TCP-Based Media Transport in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)
RFC 4145
| Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(September 2005; No errata)
Updated by RFC 4572
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Gonzalo Camarillo , David Yon | ||
| Last updated | 2013-03-02 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 4145 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Jon Peterson | ||
| Send notices to | <jo@acm.org>, <csp@csperkins.org> | ||
Network Working Group D. Yon
Request for Comments: 4145 Tactical Software, LLC
Category: Standards Track G. Camarillo
Ericsson
September 2005
TCP-Based Media Transport in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
This document describes how to express media transport over TCP using
the Session Description Protocol (SDP). It defines the SDP 'TCP'
protocol identifier, the SDP 'setup' attribute, which describes the
connection setup procedure, and the SDP 'connection' attribute, which
handles connection reestablishment.
Yon & Camarillo Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 4145 Connection-Oriented Media September 2005
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Protocol Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Setup Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. The Setup Attribute in the Offer/Answer Model. . . . . . 4
5. The Connection Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Offerer Behaviour. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Answerer Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Connection Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Connection Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Connection Reestablishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.3. Connection Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Passive/Active . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. Actpass/Passive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.3. Existing Connection Reuse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.4. Existing Connection Refusal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Other Connection-Oriented Transport Protocols. . . . . . . . . 11
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Yon & Camarillo Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 4145 Connection-Oriented Media September 2005
1. Introduction
The Session Description Protocol [4] provides a general-purpose
format for describing multimedia sessions in announcements or
invitations. SDP uses an entirely textual data format (the US-ASCII
subset of UTF-8 [11]) to maximize portability among transports. SDP
does not define a protocol; it defines the syntax to describe a
multimedia session with sufficient information to participate in that
session. Session descriptions may be sent using arbitrary existing
application protocols for transport (e.g., SAP [9], SIP [10], RTSP
[6], email, HTTP [8], etc.).
SDP [4] defines two protocol identifiers: RTP/AVP and UDP, both of
which represent unreliable, connectionless protocols. While these
transports are appropriate choices for multimedia streams, there are
applications for which TCP is more appropriate. This document
defines a new protocol identifier, 'TCP', to describe TCP connections
in SDP.
TCP introduces two new factors when describing a session: how and
when should endpoints perform the TCP connection setup procedure.
This document defines two new attributes to describe TCP connection
setups: 'setup' and 'connection'.
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 BCP 14, RFC 2119 [3], and they indicate requirement
levels for compliant implementations.
3. Protocol Identifier
The following is the ABNF for an 'm' line, as specified by RFC 2327
[4].
media-field = "m=" media space port ["/" integer]
space proto 1*(space fmt) CRLF
This document defines a new value for the proto field: 'TCP'.
The 'TCP' protocol identifier is similar to the 'UDP' protocol
identifier in that it only describes the transport protocol, and not
the upper-layer protocol. An 'm' line that specifies 'TCP' MUST
Yon & Camarillo Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 4145 Connection-Oriented Media September 2005
further qualify the application-layer protocol using an fmt
identifier. Media described using an 'm' line containing the 'TCP'
protocol identifier are carried using TCP [1].
4. Setup Attribute
The 'setup' attribute indicates which of the end points should
initiate the TCP connection establishment (i.e., send the initial TCP
SYN). The 'setup' attribute is charset-independent and can be a
session-level or a media-level attribute. The following is the ABNF
of the 'setup' attribute:
setup-attr = "a=setup:" role
role = "active" / "passive" / "actpass"
/ "holdconn"
'active': The endpoint will initiate an outgoing connection.
'passive': The endpoint will accept an incoming connection.
'actpass': The endpoint is willing to accept an incoming
connection or to initiate an outgoing connection.
'holdconn': The endpoint does not want the connection to be
established for the time being.
4.1. The Setup Attribute in the Offer/Answer Model
The offer/answer model, defined in RFC 3264 [5], provides endpoints
with a means to obtain shared view of a session. Some session
parameters are negotiated (e.g., codecs to use), while others are
simply communicated from one endpoint to the other (e.g., IP
addresses). The value of the 'setup' attribute falls into the first
category. That is, both endpoints negotiate its value using the
offer/answer model.
The negotiation of the value of the 'setup' attribute takes places as
follows. The offerer states which role or roles it is willing to
perform; and the answerer, taking the offerer's willingness into
consideration, chooses which roles both endpoints will actually
perform during connection establishment. The following are the
values that the 'setup' attribute can take in an offer/answer
exchange:
Yon & Camarillo Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 4145 Connection-Oriented Media September 2005
Offer Answer
________________
active passive / holdconn
passive active / holdconn
actpass active / passive / holdconn
holdconn holdconn
The active endpoint SHOULD initiate a connection to the port number
on the 'm' line of the other endpoint. The port number on its own
'm' line is irrelevant, and the opposite endpoint MUST NOT attempt to
initiate a connection to the port number specified there.
Nevertheless, since the 'm' line must contain a valid port number,
the endpoint using the value 'active' SHOULD specify a port number of
9 (the discard port) on its 'm' line. The endpoint MUST NOT specify
a port number of zero, except to denote an 'm' line that has been or
is being refused.
The passive endpoint SHOULD be ready to accept a connection on the
port number specified in the 'm' line.
A value of 'actpass' indicates that the offerer can either initiate a
connection to the port number on the 'm' line in the answer, or
accept a connection on the port number specified in the 'm' line in
the offer. That is, the offerer has no preference as to whether it
accepts or initiates the connection and, so, is letting the answerer
choose.
A value of 'holdconn' indicates that the connection should not be
established for the time being.
The default value of the setup attribute in an offer/answer exchange
is 'active' in the offer and 'passive' in the answer.
5. The Connection Attribute
The preceding description of the 'setup' attribute is placed in the
context of using SDP to initiate a session. Still, SDP may be
exchanged between endpoints at various stages of a session to
accomplish tasks such as terminating a session, redirecting media to
a new endpoint, or renegotiating the media parameters for a session.
After the initial session has been established, it may be ambiguous
whether a subsequent SDP exchange represents a confirmation that the
endpoint is to continue using the current TCP connection unchanged,
or is a request to make a new TCP connection. The media-level
'connection' attribute, which is charset-independent, is used to
disambiguate these two scenarios. The following is the ABNF of the
connection attribute:
Yon & Camarillo Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 4145 Connection-Oriented Media September 2005
connection-attr = "a=connection:" conn-value
conn-value = "new" / "existing"
5.1. Offerer Behaviour
Offerers and answerers use the 'connection' attribute to decide
whether a new transport connection needs to be established or, on the
other hand, the existing TCP connection should still be used. When
an offerer generates an 'm' line that uses TCP, it SHOULD provide a
connection attribute for the 'm' line unless the application using
the 'm' line has other means to deal with connection reestablishment.
After the initial offer/answer exchange, any of the endpoints can
generate a new offer to change some characteristics of the session
(e.g., the direction attribute). If such an offerer wants to
continue using the previously-established transport-layer connection
for the 'm' line, the offerer MUST use a connection value of
'existing' for the 'm' line. If, on the other hand, the offerer
wants to establish a new transport-layer connection for the 'm' line,
it MUST use a connection value of 'new'.
Note that, according to the rules in this section, an offer that
changes the transport address (IP address or port number) of an
'm' line will have a connection value of 'new'. Similarly, the
'connection' attribute in an initial offer (i.e., no transport
connection has been established yet) takes the value of 'new'.
The 'connection' value resulting from an offer/answer exchange is the
'connection' value in the answer. If the 'connection' value in the
answer is 'new', the end-points SHOULD establish a new connection.
If the connection value in the answer is 'existing', the end-points
SHOULD continue using the exiting connection.
Taking into consideration the rules in Section 5.2, the following are
the values that the 'connection' attribute can take in an
offer/answer exchange:
Offer Answer
________________
new new
existing existing / new
If the connection value resulting from an offer/answer exchange is
'existing', the end-points continue using the existing connection.
Consequently, the port numbers, IP addresses, and 'setup' attributes
negotiated in the offer/answer exchange are ignored because there is
no need to establish a new connection.
Yon & Camarillo Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 4145 Connection-Oriented Media September 2005
The previous rule implies that an offerer generating an offer with a
connection value of 'existing' and a setup value of 'passive' needs
to be ready (i.e., needs to allocate resources) to receive a
connection request from the answerer just in case the answerer
chooses a connection value of 'new' for the answer. However, if the
answerer uses a connection value of 'existing' in the answer, the
offerer would need to deallocate the previously allocated resources
that were never used because no connection request was received.
To avoid allocating resources unnecessarily, offerers using a
connection value of 'existing' in their offers may choose to use a
setup value of 'holdconn'. Nevertheless, offerers using this
strategy should be aware that if the answerer chooses a connection
value of 'new', a new offer/answer exchange (typically initiated by
the previous offerer) with setup value different than 'holdconn' will
be needed to establish the new connection. This may, of course,
cause delays in the application using the TCP connection.
The default value of the connection attribute in both offers and
answers is 'new'.
5.2. Answerer Behaviour
The connection value for an 'm' line is negotiated using the offer/
answer model. The resulting connection value after an offer/answer
exchange is the connection value in the answer. If the connection
value in the offer is 'new', the answerer MUST also use a value of
'new' in the answer. If the connection value in the offer is
'existing', the answerer uses a value of 'existing' in the answer if
it wishes to continue using the existing connection and a value of
'new' if it wants a new connection to be established.
In some scenarios where third party call control [12] is used, an
endpoint may receive an initial offer with a connection value of
'existing'. Following the previous rules, such an answerer would
use a connection value of 'new' in the answer.
If the connection value for an 'm' line resulting from an offer/
answer exchange is 'new', the endpoints SHOULD establish a new TCP
connection as indicated by the 'setup' attribute. If a previous TCP
connection is still up, the endpoints SHOULD close it as soon as the
offer/answer exchange is completed. It is up to the application to
ensure proper data synchronization between the two TCP connections.
If the connection value for an 'm' line resulting from an offer/
answer exchange is 'existing', the endpoints SHOULD continue using
the existing TCP connection.
Yon & Camarillo Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 4145 Connection-Oriented Media September 2005
6. Connection Management
This section addresses connection establishment, connection
reestablishment, and connection termination.
6.1. Connection Establishment
An endpoint that according to an offer/answer exchange is supposed to
initiate a new TCP connection SHOULD initiate it as soon as it is
able to, even if the endpoint does not intend to immediately begin
sending media to the remote endpoint. This allows media to flow from
the remote endpoint if needed.
Note that some endpoints need to wait for some event to happen
before being able to establish the connection. For example, a
wireless terminal may need to set up a radio bearer before being
able to initiate a TCP connection.
6.2. Connection Reestablishment
If an endpoint determines that the TCP for an 'm' line has been
closed and should be reestablished, it SHOULD perform a new offer/
answer exchange using a connection value of 'new' for this 'm' line.
Note that the SDP direction attribute (e.g., 'a=sendonly') deals
with the media sent over the TCP connection, but has no impact on
the TCP connection itself.
6.3. Connection Termination
Typically, endpoints do not close the TCP connection until the
session has expired, been explicitly terminated, or a new connection
value has been provided for the 'm' line. Additionally, specific
applications can describe further scenarios where an end-point may
close a given TCP connection (e.g., whenever a connection is in the
half-close state). As soon as an end-point notices that it needs to
terminate a TCP connection, it SHOULD do so.
In any case, individual applications may provide further
considerations on how to achieve a graceful connection termination.
For example, a file application using TCP to receive a FIN from the
remote endpoint may need to finish the ongoing transmission of a file
before sending its own FIN.
Yon & Camarillo Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 4145 Connection-Oriented Media September 2005
7. Examples
The following examples show the most common usage of the 'setup'
attribute combined with TCP-based media descriptions. For the
purpose of brevity, the main portion of the session description is
omitted in the examples, which only show 'm' lines and their
attributes (including 'c' lines).
7.1. Passive/Active
An offerer at 192.0.2.2 signals its availability for a T.38 fax
session at port 54111:
m=image 54111 TCP t38
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.2
a=setup:passive
a=connection:new
An answerer at 192.0.2.1 receiving this offer responds with the
following answer:
m=image 9 TCP t38
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1
a=setup:active
a=connection:new
The endpoint at 192.0.2.1 then initiates the TCP connection to port
54111 at 192.0.2.2.
7.2. Actpass/Passive
In another example, an offerer at 192.0.2.2 signals its availability
for a T.38 fax session at TCP port 54111. Additionally, this offerer
is also willing to set up the media stream by initiating the TCP
connection:
m=image 54111 TCP t38
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.2
a=setup:actpass
a=connection:new
The endpoint at 192.0.2.1 responds with the following description:
m=image 54321 TCP t38
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1
a=setup:passive
a=connection:new
Yon & Camarillo Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 4145 Connection-Oriented Media September 2005
This will cause the offerer (at 192.0.2.2) to initiate a connection
to port 54321 at 192.0.2.1.
7.3. Existing Connection Reuse
Subsequent to the exchange in Section 7.2, another offer/answer
exchange is initiated in the opposite direction. The endpoint at
192.0.2.1 wishes to continue using the existing connection:
m=image 54321 TCP t38
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1
a=setup:passive
a=connection:existing
The endpoint at 192.0.2.2 also wishes to use the existing connection
and responds with the following description:
m=image 9 TCP t38
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.2
a=setup:active
a=connection:existing
The existing connection from 192.0.2.2 to 192.0.2.1 will be reused.
Note that the endpoint at 192.0.2.2 uses 'setup:active' in
response to the offer of 'setup:passive', and uses port 9 because
it is active.
7.4. Existing Connection Refusal
Subsequent to the exchange in Section 7.3, another offer/answer
exchange is initiated by the endpoint at 192.0.2.2, again wishing to
reuse the existing connection:
m=image 54111 TCP t38
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.2
a=setup:passive
a=connection:existing
However, this time the answerer is unaware of the old connection and
thus wishes to establish a new one. (This could be the result of a
transfer via third-party call control.) It is unable to act in the
'passive' mode and thus responds as 'active':
Yon & Camarillo Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 4145 Connection-Oriented Media September 2005
m=image 9 TCP t38
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.3
a=setup:active
a=connection:new
The endpoint at 192.0.2.3 then initiates the TCP connection to port
54111 at 192.0.2.2, and the endpoint at 192.0.2.2 closes the old
connection.
Note that the endpoint at 192.0.2.2, while using a connection
value of 'existing', has used a setup value of 'passive'. Had it
not done this and instead used a setup value of 'holdconn'
(probably to avoid allocating resources as described in
Section 5.1), a new offer/answer exchange would have been needed
in order to establish the new connection.
8. Other Connection-Oriented Transport Protocols
This document specifies how to describe TCP-based media streams using
SDP. Still, some of the attributes defined here could possibly be
used to describe media streams based on other connection-oriented
transport protocols as well. This section provides advice to authors
of specifications of SDP extensions that deal with connection-
oriented transport protocols other than TCP.
It is recommended that documents defining new SDP protocol
identifiers that involve extra protocol layers between TCP and the
media itself (e.g., TLS [7] over TCP) start with the string 'TCP/'
(e.g., 'TCP/TLS').
The 'setup' and the 'connection' attributes are specified in
Section 4 and Section 5 respectively. While both attributes are
applicable to 'm' lines that use the 'TCP' protocol identifier, they
are general enough to be reused in 'm' lines with other connection-
oriented transport protocols. Therefore, it is recommended that the
'setup' and 'connection' attributes are reused, as long as it is
possible, for new proto values associated with connection-oriented
transport protocols.
Section 6 deals with TCP connection management. It should be noted
that while in TCP both end-points need to close a connection, other
connection-oriented transport protocols may not have the concept of
half-close connections. In such a case, a connection would be
terminated as soon as one of the end-points closed it, making it
unnecessary for the other end-point to perform any further action to
terminate the connection. So, specifications dealing with such
transport protocols may need to specify slightly different procedures
regarding connection termination.
Yon & Camarillo Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 4145 Connection-Oriented Media September 2005
9. Security Considerations
See RFC 2327 [4] for security and other considerations specific to
the Session Description Protocol in general.
An attacker may attempt to modify the values of the connection and
setup attributes in order to have endpoints reestablish connections
unnecessarily or to keep them from establishing a connection. So, it
is strongly RECOMMENDED that integrity protection be applied to the
SDP session descriptions. For session descriptions carried in SIP
[10], S/MIME is the natural choice to provide such end-to-end
integrity protection, as described in RFC 3261 [10]. Other
applications MAY use a different form of integrity protection.
10. IANA Considerations
This document defines two session- and media-level SDP attributes:
setup and connection. Their formats are defined in Section 4 and
Section 5, respectively. These two attributes should be registered
by the IANA under "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters"
under "att-field (both session and media level)".
This document defines a proto value: TCP. Its format is defined in
Section 3. This proto value should be registered by the IANA under
"Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters" under "proto".
The SDP specification, RFC2327, states that specifications defining
new proto values, like the TCP proto value defined in this RFC, must
define the rules by which their media format (fmt) namespace is
managed. For the TCP protocol, new formats SHOULD have an associated
MIME registration. Use of an existing MIME subtype for the format is
encouraged. If no MIME subtype exists, it is RECOMMENDED that a
suitable one is registered through the IETF process [2] by production
of, or reference to, a standards-track RFC that defines the transport
protocol for the format.
11. Acknowledgements
Jonathan Rosenberg, Rohan Mahy, Anders Kristensen, Joerg Ott, Paul
Kyzivat, Robert Fairlie-Cuninghame, Colin Perkins, and Christer
Holmberg provided valuable insights and contributions.
Yon & Camarillo Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 4145 Connection-Oriented Media September 2005
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[1] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793,
September 1981.
[2] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and J. Postel, "Multipurpose Internet
Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration Procedures",
BCP 13, RFC 2048, November 1996.
[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[4] Handley, M. and V. Jacobson, "SDP: Session Description
Protocol", RFC 2327, April 1998.
[5] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with
Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June 2002.
12.2. Informative References
[6] Schulzrinne, H., Rao, A., and R. Lanphier, "Real Time Streaming
Protocol (RTSP)", RFC 2326, April 1998.
[7] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0",
RFC 2246, January 1999.
[8] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L.,
Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol --
HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[9] Handley, M., Perkins, C., and E. Whelan, "Session Announcement
Protocol", RFC 2974, October 2000.
[10] 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.
[11] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646",
STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[12] Rosenberg, J., Peterson, J., Schulzrinne, H., and G. Camarillo,
"Best Current Practices for Third Party Call Control (3pcc) in
the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", BCP 85, RFC 3725,
April 2004.
Yon & Camarillo Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 4145 Connection-Oriented Media September 2005
Authors' Addresses
David Yon
Tactical Software, LLC
1750 Elm St., Suite 803
Manchester, NH 03104
USA
EMail: yon-comedia@rfdsoftware.com
Gonzalo Camarillo
Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11
Jorvas 02420
Finland
EMail: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com
Yon & Camarillo Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 4145 Connection-Oriented Media September 2005
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
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 currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Yon & Camarillo Standards Track [Page 15]