One document matched: draft-duerst-mailto-bis-02.txt
Differences from draft-duerst-mailto-bis-01.txt
Network Working Group M. Duerst
Internet-Draft Aoyama Gakuin University
Obsoletes: 2368 (if approved) L. Masinter
Expires: September 7, 2006 Adobe Systems Incorporated
J. Zawinski
DNA Lounge
March 6, 2006
The 'mailto' URI Scheme
draft-duerst-mailto-bis-02
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 September 7, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document defines the format of Uniform Resource Identifiers
(URI) for references to electronic mail addresses. It updates the
syntax of 'mailto' URIs from [RFC2368] for better compatibility with
IRIs ([RFC3987]).
Duerst, et al. Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme March 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Syntax of a mailto URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Semantics and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Unsafe Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Deployment of UTF-8-Based Percent-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Examples Conforming to RFC2368 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Examples of Complicated Email Addresses . . . . . . . . . 8
7.3. Examples Using UTF-8-Based Percent-Encoding . . . . . . . 9
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. Changes between draft 01 and draft 02 . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Changes between draft 00 and draft 01 . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.3. Changes from RFC 2368 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 16
Duerst, et al. Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme March 2006
1. Introduction
The mailto URI scheme is used to identify resources that are reached
using Internet mail. In its simplest form, a mailto URI contains an
Internet mail address. For interaction with resources that requires
message headers or message bodies to be specified, the mailto URI
scheme also allows setting mail header fields and the message body.
This specification extends the previous scheme definition to also
allow character data to be percent-encoded based on UTF-8, which
offers a better and more consistent way of dealing with non-ASCII
characters.
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Syntax of a mailto URI
The syntax of a "mailto" URI is described using the ABNF of
[RFC4234], and non-terminal definitions from [RFC2822] (domain, dot-
atom, quoted-string) and [RFC3986] (unreserved, pct-encoded):
mailtoURI = "mailto:" [ to ] [ headers ]
to = [ addr-spec *("%2C" addr-spec ) ]
headers = "?" header *( "&" header )
header = hname "=" hvalue
hname = *qchar
hvalue = *qchar
addr-spec = local-part "@" domain
local-part = dot-atom / quoted-string
qchar = unreserved / pct-encoded / some-delims
some-delims = "!" / "$" / "'" / "(" / ")" / "*"
/ "+" / "," / ";" / ":" / "@"
"addr-spec" is as specified in [RFC2822], i.e. it is a mail address,
possibly including "phrase" and "comment" components. However, the
following changes apply:
1. A number of characters that can appear in "addr-spec" have to be
percent-encoded. These are the characters that cannot appear in
an URI according to [RFC3986] as well as "%" (because it is used
for percent-encoding) and all the characters in gen-delims except
"@" (i.e. "/", "?", "#", "[" and "]"). Of the characters in sub-
delims, at least the following also have to be percent-encoded:
"&", ";", and "=". Care has to be taken both when encoding as
well as when decoding to make sure these operations are applied
Duerst, et al. Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme March 2006
only once.
2. "obs-local-part" and "NO-WS-CTL" as defined in [RFC2822] are not
allowed.
3. Whitespace and comments within "local-part" are not allowed.
They do not have any operational semantics.
4. Percent-encoding can be used to denote non-ASCII characters in
the part of a "mailbox" that denotes a domain name, in order to
denote an internationalized domain name. The considerations for
reg-name in [RFC3986] apply. In particular, non-ASCII characters
must first be encoded according to UTF-8 [STD63], and then each
octet of the corresponding UTF-8 sequence must be percent-encoded
to be represented as URI characters. URI producing applications
must not use percent-encoding in domain names unless it is used
to represent a UTF-8 character sequence. When the
internationalized domain name is used to compose a message, the
name must be transformed to the IDNA encoding [RFC3490]. URI
producers should provide these domain names in the IDNA encoding,
rather than percent-encoded, if they wish to maximize
interoperability with legacy mailto: URI interpreters.
5. Percent-encoding of non-ASCII octets in the LHS of an email
address is reserved for potential future internationalization.
Non-ASCII characters must first be encoded according to UTF-8
[STD63], and then each octet of the corresponding UTF-8 sequence
must be percent-encoded to be represented as URI characters. Any
other percent-encoding of non-ASCII characters is prohibited.
When a LHS containing non-ASCII characters will be used to
compose a message, the LHS must be transformed to conform to
whatever encoding may be defined in a future specification for
the internationalization of email addresses.
"hname" and "hvalue" are encodings of an [RFC2822] header field name
and value, respectively. Percent-encoding is needed for the same
characters as listed above for "addr-spec".
The special hname "body" indicates that the associated hvalue is the
body of the message. The "body" hname should contain the content for
the first text/plain body part of the message. The "body" hname is
primarily intended for generation of short text messages for
automatic processing (such as "subscribe" messages for mailing
lists), not general MIME bodies.
Within mailto URIs, the characters "?", "=", and "&" are reserved.
Because the "&" (ampersand) character is reserved in HTML and XML,
Duerst, et al. Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme March 2006
any mailto URI which contains an ampersand must be spelled
differently in HTML and XML than in other contexts. A mailto URI
which appears in an HTML or XML document must escape the "&", e.g. as
"&".
Non-ASCII characters can be encoded in hvalue as follows:
1. MIME encoded words (as defined in [RFC2047]) are permitted in
header values, but not in an hvalue of a "body" hname.
2. Non-ASCII characters can be encoded according to UTF-8 [STD63],
and then each octet of the corresponding UTF-8 sequence is
percent-encoded to be represented as URI characters. When
hvalues encoded in this way are used to compose a message, the
hvalue must be transformed into MIME encoded words, except for an
hvalue of a "body" hname, which has to be encoded according to
[RFC2045]. Please note that for MIME encoded words and for
bodies in composed email messages, encodings other than UTF-8 MAY
be used as long as the characters are properly transcoded.
MIME encoded words and UTF-8-based percent-encoding SHOULD NOT both
be used sequentially in the same hvalue, and MUST NOT be combined.
Also note that it is legal to specify both "to" and an "hname" whose
value is "to". That is,
<mailto:addr1@an.example%2C%20addr2@an.example>
is equivalent to
<mailto:?to=addr1@an.example%2C%20addr2@an.example>
is equivalent to
<mailto:addr1@an.example?to=addr2@an.example>
However, the latter form is NOT RECOMMENDED. Implementations should
be careful not to produce two "To:" header fields in a message.
Also, creators of mailto: URIs should be careful to not include
message header fields multiple times if these header fields can only
be used once in a message.
3. Semantics and Operations
A mailto URI designates an "internet resource", which is the mailbox
specified in the address. When additional headers are supplied, the
resource designated is the same address, but with an additional
Duerst, et al. Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme March 2006
profile for accessing the resource. While there are Internet
resources that can only be accessed via electronic mail, the mailto
URI is not intended as a way of retrieving such objects
automatically.
In current practice, resolving URIs such as those in the "http"
scheme causes an immediate interaction between client software and a
host running an interactive server. The "mailto" URI has unusual
semantics because resolving such a URI does not cause an immediate
interaction. Instead, the client creates a message to the designated
address with the various header fields set as default. The user can
edit the message, send this message unedited, or choose not to send
the message. The operation of how any URI scheme is resolved is not
mandated by the URI specifications.
4. Unsafe Headers
The user agent interpreting a mailto URI SHOULD choose not to create
a message if any of the headers are considered dangerous; it may also
choose to create a message with only a subset of the headers given in
the URI. Only a limited set of headers such as the Subject,
Keywords, and Body headers are believed to be both safe and useful in
the general case. In cases where the source of an URI is well known,
and/or specific fields are limited to specific well-known values,
other headers may be considered safe, too.
The creator of a mailto URI cannot expect the resolver of a URI to
understand more than the "subject" and "body" headers. Clients that
resolve mailto URIs into mail messages should be able to correctly
create [RFC2822]-compliant mail messages using the "subject" and
"body" headers.
5. Encoding
[RFC3986] requires that many characters in URIs be encoded. This
affects the mailto scheme for some common characters that might
appear in addresses, headers or message contents. One such character
is space (" ", ASCII hex 20). Note the examples below that use "%20"
for space in the message body. Also note that line breaks in the
body of a message MUST be encoded with "%0D%0A".
People creating mailto URIs must be careful to encode any reserved
characters that are used in the URIs so that properly-written URI
interpreters can read them. Also, client software that reads URIs
must be careful to decode strings before creating the mail message so
that the mail messages appear in a form that the recipient will
Duerst, et al. Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme March 2006
understand. These strings should be decoded before showing the
message to the user.
The mailto URI scheme is limited in that it does not provide for
substitution of variables. Thus, a message body that must include a
user's email address can not be encoded using the mailto URI. This
limitation also prevents mailto URIs that are signed with public keys
and other such variable information.
6. Deployment of UTF-8-Based Percent-Encoding
UTF-8-based percent-encoding should only be used in actual mailto
URIs once it is well deployed in software that interprets mailto URIs
(such as mail user agents).
7. Examples
7.1. Examples Conforming to RFC2368
URIs for an ordinary individual mailing address:
<mailto:chris@example.com>
A URI for a mail response system that requires the name of the file
in the subject:
<mailto:infobot@example.com?subject=current-issue>
A mail response system that requires a "send" request in the body:
<mailto:infobot@example.com?body=send%20current-issue>
A similar URI could have two lines with different "send" requests (in
this case, "send current-issue" and, on the next line, "send index".)
<mailto:infobot@
example.com?body=send%20current-issue%0D%0Asend%20index>
An interesting use of mailto URIs is when browsing archives of
messages. A link can be provided that allows to reply to a message
and conserve threading information. This is done by adding a In-
Reply-To header containing the Message-ID of the message where the
link is added, for example:
<mailto:list@example.org?In-Reply-To=%3C3469A91.D10AF4C@
example.com%3E>
Duerst, et al. Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme March 2006
A request to subscribe to a mailing list:
<mailto:majordomo@example.com?body=subscribe%20bamboo-l>
A URI for a single user which includes a CC of another user:
<mailto:joe@example.com?cc=bob@example.com&body=hello>
Note the use of the "&" reserved character, above. The following
example, by using "?" twice, is incorrect:
<mailto:joe@example.com?cc=bob@example.com?body=hello> ; WRONG!
According to [RFC2822], the characters "?", "&", and even "%" may
occur in addr-specs. The fact that they are reserved characters in
this URI scheme is not a problem: those characters may appear in
mailto URIs, they just may not appear in unencoded form. The
standard URI encoding mechanisms ("%" followed by a two-digit hex
number) must be used in these cases.
To indicate the address "gorby%kremvax@example.com" one would do:
<mailto:gorby%25kremvax@example.com>
To indicate the address "unlikely?address@example.com", and include
another header, one would do:
<mailto:unlikely%3Faddress@example.com?blat=foop>
As described above, the "&" (ampersand) character is reserved in HTML
and must be replaced e.g. with "&". Thus, a URI with an internal
ampersand might look like:
Click <a
href="mailto:joe@an.example?cc=bob@an.example&body=hello">
mailto:joe@an.example?cc=bob@an.example&body=hello</a> to send a
greeting message to Joe and Bob.
7.2. Examples of Complicated Email Addresses
Following are a few examples of how to treat email addresses that
contain complicated escaping syntax.
Email address: "not@me"@example.org; corresponding mailto: URI:
<mailto:%22not%40me%22@example.org>.
Email address: "oh\\no"@example.org; corresponding mailto: URI:
<mailto:%22oh%5C%5Cno%22@example.org>.
Duerst, et al. Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme March 2006
Email address: "\\\"it's\ ugly\\\""@example.org; corresponding
mailto: URI:
<mailto:%22%5C%5C%5C%22it's%22%20ugly%5C%5C%5C%22%22@example.org>.
7.3. Examples Using UTF-8-Based Percent-Encoding
Sending a mail with the subject "coffee" in French, i.e. "cafe" where
the final e is an e-acute, using UTF-8 and percent-encoding:
<mailto:user@example.org?subject=caf%C3%A9>
The same subject, this time using an encoded-word (escaping the "="
and "?" characters used in the encoded-word syntax, because they are
reserved):
<mailto:user@
example.org?subject=%3D%3Futf-8%3FQ%3Fcaf%3DC3%3DA9%3F%3D>
The same subject, this time encoded as iso-8859-1:
<mailto:user@
example.org?subject=%3D%3Fiso-8859-1%3FQ%3Fcaf%3DE9%3F%3D>
Going back to straight UTF-8 and adding a body with the same value:
<mailto:user@example.org?subject=caf%C3%A9&body=caf%C3%A9>
This mailto URI may result in a message looking like this:
From: sender@example.net
To: user@example.org
Subject: =?utf-8?Q?caf=C3=A9?=
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
caf=C3=A9
Duerst, et al. Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme March 2006
The software sending the email is not restricted to UTF-8, but can
use other encodings. The following shows the same email using iso-
8859-1 two times:
From: sender@example.net
To: user@example.org
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?caf=E9?=
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
caf=E9
Different content transfer encodings (i.e. "8bit" or "base64" instead
of "quoted-printable") and different encodings in encoded words (i.e.
"B" instead of "Q") can also be used.
For more examples of encoding the word coffee in different languages,
see [RFC2324].
The following example uses the Japanese word "natto" (U+7D0D U+8C46)
as a domain name label, sending a mail to a user at
"natto".example.org:
<mailto:user@%E7%B4%8D%E8%B1%86.example.org?subject=Test&body=NATTO>
When constructing the email, the domain name label is converted to
punycode. The resulting message may look as follows:
From: sender@example.net
To: user@xn--99zt52a.example.org
Subject: Test
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NATTO
8. Security Considerations
The mailto scheme can be used to send a message from one user to
another, and thus can introduce many security concerns. Mail
messages can be logged at the originating site, the recipient site,
and intermediary sites along the delivery path. If the messages are
not encoded, they can also be read at any of those sites.
A mailto URI gives a template for a message that can be sent by mail
client software. The contents of that template may be opaque or
difficult to read by the user at the time of specifying the URI.
Duerst, et al. Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme March 2006
Thus, a mail client should never send a message based on a mailto URI
without first showing the user the full message that will be sent
(including all headers that were specified by the mailto URI), fully
decoded, and asking the user for approval to send the message as
electronic mail. The mail client should also make it clear that the
user is about to send an electronic mail message, since the user may
not be aware that this is the result of a mailto URI.
A mail client should never send anything without complete disclosure
to the user of what will be sent; it should disclose not only the
message destination, but also any headers. Unrecognized headers, or
headers with values inconsistent with those the mail client would
normally send should be especially suspect. MIME headers (MIME-
Version, Content-*) are most likely inappropriate, except when added
by the MUA to correctly encode the text(s) being sent, as are those
relating to routing (From, Bcc, Apparently-To, etc.)
Note that some headers are inherently unsafe to include in a message
generated from a URI. For example, headers such as "From:", "Bcc:",
and so on, should never be interpreted from a URI. In general, the
fewer headers interpreted from the URI, the less likely it is that a
sending agent will create an unsafe message.
Examples of problems with sending unapproved mail include:
mail that breaks laws upon delivery, such as making illegal
threats;
mail that identifies the sender as someone interested in breaking
laws;
mail that identifies the sender to an unwanted third party;
mail that causes a financial charge to be incurred on the sender;
mail that causes an action on the recipient machine that causes
damage that might be attributed to the sender.
Programs that interpret mailto URIs should ensure that the SMTP
"From" address is set and correct, and that the resulting email is a
complete, workable message.
The security considerations of [RFC3986], [RFC3490], [RFC3491], and
[RFC3987] also apply. Implementers and users are recommended to
check them carefully.
Duerst, et al. Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme March 2006
9. IANA Considerations
This document changes the definition of the mailto: URI scheme; the
registry of URI schemes needs to be updated to refer to this document
rather than its predecessor, [RFC2368].
TODO: Add registration for "Body" message header field to make sure
it doesn't get used for something else.
10. Change Log
10.1. Changes between draft 01 and draft 02
Fixed phone/fax for Martin.
Changed examples to reduce cases with both a 'to' field and a 'to'
hname.
Fixed syntax to not rely on non-terminals from RFC 2396. Changed
description of set of characters that needs to be escaped.
Mollified warning about headers other than Subject, Keywords, and
Body.
Clarified prohibition of mixing different encodings (%-escaping
and Mime encoded words) for headers.
Improved some examples. Fixed some terminology.
10.2. Changes between draft 00 and draft 01
Added clarification about permitted syntax and escaping on email
address LHS, and more complicated examples.
Added text about more save headers in case origin or mailto URIs
is known.
Fixed date of [RFC3986]
Added a sentence referencing [RFC2119]
Added Jamie back in as a co-author. Changed address/affiliation
for Martin.
Duerst, et al. Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme March 2006
10.3. Changes from RFC 2368
For interoperability with IRIs ([RFC3987]), allowed percent-
encoding, fixed to UTF-8, in the domain name part of an email
address, in LHS part of an address (currently reserved because not
operationally usable), and in hvalue parts.
Changed from 'URL' to 'URI'
Updated references: ABNF to [RFC4234]; message syntax to
[RFC2822], URI Generic Syntax to [RFC3986]
Expanded "#mailbox", because the "#" shortcut is no longer
available; needs checking
11. Acknowledgments
This document was derived from [RFC2368]; the acknowledgments from
this specification still applies. In addition, we thank Paul Hoffman
for his work on [RFC2368].
Valuable input on this document was received from (in no particular
order): Paul Hoffman, Charles Lindsey, Tim Kindberg, Frank Ellermann,
Etan Wexler, and Michael Haardt.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", November 1996.
[RFC2047] Moore, K., "MIME Part Three: Message Header Extensions for
Non-ASCII Text", RFC 2047, November 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2822] Resnik, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822,
April 2001.
[RFC3490] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello,
"Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)",
RFC 3490, March 2003.
Duerst, et al. Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme March 2006
[RFC3491] Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Nameprep: A Stringprep
Profile for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)",
RFC 3491, March 2003.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, January 2005.
[RFC3987] Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource
Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987, January 2005.
[RFC4234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.
[STD63] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
12.2. Informative References
[RFC2324] Masinter, L., "Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol
(HTCPCP/1.0)", RFC 2324, April 1998.
[RFC2368] Hoffman, P., Masinter, L., and J. Zawinski, "The mailto
URL scheme", RFC 2368, July 1998.
Duerst, et al. Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme March 2006
Authors' Addresses
Martin Duerst (Note: Please write "Duerst" with u-umlaut wherever
possible, for example as "Dürst" in XML and HTML.)
Aoyama Gakuin University
5-10-1 Fuchinobe
Sagamihara, Kanagawa 229-8558
Japan
Phone: +81 42 759 6329
Fax: +81 42 759 6495
Email: mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
URI: http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp/D%C3%BCrst/
Larry Masinter
Adobe Systems Incorporated
345 Park Ave
San Jose, CA 95110
USA
Phone: +1-408-536-3024
Email: LMM@acm.org
URI: http://larry.masinter.net/
Jamie Zawinski
DNA Lounge
375 Eleventh Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
USA
Email: jwz@jwz.org
Duerst, et al. Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme March 2006
Intellectual Property Statement
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.
Disclaimer of Validity
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.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Duerst, et al. Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 16]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 03:22:22 |