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

Versions: (draft-camarillo-sip-body-handling) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 5621

SIP Working Group                                           G. Camarillo
Internet-Draft                                                  Ericsson
Expires: March 1, 2008                                   August 29, 2007


     Message Body Handling in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
                  draft-ietf-sip-body-handling-00.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 1, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   This document clarifies how message bodies are handled in SIP.
   Additionally, it discusses to which degree SIP user agents need to
   support MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions)-encoding of body
   parts.








Camarillo                 Expires March 1, 2008                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft        Message Body Handling in SIP           August 2007


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Multipart Message Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     3.1.  General Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.2.  Body Generation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.3.  UAS Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Message-body and Body-part Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1.  Body Generation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.2.  Body Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.3.  UAS Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  Guidelines to Authors of SIP Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     9.2.  Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 13






























Camarillo                 Expires March 1, 2008                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft        Message Body Handling in SIP           August 2007


1.  Introduction

   SIP [RFC3261] messages consist of an initial line (request line in
   requests and status line in responses), a set of header fields, and
   an optional message body.  The message body is described using header
   fields such as Content-Disposition, Content-Encoding, and Content-
   Type, which provide information on its contents.

   The message body of a SIP message can be divided into various body
   parts.  Multipart message bodies are encoded using the MIME
   (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) [RFC2045] format.  Body parts
   are also described using header fields such as Content-Disposition,
   Content-Encoding, and Content-Type, which provide information on the
   contents of a particular body part.

   Section 3 discusses issues related to the handling of multipart
   message bodies in SIP.  Section 4 discusses issues related to the
   disposition of message bodies and body parts in SIP.


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].


3.  Multipart Message Bodies

   [RFC3261] did not mandate support for multipart message bodies in
   MIME format [RFC2046].  However, since [RFC3261] was written, many
   SIP extensions rely on them.  Therefore, this specification updates
   [RFC3261]'s recommendation regarding support for multipart MIME
   bodies.

   It is expected that most SIP UAs will implement extensions that
   require them to generate 'multipart/mixed' MIME bodies.  An example
   of such an extension would be the inclusion of location information
   in an INVITE request.  Such an INVITE request would use the
   'multipart/mixed' MIME type to carry two body parts: a session
   description and a location object.  An example of an existing
   extension that uses 'multipart/mixed' to send a session description
   and a legacy-signalling object is defined in [RFC3204].

   Another MIME type a number of SIP UAs will need to generate is
   'multipart/alternative'.  Each body part within a 'multipart/
   alternative' carries an alternative version of the same information.
   The body parts are ordered so that the last one is the richest



Camarillo                 Expires March 1, 2008                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft        Message Body Handling in SIP           August 2007


   representation of the information.  This way, the recipient of a
   'multipart/alternative' body chooses the last body part it
   understands.

      Note that within a body part encoded in a given format (i.e., of a
      given content type), there may be optional elements that may
      provide richer information to the recipient in case the recipient
      supports them.  For example, in SDP (Session Description Protocol)
      [RFC4566], those optional elements are encoded in 'a' lines.
      These types of optional elements are internal to a body part and
      are not visible at the MIME level.  That is, a body part is
      understood if the recipient understands its content type,
      regardless of whether or not the body part's optional elements are
      understood.

      Note as well that each part of a 'multipart/alternative' body
      represents the same data, but the mapping between any two parts is
      not necessarily without information loss.  For example,
      information may be lost when translating 'text/html' to 'text/
      plain'.

   It is expected that the transition from SDP to new session
   description protocols is implemented using 'multipart/alternative'
   bodies.  SIP messages (e.g., INVITE requests) would carry a
   'multipart/alternative' body with two body parts: a session
   description written in SDP and a session description written in a
   newer session description format.  Legacy recipient UAs would use the
   session description written in SDP.  New recipient UAs would use the
   one written in the newer format.

   A number of SIP UAs will also need to generate nested MIME bodies.
   Using the extensions in the previous examples, a UA that supported a
   new session description format and that needed to include a location
   object in an INVITE request would include a 'multipart/mixed' body
   with two body parts: a location object and a 'multipart/alternative'.
   The 'multipart/alternative' body part would, in turn, have two body
   parts: a session description written in SDP and a session description
   written in the newer session description format.

3.1.  General Considerations

   For all MIME-based extensions to work, the recipient needs to be able
   to decode the multipart bodies.  Therefore, SIP UAs MUST be able to
   parse 'multipart' MIME bodies, including nested body parts.  In
   particular, UAs MUST support the 'multipart/mixed' and 'multipart/
   alternative' MIME types.  Note that, by default, unknown 'multipart'
   subtypes are treated as 'multipart/mixed'.




Camarillo                 Expires March 1, 2008                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft        Message Body Handling in SIP           August 2007


      Note that SIP extensions may also include 'multipart' MIME bodies
      in responses.  That is why both UACs and UASs need to support
      'multipart' bodies.

3.2.  Body Generation

   UAs should avoid unnecessarily nesting body parts.  However,
   [RFC2046] states that a 'multipart' media type with a single body
   part is useful in some circumstances (e.g., for sending non-text
   media types).  In any case, UAs SHOULD NOT nest one 'multipart/mixed'
   within another unless there is a need to reference the nested one
   (i.e., using the Content ID of the nested body part).  Additionally,
   UAs SHOULD NOT nest one 'multipart/alternative' within another.

   All the body parts within a 'multipart/alternative' have the same
   disposition type (see Section 4.1).  Some disposition types require
   that all the body parts of a 'multipart/alternative' body have
   different content types.  In particular, for the 'session' and
   'early-session' [RFC3959] disposition types, UAs MUST NOT place more
   than one body part with a given content type in a 'multipart/
   alternative' body.  That is, for 'session' and 'early-session', no
   body part within a 'multipart/alternative' can have the same content
   type as another body part within the same 'multipart/alternative'.

   As stated earlier, the mapping between two body parts within a
   'multipart/alternative' body may imply information loss.  [RFC2046]
   recommends that each part should have a different Content-ID value in
   the case where the information content of the two parts is not
   identical.

   A body part can only reference another body part if both are within
   the same 'multipart/related' wrapper.  Therefore, UAs MUST ensure
   that any given body part only references body parts within its
   'multipart/related' wrapper.

   UAs MUST use the binary transfer encoding for binary payloads in SIP.

3.3.  UAS Behavior

   Section 3.1 mandates that all UAs support 'multipart' bodies.
   However, if a particular UAS does not support 'multipart' bodies and
   receives one, the UAS SHOULD return a 415 (Unsupported Media Type)
   response.

      Note that it is essential that UASs without MIME support are at
      least able to return an error response when receiving a
      'multipart' body.  Not being able to signal this type of error
      could cause serious interoperability problems.  Legacy UASs



Camarillo                 Expires March 1, 2008                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft        Message Body Handling in SIP           August 2007


      without MIME support that, for some reason, cannot be immediately
      upgraded to support MIME, should at least be upgraded to be able
      to report this error.

   As specified in [RFC3261], UASs that cannot decrypt a message body or
   a body part can use the 493 (Undecipherable) response to report the
   error.


4.  Message-body and Body-part Disposition

   The Content-Disposition header field, defined in [RFC2183] and
   extended by [RFC3261], describes how to handle a SIP message's body
   or an individual body part.  Examples of disposition types used in
   SIP in the Content-Disposition header field are 'session' and
   'render'.

   [RFC3204] and [RFC3459] define the 'handling' parameter for the
   Content-Disposition header field.  This parameter describes how a UAS
   should react if it receives a message body whose content type or
   disposition type it does not understand.  If the parameter has the
   value 'optional', the UAS ignores the message body; if it has the
   value 'required', the UAS returns a 415 (Unsupported Media Type)
   response.  The default value for the 'handling' parameter is
   'required'.

   [RFC3204] identifies two situations where a UAS (User Agent Server)
   needs to reject a request with a body part whose handling is
   required:

   1.  if it has an unknown content type.
   2.  if it has an unknown disposition type.

   If the UAS (User Agent Server) did not understand the content type of
   the body part, it can add an Accept header field to its 415
   (Unsupported Media Type) response listing the content types that the
   UAS does understand.  Nevertheless, there is no mechanism for a UAS
   that does not understand the disposition type of a body part to
   inform the UAC (User Agent Client) about which disposition type was
   not understood or about the disposition types that are understood by
   the UAS.

   The reason for not having such a mechanism is that disposition types
   are typically supported within a context.  Outside that context, a UA
   (User Agent) may not support the disposition type.  For example, a UA
   may support the 'session' disposition type for body parts in INVITE
   and UPDATE requests and their responses.  However, the same UA would
   not support the 'session' disposition type in MESSAGE requests.



Camarillo                 Expires March 1, 2008                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft        Message Body Handling in SIP           August 2007


   In another example, a UA may support the 'render' disposition type
   for 'text/plain' and 'text/html' body parts in MESSAGE requests.
   Additionally, the UA may support the 'session' disposition type for
   'application/sdp' body parts in INVITE and UPDATE requests and their
   responses.  However, the UA may not support the 'render' disposition
   type for 'application/sdp' body parts in MESSAGE requests, even if,
   in different contexts, the UA supported all the 'render' disposition
   type, the 'application/sdp' content type, and the MESSAGE method.

   A given context is generally (but not necessarily) defined by a
   method, a disposition type, and a content type.  Support for a
   specific context is usually defined within an extension.  For
   example, the extension for instant messaging in SIP [RFC3428]
   mandates support for the MESSAGE method, the 'render' disposition
   type, and the 'text/plain' content type.

      Note that, effectively, content types are also supported within a
      context.  Therefore, the use of the Accept header field in a 415
      (Unsupported Media Type) response is not enough to describe in
      which contexts a particular content type is supported.

   Therefore, support for a particular disposition type within a given
   context is typically signalled by the use of a particular method or
   an option-tag in a Supported or a Require header field.  When support
   for a particular disposition type within a context is mandated,
   support for a default content type is also mandated (e.g., a UA that
   supports the 'session' disposition type in an INVITE request needs to
   support the 'application/sdp' content type).

   Content-ID URLs (Uniform Resource Locators) are another tool to
   describe how a body part should be handled.  Some extensions use a
   Content-ID URL [RFC2392], which can appear in a header field or
   within a body part (e.g., in an SDP attribute), that points to a body
   part.  The way to handle that body part is defined by the field the
   Content-ID URL appears in and by the disposition type of the body
   part.  For example, the extension to refer to multiple resources in
   SIP [I-D.ietf-sip-multiple-refer] places a Content-ID URL in a
   Refer-To header field.  Such a Content-ID URL points to a body part
   whose disposition type is supposed to be 'recipient-list'.  In
   another example, the extension for file transfer in SDP
   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-file-transfer-mech] places a Content-ID URL in a
   'file-icon' SDP attribute.  This Content-ID URL points to a body part
   whose disposition type is supposed to be 'icon'.

4.1.  Body Generation

   As stated earlier, the 'handling' Content-Disposition parameter can
   take two values: 'required' or 'optional'.  While it is typically



Camarillo                 Expires March 1, 2008                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft        Message Body Handling in SIP           August 2007


   easy for a UA to decide which type of handling an individual body
   part requires, setting the 'handing' parameter of 'multipart' bodies
   requires extra considerations.

   If at least one of the body parts within a 'multipart/mixed' body has
   a 'handling' value of 'required', the UA MUST set the 'handling'
   parameter of the 'multipart/mixed' body to 'required'.  If all the
   body parts within a 'multipart/mixed' body have a 'handling' value of
   'optional', the UA MUST set the 'handling' parameter of the
   'multipart/mixed' body to 'optional'.

   The 'handling' parameter is a Content-Disposition parameter.
   Therefore, in order to set this parameter, it is necessary to provide
   the 'multipart/mixed' body with a disposition type.  Per [RFC3261],
   the default disposition type for 'application/sdp' is 'session' and
   for other bodies is 'render'.  UAs SHOULD assign 'multipart/mixed'
   bodies a disposition type of 'render'.

      Note that the fact that 'multipart/mixed' bodies have a
      disposition type of 'render' does not imply that they will be
      rendered to the user.  The way the body parts within the
      'multipart/mixed' are handled depends on the disposition types of
      the individual body parts.  The actual disposition type of the
      whole 'multipart/mixed' is irrelevant.  The 'render' disposition
      type has been chosen for 'multipart/mixed' bodies simply because
      it is the default disposition type in SIP.

   If the handling of a 'multipart/alternative' body is required, the UA
   MUST set the 'handling' parameter of the 'multipart/alternative' body
   and to the last body part within the 'multipart/alternative' to
   'required'.  Additionally, the UA MUST set the 'handling' parameter
   of all body parts within the 'multipart/alternative' except the last
   one to 'optional'.  The UA MUST use the same disposition type for the
   'multipart/alternative' body and all its body parts.

4.2.  Body Processing

   In order to process a message body or a body part, a UA needs to know
   whether a SIP header field or another body part contains a reference
   to it (e.g., a Content-ID URL pointing to it).  If the body part is
   not referenced in any way (e.g., there are no header fields or other
   body parts with a Content-ID URL pointing to it), the UA processes
   the body part as indicated by its disposition type and the context in
   which the body part was received.

   If the SIP message contains a reference to the body part, the UA
   processes the body part according to the reference and the
   disposition type of the body part.  If the SIP message contains more



Camarillo                 Expires March 1, 2008                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft        Message Body Handling in SIP           August 2007


   than one reference to the body part (e.g., two header fields contain
   Content-ID URLs pointing to the body part), the UA processes the body
   part as many times as references there are.

   A UA looking for references to a body part starts by parsing the SIP
   message's header fields.  Additionally, if the body part is within a
   'multipart/related' [RFC2387] wrapper, the body parts within the
   'multipart/related' wrapper may reference each other.  Therefore, the
   UA processes the body parts in the 'multipart/related', starting with
   its 'root', looking for references to the body part.

      Note that, per [RFC2387], a UA processing a 'multipart/related'
      body processes it as a compound object ignoring the disposition
      types of the body parts within it.

   Following the rules in [RFC3204], if a UA does not understand a body
   part whose handling is optional, it ignores it.

      Note that the content indirection mechanism in SIP [RFC4483]
      allows UAs to point to external bodies.  Therefore, a UA receiving
      a SIP message that uses content indirection may need to fetch a
      body part (e.g., using HTTP [RFC2616]) in order to process it.

4.3.  UAS Behavior

   If a UAS cannot process a request because, in the given context, it
   does not support the content type or the disposition type of a body
   part whose handling is required, the UAS SHOULD return a 415
   (Unsupported Media Type) response even if the UAS supported the
   content type, the disposition type, or both in a different context.

      Consequently, it is possible to receive a 415 (Unsupported Media
      Type) response with an Accept header field containing all the
      content types used in the request.

   If a UAS receives a request with a body part whose disposition type
   is not compatible with the way the body part should be handled
   according to other parts of the SIP message (e.g., a Refer-To header
   field with a Content-ID URL pointing to a body part whose disposition
   type is 'session'), the UAS SHOULD return a 415 (Unsupported Media
   Type) response.


5.  Guidelines to Authors of SIP Extensions

   These guidelines are intended for authors of SIP extensions that
   involve, in some way, message bodies or body parts.




Camarillo                 Expires March 1, 2008                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft        Message Body Handling in SIP           August 2007


   This specification mandates support for 'multipart/mixed' and
   'multipart/alternative' and describes how to handle 'multipart/
   related' [RFC2387] bodies.  At present, there are no SIP extensions
   that use different 'multipart' subtypes such as parallel [RFC2046] or
   digest [RFC2046].  If such extensions were to be defined in the
   future, their authors would need to make sure (e.g., by using an
   option-tag or by other means) that entities receiving those
   'multipart' subtypes were able to process them.  As stated earlier,
   UAs treat unknown 'multipart' subtypes as 'multipart/mixed'.

   Body parts within a 'multipart/related' wrapper can reference each
   other.  Per [RFC2387], a UA processing a 'multipart/related' body
   processes it as a compound object ignoring the disposition types of
   the body parts within it.  However, UAs that do not understand
   'multipart/related' will treat it as 'multipart/mixed'.  These UAs
   will not be able to process the references among the body parts and
   will process the body parts according to their disposition type.

   When a SIP UA receives a header field or an optional body part it
   does not understand, the UA ignores it.  A header field or a body
   part carrying a reference to another body part (e.g., a Content-ID
   URL) can influence the way that body part is handled.  If a header
   field or a body part carrying a reference to a body part is not
   understood and, thus, ignored by its recipient, the body part could
   be handled in an unintended way.  Therefore, authors of SIP
   extensions that involve references to body parts need to make sure
   (e.g., by using an option-tag or by other means) that entities
   processing those extensions do not behave in unintended ways.

   Additionally, authors of such extensions need to specify the
   acceptable disposition types of the referenced body part and a
   default, mandatory to support, content type per disposition type.

   As stated earlier, SIP extensions may also include 'multipart' MIME
   bodies in responses.  However, UACs receiving a response cannot
   report errors to the UAS that generated the response (i.e., error
   responses can only be generated for requests).  Therefore, authors of
   SIP extensions need to make sure that requests clearly indicate
   (e.g., by using an option-tag or by other means) the capabilities of
   the UAC so that UASs can decide what to include in their responses.


6.  Security Considerations

   TBD.






Camarillo                 Expires March 1, 2008                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft        Message Body Handling in SIP           August 2007


7.  Acknowledgements

   The ideas in this document were discussed with Paul Kyzivat.
   Christer Holmberg, Francois Audet, and Dan Wing provided comments on
   this document.


8.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not contain any IANA actions.


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2045]  Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
              Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
              Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.

   [RFC2046]  Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
              Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,
              November 1996.

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

   [RFC2183]  Troost, R., Dorner, S., and K. Moore, "Communicating
              Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The
              Content-Disposition Header Field", RFC 2183, August 1997.

   [RFC2387]  Levinson, E., "The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type",
              RFC 2387, August 1998.

   [RFC2392]  Levinson, E., "Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource
              Locators", RFC 2392, August 1998.

   [RFC3204]  Zimmerer, E., Peterson, J., Vemuri, A., Ong, L., Audet,
              F., Watson, M., and M. Zonoun, "MIME media types for ISUP
              and QSIG Objects", RFC 3204, December 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.

   [RFC3459]  Burger, E., "Critical Content Multi-purpose Internet Mail
              Extensions (MIME) Parameter", RFC 3459, January 2003.



Camarillo                 Expires March 1, 2008                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft        Message Body Handling in SIP           August 2007


   [RFC3959]  Camarillo, G., "The Early Session Disposition Type for the
              Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3959,
              December 2004.

   [RFC4483]  Burger, E., "A Mechanism for Content Indirection in
              Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Messages", RFC 4483,
              May 2006.

9.2.  Informational References

   [RFC2616]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
              Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.

   [RFC3428]  Campbell, B., Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Huitema, C.,
              and D. Gurle, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension
              for Instant Messaging", RFC 3428, December 2002.

   [RFC4566]  Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
              Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.

   [I-D.ietf-sip-multiple-refer]
              Camarillo, G., "Referring to Multiple Resources in the
              Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
              draft-ietf-sip-multiple-refer-01 (work in progress),
              January 2007.

   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-file-transfer-mech]
              Garcia-Martin, M., "A Session Description Protocol (SDP)
              Offer/Answer Mechanism to Enable File  Transfer",
              draft-ietf-mmusic-file-transfer-mech-03 (work in
              progress), June 2007.


Author's Address

   Gonzalo Camarillo
   Ericsson
   Hirsalantie 11
   Jorvas  02420
   Finland

   Email: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com








Camarillo                 Expires March 1, 2008                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft        Message Body Handling in SIP           August 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
   "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.


Acknowledgment

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





Camarillo                 Expires March 1, 2008                [Page 13]


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