA May 2006
Klensin, J. and J. Yeh, "Transmission of Email Headers in
UTF-8 Encoding", draft-yeh-utf8headers-00 (work in
progress), October 2005.
[RFC1652] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E., and D.
Crocker, "SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport",
RFC 1652, July 1994.
[RFC1869] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E., and D.
Crocker, "SMTP Service Extensions", STD 10, RFC 1869,
November 1995.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2449] Gellens, R., Newman, C., and L. Lundblade, "POP3 Extension
Mechanism", RFC 2449, November 1998.
[RFC2476] Gellens, R. and J. Klensin, "Message Submission",
RFC 2476, December 1998.
[RFC2821] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821,
April 2001.
[RFC2822] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822,
April 2001.
[RFC3454] Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Preparation of
Internationalized Strings ("stringprep")", RFC 3454,
December 2002.
[RFC3461] Moore, K., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Service
Extension for Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs)",
RFC 3461, January 2003.
[RFC3490] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello,
"Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)",
RFC 3490, March 2003.
[RFC3492] Costello, A., "Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of Unicode
for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications
(IDNA)", RFC 3492, March 2003.
[RFC3501] Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION
4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", RFC 3629, November 2003.
Yao & Mao Expires November 9, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IMA May 2006
[RFC3987] Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource
Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987, January 2005.
[RFC4234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.
8.2. Informative References
[IMA-downgrading]
YONEYA, Y. and K. Fujiwara, "Downgrade Mechanism for
Internationalized Email Address (IMA)",
draft-yoneya-ima-downgrade-00 (work in progress),
October 2005.
[Klensin-emailaddr]
Klensin, J., "Internationalization of Email Addresses",
draft-klensin-emailaddr-i18n-03 (work in progress),
July 2005.
[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
Yao & Mao Expires November 9, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IMA May 2006
Authors' Addresses
Jiankang YAO (editor)
CNNIC
No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun
Beijing
Phone: +86 10 58813007
Email: yaojk@cnnic.cn
Wei MAO (editor)
CNNIC
No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun
Beijing
Phone: +86 10 58813055
Email: mao@cnnic.cn
Yao & Mao Expires November 9, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IMA May 2006
Intellectual Property Statement
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.
Disclaimer of Validity
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.
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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Yao & Mao Expires November 9, 2006 [Page 14]
