One document matched: draft-petithuguenin-tram-turn-dtls-00.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc autobreaks="yes"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-petithuguenin-tram-turn-dtls-00" updates="5928, 7065" category="std" obsoletes="" submissionType="IETF" xml:lang="en">
<front>
<title abbrev="TURN over DTLS">Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) as Transport for Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN)</title>
<author initials="M." surname="Petit-Huguenin" fullname="Marc Petit-Huguenin">
<organization>Jive Communications</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>1275 West 1600 North, Suite 100</street>
<city>Orem</city>
<region>UT</region>
<code>84057</code>
<country>USA</country>
</postal>
<email>marcph@getjive.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author initials="G." surname="Salgueiro" fullname="Gonzalo Salgueiro">
<organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>7200-12 Kit Creek Road</street>
<city>Research Triangle Park</city>
<region>NC</region>
<code>27709</code>
<country>US</country>
</postal>
<email>gsalguei@cisco.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<date day="31" month="January" year="2014"/>
<area>TSV</area>
<workgroup>TRAM</workgroup>
<abstract>
<t>This document specifies the usage of <xref target="RFC6347" pageno="false" format="default">Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)</xref> as a transport protocol between a <xref target="RFC5766" pageno="false" format="default">Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN)</xref> client and a TURN server. It also specifies modifications to the <xref target="RFC7065" pageno="false" format="default">TURN URIs</xref> and to the <xref target="RFC5928" pageno="false" format="default">TURN resolution mechanism</xref> to facilitate the resolution of TURN URIs into the IP address and port of TURN servers supporting DTLS as a transport protocol. </t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section anchor="section.intro" title="Introduction" toc="default">
<t><xref target="RFC5766" pageno="false" format="default">TURN</xref> defines Transport Layer Security (TLS) over TCP (simply referred to as <xref target="RFC5246" pageno="false" format="default">TLS</xref>) as the transport for TURN due to additional security advantages it offers over plain UDP or TCP transport. But TLS-over-TCP is not an optimal transport when TURN is used for its originally intended purpose, which is to support multimedia sessions. This sub-optimality primarily stems from the added latency incurred by the TCP-based head-of-line (HOL) blocking problem coupled with additional TLS buffering (for integrity checks). This is a well documented and understood transport limitation for secure real-time communications. </t>
<t>TLS-over-UDP (referred to as <xref target="RFC6347" pageno="false" format="default">DTLS</xref>) offers the same security advantages as TLS-over-TCP, but without the undesirable latency concerns. </t>
</section>
<section anchor="section.terminology" title="Terminology" toc="default">
<t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in <xref target="RFC2119" pageno="false" format="default"/> when they appear in ALL CAPS. When these words are not in ALL CAPS (such as "must" or "Must"), they have their usual English meanings, and are not to be interpreted as RFC 2119 key words. </t>
</section>
<section anchor="section.transport" title="DTLS as Transport for TURN" toc="default">
<t><xref target="RFC5766" pageno="false" format="default">TURN</xref> defines three combinations of transports/allocations: UDP/UDP, TCP/UDP and TLS/UDP. This document adds DTLS/UDP as a valid combination. </t>
<t><xref target="RFC6062" pageno="false" format="default"/> states that TCP allocations cannot be obtained using a UDP association between client and server. The fact that DTLS uses UDP implies that TCP allocations MUST NOT be obtained using a DTLS association between client and server. </t>
<t>By default, TURN over DTLS uses port 5349, the same port as TURN over TLS. However, the SRV procedures can be implemented to use a different port (as described in Section 6 of <xref target="RFC5766" pageno="false" format="default"/>. When using SRV records, the service name MUST be set to "turns" and the application name to "udp". </t>
</section>
<section anchor="section.uris" title="DTLS Support in TURN URIs" toc="default">
<t>This document does not make any changes to the syntax of a <xref target="RFC7065" pageno="false" format="default">TURN URI</xref>. As indicated in Section 3 of <xref target="RFC7065" pageno="false" format="default"/>, secure transports like TURN over TLS, and now TURN over DTLS, MUST use the "turns" URI scheme. When using the "turns" URI scheme to designate TURN over DTLS, the transport value of the TURN URI, if set, MUST be "udp". </t>
</section>
<section anchor="section.resolution" title="Resolution Mechanism for TURN over DTLS" toc="default">
<t>This document defines a new Straightforward Naming Authority Pointer (S-NAPTR) application protocol tag: "turn.dtls".</t>
<t>The <transport> component, as provisioned or resulting from the parsing of a TURN URI, is passed without modification to the TURN resolution mechanism defined in Section 3 of <xref target="RFC5928" pageno="false" format="default"/>, but with the following alterations to that algorithm:</t>
<t><list style="symbols"><t>The acceptable values for transport name are extended with the addition of "dtls".</t><t>The acceptable values in the ordered list of supported TURN transports is extended with the addition of "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)".</t><t>The resolution algorithm ckeck rules list is extended with the addition of the following step: <list style="empty"><t>If <secure> is true and <transport> is defined as "udp" but the list of TURN transports supported by the application does not contain DTLS, then the resolution MUST stop with an error.</t></list> </t><t>The 5th rule of the resolution algorithm check rules list is modified to read like this: <list style="none"><t>If <secure> is true and <transport> is not defined but the list of TURN transports supported by the application does not contain TLS or DTLS, then the resolution MUST stop with an error.</t></list> </t><t>Table 1 is modified to add the following line:</t></list> </t>
<texttable title="" suppress-title="false" align="center" style="full">
<ttcol align="left"><secure></ttcol>
<ttcol align="left"><transport></ttcol>
<ttcol align="left">TURN Transport</ttcol>
<c>true</c>
<c>"udp"</c>
<c>DTLS</c>
</texttable>
<t><list style="symbols"><t>In step 1 of the resolution algorithm the default port for DTLS is 5349.</t><t>In step 4 of the resolution algorithm the following is added to the list of conversions between the filtered list of TURN transports supported by the application and application protocol tags: <list style="empty"><t>"turn.dtls" is used if the TURN transport is DTLS.</t></list> </t></list> </t>
<t>Note that using the <xref target="RFC5928" pageno="false" format="default"/> resolution mechanism does not imply that additional round trips to the DNS server will be needed (e.g., the TURN client will start immediately if the TURN URI contains an IP address).</t>
</section>
<section anchor="section.ref-impl" title="Implementation Status" toc="default">
<t>[[Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to <xref target="RFC6982" pageno="false" format="default"/> before publication.]]</t>
<t>This section records the status of known implementations of the protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in <xref target="RFC6982" pageno="false" format="default"/>. The description of implementations in this section is intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may exist. </t>
<t>According to <xref target="RFC6982" pageno="false" format="default"/>, "this will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as they see fit". </t>
<section anchor="section.impl-status.turnuri" title="turnuri" toc="default">
<t><list style="hanging"><t hangText="Organization: ">Impedance Mismatch</t><t hangText="Name: ">turnuri 0.5.0 http://debian.implementers.org/stable/source/turnuri.tar.gz </t><t hangText="Description: ">A reference implementation of the URI and resolution mechanism defined in this document, <xref target="RFC7065" pageno="false" format="default">RFC 7065</xref> and <xref target="RFC5928" pageno="false" format="default">RFC 5928</xref>.</t><t hangText="Level of maturity: ">Beta.</t><t hangText="Coverage: ">Fully implements the URIs and resolution mechanism defined in this specification, in RFC 7065 and in RFC 5928.</t><t hangText="Licensing: ">AGPL3</t><t hangText="Implementation experience: ">TBD</t><t hangText="Contact: ">Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org>.</t></list> </t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="section.security" title="Security Considerations" toc="default">
<t>TURN over DTLS as a TURN transport does not introduce any specific security considerations beyond those for TURN over TLS detailed in <xref target="RFC5766" pageno="false" format="default"/>.</t>
<t>The usage of "udp" as a transport parameter with the "turns" URI scheme does not introduce any specific security issues beyond those discussed in <xref target="RFC7065" pageno="false" format="default"/>.</t>
<t>The new S-NAPTR application protocol tag defined in this document as well as the modifications this document makes to the TURN resolution mechanism described in <xref target="RFC5928" pageno="false" format="default"/> do not introduce any additional security considerations beyond those outlined in <xref target="RFC5928" pageno="false" format="default"/>.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="section.iana" title="IANA Considerations" toc="default">
<t>This specification contains the registration information for one S-NAPTR application protocol tags (in accordance with <xref target="RFC3958" pageno="false" format="default"/>).</t>
<t><list style="hanging"><t hangText="Application Protocol Tag: ">turn.dtls</t><t hangText="Intended Usage: ">See <xref target="section.resolution" pageno="false" format="default"/></t><t hangText="Interoperability considerations: ">N/A</t><t hangText="Security considerations: ">See <xref target="section.security" pageno="false" format="default"/></t><t hangText="Relevant publications: ">This document</t><t hangText="Contact information: ">Marc Petit-Huguenin</t><t hangText="Author/Change controller: ">The IESG</t></list> </t>
<t>This specification also contains the registration information for one Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number (in accordance with <xref target="RFC6335" pageno="false" format="default"/>).</t>
<t><list style="hanging"><t hangText="Service Name: ">turns</t><t hangText="Transport Protocol(s): ">UDP</t><t hangText="Assignee: ">IESG</t><t hangText="Contact: ">Marc Petit-Huguenin</t><t hangText="Description: ">TURN over DTLS</t><t hangText="Reference: ">This document</t><t hangText="Port Number: ">5349</t></list> </t>
</section>
<!--section anchor="section.acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements"> </section-->
</middle>
<back>
<references title="Normative References">
<reference anchor="RFC2119">
<front>
<title abbrev="RFC Key Words">Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
<author initials="S." surname="Bradner" fullname="Scott Bradner">
<organization>Harvard University</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>1350 Mass. Ave.</street>
<street>Cambridge</street>
<street>MA 02138</street>
</postal>
<phone>- +1 617 495 3864</phone>
<email>sob@harvard.edu</email>
</address>
</author>
<date year="1997" month="March"/>
<area>General</area>
<keyword>keyword</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. Authors who follow these guidelines should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document: <list><t>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 RFC 2119. </t></list></t>
<t>Note that the force of these words is modified by the requirement level of the document in which they are used. </t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
<format type="TXT" octets="4723" target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt"/>
<format type="HTML" octets="17970" target="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/html/rfc2119.html"/>
<format type="XML" octets="5777" target="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/xml/rfc2119.xml"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC3958">
<front>
<title>Domain-Based Application Service Location Using SRV RRs and the Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service (DDDS)</title>
<author initials="L." surname="Daigle" fullname="L. Daigle">
<organization/>
</author>
<author initials="A." surname="Newton" fullname="A. Newton">
<organization/>
</author>
<date year="2005" month="January"/>
<abstract>
<t>This memo defines a generalized mechanism for application service naming that allows service location without relying on rigid domain naming conventions (so-called name hacks). The proposal defines a Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application to map domain name, application service name, and application protocol dynamically to target server and port. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3958"/>
<format type="TXT" octets="54568" target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3958.txt"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC5766">
<front>
<title>Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)</title>
<author initials="R." surname="Mahy" fullname="R. Mahy">
<organization/>
</author>
<author initials="P." surname="Matthews" fullname="P. Matthews">
<organization/>
</author>
<author initials="J." surname="Rosenberg" fullname="J. Rosenberg">
<organization/>
</author>
<date year="2010" month="April"/>
<abstract>
<t>If a host is located behind a NAT, then in certain situations it can be impossible for that host to communicate directly with other hosts (peers). In these situations, it is necessary for the host to use the services of an intermediate node that acts as a communication relay. This specification defines a protocol, called TURN (Traversal Using Relays around NAT), that allows the host to control the operation of the relay and to exchange packets with its peers using the relay. TURN differs from some other relay control protocols in that it allows a client to communicate with multiple peers using a single relay address. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5766"/>
<format type="TXT" octets="172112" target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5766.txt"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC5928">
<front>
<title>Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Resolution Mechanism</title>
<author initials="M." surname="Petit-Huguenin" fullname="M. Petit-Huguenin">
<organization/>
</author>
<date year="2010" month="August"/>
<abstract>
<t>This document defines a resolution mechanism to generate a list of server transport addresses that can be tried to create a Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) allocation. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5928"/>
<format type="TXT" octets="23993" target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5928.txt"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC6062">
<front>
<title>Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Extensions for TCP Allocations</title>
<author initials="S." surname="Perreault" fullname="S. Perreault">
<organization/>
</author>
<author initials="J." surname="Rosenberg" fullname="J. Rosenberg">
<organization/>
</author>
<date year="2010" month="November"/>
<abstract>
<t>This specification defines an extension of Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN), a relay protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) traversal. This extension allows a TURN client to request TCP allocations, and defines new requests and indications for the TURN server to open and accept TCP connections with the client\'s peers. TURN and this extension both purposefully restrict the ways in which the relayed address can be used. In particular, it prevents users from running general-purpose servers from ports obtained from the TURN server. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6062"/>
<format type="TXT" octets="28978" target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6062.txt"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC6335">
<front>
<title>Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry</title>
<author initials="M." surname="Cotton" fullname="M. Cotton">
<organization/>
</author>
<author initials="L." surname="Eggert" fullname="L. Eggert">
<organization/>
</author>
<author initials="J." surname="Touch" fullname="J. Touch">
<organization/>
</author>
<author initials="M." surname="Westerlund" fullname="M. Westerlund">
<organization/>
</author>
<author initials="S." surname="Cheshire" fullname="S. Cheshire">
<organization/>
</author>
<date year="2011" month="August"/>
<abstract>
<t>This document defines the procedures that the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) uses when handling assignment and other requests related to the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number registry. It also discusses the rationale and principles behind these procedures and how they facilitate the long-term sustainability of the registry.</t><t> This document updates IANA's procedures by obsoleting the previous UDP and TCP port assignment procedures defined in Sections 8 and 9.1 of the IANA Allocation Guidelines, and it updates the IANA service name and port assignment procedures for UDP-Lite, the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP), and the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP). It also updates the DNS SRV specification to clarify what a service name is and how it is registered. This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="BCP" value="165"/>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6335"/>
<format type="TXT" octets="79088" target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6335.txt"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC6347">
<front>
<title>Datagram Transport Layer Security Version 1.2</title>
<author initials="E." surname="Rescorla" fullname="E. Rescorla">
<organization/>
</author>
<author initials="N." surname="Modadugu" fullname="N. Modadugu">
<organization/>
</author>
<date year="2012" month="January"/>
<abstract>
<t>This document specifies version 1.2 of the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol. The DTLS protocol provides communications privacy for datagram protocols. The protocol allows client/server applications to communicate in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery. The DTLS protocol is based on the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol and provides equivalent security guarantees. Datagram semantics of the underlying transport are preserved by the DTLS protocol. This document updates DTLS 1.0 to work with TLS version 1.2. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6347"/>
<format type="TXT" octets="73546" target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6347.txt"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC7065">
<front>
<title>Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Uniform Resource Identifiers</title>
<author initials="M." surname="Petit-Huguenin" fullname="M. Petit-Huguenin">
<organization/>
</author>
<author initials="S." surname="Nandakumar" fullname="S. Nandakumar">
<organization/>
</author>
<author initials="G." surname="Salgueiro" fullname="G. Salgueiro">
<organization/>
</author>
<author initials="P." surname="Jones" fullname="P. Jones">
<organization/>
</author>
<date year="2013" month="November"/>
<abstract>
<t>This document specifies the syntax of Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) schemes for the Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) protocol. It defines two URI schemes to provision the TURN Resolution Mechanism (RFC 5928).</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7065"/>
<format type="TXT" octets="16143" target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7065.txt"/>
</reference>
</references>
<references title="Informative References">
<reference anchor="RFC5246">
<front>
<title>The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2</title>
<author initials="T." surname="Dierks" fullname="T. Dierks">
<organization/>
</author>
<author initials="E." surname="Rescorla" fullname="E. Rescorla">
<organization/>
</author>
<date year="2008" month="August"/>
<abstract>
<t>This document specifies Version 1.2 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. The TLS protocol provides communications security over the Internet. The protocol allows client/server applications to communicate in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5246"/>
<format type="TXT" octets="222395" target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5246.txt"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC6982">
<front>
<title>Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section</title>
<author initials="Y." surname="Sheffer" fullname="Y. Sheffer">
<organization/>
</author>
<author initials="A." surname="Farrel" fullname="A. Farrel">
<organization/>
</author>
<date year="2013" month="July"/>
<abstract>
<t>This document describes a simple process that allows authors of Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations by including an Implementation Status section. This will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.</t><t> The process in this document is offered as an experiment. Authors of Internet-Drafts are encouraged to consider using the process for their documents, and working groups are invited to think about applying the process to all of their protocol specifications. The authors of this document intend to collate experiences with this experiment and to report them to the community.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6982"/>
<format type="TXT" octets="19358" target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6982.txt"/>
</reference>
</references>
<section anchor="appendix.examples" title="Examples" toc="default">
<t><xref target="example.1" pageno="false" format="default"/> shows how the <secure>, <port> and <transport> components are populated for a TURN URI that uses DTLS as its transport. For all these examples, the <host> component is populated with "example.net". </t>
<texttable anchor="example.1" title="" suppress-title="false" align="center" style="full">
<ttcol align="left">URI</ttcol>
<ttcol align="left"><secure></ttcol>
<ttcol align="left"><port></ttcol>
<ttcol align="left"><transport></ttcol>
<c>turns:example.net?transport=udp</c>
<c>true</c>
<c/>
<c>DTLS</c>
</texttable>
<t>With the DNS RRs in <xref target="example.2" pageno="false" format="default"/> and an ordered TURN transport list of {DTLS, TLS, TCP, UDP}, the resolution algorithm will convert the TURN URI "turns:example.net" to the ordered list of IP address, port, and protocol tuples in <xref target="table.2" pageno="false" format="default"/>.</t>
<figure anchor="example.2" title="" suppress-title="false" align="left" alt="" width="" height="">
<artwork xml:space="preserve" name="" type="" align="left" alt="" width="" height="">example.net.
IN NAPTR 100 10 "" RELAY:turn.udp:turn.dtls "" datagram.example.net.
IN NAPTR 200 10 "" RELAY:turn.tcp:turn.tls "" stream.example.net.
datagram.example.net.
IN NAPTR 100 10 S RELAY:turn.udp "" _turn._udp.example.net.
IN NAPTR 100 10 S RELAY:turn.dtls "" _turns._udp.example.net.
stream.example.net.
IN NAPTR 100 10 S RELAY:turn.tcp "" _turn._tcp.example.net.
IN NAPTR 200 10 A RELAY:turn.tls "" a.example.net.
_turn._udp.example.net.
IN SRV 0 0 3478 a.example.net.
_turn._tcp.example.net.
IN SRV 0 0 5000 a.example.net.
_turns._udp.example.net.
IN SRV 0 0 5349 a.example.net.
a.example.net.
IN A 192.0.2.1
</artwork>
</figure>
<texttable anchor="table.2" title="" suppress-title="false" align="center" style="full">
<ttcol align="left">Order</ttcol>
<ttcol align="left">Protocol</ttcol>
<ttcol align="left">IP address</ttcol>
<ttcol align="left">Port</ttcol>
<c>1</c>
<c>DTLS</c>
<c>192.0.2.1</c>
<c>5349</c>
<c>2</c>
<c>TLS</c>
<c>192.0.2.1</c>
<c>5349</c>
</texttable>
</section>
<!--section title="Release notes"> <t>This section must be removed before publication as an RFC.</t> <section title="Modifications between petithuguenin-tram-turn-dtls-00 and petithuguenin-tram-turn-dtls-01"> <t> <list style="symbols"> </list> </t> </section> </section-->
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 13:07:15 |