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

Versions: 00 01

Network Working Group                                        J. Peterson
Internet-Draft                                                   NeuStar
Intended status: Best Current                           November 8, 2007
Practice
Expires: May 11, 2008


                   Normative Language and References
              draft-peterson-informational-normativity-01

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 May 11, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   This document explores the use of normative language and references
   with a focus on reducing unnecessary normative references in IETF
   specifications.







Peterson                  Expires May 11, 2008                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                 Normativity                 November 2007


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  What is 'normative'? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Normative Pseudo-Keywords  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  Examples and Ambiguities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.  Normative Language off the (Standards) Track . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.1.  Informational Publication of Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 11
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   8.  Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 14




































Peterson                  Expires May 11, 2008                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                 Normativity                 November 2007


1.  Introduction

   RFC2119 [1] provides a set of familiar directives to readers of IETF
   specifications, specifically the imperatives: "MUST", "MUST NOT",
   "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
   "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL".  This set of normative
   keywords, as they shall be known in this document, consists of a
   number of grammatical variations which ultimately describe three
   degrees of normative compliance: mandatory, recommended, and
   optional.  The first two degrees may be used in either prescriptive
   or proscriptive contexts (e.g.  "MUST" and "MUST NOT", "SHOULD" and
   "SHOULD NOT"), while for the third only prescriptive statements are
   permitted (there is a "MAY" but no "MAY NOT", something can be
   "OPTIONAL", but not "NOT OPTIONAL").

   The use of normative keywords is one of the defining characteristics
   of IETF specifications.  Normative keywords remain an indispensable
   tool for evaluating interoperability as specifications advance on the
   standards track, and moreover for pruning unimplemented features as
   protocols mature through deployment and usage.  The application of
   normative keywords to these functions is predicated largely on the
   text of RFC2026 [2].

   RFC2119 does not, however, contain the word 'normative', and nor does
   RFC2026.  The idea that a statement or reference can be 'normative'
   or 'informational' (let alone the requirement that the References
   section of an Internet-Draft be divided between the two) dates from a
   much later time, as does the term 'normative language'.  The
   conditions that render a particular reference or statement
   'normative' have never been specified; although there is a good
   understanding in the community of the common distinctions, practices
   can be very erratic in corner-cases.

   An example of the resulting confusion is the use of normative
   keywords in requirements documents, which here are to be understood
   as Informational documents that apply constraints to future protocol
   specification work, as opposed to actual implementation work.
   Authors of standards-track protocol specifications intended to
   satisfy these requirements sometimes include such requirements
   documents in their "Normative References" sections, precisely because
   they are referring to statements containing normative keywords.  This
   sort of downward reference is of course formally prohibited in
   RFC2026, and thus must corrected, but the whole situation arises
   needlessly.  In the absence of some clarification, similar
   misconceptions will continue to arise.

   This document therefore attempts to provide a stronger account of the
   classification designated by the term 'normative', and to detail



Peterson                  Expires May 11, 2008                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                 Normativity                 November 2007


   various conditions under which a reference need not be considered
   'normative'.  RFC3967 [3] wisely notes that normative references
   resist definition, and the text in this memo does not claim to have
   articulated all of the associated subtleties and implications;
   however, in order to reduce overuse and misapplication of normative
   terms, a more substantive account of the term 'normative' appears
   here than has in RFC3967 or previous works.

   RFC3967 and more recently RFC4897 [4] have revised the guidance of
   RFC2026 regarding the advancement of standards-track documents which
   refer to documents at a lower maturity level (or those not on the
   standards track at all).  The present document is entirely compatible
   with the useful amendments introduced in those documents.


2.  What is 'normative'?

   Normative keywords are 'normative' in so far as they establish the
   norms that are the foundation of interoperability.  Implementations
   of a particular specification can be considered to be a sort of
   community, and that community has practices that are mandatory and
   prohibited, recommended and counterrecommended, or simply optional -
   hence, they are norms.

   'Normative language' or 'normative statements' are, broadly, passages
   of text in IETF documents which contain normative keywords that
   direct implementers, with varying degrees of stringency, to
   incorporate particular features in order to foster interoperability.

   Normative language, as originally described in RFC2119, is tooled
   solely to describe how implementations are intended to behave.  As
   RFC2119 Section 6 states, in reference to normative keywords:

     In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
     actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
     potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmissions)

   Ironically, this normative statement is not internally consistent.
   It urges authors of specifications to use normative keywords only in
   reference to matters of implementation, but in order to amplify its
   point from mere urging to absolute dictum, it relies on a normative
   keyword.  Therein lies the source of the confusion.  Normative
   keywords are used commonly, but incorrectly, in precisely this
   fashion: for emphasis, in passages of descriptive text that in no way
   could be construed to address implementations.

   When authors of subsequent specifications see such normative keywords
   used in an purely descriptive passage in an RFC, they may assume that



Peterson                  Expires May 11, 2008                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                 Normativity                 November 2007


   the document containing those normative keywords should be referenced
   normatively.  This can cause an unnecessary apparent need for a
   downward reference.

   Any statement that is non-normative is by definition purely
   informational.  Informational or descriptive statements play a large
   role in IETF documents, providing context that is useful to
   implementers or authors of future specifications but which does not,
   strictly speaking, detail implementation behavior that will
   subsequently be measured for compliance or interoperability.

2.1.  Normative Pseudo-Keywords

   The use of the normative keywords has never been compulsory in the
   IETF.  Numerous documents, both before and after the publication of
   RFC2119, describe protocol behavior without relying on normative
   keywords.  Normative keywords are a way of explicitly designating the
   degree of compliance associated with a behavioral prescription for
   implementations.  It is equally possible, and sometimes more
   readable, to write precise text which is semantically identical to
   passages employing normative keywords.  Constructions with that
   property are herein said to contain "normative pseudo-keywords":
   prescriptive behavioral keywords that could potentially be
   paraphrased with normative keywords.

   In order for such a piece of text to qualify as normative, it must
   contain pseudo-keyword text which designates the degree of compliance
   levied on the behavior (i.e. terms that recognizably signify
   'mandatory', 'recommended', or 'optional)'.  Furthermore, following
   the definition of the RFC2119 keywords, these statements must pertain
   to implementation behavior.  Statements can be tested by paraphrase;
   for example:

     Messages are challenged using Digest authentication [RFC2617].

   The passage above uses a normative pseudo-keyword (in this case, the
   verb 'to be') which can be paraphrased using a normative keyword as
   follows:

     Messages MUST be challenged using Digest authentication [RFC2617].

   However, it is equally possible to generate behavioral statements
   which do not satisfy this test, for example:

     Messages might be challenged using Digest authentication [RFC2617]
     when a weaker form of authentication would be inappropriate.

   Is this a recommendation, a counterrecommendation, or what?  Without



Peterson                  Expires May 11, 2008                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                 Normativity                 November 2007


   sufficient supporting text to suggest when weaker forms of
   authentication might be appropriate, one could even read this as a
   mandate for the use of Digest.  In the absence of a recognizable
   degree of compliance, this statement cannot be normative.  In the
   interests of promoting interoperability it would ideally be replaced
   with a clearer sentence containing a normative keyword.

   The use of pseudo-keywords to form normative statements is never
   completely unambiguous, and is therefore discouraged.  It is not at
   all uncommon today for reviewers, at the IESG review phase or
   earlier, to provide blocking comments on Internet-Drafts of the form
   "is this 'must' supposed to be a 'MUST'?"  The use of normative
   keywords, since they have accepted definitions within the community,
   are the most precise way of designating a degree of compliance.  That
   much said, authors of specifications must also recognize that
   normative keywords are not a panacea, and that gibberish can be
   written just as easily with uppercase words as with lowercase.  Some
   examples of this are given in Section 3.1.

   However, for the purposes of normative references and the evaluation
   of features and options, passages containing normative pseudo-
   keywords are treated as equivalent to passages containing normative
   keywords.  Without this allowance, it would be impossible for new
   documents to refer normatively to many, if not most, existing RFCs.
   It is the semantics, not the syntax, of statements that is crucial to
   determining their normative status.


3.  Normative references

   This document follows the terminology of RFC4897 for a 'source
   document' (a document in which the reference to another document in
   embedded) and a 'target document' (the document so referenced).  It
   furthermore defines the 'referencing statement' as the statement in
   the source document which invokes the reference to the target
   document.  A 'normative statement' is understood to be a statement
   which uses normative keywords (or pseudo-keywords) to associate a
   specific degree of normative compliance with a particular
   implementation behavior.

   For the benefit of specification authors, the following is a list of
   conditions in which a reference to a document need not be normative:
   1.  if the source document is itself Informational (not a standards-
       track document, BCP or an Experimental document).
   2.  if the referencing statement is not a normative statement; i.e.,
       does not prescribes some degree of normative compliance with the
       target document.




Peterson                  Expires May 11, 2008                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                 Normativity                 November 2007


   3.  if the target document, and in particular any subset scope
       designated by the referencing statement (a section, or what have
       you), contains no normative statements.

   If any of the above conditions apply, then the reference in question
   need not be normative.  One additional possible condition, that the
   target document have an equal or greater standards maturity level to
   the source document, is not strictly speaking a necessary condition
   for a normative reference; however, normative references made when
   this condition prevails must successfully invoke the downref
   exception procedures defined in RFC3976 in order to advance on the
   IETF standards-track.

   One source of ambiguity in determining whether or not a reference is
   normative is the status of Best Current Practices (BCPs, as defined
   in Section 5 of RFC2026).  The BCP designation is a bit of a catch-
   all in the IETF standards process.  A BCP can prescribe practices
   varying from operations, which are indeed critical to the
   interoperability of the Internet, to IETF process, which is of a non-
   technical nature.  As such, it is entirely appropriate, in some
   cases, to provide a normative reference to a BCP, and for a BCP to
   contain normative keywords.

   In the case of IETF process BCPs, it is less clear that they should
   be understood normatively, and moreover less clear that it is
   appropriate for process documents to employ normative keywords.  A
   precedent for using normative language in those documents was set by
   RFC2418 [5] (see especially the last paragraph of Section 1; this is
   also discussed further below in Section 4).  When process documents
   do employ normative keywords, as RFC2119 does in the citation above,
   it is almost always inconsistent with the definition of those terms
   in RFC2119 and their intended use in RFC2026.  This in turn further
   contributes to the perception that it is appropriate for non-
   technical documents in general (such as requirements documents) to
   employ normative keywords.  Unfortunately, this appropriateness of
   using normative language in BCPs must be assessed on a case-by-case
   basis.

   A good rule of thumb, and a corollary of the guidance in RFC3967, for
   whether a reference should be normative or not is the following: if
   the target document were lost, such that an implementer could not
   read, access or implement it, would implementations of the source
   document still interoperate for the functionality described in the
   statement?  If not, then the reference must be normative.







Peterson                  Expires May 11, 2008                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                 Normativity                 November 2007


3.1.  Examples and Ambiguities

   Even so strict an account of a normative reference cannot be entirely
   free from ambiguities that are grounded in the degrees of compliance
   themselves, especially regarding conditionals and conditional
   prohibitions (e.g.  "SHOULD NOT").  Ambiguities also arise when
   degrees of compliance are associated with the use of a feature rather
   than its implementation.  Consider the following referencing
   statement:

     Implementations SHOULD NOT use 3DES [1].

   If this had said that implementations "MUST NOT" use 3DES, it would
   be unambiguous that implementations were not required to implement
   3DES, and thus the reference to 3DES would not be normative.  You
   would never need to implement 3DES in order to be able to
   interoperate with another implementation of this specification.  But
   what about the conditional prohibition "SHOULD NOT use 3DES"?  Is it
   necessary to support a referenced specification in order to obey a
   conditional prohibition against using it?  This is difficult to
   answer on its own, but in fact, that referencing statement entails
   this one:

     Implementations MAY use 3DES [1].

   Should 3DES be considered a Normative or Informational reference if
   it is OPTIONAL?  Normative, clearly, by the litmus test.  Both this
   statement and the one above allow, but do not require,
   implementations to support 3DES.  And because this statement is
   entailed by the conditional prohibition above, both of these are
   making a normative reference to 3DES.  This may appear to be
   something of a paradox, since it seems intuitively that
   counterrecommended behavior shouldn't require a normative reference,
   but optional behavior should - one just needs to bear in mind that
   everything counterrecommended is necessarily optional.

   Given all that, better specmanship would make the exact
   implementation needs more clear.  A closely analogous but infinitely
   superior phrasing would be:

     While 3DES [1] is unsuitable for use in most environments,
     for backwards compatibility reasons implementations MUST
     support it.

   In this case it is clear that support for the 3DES protocol is
   mandatory, even though its use is discouraged (non-normatively).

   There are also classes of statements that employ normative keywords,



Peterson                  Expires May 11, 2008                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                 Normativity                 November 2007


   and contains references, but do so in a way that does not actual form
   a normative referencing statement.  Consider this:

     The application MUST implement an underlying transport which
     can provide integrity and confidentiality properties, for
     example TLS [3].

   The citation of TLS above is merely exemplary; the referencing
   statement does not actually require application developers to
   implement TLS.  Rather, it requires that any underlying transport
   that is implemented have certain properties, though not terribly
   specific ones.  As such, this reference cannot be considered
   normative - it suggests no specific underlying transport to the
   implementation community.  Precisely for this reason, it is an
   example of weak specmanship.  Statements of this general form often
   seem attractive, however, to specification authors who hope to
   reference work-in-progress or Informational documents.  The fix for
   this sort of specmanship is not to require TLS to appear in the
   Normative references section of the document (it shouldn't on the
   strength of this statement), but rather to encourage the authors to
   make a stronger referencing statement, one actually conducive to
   establishing implementation norms.

   Another similar example is the use of disjunctive references like the
   following:

     Implementations MUST provide this capability by implementing
     either PGP [4] or S/MIME [6].

   Is this a normative reference to both PGP and S/MIME, or neither?  It
   seems to read that implementers would only need to implement one in
   order to be compliant, so perhaps only one of them is actually a
   normative reference... but if so, which one?  Ultimately, this is
   another instance of weak specmanship, in which the statement itself
   needs to be amended before its clear what the normative requirements
   are.

   These examples are hardly exhaustive, but they at least serve to
   motivate the need for a strict understanding of 'normative'.


4.  Normative Language off the (Standards) Track

   This section examines the use of normative keywords in Informational
   documents which are not protocol specifications.  Some Informational
   RFCs are in fact protocol specifications; this will be the subject of
   Section 4.1.




Peterson                  Expires May 11, 2008                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                 Normativity                 November 2007


   Despite the text of RFC2119, it is commonplace for normative keywords
   to appear in Informational requirements documents today, in
   statements that are intended to constrain the authoring of future
   specifications.  The laudable intent of requirements documents is of
   course to establish consensus on the needs of the implementation
   community prior to the evaluation of candidate protocol
   specifications that might satisfy these needs.  The requirements
   document becomes a measuring stick of the 'compliance' of a candidate
   protocol.

   Undoubtedly some confusion arises from an accident of the language in
   RFC2119.  The Abstract of 2119 says that the normative keywords are
   "are used to signify the requirements in the specification", which
   could be read to suggest that Informational requirements that will be
   used to constrain further protocol specifications should use
   normative keywords.  In fact, that interpretation clearly contradicts
   the previously-cited dictum that normative keywords are to be used
   only when required for "interoperation or to limit [implementation]
   behavior."

   Text at the end of Section 1 of RFC2418 furthermore suggests that
   normative keywords might be applied by analogy to non-protocol
   operations, in that case IETF process, in order to "reduce the chance
   for confusion about the process", but it isn't clear how such an
   analogy would operate.  Were we to grant hypothetically that
   normative keywords apply to requirements by analogy, the
   interpretation of normative keywords in this context would remain
   problematic.  How are we to understand the "SHOULD" keyword for
   protocol requirements, as opposed to protocols.  What does it mean
   for a protocol that satisfies a given set of protocol requirements to
   be merely "conditionally compliant"?

   Along these lines, it might seem compelling to imagine that the
   selection of two protocols X and Y, which were invented to satisfy a
   set of requirements A, might be decided by a single "SHOULD"
   statement specified in A which is support by X but not Y. But of
   course, if that "SHOULD" in A were instead a "MUST", the same
   selection would be made.  The true utility of a "SHOULD" emerges when
   we instead consider two protocol implementations, X and Y, which have
   been implemented to specification A and are attempting to
   interoperate.  In this case, if Y fails to implement a "MUST", a very
   different result can occur than if Y fails to implement a "SHOULD".
   In short, the normative keywords are designed to encourage
   cooperation, not decide competition.  Using them in the latter
   context is a strained analogy, and the resulting strain rests on the
   IETF's standards process.

   It is moreover critical to appreciate that the use of normative



Peterson                  Expires May 11, 2008                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                 Normativity                 November 2007


   keywords is tied to the functions of 2026: that is, the pruning of
   unused features of a protocol specification.  From the guidance in
   4.1.2 (where we understand 'features' to be at the mandatory degree
   of compliance, and 'options' to be at the recommended or optional
   degrees of compliance):

    The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable
    implementations applies to all of the options and features of the
    specification.  In cases in which one or more options or features
    have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable
    implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard
    level only if those options or features are removed.

   Normative keywords exist to ensure interoperability; by contrast, a
   requirements document will never be interoperable with anything.

   More rarely, normative keywords appear in Informational frameworks
   that describe high-level or abstract architectures.  In this context
   they are primarily used for rhetorical emphasis.  This practice can
   still lead authors of future specifications to improper referencing.

   Finally, it is also possible for an Informational document to
   redefine normative keywords in lieu of any reference to RFC2119.
   This practice only adds further misery to the confusion surrounding
   the use of normative keywords, and should be avoided.  If there is a
   genuine need for terminology to characterize adherence to a set of
   requirements in the context of specification authoring, those terms
   should be clearly defined and explicitly distinguished, semantically
   and syntactically, from the RFC2119 normative keywords.  A similar
   direction should be taken regarding the use of normative keywords in
   process statements.  Further consideration is left as a possible
   subject for future study.

4.1.  Informational Publication of Protocols

   There are a variety of circumstances in which protocol specifications
   are published as Informational RFCs.  Sometimes authors request
   Informational publication of protocol specifications which were
   rejected as candidates in a working group process in order to
   preserve an historical record.  Parties who do not participate
   directly in the IETF may similarly request publication of their
   designs as an Informational RFC.  New ciphersuites designed outside
   the IETF are typically documented, in strict procedural language,
   within Informational RFCs as a convenient reference for protocol
   designers; these latter are frequently a target of legitimate
   downward references (see RFC3967).  Some exceptional IETF procedures,
   for example MIBs or the SIP change (RFC3427 [6]) process, may
   stipulate a lower bar of review and Informational publication for



Peterson                  Expires May 11, 2008                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                 Normativity                 November 2007


   certain protocol work.

   These Informational documents often contain normative keywords, as
   their authors aspire to specify something that will yield
   interoperable implementations.  One need not anticipate, or even
   understand, the eventual intended status of a specification in order
   to invoke RFC2119 and use the normative keywords therein.  The
   distinctions between such Informational documents and standards-track
   documents lie more in the implications about the level of review and
   community consensus which the standards-track entails than in any
   consideration about the use of normative keywords.

   Because such documents exist, it is not reasonable to bar
   Informational specifications from containing RFC2119 normative
   keywords.  Indeed, the downref exception procedures of RFC3967 exist
   so that it is possible to refer to such documents, under the proper
   conditions and with the required oversight.

   Instead, we should prevent the casual or inappropriate use of
   normative keywords that to refer to matters other the proper
   implementation of protocols.


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document contains no considerations for the IANA.


6.  Security Considerations

   This is a IETF process document which does not impact the security of
   IETF protocols.


7.  Acknowledgements

   Harald Alvestrand, Brian Carpenter, Scott Bradner and Jonathan
   Rosenberg have provided valuable input to this document.


8.  Informational References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate requirement
        levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [2]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
        RFC 2026, October 1996.




Peterson                  Expires May 11, 2008                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                 Normativity                 November 2007


   [3]  Bush, R. and T. Narten, "Clarifying when Standards Track
        Documents may Refer Normatively to Documents at a Lower Level",
        RFC 3967, December 2004.

   [4]  Klensin, J. and S. Hartman, "Handling Normative References to
        Standards-Track Documents", RFC 4897, June 2007.

   [5]  Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures",
        RFC 2418, September 1998.

   [6]  Mankin, A., Bradner, S., Mahy, R., Willis, D., Ott, J., and B.
        Rosen, "Change Process for the Session Initiation Protocol
        (SIP)", RFC 3427, December 2002.


Author's Address

   Jon Peterson
   NeuStar, Inc.
   1800 Sutter St
   Suite 570
   Concord, CA  94520
   USA

   Phone: +1 925/363-8720
   Email: jon.peterson@neustar.biz
   URI:   http://www.neustar.biz/
























Peterson                  Expires May 11, 2008                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                 Normativity                 November 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "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).





Peterson                  Expires May 11, 2008                 [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/