draft-ietf-urn-net-procedures-02.txt		draft-ietf-urn-net-procedures-03.txt
	Network Working Group M. Mealling		Network Working Group M. Mealling
	Internet-Draft Network Solutions, Inc.		Internet-Draft Network Solutions, Inc.
	Category: Informational February 1999		Expires: August 1, 2000 R.D. Daniel
	Expires: August 02, 1999		Metacode, Inc.
			February 2000
	Assignment Procedures for URI Resolution using DNS		Assignment Procedures for URI Resolution using DNS
	draft-ietf-urn-net-procedures-02.txt		draft-ietf-urn-net-procedures-03.txt
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with		This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
	all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.		all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that		Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
	other groups may also distribute working documents as		other groups may also distribute working documents as
	Internet-Drafts.		Internet-Drafts.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
	months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents		months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
	at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	To view the entire list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories, see		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.		http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
	This Internet-Draft will expire on August 02, 1999.		This Internet-Draft will expire on August 1, 2000.
			Copyright Notice
			Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
	Abstract		Abstract
	RFC2168 defines a DNS resource record and an algorithm for using DNS		RFCXXXX defines a how DNS is used as a Resolver Discovery System
	as a registry for retrieving URI delegation rules (sometimes called		database that contains URI delegation rules (sometimes called
	resolution hints). That document specifies that the first step in		resolution hints). That document specifies that the first step in
	that algorithm is to append 'uri.net' to the URI scheme and retrieve		that algorithm is to append 'URI.NET' to the URI scheme and retrieve
	the NAPTR record for that domain-name. I.e., the first step in		the NAPTR record for that domain-name. I.e., the first step in
	resolving "http://foo.com/" would be to look up a NAPTR record for		resolving "http://foo.com/" would be to look up a NAPTR record for
	the domain "http.uri.net". URN resolution also follows a similar		the domain "http.URI.NET". URN resolution also follows a similar
	procedure but uses the 'urn.net' zone as its root. This document		procedure but uses the 'URN.NET' zone as its root. This document
	describes the procedures for inserting a new rule into the 'uri.net'		describes the procedures for inserting a new rule into the 'URI.NET'
	and 'urn.net' zones.		and 'URN.NET' zones.
	Copyright Notice
	Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. URI Resolution vs URN Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. URI Resolution vs URN Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. URI Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		3. Registration Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	4. URN Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		3.1 URI.NET Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	5. Requirements on rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		3.1.1 Only Schemes in the IETF Tree Allowed . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	6. Submission Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3.1.2 Scheme Registration Takes Precedence . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	7. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.1.3 NAPTR Registration May Accompany Scheme Registration . . . . 4
	7.1 Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.1.4 Registration or Changes after Scheme Registration . . . . . 4
	7.2 Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.2 URN.NET Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	7.3 Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.2.1 NID Registration Takes Precedence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	8. Example Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.2.2 NAPTR Registration May Accompany NID Registration . . . . . 4
	9. The URN Registration in the uri.net zone . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.2.3 Registration or Changes after Scheme Registration . . . . . 4
	10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		4. Requirements on hints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		5. Submission Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		6. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
			6.1 Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
			6.2 Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
			6.3 Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
			7. Example Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
			8. The URN Registration in the URI.NET zone . . . . . . . . . . 7
			9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
			References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
			Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	This document defines the policies and procedures for inserting		This document defines the policies and procedures for inserting
	NAPTR records into the 'uri.net' and 'urn.net' zones for the purpose		NAPTR records into the 'URI.NET' and 'URN.NET' zones for the purpose
	of resolving URIs according to "Resolution of Uniform Resource		of resolving URIs according to "Resolution of Uniform Resource
	Identifiers using the Domain Name System", RFCXXXX[1], which is an		Identifiers using the Domain Name System", RFCXXXX[1], which is an
	application of the NAPTR DNS Resource Record defined in RFCXXXX[2].		application of the NAPTR DNS Resource Record defined in RFCXXXX[2].
	2. URI Resolution vs URN Resolution		2. URI Resolution vs URN Resolution
	RFCXXXX[1] defines how both URI resolution and URN[3] resolution		RFCXXXX[1] defines how both URI resolution and URN[3] resolution
	work. Specifically it says that all URIs rules are registered in		work when DNS is used as the delegation rule (or hint) database.
	'uri.net'. Since a URN is a URI it follows the same rules. Thus one		Specifically it says that the initial instructions ('hints') for
	of the rules in the 'uri.net' zone is the one for a URN. This rule		DNS-based resolution of URIs are stored as resource records in the
	states that the namespace id [4] is extracted, 'urn.net' is appended		'URI.NET' DNS zone.
	to the end of the namespace id, and the next NAPTR record[2] is
	retrieved.
	3. URI Registration Procedure		Since a URN is a kind of URI, a hint for resolution of the URI
			prefix 'urn:' will also be stored in the 'URI.NET' zone. This rule
			states that the namespace id[3] is extracted, 'URN.NET' is appended
			to the end of the namespace id, and the result is used as the key
			for retrieval of a subsequent NAPTR record[2].
	At this time there is no set procedure for registering new URI		3. Registration Policies
	schemes other than a published RFC. Due to this lack and the
	existence of non-published schemes such as "about" and "res", there
	is an IETF working group discussing how to deal with this problem.
	Thus, at this time the only requirements for requesting an entry in
	the uri.net zone is that the URI scheme be published or in use
	somewhere and that it not conflict with an existing URI scheme.
	When the IETF does standardize a set of procedures for vetting and		The creation of a given URI scheme or URN namespace id (NID) follows
	registering new URI schemes, the 'uri.net' registration procedures		the appropriate registration documents for those spaces. URI schemes
	MUST adhere to those procedures for determining if the URI scheme in		follow "Registration Procedures for URL Scheme Names" (RFC
	question is valid.		2717)[7]. URN namespace ids follow "URN Namespace Definition
			Mechanisms" (RFC 2611)[6].
	4. URN Registration Procedure		3.1 URI.NET Registration
	RFCXXXX[6] defines the procedures for assignment of new URN		3.1.1 Only Schemes in the IETF Tree Allowed
	namespace-ids. Since the 'urn.net' registration procedures only
	deal with the namespace-id portion of the URN space, that document
	is the sole determining document for what can be entered into the
	urn.net zone for a URN.
	5. Requirements on rules		In order to be inserted into the URI.NET zone, the subsequent URI
			scheme MUST be registered under the IETF URI tree. The requirements
			for this tree are specified in [7].
			3.1.2 Scheme Registration Takes Precedence
			The registration of a NAPTR record for a URI scheme MUST NOT precede
			proper registration of that scheme and publication of a stable
			specification in accordance with [7]. The IESG or its designated
			expert will review the request for
			1. correctness and technical soundness
			2. consistency with the published URI specification, and
			3. to ensure that the NAPTR record for a DNS-based URI does not
			delegate resolution of the URI to a party other than the holder
			of the DNS name. This last rule is to insure that a given URI's
			resolution hint doesn't hijack (inadvertently or otherwise)
			network traffic for a given domain.
			3.1.3 NAPTR Registration May Accompany Scheme Registration
			A request for a URI.NET registration MAY accompany a request for a
			URI scheme (in accordance with [7]), in which case both requests
			will be reviewed simultaneously by IESG or its designated experts.
			3.1.4 Registration or Changes after Scheme Registration
			A request for a NAPTR record (or an request to change an existing
			NAPTR record) MAY be submitted after the URI prefix has been
			registered. If the specification for the URI prefix is controlled
			by some other party than IETF, IESG will require approval from the
			owner/maintainer of that specification before the registration will
			be accepted. This is in addition to any technical review of the
			NAPTR registration done by IESG or its designated experts.
			3.2 URN.NET Registration
			3.2.1 NID Registration Takes Precedence
			The registration of a NAPTR record for a URN NID MUST NOT precede
			proper registration of that NID and publication of a stable
			specification in accordance with [6]. This is to prevent the
			registration of a NAPTR record in URN.NET from circumventing the NID
			registration process.
			3.2.2 NAPTR Registration May Accompany NID Registration
			A request for a URN.NET registration MAY accompany a request for a
			NID (in accordance with [6]), in which case both requests will be
			reviewed at the same time.
			3.2.3 Registration or Changes after Scheme Registration
			A request for a NAPTR record (or an request to change an existing
			NAPTR record) MAY be submitted after the NID has been registered.
			If the specification for the NID is controlled by some other party
			than IETF, IESG will require approval from the owner/maintainer of
			that specification before the registration will be accepted. This is
			in addition to any technical review of the NAPTR registration done
			by IESG or its designated experts.
			Note that this applies to all NAPTR records for a particular NID,
			even though a NAPTR record might affect only part of the URN space
			assigned to an NID
			4. Requirements on hints
	Delegation of a namespace can happen in two ways. In the case of		Delegation of a namespace can happen in two ways. In the case of
	most URIs where the entity being delegated to is hard-coded into the		most URIs, the key being delegated to is hard-coded into the
	identifier itself, the syntax of where this is located is set. In		identifier itself (i.e. a hostname in an HTTP URL). The syntax of
	the case where the entity being delegated to is set in the rule,		where this new key is located is predetermined by the syntax of the
	that entity can change as the rule changes.		scheme. In other cases, the new key can be part of the hint itself.
			This is the functional equivalent of saying, "if this rule matches
			then this is always the key."
			In order to minimize the query load on the URI.NET and URN.NET
			zones, it is anticipated that the resource records in those zones
			will have extremely long "times to live" (TTLs), perhaps measured in
			years.
			Thus, for any URI prefix or URN namespace for which the resolution
			hints are likely to change, the actual rule should be stored in some
			other (less stable) DNS zone, and within URI.NET or URN.NET a stable
			NAPTR record should be used to delegate queries to that less stable
			zone.
	One of the optimizations that the both the URI and URN registries
	attempts to make is that any entry in that zone should have an
	extremely long time to live. 'Extremely long' should be measured in
	years if possible. Thus, any rule that can change must be delegated
	out of the urn.net zone by a replacement rule in the NAPTR record.
	For example, the 'foo' URN namespace has flexible rules for how		For example, the 'foo' URN namespace has flexible rules for how
	delegation takes place. Instead of putting those rules in the		delegation takes place. Instead of putting those rules in the
	urn.net zone, the entry instead punts those rules off to a		URN.NET zone, the entry instead punts those rules off to a
	nameserver that has a shorter time to live. The record in urn.net		nameserver that has a shorter time to live. The record in URN.NET
	would look like this:		would look like this:
	foo IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "" "" urn-resolver.foo.com.		foo IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "" "" urn-resolver.foo.com.
	Thus, when the client starts out in the resolution process, the		Thus, when the client starts out in the resolution process, the
	second step is to begin asking 'urn-resolver.foo.com' for the NAPTR		first step will be to query foo.URN.NET to find the above record,
	records that contain the resolution rules. The TTL at the root is		the second step is to begin asking 'urn-resolver.foo.com' for the
	very long. The TTL at the 'urn-resolver.foo.com' is much shorter.		NAPTR records that contain the resolution rules. The TTL at the root
			is very long. The TTL at the 'urn-resolver.foo.com' is much shorter.
	Conversely, the 'http' URL scheme adheres to a particular syntax		Conversely, the 'http' URL scheme adheres to a particular syntax
	that specifies that the host to ask is specified in the URL in		that specifies that the host to ask is specified in the URL in
	question. Since this syntax does not change, that rule can be		question. Since this syntax does not change, that rule can be
	specified in the uri.net zone. The record would look like this:		specified in the URI.NET zone. The record would look like this:
	http IN NAPTR 100 100 "" "" "/http:\\/\\/([^\\/:]+)/\\2/i" .		http IN NAPTR 100 100 "" "" "/http:\\/\\/([^\\/:]+)/\\2/i" .
	Thus, the second step of resolution is to attempt to contact the		Thus, the second step of resolution is to use the domain-name found
	host contained in the URL itself.		in the URL as the next key in the cycle. If, for example, that NAPTR
			was terminal and contains some hostname in the replacement field,
			then the client could contact that host in order to ask questions
			about this particular URI.
	6. Submission Procedure		5. Submission Procedure
	Using the MIME Content-Type registration mechanism[5]as a model for		Using the MIME Content-Type registration mechanism[5]as a model for
	a successful registration mechanism, the 'uri.net' and 'urn.net'		a successful registration mechanism, the 'URI.NET' and 'URN.NET'
	procedures consist of a request template submitted to an open		procedures consist of a request template submitted to an open
	mailing list made up of interested parties. If no objections are		mailing list made up of interested parties. If no objections are
	made within a two week period, a representative of the registration		made within a two week period, a representative of the registration
	authority considers the submission to be accepted and enters that		authority considers the submission to be accepted and enters that
	submission into the nameserver.		submission into the nameserver.
	o Registrations for the 'uri.net' zone are sent to		o Registrations for the 'URI.NET' zone are sent to
	'register@uri.net'.		'register@URI.NET'.
	o Registrations for the 'urn.net' zone are sent to		o Registrations for the 'URN.NET' zone are sent to
	'register@urn.net'.		'register@URN.NET'.
	At this time the registration authority is expected to be the IANA.		At this time the registration authority is expected to be the IANA.
	Objections are restricted to those that point out impacts on the		Objections are restricted to those that point out impacts on the
	zone itself or to DNS in general. Objections to the URL scheme or to		zone itself or to DNS in general. Objections to the URL scheme or to
	the URN namespace-id are not allowed, as these should be raised in		the URN namespace-id are not allowed, as these should be raised in
	their respective forums. The logical conclusion of this is that ANY		their respective forums. The logical conclusion of this is that ANY
	sanctioned URL scheme or URN namespace MUST be allowed to be		sanctioned URL scheme or URN namespace MUST be allowed to be
	registered if it meets the requirements specified in this document		registered if it meets the requirements specified in this document
	as regards times to live and general impact to the DNS.		as regards times to live and general impact to the DNS.
	7. Registration Template		6. Registration Template
	The template to be sent to the appropriate list MUST contain the		The template to be sent to the appropriate list MUST contain the
	following values:		following values:
	7.1 Key		6.1 Key
	This is the URN NID or URL scheme, which is used as the domain		This is the URN NID or URL scheme, which is used as the domain
	portion of the DNS entry. It must be valid according to the		portion of the DNS entry. It must be valid according to the
	procedures specified in the URN namespace-id assignment document and		procedures specified in the URN namespace-id assignment document and
	any future standards for registering new URL schemes.		any future standards for registering new URL schemes.
	7.2 Authority		6.2 Authority
	This is the authority doing the registration of the record. It must		This is the authority doing the registration of the record. It must
	be an authority recognized as either the IESG or any authority		be an authority recognized as either the IESG or any authority
	defined in the URN NID[6] or URL scheme registration[7] documents.		defined in the URN NID[6] or URL scheme registration[7] documents.
	7.3 Records		6.3 Records
	The actual DNS records representing the rule set for the key. The		The actual DNS records representing the rule set for the key. The
	required values are Preference, Order, Flags, Services, Regex, and		required values are Preference, Order, Flags, Services, Regex, and
	Replacement as defined by RFCXXXX[2].		Replacement as defined by RFCXXXX[2].
	8. Example Template		7. Example Template
	To: register@urn.net		To: register@URN.NET
	From: joe@foo.com		From: joe@foo.com
	Key: foo		Key: foo
	Authority: Foo Technology, Inc as specified in RFCFOO		Authority: Foo Technology, Inc as specified in RFCFOO
	Record: foo IN NAPTR 100 100 "" "" "" urn.foo.com.		Record: foo IN NAPTR 100 100 "" "" "" urn.foo.com.
	9. The URN Registration in the uri.net zone		8. The URN Registration in the URI.NET zone
	Since this document discusses the uri.net and urn.net zones and the		Since this document discusses the URI.NET and URN.NET zones and the
	URN rule that exists in the uri.net zone, it makes sense for the		URN rule that exists in the URI.NET zone, it makes sense for the
	regisration template for the URN URI rule to be specified here:		registration template for the URN URI rule to be specified here:
	To: register@uri.net		To: register@URI.NET
	From: The IETF URN Working Group		From: The IETF URN Working Group
	Key: urn		Key: urn
	Authority: RFC2141		Authority: RFC2141
	Record: urn IN NAPTR 0 0 "" "" "/urn:([^:]+)/\\2/i" .		Record: urn IN NAPTR 0 0 "" "" "/urn:([^:]+)/\\2/i" .
	10. IANA Considerations		9. IANA Considerations
	This document describes a mechanism for registering representations		This document describes a mechanism for registering representations
	of protocol items that have already been registered with some IETF		of protocol items that have already been registered with some IETF
	sanctioned agency (probably the IANA as well). This means that the		sanctioned agency (probably the IANA as well). This means that the
	IANA need not determine appropriateness of the underlying		IANA need not determine appropriateness of the underlying
	namespaces, since that is determined by another process.		namespaces, since that is determined by another process.
	The only real impact on the IANA will be		The only real impact on the IANA will be
			o to create and maintain (or designate some other entity to
	o to maintain (or designate some other entity to maintain) a		maintain) a primary nameserver for the URI.NET and URN.NET zones;
	primary nameserver for the uri.net and urn.net zones;		o to maintain the mailing lists "register@URI.NET" and
	o to maintain the mailing lists "register@uri.net" and		"register@URN.NET" as the forum for discussions of submissions;
	"register@uri.net" as the forum for discussions of submissions;
	and		and
	o to act as the party that determines if all objections have been		o to act as the party that determines if all objections have been
	noted and accommodated.		noted and accommodated.
	References		References
	[1] Mealling, M., Daniel, R., "Resolution of Uniform Resource		[1] Mealling, M. and R. Daniel, "Resolution of Uniform Resource
	Identifiers using the Domain Name System", November 1998.		Identifiers using the Domain Name System", November 1998.
	[2] Mealling, M., Daniel, R., "The Naming Authority Pointer (NAPTR)		[2] Mealling, M. and R. Daniel, "The Naming Authority Pointer
	DNS Resource Record", November 1998.		(NAPTR) DNS Resource Record", November 1998.
	[3] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, May 1997.		[3] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, November 1998.
	[4] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., Masinter, L., "Uniform Resource		[4] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform
	Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August 1998.		Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August
			1998.
	[5] Freed, N., Klensin, J., Postel, J., "Multipurpose Internet Mail		[5] Freed, N., Klensin, J. and J. Postel, "Multipurpose Internet
	Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration Procedures", RFC		Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration Procedures", RFC
	2048, November 1996.		2048, November 1996.
	[6] Faltstrom, P., Iannella, R., Daigle, L., van Gulik, D., "URN		[6] Faltstrom, P., Iannella, R., Daigle, L. and D. van Gulik, "URN
	Namespace Definition Mechanisms", October 1998.		Namespace Definition Mechanisms", RFC 2611, October 1998.
	[7] Petke, R., King, I., "Registration Procedures for URL Scheme		[7] Petke, R. and I. King, "Registration Procedures for URL Scheme
	Names", January 1999.		Names", RFC 2717, January 1999.
	Author's Address		Authors' Addresses
	Michael Mealling		Michael Mealling
	Network Solutions, Inc.		Network Solutions, Inc.
	505 Huntmar Park Drive		505 Huntmar Park Drive
	Herndon, VA 22070		Herndon, VA 22070
	US		US
	Phone: +1 770 935 5492		Phone: (703) 742-0400
	EMail: michaelm@netsol.com		EMail: michaelm@netsol.com
	URI: http://www.netsol.com
			Ron
			Metacode, Inc.
			139 Townsend Street, Ste. 100
			San Francisco, CA 94107
			US
			Phone: +1 415 222 0100
			EMail: rdaniel@metacode.com
			URI: http://www.metacode.com
	Full Copyright Statement		Full Copyright Statement
	Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.		Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
	This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to		This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
	others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it		others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
	or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published		or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published
	and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any		and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
	kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph		kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
	are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this		are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
	document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing		document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
	the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other		the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
	Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of		Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
	skipping to change at line 293		skipping to change at page 9, line 32
	The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be		The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
	revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.		revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
	This document and the information contained herein is provided on an		This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
	"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING		"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
	TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING		TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
	BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION		BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
	HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF		HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
	MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.		MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
			Acknowledgement
			Funding for the RFC editor function is currently provided by the
			Internet Society.
End of changes. 48 change blocks.
	113 lines changed or deleted		204 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/