[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 RFC 5436

Sieve Working Group                                             B. Leiba
Internet-Draft                           IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Updates: 3834 (if approved)                                    M. Haardt
Intended status: Standards Track                         freenet.de GmbH
Expires: June 7, 2009                                   December 4, 2008


                  Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto
                   draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-10

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 7, 2009.

















Leiba & Haardt            Expires June 7, 2009                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft    Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto     December 2008


Abstract

   This document describes a profile of the Sieve extension for
   notifications, to allow notifications to be sent by electronic mail.


Table of Contents

   1.      Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   1.1.    Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   1.2.    Conventions used in this document  . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

   2.      Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.1.    Notify parameter "method"  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.2.    Test notify_method_capability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.3.    Notify tag ":from" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.4.    Notify tag ":importance" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.5.    Notify tag ":options"  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.6.    Notify tag ":message"  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.7.    Other Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.7.1.  The Auto-Submitted header field  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

   3.      Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

   4.      Internationalization Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . 10

   5.      Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

   6.      IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   6.1.    Registration of notification mechanism . . . . . . . . . . 13
   6.2.    New registry for Auto-Submitted header field keywords  . . 13
   6.3.    Initial registration of Auto-Submitted header field
           keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

   7.      References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   7.1.    Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   7.2.    Non-Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

           Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
           Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . 17











Leiba & Haardt            Expires June 7, 2009                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft    Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto     December 2008


1.  Introduction

1.1.  Overview

   The [Notify] extension to the [Sieve] mail filtering language is a
   framework for providing notifications by employing URIs to specify
   the notification mechanism.  This document defines how [mailto] URIs
   are used to generate notifications by e-mail.

1.2.  Conventions used in this document

   Conventions for notations are as in [Sieve] section 1.1, including
   the use of [Kwds].

   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 [Kwds].


































Leiba & Haardt            Expires June 7, 2009                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft    Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto     December 2008


2.  Definition

   The mailto mechanism results in the sending of a new email message (a
   "notification message") to notify a recipient about a "triggering
   message".

2.1.  Notify parameter "method"

   The mailto notification mechanism uses standard mailto URIs as
   specified in [mailto]. mailto URIs may contain header fields
   consisting of a header name and value.  These header fields are
   called "URI headers" to distinguish them from "message headers".

2.2.  Test notify_method_capability

   The notify_method_capability test for "online" may return "yes" or
   "no" only if the Sieve processor can determine with certainty whether
   or not the recipients of the notification message are online and
   logged in.  Otherwise, the test returns "maybe" for this notification
   method.

2.3.  Notify tag ":from"

   The :from tag overrides the default sender of the notification
   message.  "Sender", here, refers to the value used in the [RFC5322]
   "From" header.  Implementations MAY also use this value in the
   [RFC5321] "MAIL FROM" command (the "envelope sender"), or they may
   prefer to establish a mailbox that receives bounces from notification
   messages.

2.4.  Notify tag ":importance"

   The :importance tag has no special meaning for this notification
   mechanism, and this specification puts no restriction on its use.
   Implementations MAY use the value of :importance to set a priority or
   importance indication on the notification message (perhaps a visual
   indication, or perhaps making use of one of the non-standard but
   commonly used message headers).

2.5.  Notify tag ":options"

   This tag is not used by the mailto method.

2.6.  Notify tag ":message"

   The value of this tag, if it is present, is used as the subject of
   the notification message, and overrides all other mechanisms for
   determining the subject (as described below).  Its value SHOULD NOT



Leiba & Haardt            Expires June 7, 2009                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft    Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto     December 2008


   normally be truncated, though it may be sensible to truncate an
   excessively long value.

2.7.  Other Definitions

   Because the receipt of an email message is generating another email
   message, implementations MUST take steps to avoid mail loops.  The
   REQUIRED inclusion of an "Auto-Submitted:" field, as described in the
   message composition guidelines, will also help in loop detection and
   avoidance.

   Implementations SHOULD NOT trigger notifications for messages
   containing "Auto-Submitted:" header fields with any value other than
   "No".

   Implementations MUST allow messages with empty envelope senders to
   trigger notifications.

   Because this notification method uses a store-and-forward system for
   delivery of the notification message, the Sieve processor should not
   have a need to retry notifications.  Therefore, implementations of
   this method SHOULD use normal mechanisms for submitting SMTP messages
   and for retrying the initial submission.  Once the notification
   message is submitted, implementations MUST NOT resubmit it, as this
   is likely to result in multiple notifications, and increases the
   danger of message loops.

   The overall notification message is composed using the following
   guidelines (see [RFC5322] for references to message header fields):

   o  If the envelope sender of the triggering message is empty, the
      envelope sender of the notification message MUST be empty as well,
      to avoid message loops.  Otherwise, the envelope sender of the
      notification message SHOULD be set to the value of the ":from"
      parameter to the notify action, if one is specified, has email
      address syntax and is valid according to the implementation
      specific security checks (see Section 3.3 of [Notify]).  If
      ":from" is not specified or is not valid, the envelope sender of
      the notification message SHOULD be set either to the envelope "to"
      field from the triggering message, as used by Sieve, or to an
      email address associated with the notification system, at the
      discretion of the implementation.  This MUST NOT be overridden by
      a "from" URI header, and any such URI header MUST be ignored.

   o  The envelope recipient(s) of the notification message SHOULD be
      set to the address(es) specified in the URI (including any URI
      headers where the hname is "to" or "cc").




Leiba & Haardt            Expires June 7, 2009                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft    Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto     December 2008


   o  The header field "Auto-Submitted: auto-notified" MUST be included
      in the notification message (see Section 2.7.1).  This is to
      reduce the likelihood of message loops, by tagging this as an
      automatically generated message.  Among other results, it will
      inform other notification systems not to generate further
      notifications. mailto URI headers with hname "auto-submitted" are
      considered unsafe and MUST be ignored.

   o  The "From:" header field of the notification message SHOULD be set
      to the value of the ":from" parameter to the notify action, if one
      is specified, has email address syntax and is valid according to
      the implementation specific security checks (see Section 3.3 of
      [Notify]).  If ":from" is not specified or is not valid, the
      "From:" header field of the notification message SHOULD be set
      either to the envelope "to" field from the triggering message, as
      used by Sieve, or to an email address associated with the
      notification system, at the discretion of the implementation.
      This MUST NOT be overridden by a "from" URI header, and any such
      URI header MUST be ignored.

   o  The "To:" header field of the notification message SHOULD be set
      to the address(es) specified in the URI (including any URI headers
      where the hname is "to").

   o  The "Subject:" field of the notification message SHOULD contain
      the value defined by the :message notify tag, as described in
      [Notify].  If there is no :message tag and there is a "subject"
      header on the URI, then that value SHOULD be used.  If that is
      also absent, the subject SHOULD be retained from the triggering
      message.  Note that Sieve [Variables] can be used to advantage
      here, as shown in the example in Section 3.

   o  The "References:" field of the notification message MAY be set to
      refer to the triggering message, and MAY include references from
      the triggering message.

   o  If the mailto URI contains a "body" header, the value of that
      header SHOULD be used as the body of the notification message.  If
      there is no "body" header, it is up to the implementation whether
      to leave the body empty or to use an excerpt of the original
      message.

   o  The "Received:" fields from the triggering message MAY be retained
      in the notification message, as these could provide useful trace/
      history/diagnostic information.  The "Auto-Submitted" header field
      MUST be placed above these (see Section 2.7.1).  URI headers with
      hname "received" are considered unsafe, and MUST be ignored.




Leiba & Haardt            Expires June 7, 2009                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft    Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto     December 2008


   o  Other header fields of the notification message that are normally
      related to an individual new message (such as "Message-ID" and
      "Date") are generated for the notification message in the normal
      manner, and MUST NOT be copied from the triggering message.  Any
      URI headers with those names MUST be ignored.  Further, the "Date"
      header serves as the notification timestamp defined in [Notify].

   o  All other header fields of the notification message either are as
      specified by URI headers, or have implementation-specific values;
      their values are not defined here.  It is suggested that the
      implementation capitalize the first letter of URI headers and add
      a space character after the colon between the mail header name and
      value when adding URI headers to the message, to be consistent
      with common practice in email headers.

2.7.1.  The Auto-Submitted header field

   The header field "Auto-Submitted: auto-notified" MUST be included in
   the notification message (see [RFC3834]).  The "Auto-Submitted"
   header field is considered a "trace field", similar to "Received"
   header fields (see [RFC5321]).  If the implementation retains the
   "Received" fields from the triggering message (see above), the "Auto-
   Submitted" field MUST be placed above those "Received" fields,
   serving as a boundary between the ones from the triggering message
   and those that will be part of the notification message.

   The auto-notified Auto-Submitted field MUST include one or both of
   the following parameters:

   o  owner-email - specifies an email address of the owner of the Sieve
      script that generated this notification.  If specified, it might
      be used to identify or contact the script's owner.  The parameter
      attribute is "owner-email", and the parameter value is a quoted
      string containing an email address, as defined by "addr-spec" in
      [RFC5322].  Example:
        Auto-Submitted: auto-notified; owner-email="me@example.com"

   o  owner-token - specifies an opaque token that the administrative
      domain of the owner of the Sieve script that generated this
      notification can identify the owner with.  This might be used to
      allow identification of the owner while protecting the owner's
      privacy.  The parameter attribute is "owner-token", and the
      parameter value is as defined by "token" in [RFC3834].  Example:
        Auto-Submitted: auto-notified; owner-token=af3NN2pK5dDXI0W

   See Section 5 for discussion of possible uses of these parameters.





Leiba & Haardt            Expires June 7, 2009                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft    Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto     December 2008


3.  Examples


   Triggering message (received by recipient@example.org):

      Return-Path: <knitting-bounces@example.com>
      Received: from mail.example.com by mail.example.org
        for <recipient@example.org>; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:02 -0500
      Received: from hobbies.example.com by mail.example.com
        for <knitting@example.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 02:00:26 -0800
      Message-ID: <1234567.89ABCDEF@example.com>
      Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:59:19 +0100
      Precedence: list
      List-Id: Knitting Mailing List <knitting.example.com>
      Sender: knitting-bounces@example.com
      Errors-To: knitting-bounces@example.com
      From: "Jeff Smith" <jeff@hobbies.example.com>
      To: "Knitting Mailing List" <knitting@example.com>
      Subject: [Knitting] A new sweater

      I just finished a great new sweater!


   Sieve script (run on behalf of recipient@example.org):

      require ["notify", "variables"];

      if header :contains "list-id" "knitting.example.com" {
        if header :matches "Subject" "[*] *" {
          notify :message "From ${1} list: ${2}"
              :importance "3"
              "mailto:0123456789@sms.example.net?to=backup@example.com";
        }
      }


   Notification message:

      Auto-Submitted: auto-notified; owner-email="recipient@example.org"
      Received: from mail.example.com by mail.example.org
        for <recipient@example.org>; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:02 -0500
      Received: from hobbies.example.com by mail.example.com
        for <knitting@example.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 02:00:26 -0800
      Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:55 -0500
      Message-ID: <A2299BB.FF7788@example.org>
      From: recipient@example.org
      To: 0123456789@sms.example.net, backup@example.com
      Subject: From Knitting list: A new sweater



Leiba & Haardt            Expires June 7, 2009                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft    Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto     December 2008


   Note that:

   o  Fields such as "Message-ID:" and "Date:" were generated afresh for
      the notification message, and do not relate to the triggering
      message.

   o  Additional "Received:" fields will be added to the notification
      message in transit; the ones shown were copied from the triggering
      message.  New ones will be added above the "Auto-Submitted:"
      field.

   o  If this message should appear at the mail.example.org server
      again, the server can use the presence of a "mail.example.org"
      received line to recognize that.  The Auto-Submitted header field
      is also present to tell the server to avoid sending another
      notification, and it includes an optional owner-email parameter
      for identification.


































Leiba & Haardt            Expires June 7, 2009                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft    Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto     December 2008


4.  Internationalization Considerations

   This specification introduces no specific internationalization issues
   that are not already addressed in [Sieve] and in [Notify].















































Leiba & Haardt            Expires June 7, 2009                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft    Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto     December 2008


5.  Security Considerations

   Sending a notification is comparable with forwarding mail to the
   notification recipient.  Care must be taken when forwarding mail
   automatically, to ensure that confidential information is not sent
   into an insecure environment.

   The automated sending of email messages exposes the system to mail
   loops, which can cause operational problems.  Implementations of this
   specification MUST protect themselves against mail loops; see
   Section 2.7 for discussion of this and some suggestions.  Other
   possible mitigations for mail loops involve types of service
   limitations.  For example, the number of notifications generated for
   a single user might be limited to no more than, say, 30 in a 60-
   minute period.  Of course, this technique presents its own problems,
   in that the actual rate limit must be selected carefully, to allow
   most legitimate situations in the given environment, and even with
   careful selection it's inevitable that there will be false positives
   -- and false negatives.

   Ultimately, human intervention may be necessary to re-enable
   notifications that have been disabled because a loop was detected, or
   to terminate a very slow loop that's under the automatic-detection
   radar.  Administrative mechanisms MUST be available to handle these
   sorts of situations.

   Email addresses specified as recipients of notifications might not be
   owned by the entity that owns the Sieve script.  As a result, a
   notification recipient could wind up as the target of unwanted
   notifications, either through intent (using scripts to mount a mail-
   bomb attack) or by accident (an address was mistyped or has been
   reassigned).  The situation is arguably no worse than any other in
   which a recipient gets unwanted email, and some of the same
   mechanisms can be used in this case.  But those deploying this
   extension have to be aware of the potential extra problems here,
   where scripts might be created through means that do not adequately
   validate email addresses, and such scripts might then be forgotten
   and left to run indefinitely.

   In particular, note that the Auto-Submitted header field is required
   to include a value that a recipient can use when contacting the
   source domain of the notification message (see Section 2.7.1).  That
   value will allow the domain to track down the script's owner and have
   the script corrected or disabled.  Domains that enable this extension
   MUST be prepared to respond to such complaints, in order to limit the
   damage caused by a faulty script.

   Problems can also show up if notification messages are sent to a



Leiba & Haardt            Expires June 7, 2009                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft    Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto     December 2008


   gateway into another service, such as SMS.  Information from the
   email message is often lost in the gateway translation, and in this
   case critical information needed to avoid loops, to contact the
   script owner, and to resolve other problems might be lost.
   Developers of email gateways should consider these issues, and try to
   preseve as much information as possible, including what appears in
   email trace headers and Auto-Submitted.

   Additional security considerations are discussed in [Sieve] and in
   [Notify].









































Leiba & Haardt            Expires June 7, 2009                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft    Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto     December 2008


6.  IANA Considerations

6.1.  Registration of notification mechanism

   The following template specifies the IANA registration of the Sieve
   notification mechanism specified in this document:

   To: iana@iana.org
   Subject: Registration of new Sieve notification mechanism
   Mechanism name: mailto
   Mechanism URI: RFC2368
   Mechanism-specific tags: none
   Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: this RFC
   Person and email address to contact for further information:
       Michael Haardt <michael.haardt@freenet.ag>

   This information should be added to the list of sieve notification
   mechanisms given on
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-notification.

6.2.  New registry for Auto-Submitted header field keywords

   Because [RFC3834] does not define a registry for new keywords used in
   the Auto-Submitted header field, we define one here, to be created as
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/auto-submitted-keywords.  Keywords
   are registered using the "Specification Required" policy [IANA].

   This defines the template to be used to register new keywords.
   Initial entries to this registry follow in Section 6.3.

   To: iana@iana.org
   Subject: Registration of new auto-submitted header field keyword
   Keyword value: [the text value of the field]
   Description: [a brief explanation of the purpose of this value]
   Parameters: [list any keyword-specific parameters, specify their
   meanings, specify whether they are required or optional; use "none"
   if there are none]
   Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: [identifies
   the specification that defines the value being registered]
   Contact: [name and email address to contact for further information]

6.3.  Initial registration of Auto-Submitted header field keywords

   The following are the initial keywords to be registered for the Auto-
   Submitted header field, to be entered in
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/auto-submitted-keywords.

   Keyword value: no



Leiba & Haardt            Expires June 7, 2009                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft    Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto     December 2008


   Description: Indicates that a message was NOT automatically
   generated, but was created by a human.  It is the equivalent to the
   absence of an Auto-Submitted header altogether.
   Parameters: none
   Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: RFC3834
   Contact: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>

   Keyword value: auto-generated
   Description: Indicates that a message was generated by an automatic
   process, and is not a direct response to another message.
   Parameters: none
   Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: RFC3834
   Contact: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>

   Keyword value: auto-replied
   Description: Indicates that a message was automatically generated as
   a direct response to another message.
   Parameters: none
   Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: RFC3834
   Contact: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>

   Keyword value: auto-notified
   Description: Indicates that a message was generated by a Sieve
   notification system.
   Parameters: owner-email, owner-token.  Both optional, both refer to
   the owner of the Sieve script that generated this message.  See the
   relevant RFC for details.
   Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: this RFC
   Contact: Michael Haardt <michael.haardt@freenet.ag>






















Leiba & Haardt            Expires June 7, 2009                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft    Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto     December 2008


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [IANA]     Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

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

   [Notify]   Melnikov, A., Ed., Leiba, B., Ed., Segmuller, W., and T.
              Martin, "Sieve Extension: Notifications", work in
              progress, draft-ietf-sieve-notify, December 2007.

   [RFC3834]  Moore, K., "Recommendations for Automatic Responses to
              Electronic Mail", RFC 3834, August 2004.

   [RFC5322]  Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
              October 2008.

   [Sieve]    Guenther, P., Ed. and T. Showalter, Ed., "Sieve: An Email
              Filtering Language", RFC 5228, January 2008.

   [mailto]   Hoffman, P., Masinter, L., and J. Zawinski, "The mailto
              URL scheme", RFC 2368, July 1998.

7.2.  Non-Normative References

   [RFC5321]  Klensin, J., Ed., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol",
              RFC 5321, October 2008.

   [Variables]
              Homme, K., "Sieve Extension: Variables", RFC 5229,
              January 2008.
















Leiba & Haardt            Expires June 7, 2009                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft    Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto     December 2008


Authors' Addresses

   Barry Leiba
   IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
   19 Skyline Drive
   Hawthorne, NY  10532
   US

   Phone: +1 914 784 7941
   Email: leiba@watson.ibm.com


   Michael Haardt
   freenet.de GmbH
   Willstaetter Str. 13
   Duesseldorf, NRW  40549
   Germany

   Phone: +49 241 53087 520
   Email: michael.haardt@freenet.ag































Leiba & Haardt            Expires June 7, 2009                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft    Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto     December 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   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.











Leiba & Haardt            Expires June 7, 2009                 [Page 17]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/