[Search] [pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 rfc5137          Best Current Practice
Network Working Group                                         J. Klensin
Internet-Draft                                         November 17, 2007
Intended status: Best Current
Expires: May 20, 2008

                  ASCII Escaping of Unicode Characters

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-

   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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 20, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).


   There are a number of circumstances in which an escape mechanism is
   needed in conjunction with a protocol to encode characters that
   cannot be represented or transmitted directly.  With ASCII coding the
   traditional escape has been either the decimal or hexadecimal numeric
   value of the character, written in a variety of different ways.  The
   move to Unicode, where characters occupy two or more octets and may
   be coded in several different forms, has further complicated the

Klensin                   Expires May 20, 2008                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft               Unicode Escapes               November 2007

   question of escapes.  This document discusses some options now in use
   and discusses considerations for selecting one for use in new IETF
   protocols and protocols that are now being internationalized.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Context and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.3.  Discussion List  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Encodings that Represent Unicode Code Points: Code
       Position versus UTF-8 or UTF-16 Octets . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Referring to Unicode Characters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Syntax for Code Point Escapes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   5.  Recommended Presentation Variants for Unicode Code Point
       Excapes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     5.1.  Backslash-U with Delimiters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.2.  XML and HTML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   6.  Forms that are Normally Not Recommended  . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     6.1.  The C Programming Language: Backslash-U  . . . . . . . . .  8
     6.2.  Perl: A Hexadecimal String . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     6.3.  Java: Escaped UTF-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   9.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   10. Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     10.1. Changes in -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     10.2. Major Changes in -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     10.3. Major Changes in -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     10.4. Major Changes in -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     10.5. Changes in -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     10.6. Changes in -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     10.7. Changes in -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Appendix A.   Formal Syntax for Forms Not Recommended  . . . . . . 11
   Appendix A.1. The C Programming Language Form  . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Appendix A.2. Perl Form  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Appendix A.3. Java Form  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 14

Klensin                   Expires May 20, 2008                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft               Unicode Escapes               November 2007

1.  Introduction

1.1.  Context and Background

   There are a number of circumstances in which an escape mechanism is
   needed in conjunction with a protocol to encode characters that
   cannot be represented or transmitted directly.  With ASCII [ASCII]
   coding the traditional escape has been either the decimal or
   hexadecimal numeric value of the character, written in a variety of
   different ways.  For example, in different contexts, we have seen
   %dNN or %NN for the decimal form, %NN, %xNN, X'nn', and %X'NN' for
   the hexadecimal form. "%NN" has become popular in recent years to
   represent a hexadecimal value without further qualification, perhaps
   as a consequence of its use in URLs and their prevalence.  There are
   even some applications around in which octal forms are used and,
   while they do not generalize well, the MIME Quoted-Printable and
   Encoded-word forms can be thought of as yet another set of escapes.
   So, even for the fairly simple cases of ASCII and standard built by
   extending ASCII, such as the ISO 8859 family, we have been living
   with several different escaping forms, each the result of some

   When one moves to Unicode [Unicode] [ISO10646], where characters
   occupy two or more octets and may be coded in several different
   forms, the question of escapes becomes even more complicated.
   Unicode represents characters as code points: numeric values from 0
   to hex 10FFFF.  When referencing code points in flowing text, they
   are represented using the so-called "U+" notation, as values from
   U+0000 to U+10FFFF.  When serialized into octets, these code points
   can be represented in different forms:

   o  in UTF-8 with one to four octets [RFC3629]

   o  in UTF-16 with two or four octets (or one or two seizets - 16-bit

   o  in UTF-32 with exactly four octets (or one 32-bit unit)

   When escaping characters, we have seen fairly extensive use of
   hexadecimal representations of both the serialized forms and
   variations on the U+ notation, known as code point escapes.

   In accordance with existing best-practices recommendations [RFC2277],
   new protocols that are required to carry textual content for human
   use SHOULD be designed in such a way that the full repertoire of
   Unicode characters may be represented in that text.

   This document proposes that existing protocols being

Klensin                   Expires May 20, 2008                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft               Unicode Escapes               November 2007

   internationalized, and that need an escape mechanism, SHOULD use some
   contextually-appropriate variation on references to code points as
   described in Section 2 unless other considerations outweigh those
   described here.

   This recommendation is not applicable to protocols that already
   accept native UTF-8 or some other encoding of Unicode.  In general,
   when protocols are internationalized, it is preferable to accept
   those forms rather than using escapes.  This recommendation applies
   to cases, including transition arrangements, in which that is not

   In addition to the protocol contexts addressed in this specification,
   escapes to represent Unicode characters also appear in presentations
   to users, i.e., in user interfaces (UI).  The formats specified in,
   and the reasoning of, this document may be applicable in UI contexts
   as well, but this is not a proposal to standardize UI or presentation

   This document does not make general recommendations for processing
   Unicode strings or for their contents.  It assumes that the strings
   that one might want to escape are valid and reasonable and that the
   definition of "valid and reasonable" is the province of other
   documents.  Recommendations about general treatment of Unicode
   strings may be found in many places, including the Unicode Standard
   itself and the W3C Character Model [W3C-CharMod] as well as specific
   rules in individual protocols.

1.2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   Additional Unicode-specific terminology appears in [UnicodeGlossary],
   but is not necessary for understanding this specification.

1.3.  Discussion List

   Discussion of this document should be addressed to the
   discuss@apps.ietf.org mailing list.

2.  Encodings that Represent Unicode Code Points: Code Position versus
    UTF-8 or UTF-16 Octets

   There are two major families of ways to escape Unicode characters.
   One uses the code point in some representation (see the next

Klensin                   Expires May 20, 2008                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft               Unicode Escapes               November 2007

   section), the other encodes the octets of the UTF-8 encoding or some
   other encoding in some representation.  Some other options are
   possible, but they have been rare in practice.  This specification
   recommends that, in the absence of compelling reasons to do
   otherwise, the Unicode code points SHOULD be used rather than a
   representation of UTF-8 (or UTF-16) octets.  There are several
   reasons for this, including:

   o  One reason for the success of many IETF protocols is that they use
      human-interpretable text forms to communicate, rather than
      encodings that generally require computer programs (or hand
      simulation of algorithms) to decode.  This suggests that the
      presentation form should reference the Unicode tables for
      characters and to do so as simply as possible.

   o  Because of the nature of UTF-8, for a human to interpret a decimal
      or hexadecimal numeral representation of UTF-8 octets requires one
      or more decoding steps to determine a Unicode code point that can
      used to look up the character in a table.  That may be appropriate
      in some cases where the goal is really to represent the UTF-8 form
      but, in general, it just obscures desired information and makes
      errors more likely and debugging harder.

   o  Except for characters in the ASCII subset of Unicode (U+0000
      through U+007F), the code point form is generally more compact
      than forms based on coding UTF-8 octets, sometimes much more

   The same considerations that apply to representation of the octets of
   UTF-8 encoding also apply to more compact ACE encodings such as the
   "bootstring" encoding [RFC3492] with or without its "Punycode"

   Similar considerations apply to UTF-16 encoding, such as the \uNNNN
   form used in Java (See Section 6.3).  While those forms are
   equivalent to code point references for the Basic Multilingual Plane
   (BMP, Plane 0), a two-stage decoding process is needed to handle
   surrogates to access higher planes.

3.  Referring to Unicode Characters

   Regardless of what decisions are made about escapes for Unicode
   characters in protocol or similar contexts, text referring to a
   Unicode code point SHOULD use the U+NNNN[N[N]] syntax, as specified
   in the Unicode Standard, where the NNNN... string consists of
   hexadecimal numbers.  Text actually containing a Unicode character
   SHOULD use a syntax more suitable for automated processing.

Klensin                   Expires May 20, 2008                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft               Unicode Escapes               November 2007

4.  Syntax for Code Point Escapes

   There are many options for code point escapes, some of which are
   summarized below.  All are equivalent in content and semantics -- the
   differences lie in syntax.  The best choice of syntax for a
   particular protocol or other application depends on that application:
   one form may simply "fit" better in a given context than others.  It
   is clear, however, that hexadecimal values are preferable to other
   alternatives: Systems based on decimal or octal offsets SHOULD NOT be

   Since this specification does not recommend one specific syntax,
   protocols specifications that use escapes MUST define the syntax they
   are using, including any necessary escapes to permit the escape
   sequence to be used literally.

   The application designer selecting a format should consider at least
   the following factors:

   o  If similar or related protocols already use one form, it may be
      best to select that form for consistency and predictability.

   o  A Unicode code point can fall in the range from U+0000 to
      U+10FFFF.  Different escape systems may use four, five, six, or
      eight hexadecimal digits.  To avoid clever syntax tricks and the
      consequent risk of confusion and errors, forms that use explicit
      string delimiters are generally preferred over other alternatives.
      In many contexts, symmetric paired delimiters are easier to
      recognize and understand than visually-unrelated ones.

   o  Syntax forms starting in "\u", without explicit delimiters, have
      been used in several different escape systems, including the four
      or eight digit syntax of C [ISO-C] (see Section 6.1), the UTF-16
      encoding of Java [Java] (see Section 6.3), and some arrangements
      that may follow the "\u" with four, five, or six digits.  The
      possible confusion about which option is actually being used may
      argue against use of any of these forms.

   o  Forms that require decoding surrogate pairs share most of the
      problems that appear with encoding of UTF-8 octets.  Internet
      protocols SHOULD NOT use surrogate pairs.

5.  Recommended Presentation Variants for Unicode Code Point Excapes

   There are a number of different ways to represent a Unicode code
   point position.  No one of them appears to be "best" for all
   contexts.  In addition, when an escape is needed for the escape

Klensin                   Expires May 20, 2008                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft               Unicode Escapes               November 2007

   mechanism itself, the optimal one of those might differ from one
   context to another.

   Some forms that are in popular use and that might reasonably be
   considered for use in a given protocol are described below and
   identified with a current-use context when feasible.  The two in this
   section are recommended for use in Internet Protocols.  Other popular
   ones appear in Section 6 with some discussion of their disadvantages.

5.1.  Backslash-U with Delimiters

   One of the recommended forms is a variation of the many forms that
   start in "\u" (See, e.g., Section 6.1, below>), but uses explicit
   delimiters for the reasons discussed elsewhere.

   Specifically, in ABNF [RFC4234],

   EmbeddedUnicodeChar =  %x5C.75.27 4*6HEXDIG %x27
      ; starting with lower case "\u and "'" and ending with "'".
      ; Note that the encodings are considered to be abstractions
      ; for the relevant characters, not designations of specific
      ; octets.

   HEXDIG =  "0" / "1" / "2" / "3" / "4" / "5" / "6" / "7" / "8" / "9" /
      "A" / "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F"
      ; effectively identical with definition in RFC 4234.

   Protocol designers of applications using this form should specify a
   way to escape the introducing backslash ("\") if needed. "\\" is one
   obvious possibility, but not the only one.

5.2.  XML and HTML

   The other recommended form is the one used in XML.  It uses the form
   "&#xNNNN;".  Like the Perl form (Section 6.2), this form has a clear
   ending delimiter, reducing ambiguity.  HTML uses a similar form, but
   the semicolon may be omitted in some cases.  If that is done, the
   advantages of the the delimiter disappear so the HTML form without
   the semicolon SHOULD NOT be used.  However, this format is often
   considered ugly and awkward outside of its native HTML, XML, and
   similar contexts.

   In ABNF:

   EmbeddedUnicodeChar =   %x26.23.78 2*6HEXDIG %x3B
      ; starts with "&#x" and ends with ";"

   Note that a literal "&" can be expressed by "&" when using this

Klensin                   Expires May 20, 2008                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft               Unicode Escapes               November 2007


6.  Forms that are Normally Not Recommended

6.1.  The C Programming Language: Backslash-U

   The forms

      \UNNNNNNNN (for any Unicode character) and

      \uNNNN (for Unicode characters in plane 0)

   are utilized in the C Programming Language [ISO-C] when an ASCII
   escape for embedded Unicode characters is needed.

   There are disadvantages of this form which may be significant.
   First, the use of a case variation (between "u" for the four digit
   form and "U" for the eight digit form) may not seem natural in
   environments in which upper and lower case characters are generally
   considered equivalent and might be confusing to people who are not
   very familiar with Latin-based alphabets (although those people might
   have even more trouble reading relevant English text and
   explanations).  Second, as discussed in Section 4 the very fact that
   there are several different conventions that start in \u or \U may
   become a source of confusion as people make incorrect assumptions
   about what they are looking at.

6.2.  Perl: A Hexadecimal String

   Perl uses the form \x{NNNN...}.  The advantage of this form is that
   there are explicit delimiters, resolving the issue of having
   variable-length strings or using the case-change mechanism of the
   proposed form to distinguish between Plane 0 and more general forms.
   Some other programming languages would tend to favor X'NNNN...' forms
   for hexadecimal strings and perhaps U'NNNN...' for Unicode-specific
   strings, but those forms do not seem to be in use around the IETF.

   Note that there is a possible ambiguity in how two-character or low-
   numbered sequences in this notation are understood, i.e., that octets
   in the range \x(00) through \x(FF) may be construed as being in the
   local character set, not as Unicode code points.  Because of this
   apparent ambiguity, and because IETF documents do not contain
   provision for pragmas (see [PERLUniIntro] for more information about
   the "encoding" pragma in Perl and other details) the Perl forms
   should be used with extreme caution if at all.

Klensin                   Expires May 20, 2008                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft               Unicode Escapes               November 2007

6.3.  Java: Escaped UTF-16

   Java [Java] uses the form \uNNNN, but as a reference to UTF-16
   values, not Unicode code points.  While it uses a syntax similar to
   that described in Section 6.1, this relationship to UTF-16 makes it,
   in many respects, more similar to the encodings of UTF-8 discussed
   above than to an escape that designates Unicode code points.  Note
   that the UTF-16 form, and hence the Java escape notation, can
   represent characters outside Plane 0 (i.e., above U+FFFF) only by the
   use of surrogate pairs, raising some of the same issues as the use of
   UTF-8 octets discussed above.  For characters in Plane 0, the Java
   form is indistinguishable from the Plane 0-only form described in
   Section 6.1.  If only for that reason, it SHOULD NOT be used as an
   escape except in those Java contexts in which it is natural.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document specifies no actions for IANA.

8.  Security Considerations

   This document proposes a set of rules for encoding Unicode characters
   when other considerations do not apply.  Since all of the recommended
   encodings are unambiguous and normalization issues are not involved,
   it should not introduce any security issues that are not present as a
   result of simple use of non-ASCII characters, no matter how they are
   encoded.  The mechanisms suggested should slightly lower the risks of
   confusing users with encoded characters by making the identity of the
   characters being used somewhat more obvious than some of the

   An escape mechanism such as the one specified in this document can
   allow characters to be represented in more than one way.  Where
   software interprets the escaped form, there is a risk that security
   checks, and any necessary checks for, e.g., minimal or normalized
   forms, are done at the wrong point.

9.  Acknowledgments

   This document was produced in response to a series of discussions
   within the IETF Applications Area and as part of work on email
   internationalization and internationalized domain name updates.  It
   is a synthesis of a large number of discussions, the comments of the
   participants in which are gratefully acknowledged.  The help of Mark
   Davis in constructing a list of alternative presentations and

Klensin                   Expires May 20, 2008                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft               Unicode Escapes               November 2007

   selecting among them was especially important.

   Tim Bray, Peter Constable, Stephane Bortzmeyer, Chris Newman, Frank
   Ellermann, Clive D.W. Feather, Philip Guenther, Bjoern Hoehrmann,
   Simon Josefsson, Bill McQuillan, der Mouse, Phil Pennock, and Julian
   Reschke provided careful reading and some corrections and suggestions
   on the various drafts.  Taken together, their suggestions motivated
   the significant revision of this document and its recommendations
   between version -00 and version -01 and further improvements in the
   subsequent versions.

10.  Change log

   [[anchor9: RFC Editor: Please remove this section before

10.1.  Changes in -01

   o  Corrected ABNF syntax for Hex-quad and Full-form.

10.2.  Major Changes in -02

   This version removes the recommendation of a particular format,
   discussing several of them and indicating considerations in making a

10.3.  Major Changes in -03

   This version improves the ABNF and adds it for more of the escape
   techniques.  It also contains several editorial and contextual

10.4.  Major Changes in -04

   o  Updated this section to reflect the changes in -02 and -03.

   o  Modified the structure of the document to explicitly recommend the
      "\u'[N[N]]NNNN'" and XML forms (still trying to make a
      recommendation, not just a list).

   o  Clarified the description of the Perl form, added a reference, and
      warned about the ambiguity with single octets.

   o  Some additional editorial changes for clarity.

Klensin                   Expires May 20, 2008                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft               Unicode Escapes               November 2007

10.5.  Changes in -05

   Moved syntax for the "not recommended" forms to an appendix.

10.6.  Changes in -06

   o  Added syntax for Java to appendix, per Clive Feather.

   o  Added discussion of escapes for \ in the backslash-U case
      (Section 5.1) per Frank Ellerman.

   o  Moved the definition of HEXDIG from the appendix to the normative
      Section 5.1.

   o  Small editorial and layout corrections.

10.7.  Changes in -07

   Version 06 was the IETF Last Call version.  This version reflects
   changes made as the result of comments made during and after Last

   o  Changed reference name for the Perl document to conform to
      conventional Perl usage.

   o  Changed terminology in Section 2 to better align with Unicode
      Standard terminology.

Appendix A.  Formal Syntax for Forms Not Recommended

   While the syntax for the escape forms that are not recommended above
   (see Section 6), are not given inline in the hope of discouraging
   their use, they are provided in this appendix in the hope that those
   who choose to use them will do so consistently.  The reader is
   cautioned that some of these forms are not defined precisely in the
   original specifications and that others have evolved over time in
   ways that are not precisely consistent.  Consequently, these
   definitions are not normative and may not even precisely match
   reasonable interpretations of their sources.

   The definition of "HEXDIG" for the forms that follow appears in
   Section 5.1.

Appendix A.1.  The C Programming Language Form

   Specifically, in ABNF [RFC4234],

Klensin                   Expires May 20, 2008                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft               Unicode Escapes               November 2007

   EmbeddedUnicodeChar =  BMP-form / Full-form

   BMP-form =  %x5C.75 4HEXDIG ; starting with lower case "\u"
      ; The encodings are considered to be abstractions for the
      ; relevant characters, not designations of specific octets.

   Full-form =  %x5C.55 8HEXDIG ; starting with upper case "\U"

Appendix A.2.  Perl Form

   EmbeddedUnicodeChar =   %x5C.78 "{" 2*6HEXDIG "}" ; starts with "\x"

Appendix A.3.  Java Form

   EmbeddedUnicodeChar =   %x5C.7A 4HEXDIG ; starts with "\u"

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

              International Organization for Standardization,
              "Information Technology - Universal Multiple- Octet Coded
              Character Set (UCS)"", ISO/IEC 10646:2003, December 2003.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3629]  Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
              10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.

   [RFC4234]  Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.

   [Unicode]  The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version
              5.0", 2006.

              (Addison-Wesley, 2006.  ISBN 0-321-48091-0).

11.2.  Informative 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

Klensin                   Expires May 20, 2008                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft               Unicode Escapes               November 2007

              definitive for the Internet.

   [ISO-C]    International Organization for Standardization,
              "Information technology --  Programming languages -- C",
              ISO/IEC 9899:1999, 1999.

   [Java]     Sun Microsystems, Inc., "Java Language Specification,
              Third Edition", 2005, <http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/

              Hietaniemi, J., "perluniintro", Perl documentation  5.8.8,
              2002, <http://perldoc.perl.org/perluniintro.html>.

   [RFC2277]  Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
              Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.

   [RFC3492]  Costello, A., "Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of Unicode
              for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications
              (IDNA)", RFC 3492, March 2003.

              The Unicode Consortium, "Glossary of Unicode Terms",
              June 2007, <http://www.unicode.org/glossary>.

              Duerst, M., "Character Model for the World Wide Web 1.0",
              W3C Recommendation, February 2005,

Author's Address

   John C Klensin
   1770 Massachusetts Ave, #322
   Cambridge, MA  02140

   Phone: +1 617 245 1457
   Email: john-ietf@jck.com

Klensin                   Expires May 20, 2008                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft               Unicode Escapes               November 2007

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) 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

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

   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


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

Klensin                   Expires May 20, 2008                 [Page 14]