% Datatracker information for RFCs on the Legacy Stream is unfortunately often
% incorrect. Please correct the bibtex below based on the information in the
% actual RFC at https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3224.txt

@misc{rfc3224,
    series =    {Request for Comments},
    number =    3224,
    howpublished =  {RFC 3224},
    publisher = {RFC Editor},
    doi =       {10.17487/RFC3224},
    url =       {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3224},
    author =    {Erik Guttman},
    title =     {{Vendor Extensions for Service Location Protocol, Version 2}},
    pagetotal = 10,
    year =      2002,
    month =     jan,
    abstract =  {This document specifies how the features of the Service Location Protocol, Version 2 allow for vendor extensibility safely, with no possibility of collisions. The specification introduces a new SLPv2 extension: The Vendor Opaque Extension. While proprietary protocol extensions are not encouraged by IETF standards, it is important that they not hinder interoperability of compliant implementations when they are undertaken. This document udpates RFC 2608, "The Service Location Protocol." {[}STANDARDS-TRACK{]}},
}