One document matched: draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-02.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-01.txt
Speermint Working Group R.Penno (Editor)
Internet Draft Juniper Networks
Expires: April 2007 October 20, 2006
SPEERMINT Peering Architecture
draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-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 November 2006.
Abstract
This document defines the SPEERMINT peering architecture, its
functional components and peering interface functions.
Conventions used in this document
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 [1]
penno Expires April 20, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-02 October 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................2
2. Network Context................................................3
3. Procedures.....................................................5
4. Reference SPEERMINT Architecture...............................5
5. Peer Function Examples.........................................6
5.1. The Location Function (LF) of an Initiating Provider......7
5.1.1. Target address analysis..............................7
5.1.2. User ENUM Lookup.....................................7
5.1.3. Carrier ENUM lookup..................................8
5.1.4. Routing Table........................................8
5.1.5. SIP DNS Resolution...................................8
5.1.6. SIP Redirect Server..................................9
5.2. The Location Function (LF) of a Receiving Provider........9
5.2.1. Publish ENUM records.................................9
5.2.2. Publish SIP DNS records..............................9
5.2.3. TLS..................................................9
5.2.4. IPSec................................................9
5.2.5. Subscribe Notify....................................10
5.3. Signaling Function (SF)..................................10
5.4. Media Function (MF)......................................10
5.5. Policy Considerations....................................10
6. Call Control and Media Control Deployment Options.............11
7. Address space considerations..................................12
8. Security Considerations.......................................13
9. IANA Considerations...........................................13
10. Acknowledgments..............................................13
Author's Addresses...............................................14
11. References...................................................14
11.1. Normative References....................................14
11.2. Informative References..................................15
Intellectual Property Statement..................................16
Disclaimer of Validity...........................................17
Copyright Statement..............................................17
Acknowledgment...................................................17
1. Introduction
The objective of this document is to define a reference peering
architecture in the context of Session PEERing for Multimedia
INTerconnect (SPEERMINT). In this process, we define the peering
reference architecture (reference, for short), its functional
components, and peering interface functions from the perspective of a
real-time communications (Voice and Multimedia) IP Service provider
network.
penno Expires April 20, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-02 October 2006
This architecture allows the interconnection of two service providers
in layer 5 peering as defined in the SPEERMINT Requirements [13] and
Terminology [12] documents for the purpose SIP-based voice and
multimedia traffic.
Layer 3 peering is outside the scope of this document. Hence, the
figures in this document do not show routers so that the focus is on
Layer 5 protocol aspects.
This document uses terminology defined in the SPEERMINT Terminology
document [12].
2. Network Context
Figure 1 shows an example network context. Two SIP providers can form
a Layer 5 peer over either the public Internet or private Layer 3
networks. In addition, two or more providers may form a SIP (Layer 5)
federation [17] on either the public Internet or private Layer 3
networks. This document does not make any assumption whether the SIP
providers directly peer to each other or through Layer 3 transit
network as per use case of [16].
Note that Figure 1 allows for the following potential SPEERMINT
peering scenarios:
o Enterprise to Enterprise across the public Internet
o Enterprise to Service Provider across the public Internet
o Service Provider to Service Provider across the public Internet
o Enterprise to enterprise across a private Layer 3 network
o Enterprise to Service Provider across a private Layer 3 network
o Service Provider to Service Provider across a private Layer 3
network
The members of a federation may jointly use a set of functions such
as location peering function, application function, subscriber
database function, SIP proxies, and/or functions that synthesize
various SIP and non-SIP based applications. Similarly, two providers
may jointly use a set of peering functions. The federation functions
or the peering functions can be either public or private.
penno Expires April 20, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-02 October 2006
+-------------------+
| Public |
| Peering Function |
| or |
| Public |
|Federation Function|
+-------------------+
|
-----
+-----------+ / \ +-----------+
|Enterprise | -- -- |Enterprise |
|Provider A |-----------/ \-----------|Provider B |
+-----------+ -- -- +-----------+
/ Public \
| Internet |
\ (Layer 3) /
+-----------+ -- -- +-----------+
|Service |-----------\ /-----------|Service |
|Provider C | -- -- |Provider D |
+-----------+ \_____/ +-----------+
| Layer 3 Peering
| Point (out of scope)
-----
+-----------+ / \ +-----------+
|Enterprise | -- -- |Enterprise |
|Provider E |-----------/ \-----------|Provider F |
+-----------+ -- Service -- +-----------+
/ Provider \
| Private |
\ Network /
+-----------+ -- (Layer 3) -- +-----------+
|Service |-----------\ /-----------|Service |
|Provider G | -- -- |Provider H |
+-----------+ \____/ +-----------+
|
+-------------------+
| Private |
| Peering Function |
| or |
|Federation Function|
+-------------------+
Figure 1: SPEERMINT Network Context
penno Expires April 20, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-02 October 2006
3. Procedures
This document assumes that a call from an end user in the initiating
peer goes through the following steps to establish a call to an end
user in the receiving peer:
1. The analysis of a target address.
a. If the target address represents an intra-VSP resource,
we go directly to step 4.
2. the discovery of the receiving peering point address,
3. the enforcement of authentication and other policy,
4. the discovery of end user address,
5. the routing of SIP messages,
6. the session establishment,
7. the transfer of media,
8. and the session termination.
4. Reference SPEERMINT Architecture
Figure 2 depicts the SPEERMINT architecture and logical functions
that form the peering between two SIP service providers I and R,
where I is the Initiating peer and R is the Receiving peer.
penno Expires April 20, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-02 October 2006
+------+
| DNS, |
| Db, |
| etc |
------- +------+ -------
/ \ | | / \
| LF---+ +---LF |
| | | |
| SIP SF----------SF SIP |
| Service | | Service |
|Provider MF----------MF Provider|
| I | | R |
| | | |
| | | |
\ / \ /
------- -------
Figure 2: Reference SPEERMINT Architecture
The procedures presented in Chapter 3 are implemented by a set of
peering functions:
o Location Function (LF): Purpose is to develop call routing data
(CRD) by discovering the Signaling Function (SF), , and end
user's reachable host (IP address and port).
o Signaling Function (SF): Purpose is to perform routing of SIP
messages, to optionally perform termination and re-initiation of
call, to optionally implement security and policies on SIP
messages, and to assist in discovery/exchange of parameters to be
used by the Media Function (MF).
o Media Function (MF): Purpose is to perform media related function
such as media transcoding and media security implementation
between two SIP providers.
The intention of defining these functions is to provide a framework
for design segmentation and allow each one to evolve separately.
5. Peer Function Examples
This section describes the peering functions in more detail and
provides some examples on the role they would play in a SIP call in a
Layer 5 peering scenario.
Some of the information in the chapter is taken from [14].
penno Expires April 20, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-02 October 2006
5.1. The Location Function (LF) of an Initiating Provider
Purpose is to develop call routing data (CRD) [12] by discovering
the Signaling Function (SF), and end user's reachable host (IP
address and host). The LF of an Initiating provider analyzes target
address and discovers the next hop signaling function (SF) in a
peering relationship using DNS, SIP Redirect Server, or a functional
equivalent database.
5.1.1. Target address analysis
When the initiating provider receives a request to communicate, the
initiating provider analyzes the target state data to determine
whether the call needs to be terminated internal or external to its
network. The analysis method is internal to the provider's policy;
thus, outside the scope of SPEERMINT. Note that the peer is free to
consult any manner of private data sources to make this
determination.
If the target address does not represent a resource inside the
initiating peer's administrative domain or federation of domains, the
initiating provider resolves the call routing data by using the
Location Function (LF). Examples of the LF are the functions of ENUM,
Routing Table, SIP DNS, and SIP Redirect Server.
If the request to communicate is for an im: or pres: URI type, the
initiating peer follows the procedures in [8]. If the highest
priority supported URI scheme is sip: or sips:, the initiating peer
skips to SIP DNS resolution in Section 5.1.5. Likewise, if the target
address is already a sip: or sips: URI in an external domain, the
initiating peer skips to SIP DNS resolution in Section 5.1.5.
If the target address corresponds to a specific E.164 address, the
peer may need to perform some form of number plan mapping according
to local policy. For example, in the United States, a dial string
beginning "011 44" could be converted to "+44", or in the United
Kingdom "00 1" could be converted to "+1". Once the peer has an
E.164 address, it can use ENUM.
5.1.2. User ENUM Lookup
If an external E.164 address is the target, the initiating peer
consults the public "User ENUM" rooted at e164.arpa, according to the
procedures described in RFC 3761. The peer MUST query for the
"E2U+sip" enumservice as described in RFC 3764 [11], but MAY check
for other enumservices. The initiating peer MAY consult a cache or
alternate representation of the ENUM data rather than actual DNS
penno Expires April 20, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-02 October 2006
queries. Also, the peer MAY skip actual DNS queries if the
initiating peer is sure that the target address country code is not
represented in e164.arpa. If a sip: or sips: URI is chosen the peer
skips to Section 5.1.5.
If an im: or pres: URI is chosen for based on an "E2U+im" [10] or
"E2U+pres" [9] enumserver, the peer follows the procedures for
resolving these URIs to URIs for specific protocols such a SIP or
XMPP as described in the previous section.
5.1.3. Carrier ENUM lookup
Next the initiating peer checks for a carrier-of-record in a carrier
ENUM domain according to the procedures described in [12]. As in the
previous step, the peer MAY consult a cache or alternate
representation of the ENUM data in lieu of actual DNS queries. The
peer first checks for records for the "E2U+sip" enumservice, then for
the "E2U+pstn" enumservice as defined in [21]. If a terminal record
is found with a sip: or sips: URI, the peer skips to Section 5.1.5,
otherwise the peer continues processing according to the next
section.
5.1.4. Routing Table
If there is no user ENUM records and the initiating peer cannot
discover the carrier-of-record or if the initiating peer cannot reach
the carrier-of-record via SIP peering, the initiating peer still
needs to deliver the call to the PSTN or reject the call. Note that
the initiating peer MAY still sends the call to another provider for
PSTN gateway termination by prior arrangement using a routing table.
If so, the initiating peer rewrites the Request-URI to address the
gateway resource in the target provider's domain and MAY forward the
request on to that provider using the procedures described in the
remainder of these steps.
5.1.5. SIP DNS Resolution
Once a sip: or sips: in an external domain is selected as the target,
the initiating peer uses the procedures described in [4] Section 4.
To summarize the RFC 3263 procedure: unless these are explicitly
encoded in the target URI, a transport is chosen using NAPTR records,
a port is chosen using SRV records, and an address is chosen using A
or AAAA records. Note that these are queries of records in the
global DNS.
penno Expires April 20, 2007 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-02 October 2006
5.1.6. SIP Redirect Server
A SIP Redirect Server may help in resolving current address of a
mobile target address.
5.2. The Location Function (LF) of a Receiving Provider
5.2.1. Publish ENUM records
The receiving peer SHOULD participate by publishing "E2U+sip" and
"E2U+pstn" records with sip: or sips: URIs wherever a public carrier
ENUM root is available. This assumes that the receiving peer wants
to peer by default. Even when the receiving peer does not want to
accept traffic from specific initiating peers, it MAY still reject
requests on a case-by-case basis.
5.2.2. Publish SIP DNS records
To receive peer requests, the receiving peer MUST insure that it
publishes appropriate NAPTR, SRV, and address (A and/or AAAA) records
in the global DNS that resolve an appropriate transport, port, and
address to a relevant SIP server.
5.2.3. TLS
Once a transport, port, and address are found, the initiating peer
will open or find a reusable TLS connection to the peer. The
initiating provider should verify the server certificate which should
be rooted in a well-known certificate authority. The initiating
provider should be prepared to provide a TLS client certificate upon
request during the TLS handshake. The client certificate should
contain a DNS or URI choice type in the subject AltName which
corresponds to the domain asserted in the host production of the From
header URI. The certificate should be valid and rooted in a well-
known certificate authority. Note that the client certificate MAY
contain a list of entries in the subjectAltName, only one of which
has to match the domain in the From header URI.
When the receiving peer receives a TLS client hello, it responds with
its certificate. The receiving peer certificate SHOULD be valid and
rooted in a well-known certificate authority. The receiving peer
should request and verify the client certificate during the TLS
handshake.
5.2.4. IPSec
Editor's Note: will be described later.
penno Expires April 20, 2007 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-02 October 2006
5.2.5. Subscribe Notify
Policy function may also be optionally implemented by dynamic
subscribe, notify, and exchange of policy information and feature
information among providers [22].
5.3. Signaling Function (SF)
The purpose of signaling function is to perform routing of SIP
messages, to optionally perform termination and re-initiation of a
call, to optionally implement security and policies on SIP messages,
and to assist in discovery/exchange of parameters to be used by the
Media Function (MF).
The routing of SIP messages are performed by SIP proxies. The
optional termination and re-initiation of calls are performed by
B2BUA.
Optionally, a SF may perform additional functions such as Session
Admission Control, SIP Denial of Service protection, SIP Topology
Hiding, SIP header normalization, and SIP security, privacy and
encryption.
The signaling function can also process SDP payloads for media
information such as media type, bandwidth, and type of codec; then,
communicate this information to the media function. Signaling
function may optionally communicate with network layer to pass Layer
3 related policies [10]
5.4. Media Function (MF)
Examples of the media function is to transform voice payload from one
coding (e.g., G.711) to another (e.g., EvRC), media relaying, media
security, privacy, and encryption.
Editor's Note: This section will be further updated.
5.5. Policy Considerations
In the context of the SPEERMINT working group when two Layer 5
devices (e.g., SIP Proxies) peer, there is a need to exchange peering
policy information. There are specifications in progress in the
SIPPING working group to define policy exchange between an UA and a
domain [23] and providing profile data to SIP user agents [24] These
considerations borrow from both.
penno Expires April 20, 2007 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-02 October 2006
Following the terminology introduced in [12], this package uses the
terms Peering Session-Independent and Session-Specific policies in
the following context.
o Peering Session-Independent policies include Diffserv Marking,
Policing, Session Admission Control, domain reachabilities,
amongst others. The time period between Peering Session-
Independent policy changes is much greater than the time it takes
to establish a call.
o Peering Session-Specific polices includes supported
connection/call rate, total number of connections/calls available,
current utilization, amongst others. Peering Session-specific
policies can change within the time it takes to establish a call.
These policies can be Peer dependent or independent, creating the
following peering policy tree definition:
Peer Independent
Session dependent
Session independent
Peer Dependent
Session dependent
Session independent
6. Call Control and Media Control Deployment Options
The peering functions can either be deployed along the following two
dimensions depending upon how the signaling function and the media
function along with IP functions are implemented:
Composed or Decomposed: Addresses the question whether the media
paths must flow through the same physical and geographic nodes as the
call signaling,
Centralized or Distributed: Addresses the question whether the
logical and physical peering points are in one geographical location
or distributed to multiple physical locations on the service provider
network.
In a composed model, SF and MF functions are implemented in one
peering logical element.
penno Expires April 20, 2007 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-02 October 2006
Provider A Provider B
---------- . . ----------
/ \ . . / \
| | . _ . | |
| +----+ . / \_ . +----+ |
| | SF |<-----/ \------| SF | |
| +-+--+ . /Transit\ . | | |
| | | . / IP \ . | | |
| +-+--+ . \ Provider| . | | |
| | MF |<~~~~\(Option)|~~~~| MF | |
| +----+ . \ / . +----+ |
| | . \__ _/ . | |
\_________ / . . \________ _/
---------- ----------
--- Signal (SIP)
~~~ Bearer (RTP/IP)
... Scope of peering
Figure 3: Decomposed v. Collapsed Peering
The advantage of a collapsed peering architecture is that one-element
solves all peering issues. Disadvantage examples of this architecture
are single point failure, bottle neck, and complex scalability.
In a decomposed model, SF and MF are implemented in separate peering
logical elements. Signaling functions are implemented in a proxy and
media functions are implemented in another logical element. The
scaling of signaling versus scaling of media may differ between
applications. Decomposing allows each to follow a separate migration
path.
This model allows the implementation of M:N model where one SF is
associated with multiple peering MF and one peering MF is associated
with multiple peering proxies. Generally, a vertical protocol
associates the relationship between a SF and a MF. This architecture
reduces the potential of single point failure. This architecture,
allows separation of the policy decision point and the policy
enforcement point. An example of disadvantages is the scaling
complexity because of the M:N relationship and latency due to the
vertical control messages between entities.
7. Address space considerations
Peering must occur in a common address space, which is defined by the
federation, which may be entirely on the public Internet, or some
private address space. The origination or termination networks may or
penno Expires April 20, 2007 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-02 October 2006
may not entirely be in that same address space. If they are not,
then a translation (NAT) may be needed before the signaling or media
is presented to the federation. The only requirement is that all
entities across the peering interface are reachable.
8. Security Considerations
In all cases, cryptographic-based security should be maintained as an
optional requirement between peering providers conditioned on the
presence or absence of underlying physical security of peer
connections, e.g. within the same secure physical building.
In order to maintain a consistent approach, unique and specialized
security requirements common for the majority of peering
relationships, should be standardized within the IETF. These
standardized methods may enable capabilities such as dynamic peering
relationships across publicly maintained interconnections.
TODO: Address RFC-3552 BCP items.
9. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations at this time.
10. Acknowledgments
The working group thanks Sohel Khan for his initial architecture
draft that helped to initiate work on this draft.
A significant portion of this draft is taken from [14] with
permission from the author R. Mahy. The other important contributor
is Otmar Lendl.
penno Expires April 20, 2007 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-02 October 2006
Author's Addresses
Mike Hammer
Cisco Systems
13615 Dulles Technology Drive
Herndon, VA 20171
USA
Email: mhammer@cisco.com
Sohel Khan, Ph.D.
Technology Strategist
Sprint
6220 Sprint Parkway
Overland Park, KS 66251
U.S.A
Email: Sohel.Q.Khan@sprint.com
Daryl Malas
Level 3 Communications LLC
1025 Eldorado Blvd.
Broomfield, CO 80021
USA
EMail: daryl.malas@level3.com
Reinaldo Penno (Editor)
Juniper Networks
1194 N Mathilda Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA
USA
Email: rpenno@juniper.net
Adam Uzelac
Global Crossing
1120 Pittsford Victor Road
PITTSFORD, NY 14534
USA
Email: adam.uzelac@globalcrossing.com
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
penno Expires April 20, 2007 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-02 October 2006
[2] Mealling, M. and R. Daniel, "The Naming Authority Pointer
(NAPTR) DNS Resource Record", RFC 2915, September 2000.
[3] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:
Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.
[4] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263, June 2002.
[5] Blake-Wilson, S., Nystrom, M., Hopwood, D., Mikkelsen, J., and
T. Wright, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions", RFC
3546, June 2003.
[6] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson,
"RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", STD 64,
RFC 3550, July 2003.
[7] Peterson, J., Liu, H., Yu, J., and B. Campbell, "Using E.164
numbers with the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3824,
June 2004.
[8] Peterson, J., "Address Resolution for Instant Messaging and
Presence",RFC 3861, August 2004.
[9] Peterson, J., "Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) Service
Registration for Presence Services", RFC 3953, January 2005.
[10] ETSI TS 102 333: " Telecommunications and Internet converged
Services and Protocols for Advanced Networking (TISPAN); Gate
control protocol".
[11] Peterson, J., "enumservice registration for Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) Addresses-of-Record", RFC 3764, April 2004.
11.2. Informative References
[12] Meyer, D., "SPEERMINT Terminology", draft-ietf-speermint-
terminology-04 (work in progress), May 2006.
[13] Mule, J-F., "SPEERMINT Requirements for SIP-based VoIP
Interconnection", draft-ietf-speermint-requirements-00.txt,
June 2006.
penno Expires April 20, 2007 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-02 October 2006
[14] Mahy, R., "A Minimalist Approach to Direct Peering", draft-
mahy-speermint-direct-peering-00.txt, June 19, 2006.
[15] Penno, R., et al., "SPEERMINT Routing Architecture Message
Flows", draft-ietf-speermint-flows-00.txt", August 2006.
[16] Lee, Y., "Session Peering Use Case for Cable", draft-lee-
speermint-use-case-cable-00.txt, June, 2006.
[17] Houri, A., et al., "RTC Provisioning Requirements", draft-
houri-speermint-rtc-provisioning-reqs-00.txt, June, 2006.
[18] Habler, M., et al., "A Federation based VOIP Peering
Architecture", draft-lendl-speermint-federations-03.txt,
September 2006.
[19] Mahy, R., "A Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) Service
Registration for Instant Messaging (IM) Services", draft-ietf-
enum-im-service-00 (work in progress), March 2006.
[20] Haberler, M. and R. Stastny, "Combined User and Carrier ENUM in
the e164.arpa tree", draft-haberler-carrier-enum-02 (work in
progress), March 2006.
[21] Livingood, J. and R. Shockey, "IANA Registration for an
Enumservice Containing PSTN Signaling Information", draft-ietf-
enum-pstn-04 (work in progress), May 2006.
[22] Penno, R., Malas D., and Melampy, P., "A Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) Event package for Peering", draft-penno-sipping-
peering-package-00 (work in progress), September 2006.
[23] Hollander, D., Bray, T., and A. Layman, "Namespaces in XML",
W3C REC REC-xml-names-19990114, January 1999.
[24] Burger, E (Ed.), "A Mechanism for Content Indirection in
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Messages", RFC 4483, May 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
penno Expires April 20, 2007 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-02 October 2006
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.
penno Expires April 20, 2007 [Page 17]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 22:23:17 |