LEMONADE Working Group S. Maes
Internet-Draft Oracle
Expires: August 2, 2006 A. Melnikov
Isode
D. Cridland
Details To Be Added
January 29, 2006
LEMONADE profile bis
draft-ietf-lemonade-profile-bis-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 August 2, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document describes LEMONADE profile bis. It contains pointers
or mention to all the features that are normatively part of LEMONADE
profile bis.
It is based on a combination of the content of LEMONADE profile [4]
Maes, et al. Expires August 2, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LEMONADE profile bis January 2006
and the OMA MEM realization internet draft [21], initially considered
for internet draft publication as information or standard track by
LEMONADE. It reflects the agreed content for LEMONADE profile bis
after the Beijing LEMONADE Intermediate face to face meeting.
Conventions used in this document
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 [1].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. LEMONADE Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. OMA MEM Requirement document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. OMA MEM Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. OMA MEM Deployment Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. OMA MEM proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IETF LEMONADE Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. LEMONADE profile bis logical architecture . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. Relationship between the OMA MEM and LEMONADE logical
architectures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. LEMONADE realization of OMA MEM with non-LEMONADE
compliant servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2.1. LEMONADE realization of OMA MEM with non-LEMONADE
enhanced IMAP servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2.2. LEMONADE realization of OMA MEM with non-IMAP
servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Filters and server to client notifications and LEMONADE . . . 15
10. LEMONADE Profile bis features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
13. Future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 25
Maes, et al. Expires August 2, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LEMONADE profile bis January 2006
1. Introduction
This document describes LEMONADE profile bis. It contains pointers
or mention to all the features that are normatively part of LEMONADE
profile bis.
It is based on LEMONADE profile [4] with extensions to provide the
support to a realization of OMA mobile email enabler (MEM) using
Internet Mail protocols defined by the IETF. Many of these protocols
have been enhanced by the LEMONADE work group for use in the mobile
environment and are summarized in the LEMONADE profile [4].
This document also supports the requirements captured in OMA MEM
Requirement document [3] and mechanisms of the OMA MEM Architecture
[2], following the LEMONADE point of view described in the OMA MEM
realization internet draft [21].
This document contains the current view of the work. It refers to
stable specifications and work in progress. As the work progress, it
is expected that this document will evolve and be updated
accordingly.
<Editor's note: As a result some of the statements about some
specification may not yet supported by the references. When it is
the case, these specifications are expected to be be updated.>
<Editor's note: Caveats to be removed and / or updated when work
stabilizes.>
Also, it is to be noted that this document solely describes
normatively the LEMONADE profile bis. It discusses LEMONADE
understanding of the work in progress at OMA MEM ([3] and [2] but
does not provide a normative reading of these documents. Readers
MUST refer to the open mobiel alliance web site for normative
references on the Mobile Email Enabler (OMA MEM). LEMONADE assumes
that the LEMONADE profile bis can be used as basis for an OMA
technical specification of a realization based on LEMONADE of the OMA
MEM enabler.
Maes, et al. Expires August 2, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LEMONADE profile bis January 2006
2. LEMONADE Profile
LEMONADE profile bis incorporates normatively the LEMONADE profile
[4].
<Editor's note: The LEMONADE profile is currently included by
reference. As it stabilizes as RFC, the text will be explicitly
included and changes to the text will be explicitly made inline.>
Maes, et al. Expires August 2, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LEMONADE profile bis January 2006
3. OMA MEM Requirement document
The OMA MEM activity has collected a set of use cases and derived
requirements for a mobile email enabler (MEM). the resulting work is
summarized in OMA MEM Requirement document [3]. Some requirements
relates to email protocols, some involve other OMA technologies
outside the scope of IETF and some relate to implementations and
normative interoperability statements for clients and servers.
Maes, et al. Expires August 2, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LEMONADE profile bis January 2006
4. OMA MEM Architecture
The OMA MEM activity has derived a logical architecture from the
requirements and use cases described in [3]. The logical
architecture, its elements and interfaces and the notations that it
uses can be found in [2].
Maes, et al. Expires August 2, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LEMONADE profile bis January 2006
5. OMA MEM Deployment Issues
The OMA MEM Architecture document [2] further identifies deployment
models.
Certain of these deployment models are not what IETF has
conventionally modeled. They require special attention to end-to-end
security aspects and may warrant introduction of additional security
measures (e.g. object level encryption).
Maes, et al. Expires August 2, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LEMONADE profile bis January 2006
6. OMA MEM proxy
The OMA MEM Architecture document [2] identifies OMA MEM server
proxies as server components that may be deployed ahead of firewalls
to facilitate traversal of firewalls.
Both IMAP and SMTP generally are compatible with proxies between the
client and the server. Such proxies may disrupt end-to-end
encryption, with the transport-level encryption ending at the proxy
and re-generating from the proxy to the server. Again this may
require additional security measures like object level encryption.
Maes, et al. Expires August 2, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LEMONADE profile bis January 2006
7. IETF LEMONADE Architecture
This section gives a brief introduction to the LEMONADE Architecture.
The IETF LEMONADE activity has derived a LEMONADE profile [4] with
the logical architecture represented in Figure 1, where arrows
indicate content flows.
______________
| |
_________| Notification |
| | Mechanism |
| |______________|
|Notif. ^
|Protocol |
| ___|______
| | | _____
__v__ IMAP | LEMONADE | ESMTP | |
| |<----------->| IMAP |<---------------| MTA |
| MUA |- | Store | |_____|
|_____| \ |__________|
\ |
\ |URLAUTH
\SUBMIT |
\ ____v_____
\ | | _____
\ | LEMONADE | ESMTP | |
---->| Submit |--------------->| MTA |
| Server | |_____|
|__________|
Figure 1: LEMONADE logical architecture
The LEMONADE profile bis assumes:
o IMAP protocol [5] including LEMONADE profile extensions [4]
o SUBMIT protocol (SMTP [7], ...) including LEMONADE profile
extensions
o LEMONADE profile compliant IMAP store connected to MTA (Mail
Transfer Agent) via ESMTP [6]
o LEMONADE profile compliant Submit server connected to MTA via
ESMTP
o Lemonade profile ptotocols between message store and submit server
(URLAUTH) (see [4]).
Maes, et al. Expires August 2, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LEMONADE profile bis January 2006
o Outband server to client notifications relying on external
notification mechanisms (and notification protocols) that may be
out of scope of the LEMONADE profile bis.
o A LEMONADE aware MUA (Mail User Agent). While use of outband
notification is described in the LEMONADE profile bis, support for
the underlying notifications mechanisms/protocols is out of scope
of the LEMONADE specifications.
Further details on the IETF email protocol stack and architecture can
be found in [8]
Note that in Figure 1 the IMAP server and Submit server are
represented connected to MTAs (Mail Transfer Agents) via ESMTP [6].
This is not really essential. It could as well be X.400 so long as
the message in the store is in the internet form.
OMA MEM identifies other functionalities. These are considered as
out of scope of the LEMONADE work and will need to be specified by
OMA MEM.
Maes, et al. Expires August 2, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LEMONADE profile bis January 2006
8. LEMONADE profile bis logical architecture
This section details the LEMONADE profile bis logical architecture.
Thsi architecture is also expected to support the OMA MEM logical
Architecture.
8.1. Relationship between the OMA MEM and LEMONADE logical
architectures
Figure 2 illustrates the mapping of the IETF LEMONADE logical
architecture on the OMA MEM logical architecture.
_____________________
| Other_Mob. Enablers |
| |--------------| |
_________| Notification | |
| | | Mechanism | |
| | |______________| |
|Notif. |____________^________|
|Protocol ______|__________
ME-4 | | ___|_ME-3_ |
___|____ | | | | _____
| __v__ | IMAP | | LEMONADE | | ESMTP | |
|| |<----------->| IMAP |<-----------| MTA |
|| MUA || ME-2a | | Store | | |_____|
||_____||\ME-1 | |__________| |
| MEM | \ | | |
| Client| \ | |URLAUTH |
|_______| \SUBMIT | |
\ | ____v_____ |
\ | | | | _____
\ | | LEMONADE | | ESMTP | |
---->| Submit |----------->| MTA |
ME-2b | | Server | | |_____|
| |__________| |
|MEM Email |
|Server Server|
|_________________|
^
|ME-5
|
Figure 2: Mapping of LEMONADE profile bis logical architecture onto
the OMA MEM logical architecture.
As described in Section 7, the LEMONADE profile bis assumes LEMONADE
profile bis compliant IMAP stores and Submit servers. Because the
Maes, et al. Expires August 2, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LEMONADE profile bis January 2006
LEMONADE profile bis extends the IMAP store and the submit server,
the mobile enablement of email provided by the LEMONADE profile bis
is directly provided in these server. Mapped to OMA MEM logical
architecture, for the case considered and specified by the LEMONADE
profile bis, the MEM server and email server logically combined.
They are however split into distinct LEMONADE message store and
LEMONADE submit server. The OMA MEM interfaces ME-2 ([2]) consists
of two interfaces ME-2a and ME-2b associated respectively to IMAP
extended according to the LEMONADE profile bis and SUBMIT extended
according to the LEMONADE profile bis.
The MUA is part of the MEM client.
External notifications mechanism can be part of the other OMA enabler
specified by OMA (or other activities).
8.2. LEMONADE realization of OMA MEM with non-LEMONADE compliant
servers
The OMA MEM activity is not limited to enabling Lemonade compliant
servers. It explicitly identifies the need to support other
backends.
8.2.1. LEMONADE realization of OMA MEM with non-LEMONADE enhanced IMAP
servers
Figure 3 illustrates the case of IMAP servers that are not (yet)
LEMONADE compliant / enhanced with LEMONADE. In such case, the I2
interface between the MEM server components and the IMAP store and
submit server are IMAP and SUBMIT.
Maes, et al. Expires August 2, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LEMONADE profile bis January 2006
______________
| |
_________| Notification |
| | Mechanism |
| |______________|
|Notif. ^
|Protocol |
| ___|______ _____________
| | LEMONADE | | | _____
__v__ IMAP | MEM | IMAP |NON-LEMONADE | ESMTP | |
| |<--------->|Enabler |<------>|IMAP |<----->| MTA |
| MUA |\ ME-2a | Server | |Store | |_____|
|_____| \ |__________| |_____________|
\ |
\ |URLAUTH
\SUBMIT |
\ ____v_____ _____________
\ | | | | _____
\ | LEMONADE | SUBMIT |NON-LEMONADE | ESMTP | |
-->| MEM | |Submit | | |
| Enabler |------->|Server |------>| MTA |
ME-2b | Server | | | |_____|
|__________| |_____________|
Figure 3: Architecture to support non-LEMONADE enhanced IMAP servers
with a LEMONADE realization of OMA MEM enabler.
In Figure 3, the server may be a separate proxy.
8.2.2. LEMONADE realization of OMA MEM with non-IMAP servers
<Editor's note: This section and the previous section and figures may
be combined in a future release of this draft.>
Figure 4 illustrates the cases where the message store and submit
servers are not IMAP store or submit servers. They may be POP3
servers or other proprietary message stores.
Maes, et al. Expires August 2, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LEMONADE profile bis January 2006
______________
| |
_________| Notification |
| | Mechanism |
| |______________|
|Notif. ^
|Protocol |
| ___|______ _____________
| | LEMONADE | | | _____
__v__ IMAP | MEM | I2 |Proprietary | ESMTP | |
| |<--------->|Enabler |<------>|Message |<----->| MTA |
| MUA |\ ME-2a | Server | |Store | |_____|
|_____| \ |__________| |_____________|
\ |
\ |URLAUTH
\SUBMIT |
\ ____v_____ _____________
\ | | | | _____
\ | LEMONADE | I2 |Proprietary | ESMTP | |
-->| MEM | |Submit | | |
| Enabler |------->|Server |------>| MTA |
ME-2b | Server | | | |_____|
|__________| |_____________|
Figure 4: Architecture to support non-IMAP servers with a LEMONADE
realization of OMA MEM enabler.
I2 designates proprietary adapters to the backends. They may invoved
functions performed in the message stores or submit server as well as
in the MEM enabler server.
In Figure 4, the server may be a separate proxy.
Maes, et al. Expires August 2, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LEMONADE profile bis January 2006
9. Filters and server to client notifications and LEMONADE
OMA MEM RD [3] and AD [2] emphasize the need to provide mechanisms
for server to client notifications of email events and filtering.
Figure 5 illustrates how notification and filterings are introduced
in LEMONADE profile bis.
______________
| |
_________| Notification |
| | Mechanism |
| |______________|
|Notif. ^
|Protocol -------\ _|_
| ______| ___\>|NF|____
| | | ---- | _____
__v__| IMAP |__ LEMONADE |___ ESMTP __| |
| |<-------->|VF| IMAP |DF |<--------|AF| MTA |
| MUA |\ ME-2a |-- Store |-^- --|_____|
|_____| \ |_____________| |
\_\_______________|_______|
\ |URLAUTH
\SUBMIT |
\ ____v_____
\ | | _____
\ | LEMONADE | ESMTP | |
---->| Submit |--------------->| MTA |
ME-2b | Server | |_____|
|__________|
Figure 5: Filtering mechanism defined in LEMONADE architecture
In Figure 5, four categories of filters are defined:
o AF: Administrative Filters - Set up by email service provider. AF
are typically not configured by the user and set to apply policies
content filtering, virus protection, spam filtering etc...
o DF: Deposit Filters - Filters that are executed on deposit of new
emails. They can be defined as SIEVE filters [9]. They can
include vacation notices.
o VF: View Filters - Filters that define which emails are visible to
the MUA. View filters can be defined as virtual folders [10] as
described in [10] and [23].
Maes, et al. Expires August 2, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft LEMONADE profile bis January 2006
o NF: Notification Filters - Filters that define for what email
server event an outband notification is sent to the client.
The filters are manageable from the MUA:
o NF and DF: via SIEVE management protocol <Editor's note: Still to
be defined>
o VF: via virtual folder mechanisms as discussed in [10] and [23]
Maes, et al. Expires August 2, 2006 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft LEMONADE profile bis January 2006
10. LEMONADE Profile bis features
<Editor's note: The LEMONADE profile bis features will be detailed in
this section (except for changes that affect inline the the LEMONADE
profile [4] - these will be made inline in the original LEMONADE
profile [4] text (See Section 2).>
The LEMONADE Profile bis provides normative support for the technical
features identified within scope of IETF LEMONADE work in the OMA MEM
realization internet draft [21].
<Editor's note: This text will be updated when all features are
appropriately addressed. [21] will be maintained as a working
document to remain synchronized with the LEMONADE prfile bis to
ensure supporting all committed aspects.>
The following is a list of features that will be normatively
described: <Editor's note: The features are currently introduced by
reference to documents that are work in progress and may still be
individual drafts. They are expected to become WG drafts and RFCs.
References will be updated and text provided to explain the normative
usage in LEMONADE profile bis.>
o LEMONADE profile [4] features, evolved to include capabilities to
edit on MUA and send differences to server even for address
fields..
o Notifications (server to client) as discussed in [23].
o Filters as discussed in [23], [10], [9] and [22]. Events that can
be bound to notifications are described in [13]. Filter remote
management are discussed in [23], [10] and [26]
o Virtual folders as discussed in [10]
o Media conversion as discussed in [15]. Streamed media conversion
is still under consideration.
o Quick reconnect as discussed in [17]
o Compression as discussed in [24]
o Intermediaries as discussed in [20] to become a best practice
document (draft-ietf-lemonade-deployments). It is also addressed
by informational track draft [18]
o Object level encryption and Proxies are still under discussion.
We await proposals. An example of object level encryption is
Maes, et al. Expires August 2, 2006 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft LEMONADE profile bis January 2006
provided in [25] as XENCRYPT. [23] further discusses the use for
notification encryption.
o Message recall within SUBMIT domain.
Maes, et al. Expires August 2, 2006 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft LEMONADE profile bis January 2006
11. Security considerations
This specification provides no security measures beyond those in the
referenced Internet Mail and LEMONADE documents.
We note however the security risks associated to:
o Outband notifications
o Server configuration by client
o Client configuration by server
o Presence of proxy servers
o Presence of servers as intermediaries
o In general the deployment models considered by OMA MEM that are
not conventional IETF deployment models.
o Measures to address the need to traverse firewalls and mobile
network intermediaries.
Maes, et al. Expires August 2, 2006 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft LEMONADE profile bis January 2006
12. IANA considerations
No specific IANA considerations have been identified yet that are not
covered by the different drafts and RFCs included in the realization
described in this document.
Maes, et al. Expires August 2, 2006 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft LEMONADE profile bis January 2006
13. Future work
The different drafts and RFCs referenced in this document must be
completed. Some require initial proposals (e.g. object level
encryption, proxies, recall and conversion of streamed media).
Text will be updated as described in editor's notes
Maes, et al. Expires August 2, 2006 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft LEMONADE profile bis January 2006
14. Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges and appreciates the work and comments of the
IETF LEMONADE working group and the OMA MEM working group.
This text was partially co-authored with G. Vaudreuil (Lucent) and
Eric Burger (Excel) and reviewed in detail by them as well as by Fan
Xiaohui (China Mobile - CMCC).
15. References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirements Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997.
[2] "Mobile Email Architecture Document", OMA (Work in Progress),
http://www.openmobilealliance.org/, October 2005.
[3] "Mobile Email RequirementS Document", OMA http://
www.openmobilealliance.org/release_program/docs/RD/
OMA-RD-MobileEmail-V1_0_20051018-C.pdf, Oct 2005.
[4] Maes, S. and A. Melnikov, "LEMONADE profile",
draft-ietf-lemonade-profile-0x (work in progress).
[5] Crispin, M., "IMAP4, Internet Message Access Protocol Version 4
rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.
[6] Klensin, J., "SMTP Service Extensions", RFC 1861,
November 1995.
[7] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821,
April 2001.
[8] Crocker, D., "Internet Mail Architecture",
draft-crocker-email-arch-0x (work in progress).
[9] "SIEVE WG", http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/sieve-
charter.html.
[10] Maes, S. and et Al., "Persistent Search Extensions and Virtual
Folder to the IMAP Protocol", draft-maes-lemonade-vfolder-0x,
to become draft-ietf-lemonade-vfolder-0x and
draft-ietf-lemonade-search-while-0x (work in progress).
[11] Maes, S. and et Al., "Server to Client Notifications and
Filtering",
draft-maes-lemonade-notifications-server-to-client-0x (work in
progress).
Maes, et al. Expires August 2, 2006 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft LEMONADE profile bis January 2006
[12] Leiba, B., "IMAP4 IDLE command", RFC 2177, June 1997.
[13] Newman, C., "Internet Message Store Events",
draft-newman-lemonade-msgevent-0x (work in progress).
[14] "Open Mobile Alliance Email Notification Version 1.0",
OMA http://www.openmobilealliance.org/tech/docs/EmailNot/OMA-
Push-EMN-V1_0-20020830-C.pdf, August 2002.
[15] Maes, S. and et Al., "CONVERT", draft-ietf-lemonade-convert-0x
(work in progress).
[16] Melnikov, A. and et Al., "IMAP URL Scheme",
draft-ietf-lemonade-rfc2192bis-0x (work in progress).
[17] Melnikov, A. and et Al., "IMAP4 extension for quick reconnect",
draft-ietf-lemonade-reconnect-0x (work in progress).
[18] Maes, S. and et Al., "Lemonade HTTP Binding",
draft-maes-lemonade-http-binding-0x to target informational RFC
(work in progress).
[19] Freed, N., "Behavior of and Requirements for Internet
Firewalls", RFC 2979, October 2000.
[20] Maes, S., "Lemonade and the challenges of Intermediaries",
draft-smaes-lemonade-intermediary-challenges-0x (work in
progress).
[21] Maes, S. and G. Parsons, "Realization of OMA Mobile Email (MEM)
Architecture using Internet Mail",
draft-ietf-lemonade-oma-mem-realization-0x (work in progress).
[22] Leiba, B., "Support for Sieve in Internet Message Access
Protocol (IMAP4)", draft-ietf-lemonade-imap-sieve-0x (work in
progress).
[23] Maes, S., "Lemonade notifications and filters",
draft-ietf-lemonade-notifications-0x (work in progress).
[24] Maes, S. and R. Cromwell, "LZIP", draft-maes-lemonade-lzip-0x
to become draft-ietf-lemonade-compress-0x (work in progress).
[25] Maes, S. and et Al., "Push Extensions to the IMAP Protocol
(P-IMAP)", draft-maes-lemonade-p-imap-xx (work in progress).
[26] Martin, T. and A. melnikov, "A Protocol for Remotely Managing
Sieve Scripts", draft-martin-managesieve-0x (work in progress).
Maes, et al. Expires August 2, 2006 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft LEMONADE profile bis January 2006
Authors' Addresses
Stephane H. Maes
Oracle
MS 4op634, 500 Oracle Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94539
USA
Phone: +1-203-300-7786
Email: stephane.maes@oracle.com
Alexey Melnikov
Isode
5 Castle Business Village, 36 Station Road
Hampton, Middlesex TW12 2BX
UK
Email: alexey.melnikov@isode.com
Dave Cridland
Details To Be Added
Email: dave@cridland.net
Maes, et al. Expires August 2, 2006 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft LEMONADE profile bis January 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.
Maes, et al. Expires August 2, 2006 [Page 25]
