Referring to Multiple Resources in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
draft-ietf-sip-multiple-refer-03.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 June 20, 2008.

Abstract

This document defines extensions to the SIP REFER method so that this method can be used to refer to multiple resources in a single request. These extensions include the use of pointers to Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)-lists in the Refer-To header field and the "multiple-refer" SIP option-tag.

Table of Contents

1.  Introduction
2.  Terminology
3.  Overview of operation
4.  The multiple-refer SIP Option-Tag
5.  Suppressing REFER's Implicit Subscription
6.  URI-List Format
7.  Behavior of SIP REFER-Issuers
8.  Behavior of REFER-Recipients
9.  Example
10.  Security Considerations
11.  IANA Considerations
12.  References
    12.1.  Normative References
    12.2.  Informative References
§  Authors' Addresses
§  Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements

1.  Introduction

RFC 3261 (SIP) (Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, “SIP: Session Initiation Protocol,” June 2002.) [RFC3261] is extended by RFC 3515 (Sparks, R., “The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Refer Method,” April 2003.) [RFC3515] with a REFER method that allows a user agent to request a second user agent to send a SIP request to a third party. Still, a number of applications need to request this second user agent to initiate transactions towards a set of destinations. In one example, the moderator of a conference may want the conference server to send BYE requests to a group of participants. In another example, the same moderator may want the conference server to INVITE a set of new participants.

We define an extension to the REFER method so that REFER requests can be used to refer other user agents (such as conference servers) to multiple destinations. In addition, this mechanism uses the suppression of the REFER method implicit subscription specified in RFC 4488 (Levin, O., “Suppression of Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) REFER Method Implicit Subscription,” May 2006.) [RFC4488] to suppress REFER's implicit subscription.

2.  Terminology

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 (Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” March 1997.) [RFC2119] and indicate requirement levels for compliant implementations.

This document reuses the following terminology defined in RFC 3261 (Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, “SIP: Session Initiation Protocol,” June 2002.) [RFC3261]:

• User Agent (UA)
• User Agent Client (UAC)
• User Agent Server (UAS)

This document defines the following new terms:

REFER-Issuer:

a user agent issuing a REFER request.

REFER-Recipient:

an entity receiving a REFER request and forwarding a SIP request to a number of REFER-Targets. The REFER-Recipient is typically a network entity, such as a URI-List server, that acts as a UAS for REFER requests and as a UAC for other SIP requests.

REFER-Target:

a UA of the intended final recipient of a SIP request generated by the REFER-Recipient.

3.  Overview of operation

This document describes an application of URI-List services (Camarillo, G. and A. Roach, “Framework and Security Considerations for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)-List Services,” November 2007.) [I‑D.ietf‑sipping‑uri‑services] that allows a URI-List service to receive a SIP REFER request containing a list of targets. The URI-List service invokes the requested SIP method to each of the targets contained in the list. This type of URI-List service is referred to as a REFER-Recipient throughout this document.

This document defines an extension to the SIP REFER method specified in RFC 3515 (Sparks, R., “The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Refer Method,” April 2003.) [RFC3515] that allows a SIP UAC to include a URI-list as specified in the XML Format for Representing Resource Lists (Rosenberg, J., “Extensible Markup Language (XML) Formats for Representing Resource Lists,” May 2007.) [RFC4826] of REFER-Targets in a REFER request and send it to a REFER-Recipient. The REFER-Recipient creates a new SIP request for each entry in the URI-list and sends it to each REFER-Recipient.

The URI-list that contains the list of targets is used in conjunction with the XML Format Extension for Representing Copy Control Attributes in Resource Lists (Garcia, M. and G. Camarillo, “Extensible Markup Language (XML) Format Extension for Representing Copy Control Attributes in Resource Lists,” August 2008.) [I‑D.ietf‑sipping‑capacity‑attribute] to allow the sender indicate the role (e.g., 'to', 'cc', or anonymous) in which the REFER-Target is involved in the signalling.

We represent multiple targets of a REFER request using a URI-list as specified in the XML Format for Representing Resource Lists (Rosenberg, J., “Extensible Markup Language (XML) Formats for Representing Resource Lists,” May 2007.) [RFC4826]. A REFER-Issuer that wants to refer a REFER-Recipient to a set of destinations creates a SIP REFER request. The Refer-To header contains a pointer to a URI-list, which is included in a body part, and an option-tag in the Require header field: "multiple-refer". This option-tag indicates the requirement to support the functionality described in this specification.

When the REFER-Recipient receives such request it creates a new request per REFER-Target and sends them, one to each REFER-Target.

This document does not provide any mechanism for REFER-Issuers to find out about the results of a REFER request containing multiple REFER-Targets. Furthermore, it does not provide support for the implicit subscription mechanism that is part of the SIP REFER method. The way REFER-Issuers are kept informed about the results of a REFER is service specific. For example, a REFER-Issuer sending a REFER request to invite a set of participants to a conference can discover which participants were successfully brought into the conference by subscribing to the conference state event package specified in RFC 4575 (Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and O. Levin, “A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Package for Conference State,” August 2006.) [RFC4575].

4.  The multiple-refer SIP Option-Tag

We define a new SIP option-tag for the Require and Supported header fields: "multiple-refer".

A user agent including the "multiple-refer" option-tag in a Supported header field indicates compliance with this specification.

A user agent generating a REFER with a pointer to a URI-list in its Refer-To header field MUST include the "multiple-refer" option-tag in the Require header field of the REFER.

5.  Suppressing REFER's Implicit Subscription

REFER requests with a single REFER-Target establish implicitly a subscription to the refer event. The REFER-Issuer is informed about the result of the transaction towards the REFER-Target through this implicit subscription. As described in RFC 3515 (Sparks, R., “The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Refer Method,” April 2003.) [RFC3515], NOTIFY requests sent as a result of an implicit subscription created by a REFER request contain a body of type "message/sipfrag", RFC 3420 (Sparks, R., “Internet Media Type message/sipfrag,” November 2002.) [RFC3420], that describes the status of the transaction initiated by the REFER-Recipient.

In the case of a REFER-Issuer that generates a REFER with multiple REFER-targets, the REFER-Issuer is typically already subscribed to other event package that can provide the information about the result of the transactions towards the REFER-Targets. For example, a moderator instructing a conference server to send a BYE request to a set of participants is usually subscribed to the conference state event package for the conference. Notifications to this event package will keep the moderator and the rest of the subscribers informed of the current list of conference participants.

Most of the applications using multiple REFER do not need its implicit subscription. Consequently, a SIP REFER-Issuer generating a REFER request with multiple REFER-Targets SHOULD include the "norefersub" option-tag in a Require header field and SHOULD include a Refer-Sub header field set to "false" to indicate that no notifications about the requests should be sent to the REFER-Issuer. The REFER-Recipient SHOULD honor the suggestion and also include a Refer-Sub header field set to "false" in the 200 (OK) response. The "norefersub" SIP option-tag and the Refer-Sub header field are specified in RFC 4488 (Levin, O., “Suppression of Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) REFER Method Implicit Subscription,” May 2006.) [RFC4488].

RFC 4488 (Levin, O., “Suppression of Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) REFER Method Implicit Subscription,” May 2006.) [RFC4488] indicates that a condition for the REFER-Issuer to include a Refer-Sub header is that the REFER-Issuer is sure that the REFER request will not fork.

At the time of writing, there is no extension that allows to report the status of several transactions over the implicit subscription associated with a REFER dialog. That is the motivation for this document to recommend the usage of the "norefersub" option-tag. If in the future such an extension is defined, REFER-Issuers using it could refrain from using the "norefersub" option-tag and use the new extension instead.

6.  URI-List Format

As described in the Framework and Security Considerations for SIP URI-List Services (Camarillo, G. and A. Roach, “Framework and Security Considerations for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)-List Services,” November 2007.) [I‑D.ietf‑sipping‑uri‑services], specifications of individual URI-list services need to specify a default format for 'recipient-list' bodies used within the particular service.

The default format for 'recipient-list' bodies for REFER-Issuers and REFER-Recipients is the XML Formats for Representing Resource Lists (Rosenberg, J., “Extensible Markup Language (XML) Formats for Representing Resource Lists,” May 2007.) [RFC4826] extended with the XML Format Extension for Representing Copy Control Attributes in Resource Lists (Garcia, M. and G. Camarillo, “Extensible Markup Language (XML) Format Extension for Representing Copy Control Attributes in Resource Lists,” August 2008.) [I‑D.ietf‑sipping‑capacity‑attribute]. REFER-Recipients handling 'recipient-list' bodies MUST support both of these formats. Both REFER-Issuers and REFER-Recipients MAY support other formats.

As described in the XML Format Extension for Representing Copy Control Attributes in Resource Lists (Garcia, M. and G. Camarillo, “Extensible Markup Language (XML) Format Extension for Representing Copy Control Attributes in Resource Lists,” August 2008.) [I‑D.ietf‑sipping‑capacity‑attribute], each URI can be tagged with a 'copyControl' attribute set to either "to", "cc", or "bcc", indicating the role in which the target will get the referred SIP request. However, depending on the target SIP method, a 'copyControl' attribute lacks sense. For example, while a 'copyControl' attribute can be applied to INVITE requests, it does not make sense with mid-dialog requests such as BYE requests.

In addition to the 'copyControl' attribute, URIs can be tagged with the 'anonymize' attribute, also specified in the XML Format Extension for Representing Copy Control Attributes in Resource Lists (Garcia, M. and G. Camarillo, “Extensible Markup Language (XML) Format Extension for Representing Copy Control Attributes in Resource Lists,” August 2008.) [I‑D.ietf‑sipping‑capacity‑attribute] to prevent that the REFER-Recipient discloses the target URI in a URI-list.

Additionally, the XML Format Extension for Representing Copy Control Attributes in Resource Lists (Garcia, M. and G. Camarillo, “Extensible Markup Language (XML) Format Extension for Representing Copy Control Attributes in Resource Lists,” August 2008.) [I‑D.ietf‑sipping‑capacity‑attribute] defines a 'recipient-list-history' body that contains the list of targets. The default format for 'recipient-list-history' bodies for conference services is also the XML Formats for Representing Resource Lists (Rosenberg, J., “Extensible Markup Language (XML) Formats for Representing Resource Lists,” May 2007.) [RFC4826] extended with the XML Format Extension for Representing Copy Control Attributes in Resource Lists (Garcia, M. and G. Camarillo, “Extensible Markup Language (XML) Format Extension for Representing Copy Control Attributes in Resource Lists,” August 2008.) [I‑D.ietf‑sipping‑capacity‑attribute]. REFER-Recipients supporting this specification MUST support both of these formats; REFER-Targets MAY support these formats. Both REFER-Recipients and REFER-Targets MAY support other formats.

Nevertheless, the XML Format for Representing Resource Lists (Rosenberg, J., “Extensible Markup Language (XML) Formats for Representing Resource Lists,” May 2007.) [RFC4826] document provides features, such as hierarchical lists and the ability to include entries by reference relative to the XCAP root URI, that are not needed by the multiple REFER service defined in this document.

Figure 1 (URI List) shows an example of a flat list that follows the resource list document.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<resource-lists xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists"
           xmlns:cp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:copycontrol">

  <list>
    <entry uri="sip:bill@example.com" cp:copyControl="to"  />
    <entry uri="sip:joe@example.org" cp:copyControl="cc" />
    <entry uri="sip:ted@example.net" cp:copyControl="bcc" />
  </list>
</resource-lists>

7.  Behavior of SIP REFER-Issuers

As indicated in Section 4 (The multiple-refer SIP Option-Tag) and Section 5 (Suppressing REFER's Implicit Subscription) a SIP REFER-Issuer that creates a REFER request with multiple REFER-Targets includes a "multiple-refer" and "norefersub" option-tags in the Require header field and, if appropriate, a Refer-Sub header field set to "false". The REFER-Issuer includes the set of REFER-Targets in a recipient-list body whose disposition type is 'recipient-list', as defined in the Framework and Security Considerations for SIP URI-List Services (Camarillo, G. and A. Roach, “Framework and Security Considerations for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)-List Services,” November 2007.) [I‑D.ietf‑sipping‑uri‑services]. The URI-list body is further described in Section 6 (URI-List Format).

The Refer-To header field of a REFER request with multiple REFER-Targets MUST contain a pointer (i.e., a Content-ID Uniform Resource Locator (URL) as per RFC 2392 (Levinson, E., “Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource Locators,” August 1998.) [RFC2392]) that points to the body part that carries the URI-list. The REFER-Issuer SHOULD NOT include any particular URI more than once in the URI-list.

The XML Format for Representing Resource Lists (Rosenberg, J., “Extensible Markup Language (XML) Formats for Representing Resource Lists,” May 2007.) [RFC4826] document provides features, such as hierarchical lists and the ability to include entries by reference relative to the XCAP root URI. However, these features are not needed by the multiple REFER service defined in this document. Therefore, when using the default resource list document, SIP REFER-Issuers generating REFER requests with multiple REFER-Targets SHOULD use flat lists (i.e., no hierarchical lists) and SHOULD NOT use <entry-ref> elements.

8.  Behavior of REFER-Recipients

The REFER-Recipient follows the rules in Section 2.4.2 of RFC 3515 (Sparks, R., “The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Refer Method,” April 2003.) [RFC3515] to determine the status code of the response to the REFER.

The REFER-Recipient SHOULD not create an implicit subscription, and SHOULD add a Refer-Sub header field set to "false" in the 200 OK response.

The incoming REFER request typically contains a URI-list document or reference with the actual list of targets. If this URI-list includes resources tagged with the 'copyControl' attribute set to a value of "to" or "cc", and if appropriate for the service, e.g., if it is non-mid dialog request, the REFER-Recipient SHOULD include a URI-list in each of the outgoing requests. This list SHOULD be formatted according to the XML Format for Representing Resource Lists (Rosenberg, J., “Extensible Markup Language (XML) Formats for Representing Resource Lists,” May 2007.) [RFC4826] and the XML Format Extension for Representing Copy Control Attributes in Resource Lists (Garcia, M. and G. Camarillo, “Extensible Markup Language (XML) Format Extension for Representing Copy Control Attributes in Resource Lists,” August 2008.) [I‑D.ietf‑sipping‑capacity‑attribute]. The REFER-Recipient MUST follow the procedures specified in XML Format for Representing Resource Lists (Rosenberg, J., “Extensible Markup Language (XML) Formats for Representing Resource Lists,” May 2007.) [RFC4826] with respect handling of the 'anonymize', 'count' and 'copyControl' attributes.

Section 4 of the Framework and Security Considerations for SIP URI-List Services (Camarillo, G. and A. Roach, “Framework and Security Considerations for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)-List Services,” November 2007.) [I‑D.ietf‑sipping‑uri‑services] discusses cases when duplicated URIs are found in a URI-list. In order to avoid duplicated requests, REFER-Recipients MUST take those actions specified in Framework and Security Considerations for SIP URI-List Services (Camarillo, G. and A. Roach, “Framework and Security Considerations for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)-List Services,” November 2007.) [I‑D.ietf‑sipping‑uri‑services] into account to avoid sending duplicated request to the same target.

If the REFER-Recipient includes a URI-list in an outgoing request, it MUST include a Content-Disposition header field, specified in RFC 2183 (Troost, R., Dorner, S., and K. Moore, “Communicating Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition Header Field,” August 1997.) [RFC2183], with the value set to 'recipient-list-history' and a 'handling' parameter, specified in RFC 3204 (Zimmerer, E., Peterson, J., Vemuri, A., Ong, L., Audet, F., Watson, M., and M. Zonoun, “MIME media types for ISUP and QSIG Objects,” December 2001.) [RFC3204], set to "optional".

Since the multiple REFER service does not use hierarchical lists nor lists that include entries by reference to the XCAP root URI, a REFER-Recipient receiving a URI-list with more information than what has been described in Section 6 (URI-List Format) MAY discard all the extra information.

The REFER-Recipient follows the rules in RFC 3515 (Sparks, R., “The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Refer Method,” April 2003.) [RFC3515] to generate the necessary requests towards the REFER-Targets, acting as if it had received a regular (no URI-list) REFER per each URI in the URI-list.

9.  Example

Figure 2 (Example flow of a REFER request containing multiple REFER-Targets) shows an example flow where a REFER-Issuer sends a multiple-REFER request to the focus of a conference, which acts as the REFER-Recipient. The REFER-Recipient generates a BYE request per REFER-Target. Details for using REFER request to remove participants from a conference are specified in RFC 4579 (Johnston, A. and O. Levin, “Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Call Control - Conferencing for User Agents,” August 2006.) [RFC4579].

+--------+         +---------+    +--------+  +--------+  +--------+
| REFER  |         |  REFER  |    | REFER  |  | REFER  |  | REFER  |
| issuer |         |recipient|    |target 1|  |target 2|  |target 3|
|        |         |         |    |        |  |        |  |        |
| Carol  |         | (focus) |    |  Bill  |  |  Joe   |  |  Ted   |
+--------+         +---------+    +--------+  +--------+  +--------+
     | 1. REFER         |             |           |           |
     | ---------------->|             |           |           |
     | 2. 202 Accepted  |             |           |           |
     |<---------------- |   3. BYE    |           |           |
     |                  | ----------->|           |           |
     |                  |   4. BYE    |           |           |
     |                  | ----------------------->|           |
     |                  |   5. BYE    |           |           |
     |                  | ----------------------------------->|
     |                  |   6. 200 OK |           |           |
     |                  |<----------- |           |           |
     |                  |   7. 200 OK |           |           |
     |                  |<----------------------- |           |
     |                  |   8. 200 OK |           |           |
     |                  |<----------------------------------- |
     |                  |             |           |           |
     |                  |             |           |           |
     |                  |             |           |           |

The REFER request (1) contains a Refer-To header field that includes a pointer to the message body, which carries a list with the URIs of the REFER-Targets. In this example, the URI-list does not contain the copyControl attribute extension. The REFER's Require header field carries the "multiple-refer" and "norefersub" option-tags. The Request-URI is set to a Globally Routable User Agent URIs (GRUU) (Rosenberg, J., “Obtaining and Using Globally Routable User Agent (UA) URIs (GRUU) in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),” October 2007.) [I‑D.ietf‑sip‑gruu] (as a guarantee that the REFER request will not fork). The Refer-Sub header field is set to "false" to request the suppression of the implicit subscription. Figure 3 (REFER request with multiple REFER-Targets) shows an example of this REFER request. The resource list document contains the list of REFER-Target URIs along with the method of the SIP request that the REFER-Recipient generates.

REFER sip:conf-123@example.com;gruu;opaque=hha9s8d-999a  SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP client.chicago.example.com
        ;branch=z9hG4bKhjhs8ass83
Max-Forwards: 70
To: "Conference 123" <sip:conf-123@example.com>
From: Carol <sip:carol@chicago.example.com>;tag=32331
Call-ID: d432fa84b4c76e66710
CSeq: 2 REFER
Contact: <sip:carol@client.chicago.example.com>
Refer-To: <cid:cn35t8jf02@example.com>
Refer-Sub: false
Require: multiple-refer, norefersub
Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY
Allow-Events: dialog
Accept: application/sdp, message/sipfrag
Content-Type: application/resource-lists+xml
Content-Disposition: recipient-list
Content-Length: 362
Content-ID: <cn35t8jf02@example.com>

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<resource-lists xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists"
        xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
  <list>
    <entry uri="sip:bill@example.com?method=BYE" />
    <entry uri="sip:joe@example.org?method=BYE" />
    <entry uri="sip:ted@example.net?method=BYE" />
  </list>
</resource-lists>

Figure 4 (BYE request) shows an example of the BYE request (3) that the REFER-Recipient sends to the first REFER-Target.

BYE sip:bill@example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP conference.example.com
        ;branch=z9hG4bKhjhs8assmm
Max-Forwards: 70
From: "Conference 123" <sip:conf-123@example.com>;tag=88734
To: <sip:bill@example.com>;tag=29872
Call-ID: d432fa84b4c34098s812
CSeq: 34 BYE
Content-Length: 0

10.  Security Considerations

The Framework and Security Considerations for SIP URI-List Services (Camarillo, G. and A. Roach, “Framework and Security Considerations for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)-List Services,” November 2007.) [I‑D.ietf‑sipping‑uri‑services] document discusses issues related to SIP URI-list services. Given that a REFER-Recipient accepting REFER requests with multiple REFER-targets acts as a URI-list service, implementations of this type of server MUST follow the security-related rules in the Framework and Security Considerations for SIP URI-List Services (Camarillo, G. and A. Roach, “Framework and Security Considerations for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)-List Services,” November 2007.) [I‑D.ietf‑sipping‑uri‑services]. These rules include mandatory authentication and authorization of clients, and opt-in lists.

Additionally, REFER-Recipients SHOULD only accept REFER requests within the context of an application that the REFER-Recipient understands (e.g., a conferencing application). This implies that REFER-Recipients MUST NOT accept REFER requests for methods they do not understand. The idea behind these two rules is that REFER-Recipients are not used as dumb servers whose only function is to fan-out random messages they do not understand.

11.  IANA Considerations

This document defines a new SIP option-tag: "multiple-refer". This option-tag should be registered in the SIP Parameters registry.

The following row shall be added to the "Option Tags" section of the SIP Parameter Registry:

Note to the RFC Editor: Please replace [RFCXXXX] with the RFC number of this specification.

12.  References

12.1. Normative References

12.2. Informative References

Authors' Addresses

Full Copyright Statement

Copyright © The IETF Trust (2007).

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.