[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-ietf-avt-rt...] [Diff1] [Diff2] [IPR]

EXPERIMENTAL

Network Working Group                                           A. Duric
Request for Comments: 3952                                         Telio
Category: Experimental                                       S. Andersen
                                                      Aalborg University
                                                           December 2004


           Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload Format
             for internet Low Bit Rate Codec (iLBC) Speech

Status of this Memo

   This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
   community.  It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
   Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).

Abstract

   This document describes the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP)
   payload format for the internet Low Bit Rate Codec (iLBC) Speech
   developed by Global IP Sound (GIPS).  Also, within the document there
   are included necessary details for the use of iLBC with MIME and
   Session Description Protocol (SDP).

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   2. Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   3. RTP Payload Format. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
      3.1. Bitstream definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
      3.2. Multiple iLBC frames in a RTP packet . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
      4.1. Storage Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
      4.2. MIME registration of iLBC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5. Mapping to SDP Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7. References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
      7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
      7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   8. Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13




Duric & Andersen              Experimental                      [Page 1]

RFC 3952           RTP Payload Format for iLBC Speech      December 2004


1.  Introduction

   This document describes how compressed iLBC speech, as produced by
   the iLBC codec [1], may be formatted for use as an RTP payload type.
   Methods are provided to packetize the codec data frames into RTP
   packets.  The sender may send one or more codec data frames per
   packet depending on the application scenario or based on the
   transport network condition, bandwidth restriction, delay
   requirements and packet-loss tolerance.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [2].

2.  Background

   Global IP Sound (GIPS) has developed a speech compression algorithm
   for use in IP based communications [1].  The iLBC codec enables
   graceful speech quality degradation in the case of lost frames, which
   occurs in connection with lost or delayed IP packets.

   This codec is suitable for real time communications such as,
   telephony and videoconferencing, streaming audio, archival and
   messaging.

   The iLBC codec [1] is an algorithm that compresses each basic frame
   (20 ms or 30 ms) of 8000 Hz, 16-bit sampled input speech, into output
   frames with rate of 400 bits for 30 ms basic frame size and 304 bits
   for 20 ms basic frame size.

   The codec supports two basic frame lengths: 30 ms at 13.33 kbit/s and
   20 ms at 15.2 kbit/s, using a block independent linear-predictive
   coding (LPC) algorithm.  When the codec operates at block lengths of
   20 ms, it produces 304 bits per block which MUST be packetized in 38
   bytes.  Similarly, for block lengths of 30 ms it produces 400 bits
   per block which MUST be packetized in 50 bytes.  This algorithm
   results in a speech coding system with a controlled response to
   packet losses similar to what is known from pulse code modulation
   (PCM) with a packet loss concealment (PLC), such as ITU-T G711
   standard [7], which operates at a fixed bit rate of 64 kbit/s.  At
   the same time, this algorithm enables fixed bit rate coding with a
   quality-versus-bit rate tradeoff close to what is known from code-
   excited linear prediction (CELP).








Duric & Andersen              Experimental                      [Page 2]

RFC 3952           RTP Payload Format for iLBC Speech      December 2004


3.  RTP Payload Format

   The iLBC codec uses 20 or 30 ms frames and a sampling rate clock of 8
   kHz, so the RTP timestamp MUST be in units of 1/8000 of a second. The
   RTP payload for iLBC has the format shown in the figure bellow. No
   addition header specific to this payload format is required.

   This format is intended for the situations where the sender and the
   receiver send one or more codec data frames per packet.  The RTP
   packet looks as follows:

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      RTP Header [3]                           |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
   |                                                               |
   +                 one or more frames of iLBC [1]                |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Figure 1, Packet format diagram

   The RTP header of the packetized encoded iLBC speech has the expected
   values as described in [3].  The usage of M bit SHOULD be as
   specified in the applicable RTP profile, for example, RFC 3551 [4]
   specifies that if the sender does not suppress silence (i.e., sends a
   frame on every frame interval), the M bit will always be zero.  When
   more then one codec data frame is present in a single RTP packet, the
   timestamp is, as always, the oldest data frame represented in the RTP
   packet.

   The assignment of an RTP payload type for this new packet format is
   outside the scope of this document, and will not be specified here.
   It is expected that the RTP profile for a particular class of
   applications will assign a payload type for this encoding, or if that
   is not done, then a payload type in the dynamic range shall be chosen
   by the sender.

3.1.  Bitstream definition

   The total number of bits used to describe one frame of 20 ms speech
   is 304, which fits in 38 bytes and results in a bit rate of 15.20
   kbit/s.  For the case with a frame length of 30 ms speech the total
   number of bits used is 400, which fits in 50 bytes and results in a
   bit rate of 13.33 kbit/s.  In the bitstream definition, the bits are
   distributed into three classes according to their bit error or loss
   sensitivity.  The most sensitive bits (class 1) are placed first in



Duric & Andersen              Experimental                      [Page 3]

RFC 3952           RTP Payload Format for iLBC Speech      December 2004


   the bitstream for each frame.  The less sensitive bits (class 2) are
   placed after the class 1 bits.  The least sensitive bits (class 3)
   are placed at the end of the bitstream for each frame.

   Looking at the 20/30 ms frame length cases for each class: The class
   1 bits occupy a total of 6/8 bytes (48/64 bits), the class 2 bits
   occupy 8/12 bytes (64/96 bits), and the class 3 bits occupy 24/30
   bytes (191/239 bits).  This distribution of the bits enables the use
   of uneven level protection (ULP).  The detailed bit allocation is
   shown in the table below.  When a quantization index is distributed
   between more classes the more significant bits belong to the lowest
   class.







































Duric & Andersen              Experimental                      [Page 4]

RFC 3952           RTP Payload Format for iLBC Speech      December 2004


   Bitstream structure:

   ------------------------------------------------------------------+
   Parameter                         |       Bits Class <1,2,3>      |
                                     |  20 ms frame  |  30 ms frame  |
   ----------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
                            Split 1  |   6 <6,0,0>   |   6 <6,0,0>   |
                   LSF 1    Split 2  |   7 <7,0,0>   |   7 <7,0,0>   |
   LSF                      Split 3  |   7 <7,0,0>   |   7 <7,0,0>   |
                   ------------------+---------------+---------------+
                            Split 1  | NA (Not Appl.)|   6 <6,0,0>   |
                   LSF 2    Split 2  |      NA       |   7 <7,0,0>   |
                            Split 3  |      NA       |   7 <7,0,0>   |
                   ------------------+---------------+---------------+
                   Sum               |  20 <20,0,0>  |  40 <40,0,0>  |
   ----------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
   Block Class.                      |   2 <2,0,0>   |   3 <3,0,0>   |
   ----------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
   Position 22 sample segment        |   1 <1,0,0>   |   1 <1,0,0>   |
   ----------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
   Scale Factor State Coder          |   6 <6,0,0>   |   6 <6,0,0>   |
   ----------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
                   Sample 0          |   3 <0,1,2>   |   3 <0,1,2>   |
   Quantized       Sample 1          |   3 <0,1,2>   |   3 <0,1,2>   |
   Residual           :              |   :    :      |   :    :      |
   State              :              |   :    :      |   :    :      |
   Samples            :              |   :    :      |   :    :      |
                   Sample 56         |   3 <0,1,2>   |   3 <0,1,2>   |
                   Sample 57         |      NA       |   3 <0,1,2>   |
                   ------------------+---------------+---------------+
                   Sum               | 171 <0,57,114>| 174 <0,58,116>|
   ----------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
                            Stage 1  |   7 <6,0,1>   |   7 <4,2,1>   |
   CB for 22/23             Stage 2  |   7 <0,0,7>   |   7 <0,0,7>   |
   sample block             Stage 3  |   7 <0,0,7>   |   7 <0,0,7>   |
                   ------------------+---------------+---------------+
                   Sum               |  21 <6,0,15>  |  21 <4,2,15>  |
   ----------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
                            Stage 1  |   5 <2,0,3>   |   5 <1,1,3>   |
   Gain for 22/23           Stage 2  |   4 <1,1,2>   |   4 <1,1,2>   |
   sample block             Stage 3  |   3 <0,0,3>   |   3 <0,0,3>   |
                   ------------------+---------------+---------------+
                   Sum               |  12 <3,1,8>   |  12 <2,2,8>   |
   ----------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
                            Stage 1  |   8 <7,0,1>   |   8 <6,1,1>   |
               sub-block 1  Stage 2  |   7 <0,0,7>   |   7 <0,0,7>   |
                            Stage 3  |   7 <0,0,7>   |   7 <0,0,7>   |
                   ------------------+---------------+---------------+



Duric & Andersen              Experimental                      [Page 5]

RFC 3952           RTP Payload Format for iLBC Speech      December 2004


                            Stage 1  |   8 <0,0,8>   |   8 <0,7,1>   |
               sub-block 2  Stage 2  |   8 <0,0,8>   |   8 <0,0,8>   |
   Indices                  Stage 3  |   8 <0,0,8>   |   8 <0,0,8>   |
   for CB          ------------------+---------------+---------------+
   sub-blocks               Stage 1  |      NA       |   8 <0,7,1>   |
               sub-block 3  Stage 2  |      NA       |   8 <0,0,8>   |
                            Stage 3  |      NA       |   8 <0,0,8>   |
                   ------------------+---------------+---------------+
                            Stage 1  |      NA       |   8 <0,7,1>   |
               sub-block 4  Stage 2  |      NA       |   8 <0,0,8>   |
                            Stage 3  |      NA       |   8 <0,0,8>   |
                   ------------------+---------------+---------------+
                   Sum               |  46 <7,0,39>  |  94 <6,22,66> |
   ----------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
                            Stage 1  |   5 <1,2,2>   |   5 <1,2,2>   |
               sub-block 1  Stage 2  |   4 <1,1,2>   |   4 <1,2,1>   |
                            Stage 3  |   3 <0,0,3>   |   3 <0,0,3>   |
                   ------------------+---------------+---------------+
                            Stage 1  |   5 <1,1,3>   |   5 <0,2,3>   |
               sub-block 2  Stage 2  |   4 <0,2,2>   |   4 <0,2,2>   |
                            Stage 3  |   3 <0,0,3>   |   3 <0,0,3>   |
   Gains for       ------------------+---------------+---------------+
   sub-blocks               Stage 1  |      NA       |   5 <0,1,4>   |
               sub-block 3  Stage 2  |      NA       |   4 <0,1,3>   |
                            Stage 3  |      NA       |   3 <0,0,3>   |
                   ------------------+---------------+---------------+
                            Stage 1  |      NA       |   5 <0,1,4>   |
               sub-block 4  Stage 2  |      NA       |   4 <0,1,3>   |
                            Stage 3  |      NA       |   3 <0,0,3>   |
                   ------------------+---------------+---------------+
                   Sum               |  24 <3,6,15>  |  48 <2,12,34> |
   -------------------------------------------------------------------
   Empty frame indicator             |   1 <0,0,1>   |   1 <0,0,1>   |
   -------------------------------------------------------------------
   SUM                                 304 <48,64,192> 400 <64,96,240>

   Table 3.1 The bitstream definition for iLBC.

   When packetized into the payload, all the class 1 bits MUST be sorted
   in order (from top and down) as they were specified in the table.
   Additionally, all the class 2 bits MUST be sorted (from top and down)
   and all the class 3 bits MUST be sorted in the same sequential order.

3.2.  Multiple iLBC frames in a RTP packet

   More than one iLBC frame may be included in a single RTP packet by a
   sender.




Duric & Andersen              Experimental                      [Page 6]

RFC 3952           RTP Payload Format for iLBC Speech      December 2004


   It is important to observe that senders have the following additional
   restrictions:

   o  SHOULD NOT include more iLBC frames in a single RTP packet than
      will fit in the MTU of the RTP transport protocol.

   o  Frames MUST NOT be split between RTP packets.

   o  Frames of the different modes (20 ms and 30 ms) MUST NOT be
      included within the same packet.

   It is RECOMMENDED that the number of frames contained within an RTP
   packet are consistent with the application.  For example, in
   telephony and other real time applications where delay is important,
   the delay is lower depending on the amount of frames per packet
   (i.e., fewer frames per packet, the lower the delay).  Whereas for
   bandwidth constrained links or delay insensitive streaming messaging
   application, one or more frames per packet would be acceptable.

   Information describing the number of frames contained in an RTP
   packet is not transmitted as part of the RTP payload.  The way to
   determine the number of iLBC frames is to count the total number of
   octets within the RTP packet, and divide the octet count by the
   number of expected octets per frame (32/50 per frame).

4.  IANA Considerations

   One new MIME sub-type as described in this section has been
   registered.

4.1.  Storage Mode

   The storage mode is used for storing speech frames (e.g., as a file
   or email attachment).

   +------------------+
   | Header           |
   +------------------+
   | Speech frame 1   |
   +------------------+
   :                  :
   +------------------+
   | Speech frame n   |
   +------------------+

   Figure 2, Storage format diagram





Duric & Andersen              Experimental                      [Page 7]

RFC 3952           RTP Payload Format for iLBC Speech      December 2004


   The file begins with a header that includes only a magic number to
   identify that it is an iLBC file.

   The magic number for iLBC file MUST correspond to the ASCII character
   string:

      o for 30 ms frame size mode:"#!iLBC30\n", or "0x23 0x21 0x69
      0x4C 0x42 0x43 0x33 0x30 0x0A" in hexadecimal form,

      o for 20 ms frame size mode:"#!iLBC20\n", or "0x23 0x21 0x69
      0x4C 0x42 0x43 0x32 0x30 0x0A" in hexadecimal form.

   After the header, follow the speech frames in consecutive order.

   Speech frames lost in transmission MUST be stored as "empty frames",
   as defined in [1].

4.2.  MIME Registration of iLBC

   MIME media type name: audio

   MIME subtype: iLBC

   Optional parameters:

   All of the parameters does apply for RTP transfer only.

   maxptime:The maximum amount of media which can be encapsulated in
            each packet, expressed as time in milliseconds.  The time
            SHALL be calculated as the sum of the time the media present
            in the packet represents.  The time SHOULD be a multiple of
            the frame size.  This attribute is probably only meaningful
            for audio data, but may be used with other media types if it
            makes sense.  It is a media attribute, and is not dependent
            on charset.  Note that this attribute was introduced after
            RFC 2327, and non updated implementations will ignore this
            attribute.

   mode:    The iLBC operating frame mode (20 or 30 ms) that will be
            encapsulated in each packet.  Values can be 0, 20 and 30
            (where 0 is reserved, 20 stands for preferred 20 ms frame
            size and 30 stands for preferred 30 ms frame size).

   ptime:   Defined as usual for RTP audio (see [5]).

   Encoding considerations:
            This type is defined for transfer via both RTP (RFC 3550)
            and stored-file methods as described in Section 4.1, of RFC



Duric & Andersen              Experimental                      [Page 8]

RFC 3952           RTP Payload Format for iLBC Speech      December 2004


            3952.  Audio data is binary data, and must be encoded for
            non-binary transport; the Base64 encoding is suitable for
            email.

   Security considerations:
            See Section 6 of RFC 3952.

   Public specification:
            Please refer to RFC 3951 [1].

   Additional information:
            The following applies to stored-file transfer methods:

            Magic number:
            ASCII character string for:
            o 30 ms frame size mode "#!iLBC30\n" (or 0x23 0x21
            0x69 0x4C 0x42 0x43 0x33 0x30 0x0A in hexadecimal)
            o 20 ms frame size mode "#!iLBC20\n" (or 0x23 0x21
            0x69 0x4C 0x42 0x43 0x32 0x30 0x0A in hexadecimal)

            File extensions: lbc, LBC
            Macintosh file type code: none
            Object identifier or OID: none

   Person & email address to contact for further information:
            alan.duric@telio.no

   Intended usage: COMMON.
            It is expected that many VoIP applications will use this
            type.

   Author/Change controller:
            alan.duric@telio.no
            IETF Audio/Video transport working group

5.  Mapping To SDP Parameters

   The information carried in the MIME media type specification has a
   specific mapping to fields in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)
   [5], which is commonly used to describe RTP sessions.  When SDP is
   used to specify sessions employing the iLBC codec, the mapping is as
   follows:

   o  The MIME type ("audio") goes in SDP "m=" as the media name.

   o  The MIME subtype (payload format name) goes in SDP "a=rtpmap" as
      the encoding name.




Duric & Andersen              Experimental                      [Page 9]

RFC 3952           RTP Payload Format for iLBC Speech      December 2004


   o  The parameters "ptime" and "maxptime" go in the SDP "a=ptime" and
      "a=maxptime" attributes, respectively.

   o  The parameter "mode" goes in the SDP "a=fmtp" attribute by copying
      it directly from the MIME media type string as "mode=value".

   When conveying information by SDP, the encoding name SHALL be "iLBC"
   (the same as the MIME subtype).

   An example of the media representation in SDP for describing iLBC
   might be:

      m=audio 49120 RTP/AVP 97
      a=rtpmap:97 iLBC/8000

   If 20 ms frame size mode is used, remote iLBC encoder SHALL receive
   "mode" parameter in the SDP "a=fmtp" attribute by copying them
   directly from the MIME media type string as a semicolon separated
   with parameter=value, where parameter is "mode", and values can be 0
   and 20 (where 0 is reserved and 20 stands for preferred 20 ms frame
   size).  An example of the media representation in SDP for describing
   iLBC when 20 ms frame size mode is used might be:

      m=audio 49120 RTP/AVP 97
      a=rtpmap:97 iLBC/8000
      a=fmtp:97 mode=20

   It is important to emphasize the bi-directional character of the
   "mode" parameter - both sides of a bi-directional session MUST use
   the same "mode" value.

   The offer contains the preferred mode of the offerer.  The answerer
   may agree to that mode by including the same mode in the answer, or
   may include a different mode.  The resulting mode used by both
   parties SHALL be the lower of the bandwidth modes in the offer and
   answer.

   That is, an offer of "mode=20" receiving an answer of "mode=30" will
   result in "mode=30" being used by both participants.  Similarly, an
   offer of "mode=30" and an answer of "mode=20" will result in
   "mode=30" being used by both participants.

   This is important when one end point utilizes a bandwidth constrained
   link (e.g., 28.8k modem link or slower), where only the lower frame
   size will work.






Duric & Andersen              Experimental                     [Page 10]

RFC 3952           RTP Payload Format for iLBC Speech      December 2004


   Parameter ptime can not be used for the purpose of specifying iLBC
   operating mode, due to fact that for the certain values it will be
   impossible to distinguish which mode is about to be used (e.g., when
   ptime=60, it would be impossible to distinguish if packet is carrying
   2 frames of 30 ms or 3 frames of 20 ms, etc.).

   Note that the payload format (encoding) names are commonly shown in
   upper case.  MIME subtypes are commonly shown in lower case.  These
   names are case-insensitive in both places.  Similarly, parameter
   names are case-insensitive both in MIME types and in the default
   mapping to the SDP a=fmtp attribute

6.  Security Considerations

   RTP packets using the payload format defined in this specification
   are subject to the general security considerations discussed in [3]
   and any appropriate profile (e.g., [4]).

   As this format transports encoded speech, the main security issues
   include confidentiality and authentication of the speech itself.  The
   payload format itself does not have any built-in security mechanisms.
   Confidentiality of the media streams is achieved by encryption,
   therefore external mechanisms, such as SRTP [6], MAY be used for that
   purpose.  The data compression used with this payload format is
   applied end-to-end; hence encryption may be performed after
   compression with no conflict between the two operations.

   A potential denial-of-service threat exists for data encoding using
   compression techniques that have non-uniform receiver-end
   computational load.  The attacker can inject pathological datagrams
   into the stream which are complex to decode and cause the receiver to
   become overloaded.  However, the encodings covered in this document
   do not exhibit any significant non-uniformity.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [1]  Andersen, S., Duric, A., Astrom, H., Hagen, R., Kleijn, W., and
        J. Linden, "Internet Low Bit Rate Codec (iLBC)", RFC 3951,
        December 2004.

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

   [3]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson,
        "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", STD 64,
        RFC 3550, July 2003.



Duric & Andersen              Experimental                     [Page 11]

RFC 3952           RTP Payload Format for iLBC Speech      December 2004


   [4]  Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and Video
        Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551, July 2003.

   [5]  Handley, M. and V. Jacobson, "SDP: Session Description
        Protocol", RFC 2327, April 1998.

   [6]  Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
        Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol", RFC 3711,
        March 2004.

7.2.  Informative References

   [7]  ITU-T Recommendation G.711, available online from the ITU
        bookstore at http://www.itu.int.

8.  Acknowledgements

   Henry Sinnreich, Patrik Faltstrom, Alan Johnston and Jean-Francois
   Mule for great support of the iLBC initiative and for valuable
   feedback and comments.

Authors' Addresses

   Alan Duric
   Telio AS
   Stoperigt. 2
   Oslo, N-0250
   Norway

   Phone:  +47 21673505
   EMail:  alan.duric@telio.no


   Soren Vang Andersen
   Department of Communication Technology
   Aalborg University
   Fredrik Bajers Vej 7A
   9200 Aalborg
   Denmark

   Phone:  ++45 9 6358627
   EMail:  sva@kom.auc.dk









Duric & Andersen              Experimental                     [Page 12]

RFC 3952           RTP Payload Format for iLBC Speech      December 2004


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).

   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 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 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF 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.


Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.






Duric & Andersen              Experimental                     [Page 13]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/