Tech-invite3GPPspaceIETF RFCsSIP
9190898887868584838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626160595857565554535251504948474645444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111009080706050403020100
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 4484

Trait-Based Authorization Requirements for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)

Pages: 15
Informational

Top   ToC   RFC4484 - Page 1
Network Working Group                                        J. Peterson
Request for Comments: 4484                                       NeuStar
Category: Informational                                          J. Polk
                                                                   Cisco
                                                               D. Sicker
                                                              CU Boulder
                                                           H. Tschofenig
                                                                 Siemens
                                                             August 2006


                Trait-Based Authorization Requirements
               for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)

Status of This Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

This document lays out a set of requirements related to trait-based authorization for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). While some authentication mechanisms are described in the base SIP specification, trait-based authorization provides information used to make policy decisions based on the attributes of a participant in a session. This approach provides a richer framework for authorization, as well as allows greater privacy for users of an identity system.
Top   ToC   RFC4484 - Page 2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ....................................................2 2. Terminology .....................................................4 3. Trait-Based Authorization Framework .............................4 4. Example Use Cases ...............................................7 4.1. Settlement for Services ....................................7 4.2. Associating Gateways with Providers ........................7 4.3. Permissions on Constrained Resources .......................8 4.4. Managing Priority and Precedence ...........................9 4.5. Linking Different Protocols ...............................10 5. Trait-Based Authorization Requirements .........................11 6. Security Considerations ........................................13 7. Acknowledgements ...............................................13 8. References .....................................................13 8.1. Normative References ......................................13 8.2. Informative References ....................................13

1. Introduction

This document explores requirements of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [1] for enabling trait-based authorization. This effort stems from the recognition that when SIP requests are received by a User Agent Server (UAS), there are authorization requirements that are orthogonal to ascertaining of the identity of the User Agent Client (UAC). Supplemental authorization information might allow the UAS to implement non-identity-based policies that depend on further attributes of the principal that originated a SIP request. For example, in traditional SIP authorization architectures, the mere fact that a UAC has been authenticated by a UAS doesn't mean that the UAS will grant the UAC full access to its services or capabilities -- in most instances, a UAS will compare the authenticated identity of the UAC to some set of users that are permitted to make particular requests (as a way of making an authorization decision). However, in large communities of users with few preexisting relationships (such as federations of discrete service providers), it is unlikely that the authenticated identity of a UAC alone will give a UAS sufficient information to decide how to handle a given request. Trait-based authorization entails an assertion by an authorization service of attributes associated with an identity. An assertion is a sort of document consisting of a set of these attributes that are wrapped within a digital signature provided by the party that generates the assertion (the operator of the authorization service). These attributes describe the 'trait' or 'traits' of the identity in question -- facts about the principal corresponding to that identity. For example, a given principal might be a faculty member at a
Top   ToC   RFC4484 - Page 3
   university.  An assertion for that principal's identity might state
   that they have the 'trait' of 'is a faculty member', and the
   assertion would be issued (and signed) by a university.  When a UAS
   receives a request with this trait assertion, if it trusts the
   signing university, it can make an authorization decision based on
   whether or not faculty members are permitted to make the request in
   question, rather than just looking at the identity of the UAC and
   trying to discern whether or not they are a faculty member through
   some external means.  Thus, these assertions allow a UAS to authorize
   a SIP request without having to store or access attributes associated
   with the identity of the UAC itself.  Even complex authorization
   decisions based the presence of multiple disjointed attributes are
   feasible; for example, a 'faculty' member could be part of the
   'chemistry' department, and both of these traits could be used to
   make authorization decisions in a given federation.

   It is easy to see how traits can be used in a single administrative
   domain, for example, a single university, where all users are managed
   under the same administration.  In order for traits to have a broader
   usage for services like SIP, which commonly are not bounded by
   administrative domains, domains that participate in a common
   authorization scheme must federate with one another.  The concept of
   federation is integral to any trait-based authorization scheme.
   Domains that federate with one another agree on the syntax and
   semantics of traits -- without this consensus, trait-based
   authorization schemes would only be useful in an intradomain context.
   A federation is defined as a set of administrative domains that
   implement common policies regarding the use and applicability of
   traits for authorization decisions.  Federation necessarily implies a
   trust relationship, and usual implies some sort of pre-shared keys or
   other means of cryptographic assurance that a particular assertion
   was generated by an authorization service that participates in the
   federation.

   In fact, when trait-based authorization is used, an assertion of
   attributes can be presented to a UAS instead of the identity of user
   of the UAC.  In many cases, a UAS has no need to know who, exactly,
   has made a request -- knowing the identity is only a means to the end
   of matching that identity to policies that actually depend on traits
   independent of identity.  This fact allows trait-based authorization
   to offer a very compelling privacy and anonymity solution.  Identity
   becomes one more attribute of an assertion that may or may not be
   disclosed to various destinations.

   Trait-based authorization for SIP depends on authorization services
   that are trusted by both the UAC and the UAS that wish to share a
   session.  For that reason, the authorization services described in
   this document are most applicable to clients either in a single
Top   ToC   RFC4484 - Page 4
   domain or in federated domains that have agreed to trust one
   another's authorization services.  This could be common in academic
   environments, or business partnerships that wish to share attributes
   of principals with one another.  Some trait-based authorization
   architectures have been proposed to provide single sign-on services
   across multiple providers.

   Although trait-based identity offers an alternative to traditional
   identity architectures, this effort should be considered
   complementary to the end-to-end cryptographic SIP identity effort
   [3].  An authentication service might also act as an authorization
   service, generating some sort of trait assertion token instead of an
   authenticated identity body.

2. Terminology

In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [2] and indicate requirement levels for compliant SIP implementations.

3. Trait-Based Authorization Framework

A trait-based authorization architecture entails the existence of an authorization service. Devices must send requests to an authorization service in order to receive an assertion that can be used in the context of a given network request. Different network request types will often necessitate different or additional attributes in assertions from the authorization service. For the purposes of SIP, SIP requests might be supplied to an authorization service to provide the basis for an assertion. It could be the case that a user agent will take a particular SIP request, such as an INVITE, for which it wishes to acquire an assertion and forward this to the authorization service (in a manner similar to the way that an authenticated identity body is requested in [3]). User agents might also use a separate protocol to request an assertion. In either case, the client will need to authenticate itself to an authorization service before it receives an assertion. This authentication could use any of the standard mechanisms described in RFC 3261 [1], or use some other means of authentication. Once a SIP UA has an assertion, it will need some way to carry an assertion within in a SIP request. It's possible that this assertion could be provided by reference or by value. For example, a SIP UA could include a MIME body within a SIP request that contains the assertion; this would be inclusion by value. Alternatively, content
Top   ToC   RFC4484 - Page 5
   indirection [4], or some new header, could be used to provide a URI
   (perhaps an HTTP URL) where interested parties could acquire the
   assertion; this is inclusion by reference.

   The basic model is as follows:

   +----------------+                         |                |
   | +------------+ |          Request        | +------------+ |
   | | Entity     | |------------------------>| | Assertion  | |
   | | requesting | |                         | | Granting   | |
   | | authz      | |<------------------------| | Entity     | |
   | | assertions | |          Assertion      | +------------+ |
   | +------------+ |                         |      ^         |
   |       |        |                         |      . Trust   |
   |       |        |                         |      . Rel.    |
   |       |        |                         |      v         |
   |       |        |                         | +------------+ |
   |    Transfer    |                         | | Assertion  | |
   |       |        |                         | | Verifying  | |
   |       |        |                         | | Entity     | |
   |       |        |                         | +------------+ |
   |       |        |                         |                |
   |       v        |                         +----------------+
   | +------------+ |    Service Request +         ^  |
   | | Entity     | |    Assertion                 |  |
   | | using authz| | -----------------------------+  |
   | | assertion  | |                                 |
   | +------------+ | <-------------------------------+
   +----------------+    Response/Error

   The entity requesting authorization assertions (or the entity that
   gets some assertions granted) and the entity using these
   authorization assertions might be co-located in the same host or
   domain, or they might be entities in different domains that share a
   federate with one another.  The same is true for the entity that
   grants these assertions to a particular entity and the entity that
   verifies these assertions.

   From a protocol point of view, it is worth noting that the process of
   obtaining some assertions might happen some time before the usage of
   these assertions.  Furthermore, different protocols might be used and
   the assertions may have a lifetime that might allow that these
   assertions are presented to the verifying entity multiple times
   (during the lifetime of the assertion).

   Some important design decisions are associated with carrying
   assertions in a SIP request.  If an assertion is carried by value, or
   uses a MIME-based content indirection system, then proxy servers will
Top   ToC   RFC4484 - Page 6
   be unable to inspect the assertion themselves.  If the assertion were
   referenced in a header, however, it might be possible for the proxy
   to acquire and inspect the assertion itself.  There are certainly
   architectures in which it would be meaningful for proxy servers to
   apply admissions controls based on assertions.

   It is also the case that carrying assertions by reference allows
   versatile access controls to be applied to the assertion itself.  For
   instance, an HTTP URL where an assertion could be acquired could
   indicate a web server that challenged requests, and only allowed
   certain authorized sources to inspect the assertion, or that provided
   different versions of the assertion depending on who is asking.  When
   a SIP UA initiates a request with privacy controls [5], a web server
   might provide only trait information ('faculty', 'student', or
   'staff') to most queries, but provide more detailed information,
   including the identity of the originator of the SIP request, to
   certain privileged askers.  The end-users that make requests should
   have some way to inform authorization services of the attributes that
   should be shared with particular destinations.

   Assertions themselves might be scoped to a particular SIP transaction
   or SIP dialog, or they might have a longer lifetime.  The recipient
   of an assertion associated with a SIP request needs to have some way
   to verify that the authorization service intended that this assertion
   could be used for the request in question.  However, the format of
   assertions is not specified by these requirements.

   Trait assertions for responses to SIP requests are outside the scope
   of these requirements; it is not clear if there is any need for the
   recipient of a request to provide authorization data to the
   requestor.

   Trait-based authorization has significant applicability to SIP.
   There are numerous instances in which it is valuable to assert
   particular facts about a principal other than the principal's
   identity to aid the recipient of a request in making an authorization
   policy decision.  For example, a telephony service provider might
   assert that a particular user is a 'customer' as a trait.  An
   emergency services network might indicate that a particular user has
   a privileged status as a caller.
Top   ToC   RFC4484 - Page 7

4. Example Use Cases

The following use cases are by no means exhaustive, but provide a few high-level examples of the sorts of services that trait-based authorization might provide. All of the cases below consider interdomain usage of authorization assertions.

4.1. Settlement for Services

When endpoints in two domains share real-time communications services, sometimes there is a need for the domains to exchange accounting and settlement information in real-time. The operators of valuable resources (for example, Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) trunking, conference bridges, or the like) in the called domain may wish to settle with the calling domain (either with the operators of the domain or a particular user), and some accounting operations might need to complete before a call is terminated. For example, a caller in one domain might want to access a conference bridge in another domain, and the called domain might wish to settle for the usage of the bridge with the calling domain. Or in a wireless context, a roaming user might want to use services in a visited network, and the visited network might need to understand how to settle with the user's home network for these services. Assuming that the calling domain constitutes some sort of commercial service capable of exchanging accounting information, the called domain may want to verify that the remote user has a billable account in good standing before allowing a remote user access to valuable resources. Moreover, the called domain may need to discover the network address of an accounting server and some basic information about how to settle with it. An authorization assertion created by the calling domain could provide the called domain with an assurance that a user's account can settle for a particular service. In some cases, no further information may be required to process a transaction, but if more specific accounting data is needed, traits could also communicate the network address of an accounting server, the settlement protocol that should be used, and so on.

4.2. Associating Gateways with Providers

Imagine a case where a particular telephone service provider has deployed numerous PSTN-SIP gateways. When calls come in from the PSTN, they are eventually proxied to various SIP user agents. Each SIP user agent server is interested to know the identity of the PSTN caller, of course, which could be given within SIP messages in any number of ways (in SIP headers, bodies, or what have you). However,
Top   ToC   RFC4484 - Page 8
   in order for the recipient to be able to trust the identity (in this
   instance, the calling party's telephone number) stated in the call,
   they must first trust that the call originated from the gateway and
   that the gateway is operated by a known (and trusted) provider.

   There are a number of ways that a service provider might try to
   address this problem.  One possibility would be routing all calls
   from gateways through a recognizable 'edge' proxy server (say,
   'sip.example.com').  Accordingly, any SIP entity that received a
   request via the edge proxy server (assuming the use of hop-by-hop
   mutual cryptographic authentication) would know the service provider
   from whom the call originated.  However, it is possible that requests
   from the originating service provider's edge proxy might be proxied
   again before reaching the destination user agent server, and thus in
   many cases the originating service provider's identity would be known
   only transitively.  Moreover, in many architectures requests that did
   not originate from PSTN gateways could be sent through the edge proxy
   server.  In the end analysis, the recipient of the request is less
   interested in knowing which carrier the request came from than in
   knowing that the request came from a gateway.

   Another possible solution is to issue certificates to every gateway
   corresponding to the hostname of the gateway
   ('gateway1.example.com').  Gateways could therefore sign SIP requests
   directly, and this property could be preserved end-to-end.  But
   depending on the public key infrastructure, this could, however,
   become costly for large numbers of gateways, and moreover a user
   agent server that receives the request has no direct assurance from a
   typical certificate that the host is in fact a gateway just because
   it happens to be named 'gateway1'.

   Trait-based authorization would enable the trait 'is a gateway' to be
   associated with an assertion that is generated by the service
   provider (i.e., signed by 'example.com').  Since these assertions
   would travel end-to-end from the originating service provider to the
   destination user agent server, SIP requests that carry them can pass
   through any number of intermediaries without discarding cryptographic
   authentication information.  This mechanism also does not rely on
   hostname conventions to identify what constitutes a gateway and what
   does not -- it relies on an explicit and unambiguous attribute in an
   assertion.

4.3. Permissions on Constrained Resources

Consider a scenario wherein two universities are making use of a videoconferencing service over a constrained-bandwidth resource. Both universities would like to enforce policies that determine how this constrained bandwidth will be allocated to members of their
Top   ToC   RFC4484 - Page 9
   respective communities.  For example, faculty members might have
   privileges to establish videoconferences during the day, while
   students might not.  Faculty might also be able to add students to a
   particular videoconference dynamically, or otherwise moderate the
   content or attendance of the conference, whereas students might
   participate only more passively.

   Trait-based authorization is ideal for managing authorization
   decisions that are predicated on membership in a group.  Rather than
   basing access on individual users, levels (or roles) could be
   assigned that would be honored by both universities, since they both
   participate in the same federation.

   If the federation honored the traits "faculty", "staff", and
   "student", they could be leveraged to ensure appropriate use of the
   network resource between universities participating in the
   federation.  An assertion would then be attached to every request to
   establish a session that indicated the role of the requestor.  Only
   if the requestor has the appropriate trait would the session request
   be granted.  Ideally, these policies would be enforced by
   intermediaries (SIP proxy servers) that are capable of inspecting and
   verifying the assertions.

4.4. Managing Priority and Precedence

There is a significant amount of interest in the Internet telephony community in assigning certain calls a 'priority' based on the identity of the user, with the presumption that prioritized calls will be granted preferential treatment when network resources are scarce. Different domains might have different criteria for assigning priority, and it is unlikely that a domain would correlate the identity of a non-local user with the need for priority, even in situations where domains would like to respect one another's prioritization policies. Existing proposals have focused largely on adding a new header field to SIP that might carry a priority indicator. This use case does not challenge this strategy, but merely shows by way of example how this requirement might be met with a trait-based authorization system. As such, the limitations of the header field approach will not be contrasted here with a hypothetical trait-based system. An assertion created by a domain for a particular request might have an associated 'priority' attribute. Recipients of the request could inspect and verify the signature associated with the assertion to determine which domain had authenticated the user and made the
Top   ToC   RFC4484 - Page 10
   priority assessment.  If the assertion's creator is trusted by the
   evaluator, the given priority could be factored into any relevant
   request processing.

4.5. Linking Different Protocols

Cryptographic computations are expensive and computing authorization decisions might require a lot of time and multiple messages between the entity enforcing the decisions and the entity computing the authorization decision. Particularly in a mobile environment these entities are physically separated -- or not even in the same administrative domain. Accordingly, the notion of "single sign-on" is another potential application of authorization assertions and trait-based authorization -- a user is authenticated and authorized through one protocol, and can reuse the resulting authorization assertion in other, potential unrelated protocol exchanges. For example, in some environments it is useful to make the authorization decision for a "high-level" service (such as a voice call). The authorization for the "voice call" itself might include authorization for SIP signaling and also for lower-level network functions, for example, a quality-of-service (QoS) reservation to improve the performance of real-time media sessions established by SIP. Since the SIP signaling protocol and the QoS reservation protocol are totally separate, it is necessary to link the authorization decisions of the two protocols. The authorization decision might be valid for a number of different protocol exchanges, for different protocols and for a certain duration or some other attributes. To enable this mechanism as part of the initial authorization step, an authorization assertion is returned to the end host of the SIP UAC (cryptographically protected). If QoS is necessary, the end host might reuse the returned assertion in the QoS signaling protocol. Any domains in the federation that would honor the assertion generated to authorize the SIP signaling would similarly honor the use of the assertion in the context of QoS. Upon the initial generation of the assertion by an authorization server, traits could be added that specify the desired level of quality that should be granted to the media associated with a SIP session.
Top   ToC   RFC4484 - Page 11

5. Trait-Based Authorization Requirements

The following are the constraints and requirements for trait-based authorization in SIP: 1. The mechanism MUST support a way for SIP user agents to embed an authorization assertion in SIP requests. Assertions can be carried either by reference or by value. 2. The mechanism MUST allow SIP UACs to deliver to an authorization service those SIP requests that need to carry an assertion. The mechanism SHOULD also provide a way for SIP intermediaries to recognize that an assertion will be needed, and either forward requests to an authorization service themselves or notify the UAC of the need to do so. 3. Authorization services MUST be capable of delivering an assertion to a SIP UAC, either by reference or by value. It MAY also be possible for an authorization service to add assertions to requests itself, if the user profile permits this (for example, through the use of content-indirection as described in [4]). 4. Authorization services MUST have a way to authenticate a SIP UAC. 5. The assertions generated by authorization services MUST be capable of providing a set of values for a particular trait that a principal is entitled to claim. 6. The mechanism MUST provide a way for authorized SIP intermediaries (e.g., authorized proxy servers) to inspect assertions. 7. The mechanism MUST have a single baseline mandatory-to-implement authorization assertion scheme. The mechanism MUST also allow support of other assertion schemes, which would be optional to implement. One example of an assertion scheme is Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) [6] and another is RFC 3281 X.509 Attribute Certificates [7]. 8. The mechanism MUST ensure reference integrity between a SIP request and assertion. Reference integrity refers to the relationship between a SIP message and the assertion authorizing the message. For example, a reference integrity check would compare the sender of the message (as expressed in the SIP request, for example, in the "From" header field value) with the identity provided by the assertion. Reference integrity is necessary to prevent various sorts of relay and impersonation
Top   ToC   RFC4484 - Page 12
       attacks.  Note that reference integrity MAY apply on a per-
       message, per-transaction, or per-dialog basis.

   9.  Assertion schemes used for this mechanism MUST be capable of
       asserting attributes and/or traits associated with the identity
       of the principal originating a SIP request.  No specific traits
       or attributes are required by this specification.

   10. The mechanism MUST support a means for end-users to specify
       policies to an authorization service for the distribution of
       their traits and/or attributes to various destinations.

   11. The mechanism MUST provide a way of preventing unauthorized
       parties (either intermediaries or endpoints) from viewing the
       contents of assertions.

   12. Assertion schemes MUST provide a way of selectively sharing the
       traits and/or attributes of the principal in question.  In other
       words, it must be possible to show only some of the attributes of
       a given principal to particular recipients, based on the
       cryptographically- assured identity of the recipient.

   13. It MUST be possible to provide an assertion that contains no
       identity -- that is, to present only attributes or traits of the
       principal making a request, rather than the identity of the
       principal.

   14. The manner in which an assertion is distributed MUST permit
       cryptographic authentication and integrity properties to be
       applied to the assertion by the authorization service.

   15. It MUST be possible for a UAS or proxy server to reject a request
       that lacks a present and valid authorization assertion, and to
       inform the sending UAC that it must acquire such an assertion in
       order to complete the request.

   16. The recipient of a request containing an assertion MUST be able
       to ascertain which authorization service generated the assertion.

   17. It MUST be possible for a UAS or proxy server to reject a request
       containing an assertion that does not provide any attributes or
       traits that are known to the recipient or that are relevant to
       the request in question.

   18. It SHOULD be possible for a UAC to attach multiple assertions to
       a single SIP request, in cases where multiple authorization
       services must provide assertions in order for a request to
       complete.
Top   ToC   RFC4484 - Page 13

6. Security Considerations

The subject of this document is an authorization system for SIP that is not predicated on the distribution of end-users' identities, but rather shares traits of the users. As such, the bulk of this document discusses security. The distribution of authorization assertions requires numerous security properties. An authorization service must be able to sign assertions, or provide some similar cryptographic assurance that can provide non-repudiation for assertions. These requirements are further detailed in Section 3.

7. Acknowledgements

The authors thank Christopher Eagan and Mary Barnes for their valuable input.

8. References

8.1. Normative References

[1] 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. [2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

8.2. Informative References

[3] Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for Authenticated Identity Management in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4474, August 2006. [4] Burger, E., Ed., "A Mechanism for Content Indirection in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Messages", RFC 4483, May 2006. [5] Peterson, J., "A Privacy Mechanism for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3323, November 2002. [6] Organization for the Advancement of Structured Industry Standards, "Security Assertion Markup Language v1.0", November 2002, <http://www.oasis-open.org>. [7] Farrell, S. and R. Housley, "An Internet Attribute Certificate Profile for Authorization", RFC 3281, April 2002.
Top   ToC   RFC4484 - Page 14

Authors' Addresses

Jon Peterson NeuStar, Inc. 1800 Sutter St Suite 570 Concord, CA 94520 US Phone: +1 925/363-8720 EMail: jon.peterson@neustar.biz URI: http://www.neustar.biz/ James M. Polk Cisco Systems 2200 East President George Bush Turnpike Suite 570 Richardson, TX 75802 US EMail: jmpolk@cisco.com Douglas C. Sicker University of Colorado at Boulder ECOT 531 Boulder, CO 80309 US EMail: douglas.sicker@colorado.edu Hannes Tschofenig Siemens AG Otto-Hahn-Ring 6 Munich 81739 Germany EMail: Hannes.Tschofenig@siemens.com
Top   ToC   RFC4484 - Page 15
Full 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.

   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.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).