Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


[RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Info page]

PROPOSED STANDARD
Network Working Group                                       G. CamarilloRequest for Comments: 5362                                      EricssonCategory: Standards Track                                   October 2008The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Pending Additions Event PackageStatus of This Memo   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.Abstract   This document defines the SIP Pending Additions event package.  This   event package is used by SIP relays to inform user agents about the   consent-related status of the entries to be added to a resource list.Camarillo                   Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 2008Table of Contents1. Introduction ....................................................32. Terminology .....................................................33. Overview of Operation ...........................................34. XML Schema Definition ...........................................35. Pending Additions Event Package Definition ......................55.1. Event Package Name .........................................55.1.1. Event Package Parameters ............................55.1.2. SUBSCRIBE Bodies ....................................55.1.3. Subscription Duration ...............................55.1.4. NOTIFY Bodies .......................................55.1.5. Notifier Processing of SUBSCRIBE Requests ...........65.1.6. Notifier Generation of NOTIFY Requests ..............65.1.7. Subscriber Processing of NOTIFY Requests ............65.1.8. Handling of Forked Requests .........................75.1.9. Rate of Notifications ...............................75.1.10. State Agents .......................................75.1.11. Example ............................................76. Partial Notifications ...........................................86.1. Generation of Partial Notifications ........................86.2. Processing of Partial Notifications ........................96.3. XML Schema for Partial Notifications .......................96.4. Examples ..................................................117. IANA Considerations ............................................117.1. SIP Event Package Registration ............................117.2. URN Sub-Namespace Registration: consent-status ............127.3. XML Schema Registration: consent-status ...................127.4. XML Schema Registration: resource-lists ...................13      7.5. MIME Type Registration:           application/resource-lists-diff+xml .......................138. Security Considerations ........................................149. Acknowledgments ................................................1410. Normative References ..........................................14Camarillo                   Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 20081.  Introduction   The framework for consent-based communications in SIP [RFC5360]   identifies the need for users manipulating the translation logic at a   relay (e.g., adding a new recipient) to be informed about the   consent-related status of the recipients of a given translation.   That is, the user manipulating the translation logic needs to know   which recipients have given the relay permission to send them SIP   requests.   This document defines a SIP event package whereby user agents can   subscribe to the consent-related state of the resources that are   being added to a resource list that defines a translation.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 [RFC2119].   Relay:  Any SIP server, be it a proxy, B2BUA (Back-to-Back User      Agent), or some hybrid, that receives a request, translates its      Request-URI into one or more next-hop URIs (i.e., recipient URIs),      and delivers the request to those URIs.3.  Overview of Operation   A user agent subscribes to a relay using the Pending Additions event   package.  NOTIFY requests within this event package can carry an XML   document in the "application/resource-lists+xml" format [RFC4826] or   in the "application/resource-lists-diff+xml" format, which is based   on XML patch operations [RFC5261].   A document in the "application/resource-lists+xml" format provides   the user agent with the whole list of resources being added to a   resource list along with the consent-related status of those   resources.  A document in the "application/resource-lists-diff+xml"   format provides the user agent with the changes the list of resources   being added has experimented with since the last notification sent to   the user agent.4.  XML Schema Definition   This section defines the <consent-status> element, which provides   consent-related information about a resource to be added to a relay's   translation logic.Camarillo                   Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 2008   A consent-status document is an XML document that MUST be well-formed   and SHOULD be valid.  Consent-status documents MUST be based on XML   1.0 and MUST be encoded using UTF-8.  This specification makes use of   XML namespaces for identifying consent-status documents.  The   namespace URI for elements defined for this purpose is a URN, using   the namespace identifier 'ietf'.  This URN is:                   urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:consent-status   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>   <xs:schema targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:consent-status"     elementFormDefault="qualified"     attributeFormDefault="unqualified"     xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"     xmlns:tns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:consent-status">      <xs:element name="consent-status">         <xs:simpleType>           <xs:restriction base="xs:string">             <xs:enumeration value="pending"/>             <xs:enumeration value="waiting"/>             <xs:enumeration value="error"/>             <xs:enumeration value="denied"/>             <xs:enumeration value="granted"/>           </xs:restriction>         </xs:simpleType>      </xs:element>   </xs:schema>   The <consent-status> element can take on the following values:   Pending:  the relay has received a request to add a resource to its      translation logic and will ask for permission to do so.   Waiting:  the relay has requested permission to add the resource to      its translation logic but has not gotten any answer from the      resource yet.   Error:  the relay has requested permission to add the resource to its      translation logic and has received an error response (e.g., a SIP      error response to the MESSAGE request sent to request permission).      That is, the permission document requesting permission could not      be delivered to the resource.   Denied:  the resource has denied the relay permission to add the      resource to the relay's translation logic.   Granted:  the resource has granted the relay permission to add the      resource to the relay's translation logic.Camarillo                   Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 2008Section 5.1.11 contains an example of an "application/resource-   lists+xml" document that carries consent-related state information   using <consent-status> elements.5.  Pending Additions Event Package Definition   This section provides the details for defining a SIP [RFC3261] event   notification package, as specified by [RFC3265].  Support for this   section (i.e.,Section 5) is REQUIRED for implementations of this   specification.  Support for partial notifications is optional, but if   a subscriber signals support for partial notifications,Section 6   MUST be implemented.5.1.  Event Package Name   The name of this event package is "consent-pending-additions".  This   package name is carried in the Event and Allow-Events header, as   defined in [RFC3265].5.1.1.  Event Package Parameters   This package does not define any event package parameters.5.1.2.  SUBSCRIBE Bodies   A SUBSCRIBE for Pending Additions events MAY contain a body.  This   body would serve the purpose of filtering the subscription.  Filter   documents are not specified in this document and, at the time of   writing, they are expected to be the subject of future   standardization activity.   A SUBSCRIBE for the Pending Additions event package MAY be sent   without a body.  This implies that the default session policy   filtering policy has been requested.  The default policy is that   notifications are generated every time there is any change in the   state of a resource in the list.5.1.3.  Subscription Duration   The default expiration time for a subscription is one hour (3600   seconds).5.1.4.  NOTIFY Bodies   In this event package, the body of the notifications contains a   resource list document.  This document describes the resources being   added as recipients to a translation operation.  All subscribers and   notifiers MUST support the "application/resource-lists+xml" dataCamarillo                   Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 2008   format [RFC4826] and its extension to carry consent-related state   information, which is specified inSection 4.  The SUBSCRIBE request   MAY contain an Accept header field.  If no such header field is   present, it has a default value of "application/resource-lists+xml".   If the header field is present, it MUST include   "application/resource-lists+xml", and MAY include any other types   capable of representing consent-related state.   Additionally, all subscribers and notifiers SHOULD support the   "application/resource-lists-diff+xml" format.Section 6 discusses   the usage of the Pending Additions event package with this format.5.1.5.  Notifier Processing of SUBSCRIBE Requests   The state of the resources to be added to a relay's translation logic   can reveal sensitive information.  Therefore, all subscriptions   SHOULD be authenticated and then authorized before approval.   Authorization policy is at the discretion of the administrator.5.1.6.  Notifier Generation of NOTIFY Requests   A notifier for the Pending Additions event package SHOULD include the   <consent-status> element, which is defined inSection 4.  The   <consent-status> element MUST be positioned as an instance of the   <any> element within the <entry> element.   Notifications SHOULD be generated for the Pending Additions package   whenever there is a change in the consent-related state of a   resource.  When a resource moves to the error, denied, or granted   states, and once a NOTIFY request is sent, the resource is removed   from further notifications.5.1.7.  Subscriber Processing of NOTIFY Requests   As stated inSection 3, a document in the "application/resource-   lists+xml" format provides the subscriber with the whole list of   resources being added to a resource list along with the consent-   related status of those resources.  On receiving a NOTIFY request   with such a document, the subscriber SHOULD update its local   information about the resources being added to the resource list with   the information in the document.  NOTIFY requests contain full state.   The subscriber does not need to perform any type of information   aggregation.Section 6 discusses the use of the Pending Additions   event package with partial notifications.Camarillo                   Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 20085.1.8.  Handling of Forked Requests   The state of a given resource list is normally handled by a server   and stored in a repository.  Therefore, there is usually a single   place where the resource-list state is resident.  This implies that a   subscription for this information is readily handled by a single   element with access to this repository.  There is, therefore, no   compelling need for a subscription to pending additions information   to fork.  As a result, a subscriber MUST NOT create multiple dialogs   as a result of a single subscription request.  The required   processing to guarantee that only a single dialog is established is   described inSection 4.4.9 of [RFC3265].5.1.9.  Rate of Notifications   For reasons of congestion control, it is important that the rate of   notifications not become excessive.  As a result, it is RECOMMENDED   that the server does not generate notifications for a single   subscriber at a rate faster than once every 5 seconds.5.1.10.  State Agents   State agents have no role in the handling of this package.5.1.11.  Example   The following is an example of an "application/resource-lists+xml"   document that carries consent-related state information using   <consent-status> elements:      <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>      <resource-lists xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists"       xmlns:cs="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:consent-status">       <list>        <entry uri="sip:bill@example.com">         <display-name>Bill Doe</display-name>         <cs:consent-status>pending</cs:consent-status>        </entry>        <entry uri="sip:joe@example.com">         <display-name>Joe Smith</display-name>         <cs:consent-status>pending</cs:consent-status>        </entry>        <entry uri="sip:nancy@example.com">         <display-name>Nancy Gross</display-name>         <cs:consent-status>granted</cs:consent-status>        </entry>       </list>      </resource-lists>Camarillo                   Standards Track                     [Page 7]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 20086.  Partial Notifications   The lists of resources reported by this event package may contain   many resources.  When the "application/resource-lists+xml" format is   used and there is a change in the consent-related status of a   resource, the server generates a notification with the whole list.   Generating large notifications to report small changes does not meet   the efficiency requirements of some bandwidth-constrained   environments.  The partial notifications mechanism specified in this   section is a more efficient way to report changes in the status of   resources.   Subscribers signal support for partial notifications by including the   "application/resource-lists-diff+xml" format in the Accept header   field of the SUBSCRIBE requests they generate.  If a client   subscribing to the Pending Additions event package generates an   Accept header field that includes the MIME type   "application/resource-lists-diff+xml", the server has the option of   returning documents in this format (instead of in the   "application/resource-lists+xml" format).6.1.  Generation of Partial Notifications   Once a subscription is accepted and installed, the server MUST   deliver full state in its first notification.  To report full state,   the server uses the regular format for resource lists.  Consequently,   the server MUST set the Content-Type header field to the value   'application/resource-lists+xml'.   In order to deliver a partial notification, the server MUST set the   Content-Type header field to the value 'application/resource-lists-   diff+xml'.  When the server generates a partial notification, the   server SHOULD only include the information that has changed since the   previous notification.  It is up to the server's local policy to   determine what is considered as a change to the previous state.   The server MUST construct partial notifications according to the   following logic: all information that has been added to the document   is listed inside <add> elements, all information that has been   removed from the document is listed inside <remove> elements, and all   information that has been changed is listed under <replace> elements.   The server MUST NOT send a new NOTIFY request with a partial   notification until it has received a final response from the   subscriber for the previous one or the previous NOTIFY request has   timed out.Camarillo                   Standards Track                     [Page 8]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 2008   When the server receives a SUBSCRIBE request (refresh or termination)   within the associated subscription, it SHOULD send a NOTIFY request   containing the full document using the 'application/resource-   lists+xml' content type.   If the server has used a content type other than   'application/resource-lists+xml' in notifications within the existing   subscription and changes to deliver partial notifications, the server   MUST deliver full state using the 'application/resource-lists+xml'   content type before generating its first partial notification.6.2.  Processing of Partial Notifications   When a subscriber receives the first notification containing full   state in a 'application/resource-lists+xml' MIME body, the subscriber   MUST store the received full document as its local copy.   When the subscriber receives a subsequent notification, the   subscriber MUST modify its locally stored information according to   the following logic:   o  If the notification carries an %'application/resource-lists+xml'      document, the subscriber MUST replace its local copy of the      document with the document received in notification.   o  If the notification carries an 'application/resource-lists-      diff+xml' document, the subscriber MUST apply the changes      indicated in the received 'application/resource-lists-diff+xml'      document to its local copy of the full document.   If a subscriber encounters a processing error while processing an   'application/resource-lists-diff+xml' encoded document, the   subscriber SHOULD renew its subscription.  A subscriber can fall back   to normal operations by not including the 'application/resource-   lists-diff+xml' format in a new SUBSCRIBE request.   If the server changes the content type used in notifications within   the existing subscription, the subscriber MUST discard all the   previously received information and process the new content as   specified for that content type.6.3.  XML Schema for Partial Notifications   This is the XML schema for the "application/resource-lists-diff+xml"   data format.  The "urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:xml-patch-ops" schema   is defined in [RFC5261].Camarillo                   Standards Track                     [Page 9]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 2008   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>     <xs:schema            targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists"            xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists"            xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"            elementFormDefault="qualified">        <!-- include patch-ops type definitions -->         <xs:include              schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:patch-ops"/>        <!-- partial updates -->      <xs:element name="resource-lists-diff">       <xs:sequence minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">        <xs:choice>         <xs:element name="add">          <xs:complexType mixed="true">           <xs:complexContent>            <xs:extension base="add">             <xs:anyAttribute processContents="lax"/>            </xs:extension>           </xs:complexContent>          </xs:complexType>         </xs:element>         <xs:element name="remove">          <xs:complexType>           <xs:complexContent>            <xs:extension base="remove">             <xs:anyAttribute processContents="lax"/>            </xs:extension>           </xs:complexContent>          </xs:complexType>         </xs:element>         <xs:element name="replace">          <xs:complexType mixed="true">           <xs:complexContent>            <xs:extension base="replace">             <xs:anyAttribute processContents="lax"/>            </xs:extension>           </xs:complexContent>          </xs:complexType>         </xs:element>         <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax"/>        </xs:choice>       </xs:sequence>       <xs:anyAttribute processContents="lax"/>      </xs:element>     </xs:schema>Camarillo                   Standards Track                    [Page 10]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 20086.4.  ExamplesSection 5.1.11 contains an example of an 'application/resource-   lists+xml' document, which carries full state.  The following is an   'application/resource-lists-diff+xml' partial update document:   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>   <resource-lists-diff xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists"    xmlns:cs="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:consent-status">   <replacesel="*/list/entry[@uri='sip:bill@example.com']/cs:consent-status/text()"   >granted</replace>   </resource-lists-diff>   The following is the resulting 'application/resource-lists+xml'   document after applying the partial update:      <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>      <resource-lists xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists"       xmlns:cs="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:consent-status">       <list>        <entry uri="sip:bill@example.com">         <display-name>Bill Doe</display-name>         <cs:consent-status>granted</cs:consent-status>        </entry>        <entry uri="sip:joe@example.com">         <display-name>Joe Smith</display-name>         <cs:consent-status>pending</cs:consent-status>        </entry>        <entry uri="sip:nancy@example.com">         <display-name>Nancy Gross</display-name>         <cs:consent-status>granted</cs:consent-status>        </entry>       </list>      </resource-lists>7.  IANA Considerations   There are five IANA considerations associated with this   specification.7.1.  SIP Event Package Registration   This specification registers a SIP event package per the procedures   in [RFC3265].Camarillo                   Standards Track                    [Page 11]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 2008   Package name: consent-pending-additions   Type: package   Contact: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>   Published Specification:RFC 5362.7.2.  URN Sub-Namespace Registration: consent-status   This section registers a new XML namespace per the procedures in   [RFC3688].   URI: The URI for this namespace is   urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:consent-status   Registrant Contact: IETF SIPPING working group <sipping@ietf.org>,   Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>   XML:   <?xml version="1.0"?>   <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN"             "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic10.dtd">   <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">   <head>     <meta http-equiv="content-type"        content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1"/>     <title>Pending Additions Extension Namespace</title>   </head>   <body>     <h1>Namespace for Consent-related Status Information Extension</h1>     <h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:consent-status</h2>     <p>See <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5362.txt">RFC 5362       </a>.</p>    </body>   </html>7.3.  XML Schema Registration: consent-status   This section registers an XML schema per the procedures in [RFC3688].   URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:consent-status   Registrant Contact: IETF SIPPING working group <sipping@ietf.org>,   Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>   The XML for this schema can be found inSection 4.Camarillo                   Standards Track                    [Page 12]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 20087.4.  XML Schema Registration: resource-lists   This section registers an XML schema per the procedures in [RFC3688].   This XML schema is an extension to the XML schema (whose ID is   resource-list) defined in [RFC4826].  The IANA has added a row in the   XML schema registry with the following values:      ID: resource-lists-diff      URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:resource-lists-diff      Filename: resource-lists-diff      Reference [RFC5362]   Registrant Contact: IETF SIPPING working group <sipping@ietf.org>,   Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>   The XML for this schema can be found inSection 6.3.7.5.  MIME Type Registration: application/resource-lists-diff+xml   This section registers the 'application/resource-lists-diff+xml' MIME   type.   MIME media type name:  application   MIME subtype name:  resource-lists-diff+xml   Mandatory parameters: none      Optional parameters:  Same as charset parameter application/xml as      specified in [RFC3023].   Encoding considerations:  Same as encoding considerations of      application/xml as specified in [RFC3023].   Security considerations: SeeSection 10 of [RFC3023] andSection 7 of      [RFC4826].   Interoperability considerations:  none   Published specification:RFC 5362   Applications that use this media type:  This document type has been      defined to support partial notifications in subscriptions to      resource lists.   Additional Information:   Magic number:  none   File extension:  .rld   Macintosh file type code:  "TEXT"   Personal and email address for further information:  Gonzalo      Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>   Intended usage:  COMMON   Author/Change controller:  The IETFCamarillo                   Standards Track                    [Page 13]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 20088.  Security Considerations   "A Framework for Consent-Based Communications in the Session   Initiation Protocol (SIP)" [RFC5360] discusses security-related   issues that are related to this specification.   Subscriptions to the Pending Additions event package can reveal   sensitive information.  For this reason, it is RECOMMENDED that   relays use strong means for authentication and information   confidentiality.  Additionally, attackers may attempt to modify the   contents of the notifications sent by a relay to its subscribers.   Consequently, it is RECOMMENDED that relays use a strong means for   information integrity protection.   It is RECOMMENDED that relays authenticate subscribers using the   normal SIP authentication mechanisms, such as Digest, as defined in   [RFC3261].   The mechanism used for conveying information to subscribers SHOULD   ensure the integrity and confidentially of the information.  In order   to achieve these, an end-to-end SIP encryption mechanism, such as   S/MIME, as described in [RFC3261], SHOULD be used.   If strong end-to-end security means (such as above) is not available,   it is RECOMMENDED that hop-by-hop security based on TLS and SIPS   URIs, as described in [RFC3261], is used.9.  Acknowledgments   Jonathan Rosenberg provided useful ideas on this document.  Ben   Campbell and Mary Barnes performed a thorough review of this   document.  Jari Urpalainen helped improve the partial notifications   mechanism.10.  Normative References   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate              Requirement Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119, March 1997.   [RFC3023]  Murata, M., St. Laurent, S., and D. Kohn, "XML Media              Types",RFC 3023, January 2001.   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol",RFC 3261,              June 2002.Camarillo                   Standards Track                    [Page 14]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 2008   [RFC3265]  Roach, A.B., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific              Event Notification",RFC 3265, June 2002.   [RFC3688]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry",BCP 81,RFC 3688,              January 2004.   [RFC4826]  Rosenberg, J., "Extensible Markup Language (XML) Formats              for Representing Resource Lists",RFC 4826, May 2007.   [RFC5261]  Urpalainen, J., "An Extensible Markup Language (XML) Patch              Operations Framework Utilizing XML Path Language (XPath)              Selectors",RFC 5261, September 2008.   [RFC5360]  Rosenberg, J., Camarillo, G., and D. Willis, "A Framework              for Consent-Based Communications in the Session Initiation              Protocol (SIP)",RFC 5360, October 2008.Author's Address   Gonzalo Camarillo   Ericsson   Hirsalantie 11   Jorvas  02420   Finland   EMail: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.comCamarillo                   Standards Track                    [Page 15]

RFC 5362            Pending Additions Event Package         October 2008Full Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions   contained inBCP 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 inBCP 78 andBCP 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 athttp://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.Camarillo                   Standards Track                    [Page 16]

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2026 Movatter.jp