Network Working Group M. Crawford
Request for Comments: 2672 Fermilab
Category: Standards Track August 1999
Network Working Group M. Crawford
Request for Comments: 2672 Fermilab
Category: Standards Track August 1999
Non-Terminal DNS Name Redirection
非终端DNS名称重定向
Status of this Memo
本备忘录的状况
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.
本文件规定了互联网社区的互联网标准跟踪协议，并要求进行讨论和提出改进建议。有关本协议的标准化状态和状态，请参考当前版本的“互联网官方协议标准”（STD 1）。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（1999年）。版权所有。
This document defines a new DNS Resource Record called "DNAME", which provides the capability to map an entire subtree of the DNS name space to another domain. It differs from the CNAME record which maps a single node of the name space.
本文档定义了一个名为“DNAME”的新DNS资源记录，它提供了将DNS名称空间的整个子树映射到另一个域的功能。它不同于映射名称空间的单个节点的CNAME记录。
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 [KWORD].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“要求”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照[KWORD]中所述进行解释。
This Resource Record and its processing rules were conceived as a solution to the problem of maintaining address-to-name mappings in a context of network renumbering. Without the DNAME mechanism, an authoritative DNS server for the address-to-name mappings of some network must be reconfigured when that network is renumbered. With DNAME, the zone can be constructed so that it needs no modification when renumbered. DNAME can also be useful in other situations, such as when an organizational unit is renamed.
此资源记录及其处理规则被认为是在网络重新编号的上下文中维护地址到名称映射问题的解决方案。如果没有DNAME机制，则在对某个网络重新编号时，必须重新配置该网络的地址到名称映射的权威DNS服务器。使用DNAME，可以构造分区，以便在重新编号时不需要修改。DNAME在其他情况下也很有用，例如重命名组织单位时。
The DNAME RR has mnemonic DNAME and type code 39 (decimal).
DNAME RR具有助记DNAME和类型代码39（十进制）。
DNAME has the following format:
DNAME具有以下格式：
<owner> <ttl> <class> DNAME <target>
<owner> <ttl> <class> DNAME <target>
The format is not class-sensitive. All fields are required. The RDATA field <target> is a <domain-name> [DNSIS].
该格式不区分类。所有字段都是必填字段。RDATA字段<target>是一个<domain name>[DNSIS]。
The DNAME RR causes type NS additional section processing.
DNAME RR导致类型NS额外的节处理。
The effect of the DNAME record is the substitution of the record's <target> for its <owner> as a suffix of a domain name. A "no-descendants" limitation governs the use of DNAMEs in a zone file:
DNAME记录的作用是将记录的<target>替换为其<owner>，作为域名的后缀。“无子体”限制控制区域文件中DNAMEs的使用：
If a DNAME RR is present at a node N, there may be other data at N (except a CNAME or another DNAME), but there MUST be no data at any descendant of N. This restriction applies only to records of the same class as the DNAME record.
如果节点N上存在DNAME RR，则N上可能有其他数据（CNAME或其他DNAME除外），但N的任何子代上都不得有任何数据。此限制仅适用于与DNAME记录具有相同类别的记录。
This rule assures predictable results when a DNAME record is cached by a server which is not authoritative for the record's zone. It MUST be enforced when authoritative zone data is loaded. Together with the rules for DNS zone authority [DNSCLR] it implies that DNAME and NS records can only coexist at the top of a zone which has only one node.
当一个DNAME记录被一个对该记录的区域没有权威的服务器缓存时，此规则确保了可预测的结果。必须在加载权威区域数据时强制执行。与DNS区域授权规则[DNSCLR]一起，这意味着DNAME和NS记录只能在只有一个节点的区域顶部共存。
The compression scheme of [DNSIS] MUST NOT be applied to the RDATA portion of a DNAME record unless the sending server has some way of knowing that the receiver understands the DNAME record format. Signalling such understanding is expected to be the subject of future DNS Extensions.
[DNSIS]的压缩方案不得应用于DNAME记录的RDATA部分，除非发送服务器以某种方式知道接收方了解DNAME记录格式。这种理解的信号传递预计将成为未来DNS扩展的主题。
Naming loops can be created with DNAME records or a combination of DNAME and CNAME records, just as they can with CNAME records alone. Resolvers, including resolvers embedded in DNS servers, MUST limit the resources they devote to any query. Implementors should note, however, that fairly lengthy chains of DNAME records may be valid.
可以使用DNAME记录或DNAME和CNAME记录的组合创建命名循环，就像它们单独使用CNAME记录一样。解析程序，包括嵌入DNS服务器中的解析程序，必须限制用于任何查询的资源。然而，实现者应该注意，相当长的DNAME记录链可能是有效的。
To exploit the DNAME mechanism the name resolution algorithms [DNSCF] must be modified slightly for both servers and resolvers.
要利用DNAME机制，必须对服务器和解析程序的名称解析算法[DNSCF]稍加修改。
Both modified algorithms incorporate the operation of making a substitution on a name (either QNAME or SNAME) under control of a DNAME record. This operation will be referred to as "the DNAME substitution".
两种改进的算法都包含在DNAME记录控制下对名称（QNAME或SNAME）进行替换的操作。此操作称为“DNAME替换”。
For a server performing non-recursive service steps 3.c and 4 of section 4.3.2 [DNSCF] are changed to check for a DNAME record before checking for a wildcard ("*") label, and to return certain DNAME records from zone data and the cache.
对于执行非递归服务的服务器，将第4.3.2节[DNSCF]的步骤3.c和4更改为在检查通配符（“*”）标签之前检查DNAME记录，并从区域数据和缓存返回某些DNAME记录。
DNS clients sending Extended DNS [EDNS0] queries with Version 0 or non-extended queries are presumed not to understand the semantics of the DNAME record, so a server which implements this specification, when answering a non-extended query, SHOULD synthesize a CNAME record for each DNAME record encountered during query processing to help the client reach the correct DNS data. The behavior of clients and servers under Extended DNS versions greater than 0 will be specified when those versions are defined.
发送版本为0的扩展DNS[EDNS0]查询或非扩展查询的DNS客户端被假定不理解DNAME记录的语义，因此，实现此规范的服务器在回答非扩展查询时，应为查询处理期间遇到的每个DNAME记录合成CNAME记录，以帮助客户端获取正确的DNS数据。在定义扩展DNS版本（大于0）时，将指定这些版本下的客户端和服务器的行为。
The synthesized CNAME RR, if provided, MUST have
合成的CNAME RR（如果提供）必须具有
The same CLASS as the QCLASS of the query,
与查询的QCLASS相同的类，
TTL equal to zero,
TTL等于零，
An <owner> equal to the QNAME in effect at the moment the DNAME RR was encountered, and
<owner>等于遇到DNAME RR时有效的QNAME，并且
An RDATA field containing the new QNAME formed by the action of the DNAME substitution.
包含由DNAME替换操作形成的新QNAME的RDATA字段。
If the server has the appropriate key on-line [DNSSEC, SECDYN], it MAY generate and return a SIG RR for the synthesized CNAME RR.
如果服务器具有适当的联机密钥[DNSSEC，SECDYN]，它可能会为合成的CNAME RR生成并返回SIG RR。
The revised server algorithm is:
修改后的服务器算法是：
1. Set or clear the value of recursion available in the response depending on whether the name server is willing to provide recursive service. If recursive service is available and requested via the RD bit in the query, go to step 5, otherwise step 2.
1. 根据名称服务器是否愿意提供递归服务，设置或清除响应中可用的递归值。如果递归服务可用并通过查询中的RD位请求，则转到步骤5，否则转到步骤2。
2. Search the available zones for the zone which is the nearest ancestor to QNAME. If such a zone is found, go to step 3, otherwise step 4.
2. 在可用区域中搜索距离QNAME最近的区域。如果发现该区域，则转至步骤3，否则转至步骤4。
3. Start matching down, label by label, in the zone. The matching process can terminate several ways:
3. 在区域中开始逐标签向下匹配。匹配过程可以通过几种方式终止：
a. If the whole of QNAME is matched, we have found the node.
a. 如果整个QNAME都匹配，我们就找到了节点。
If the data at the node is a CNAME, and QTYPE doesn't match CNAME, copy the CNAME RR into the answer section of the response, change QNAME to the canonical name in the CNAME RR, and go back to step 1.
如果节点上的数据是CNAME，并且QTYPE与CNAME不匹配，请将CNAME RR复制到响应的应答部分，将QNAME更改为CNAME RR中的规范名称，然后返回步骤1。
Otherwise, copy all RRs which match QTYPE into the answer section and go to step 6.
否则，将所有与QTYPE匹配的RRs复制到应答部分并转至步骤6。
b. If a match would take us out of the authoritative data, we have a referral. This happens when we encounter a node with NS RRs marking cuts along the bottom of a zone.
b. 如果匹配会使我们无法获得权威数据，我们将获得推荐。当我们遇到一个节点，其NS RRs标记沿着分区底部的切口时，就会发生这种情况。
Copy the NS RRs for the subzone into the authority section of the reply. Put whatever addresses are available into the additional section, using glue RRs if the addresses are not available from authoritative data or the cache. Go to step 4.
将分区的NS RRs复制到回复的权限部分。将任何可用的地址放入附加部分，如果地址不能从权威数据或缓存中获得，则使用glue RRs。转至步骤4。
c. If at some label, a match is impossible (i.e., the corresponding label does not exist), look to see whether the last label matched has a DNAME record.
c. 如果在某个标签上无法匹配（即，对应的标签不存在），请查看最后匹配的标签是否有DNAME记录。
If a DNAME record exists at that point, copy that record into the answer section. If substitution of its <target> for its <owner> in QNAME would overflow the legal size for a <domain-name>, set RCODE to YXDOMAIN [DNSUPD] and exit; otherwise perform the substitution and continue. If the query was not extended [EDNS0] with a Version indicating understanding of the DNAME record, the server SHOULD synthesize a CNAME record as described above and include it in the answer section. Go back to step 1.
如果此时存在DNAME记录，请将该记录复制到应答部分。如果在QNAME中将其<target>替换为其<owner>会使<domain name>的合法大小溢出，请将RCODE设置为YXDOMAIN[DNSUPD]并退出；否则，执行替换并继续。如果查询未扩展[EDNS0]，且版本表明已理解DNAME记录，则服务器应如上所述合成CNAME记录，并将其包含在应答部分。返回到步骤1。
If there was no DNAME record, look to see if the "*" label exists.
如果没有DNAME记录，请查看“*”标签是否存在。
If the "*" label does not exist, check whether the name we are looking for is the original QNAME in the query or a name we have followed due to a CNAME. If the name is original, set an authoritative name error in the response and exit. Otherwise just exit.
如果“*”标签不存在，请检查我们要查找的名称是查询中的原始QNAME还是由于CNAME而跟随的名称。如果名称为原始名称，请在响应中设置权威名称错误并退出。否则就退出。
If the "*" label does exist, match RRs at that node against QTYPE. If any match, copy them into the answer section, but set the owner of the RR to be QNAME, and not the node with the "*" label. Go to step 6.
如果“*”标签确实存在，请将该节点上的RRs与QTYPE匹配。如果有匹配项，则将它们复制到应答部分，但将RR的所有者设置为QNAME，而不是带有“*”标签的节点。转至步骤6。
4. Start matching down in the cache. If QNAME is found in the cache, copy all RRs attached to it that match QTYPE into the answer section. If QNAME is not found in the cache but a DNAME record is present at an ancestor of QNAME, copy that DNAME record into the answer section. If there was no delegation from authoritative data, look for the best one from the cache, and put it in the authority section. Go to step 6.
4. 在缓存中开始向下匹配。如果在缓存中找到QNAME，则将与QTYPE匹配的所有附加到QNAME的RRs复制到应答部分。如果在缓存中找不到QNAME，但QNAME的祖先处存在DNAME记录，请将该DNAME记录复制到应答部分。如果没有来自权威数据的委派，请从缓存中查找最佳委派，并将其放入权威部分。转至步骤6。
5. Use the local resolver or a copy of its algorithm (see resolver section of this memo) to answer the query. Store the results, including any intermediate CNAMEs and DNAMEs, in the answer section of the response.
5. 使用本地冲突解决程序或其算法的副本（请参阅本备忘录的冲突解决程序部分）回答查询。将结果（包括任何中间CNAMEs和DNAMEs）存储在响应的答案部分。
6. Using local data only, attempt to add other RRs which may be useful to the additional section of the query. Exit.
6. 仅使用本地数据，尝试添加可能对查询的附加部分有用的其他RRs。出口
Note that there will be at most one ancestor with a DNAME as described in step 4 unless some zone's data is in violation of the no-descendants limitation in section 3. An implementation might take advantage of this limitation by stopping the search of step 3c or step 4 when a DNAME record is encountered.
请注意，除非某些区域的数据违反了第3节中的无后代限制，否则最多会有一个祖先具有步骤4中描述的DNAME。当遇到DNAME记录时，实现可以通过停止步骤3c或步骤4的搜索来利用此限制。
A resolver or a server providing recursive service must be modified to treat a DNAME as somewhat analogous to a CNAME. The resolver algorithm of [DNSCF] section 5.3.3 is modified to renumber step 4.d as 4.e and insert a new 4.d. The complete algorithm becomes:
必须修改提供递归服务的解析程序或服务器，以便将DNAME视为与CNAME类似。[DNSCF]第5.3.3节的解析器算法被修改为将步骤4.d重新编号为4.e，并插入新的4.d。完整的算法变成：
1. See if the answer is in local information, and if so return it to the client.
1. 查看答案是否在本地信息中，如果是，则将其返回给客户。
2. Find the best servers to ask.
2. 找到最好的服务器进行询问。
3. Send them queries until one returns a response.
3. 向他们发送查询，直到有人返回响应。
4. Analyze the response, either:
4. 分析响应，或者：
a. if the response answers the question or contains a name error, cache the data as well as returning it back to the client.
a. 如果响应回答了问题或包含名称错误，请缓存数据并将其返回给客户端。
b. if the response contains a better delegation to other servers, cache the delegation information, and go to step 2.
b. 如果响应包含到其他服务器的更好的委派，请缓存委派信息，然后转至步骤2。
c. if the response shows a CNAME and that is not the answer itself, cache the CNAME, change the SNAME to the canonical name in the CNAME RR and go to step 1.
c. 如果响应显示的是CNAME，而不是答案本身，请缓存CNAME，将SNAME更改为CNAME RR中的规范名称，然后转至步骤1。
d. if the response shows a DNAME and that is not the answer itself, cache the DNAME. If substitution of the DNAME's <target> for its <owner> in the SNAME would overflow the legal size for a <domain-name>, return an implementation-dependent error to the application; otherwise perform the substitution and go to step 1.
d. 如果响应显示一个DNAME，而这不是答案本身，请缓存该DNAME。如果在SNAME中用DNAME的<target>替换其<owner>会使<domain name>的合法大小溢出，则向应用程序返回一个依赖于实现的错误；否则，执行替换并转至步骤1。
e. if the response shows a server failure or other bizarre contents, delete the server from the SLIST and go back to step 3.
e. 如果响应显示服务器故障或其他奇怪的内容，请从SLIST中删除服务器并返回步骤3。
A resolver or recursive server which understands DNAME records but sends non-extended queries MUST augment step 4.c by deleting from the reply any CNAME records which have an <owner> which is a subdomain of the <owner> of any DNAME record in the response.
解析程序或递归服务器理解DNAME记录，但发送非扩展查询，必须通过从应答中删除任何CNAME记录来扩充步骤4.c，该CNAME记录的<owner>是应答中任何DNAME记录的<owner>的子域。
If an organization with domain name FROBOZZ.EXAMPLE became part of an organization with domain name ACME.EXAMPLE, it might ease transition by placing information such as this in its old zone.
如果域名为FROBOZZ.EXAMPLE的组织成为域名为ACME.EXAMPLE的组织的一部分，它可以通过将此类信息放在其旧区域中来简化转换。
frobozz.example. DNAME frobozz-division.acme.example. MX 10 mailhub.acme.example.
泡泡。DNAME frobozz-division.acme.example。MX 10 mailhub.acme.example。
The response to an extended recursive query for www.frobozz.example would contain, in the answer section, the DNAME record shown above and the relevant RRs for www.frobozz-division.acme.example.
对www.frobozz.example的扩展递归查询的响应将在回答部分包含上面显示的DNAME记录以及www.frobozz-division.acme.example的相关RRs。
The classless scheme for in-addr.arpa delegation [INADDR] can be extended to prefixes shorter than 24 bits by use of the DNAME record. For example, the prefix 192.0.8.0/22 can be delegated by the following records.
in-addr.arpa委托[INADDR]的无类方案可以通过使用DNAME记录扩展到小于24位的前缀。例如，前缀192.0.8.0/22可以由以下记录委派。
$ORIGIN 0.192.in-addr.arpa. 8/22 NS ns.slash-22-holder.example. 8 DNAME 8.8/22 9 DNAME 9.8/22 10 DNAME 10.8/22 11 DNAME 11.8/22
$ORIGIN 0.192.in-addr.arpa。8/22 NS NS.slash-22-holder.example。8 DNAME 8.8/22 9 DNAME 9.8/22 10 DNAME 10.8/22 11 DNAME 11.8/22
A typical entry in the resulting reverse zone for some host with address 192.0.9.33 might be
对于某些地址为192.0.9.33的主机，结果反向区域中的一个典型条目可能是
$ORIGIN 8/22.0.192.in-addr.arpa. 33.9 PTR somehost.slash-22-holder.example.
$ORIGIN 8/22.0.192.in-addr.arpa。33.9 PTR somehost.slash-22-holder.example。
The same advisory remarks concerning the choice of the "/" character apply here as in [INADDR].
关于“/”字符选择的相同建议意见适用于[INADDR]。
If IPv4 network renumbering were common, maintenance of address space delegation could be simplified by using DNAME records instead of NS records to delegate.
如果IPv4网络重新编号是常见的，则可以通过使用DNAME记录而不是NS记录进行委派来简化地址空间委派的维护。
$ORIGIN new-style.in-addr.arpa. 189.190 DNAME in-addr.example.net.
$ORIGIN新款.in-addr.arpa。189.190 DNAME in-addr.example.net。
$ORIGIN in-addr.example.net. 188 DNAME in-addr.customer.example.
$ORIGIN in-addr.example.net。188 DNAME in-addr.customer.example。
$ORIGIN in-addr.customer.example. 1 PTR www.customer.example. 2 PTR mailhub.customer.example. ; etc ...
$ORIGIN in-addr.customer.example。1 PTR www.customer.example。2 PTR mailhub.customer.example；等
This would allow the address space 190.189.0.0/16 assigned to the ISP "example.net" to be changed without the necessity of altering the zone files describing the use of that space by the ISP and its customers.
这将允许更改分配给ISP“example.net”的地址空间190.189.0.0/16，而无需更改描述ISP及其客户使用该空间的区域文件。
Renumbering IPv4 networks is currently so arduous a task that updating the DNS is only a small part of the labor, so this scheme may have a low value. But it is hoped that in IPv6 the renumbering task will be quite different and the DNAME mechanism may play a useful part.
重新对IPv4网络进行编号目前是一项非常艰巨的任务，更新DNS只需一小部分劳动，因此此方案的价值可能较低。但人们希望，在IPv6中，重新编号的任务将完全不同，DNAME机制可能会发挥有用的作用。
This document defines a new DNS Resource Record type with the mnemonic DNAME and type code 39 (decimal). The naming/numbering space is defined in [DNSIS]. This name and number have already been registered with the IANA.
本文档定义了一个新的DNS资源记录类型，其助记符为DNAME，类型代码为39（十进制）。命名/编号空间在[DNSIS]中定义。此名称和编号已在IANA注册。
The DNAME record is similar to the CNAME record with regard to the consequences of insertion of a spoofed record into a DNS server or resolver, differing in that the DNAME's effect covers a whole subtree of the name space. The facilities of [DNSSEC] are available to authenticate this record type.
就将伪造记录插入DNS服务器或解析程序的后果而言，DNAME记录与CNAME记录类似，不同之处在于DNAME的效果覆盖了名称空间的整个子树。[DNSSEC]的功能可用于验证此记录类型。
[DNSCF] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[DNSCF]Mockapetris，P.，“域名-概念和设施”，STD 13，RFC 1034，1987年11月。
[DNSCLR] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997.
[DNSCLR]Elz，R.和R.Bush，“DNS规范的澄清”，RFC 21811997年7月。
[DNSIS] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[DNSIS]Mockapetris，P.，“域名-实现和规范”，STD 13，RFC 10351987年11月。
[DNSSEC] Eastlake, 3rd, D. and C. Kaufman, "Domain Name System Security Extensions", RFC 2065, January 1997.
[DNSSEC]Eastlake，3rd，D.和C.Kaufman，“域名系统安全扩展”，RFC 2065，1997年1月。
[DNSUPD] Vixie, P., Ed., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y. and J. Bound, "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System", RFC 2136, April 1997.
[DNSUPD]Vixie，P.，Ed.，Thomson，S.，Rekhter，Y.和J.Bound，“域名系统中的动态更新”，RFC 21361997年4月。
[EDNS0] Vixie, P., "Extensions mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC 2671, August 1999.
[EDNS0]Vixie，P.，“DNS的扩展机制（EDNS0）”，RFC26711999年8月。
[INADDR] Eidnes, H., de Groot, G. and P. Vixie, "Classless IN-ADDR.ARPA delegation", RFC 2317, March 1998.
[INADDR]Eidnes，H.，de Groot，G.和P.Vixie，“无类别地址ARPA代表团”，RFC 2317，1998年3月。
[KWORD] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels," BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[KWORD]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
[SECDYN] D. Eastlake, 3rd, "Secure Domain Name System Dynamic Update", RFC 2137, April 1997.
[SECDYN]D.Eastlake，第3期，“安全域名系统动态更新”，RFC 2137，1997年4月。
Matt Crawford Fermilab MS 368 PO Box 500 Batavia, IL 60510 USA
Matt Crawford Fermilab MS 368美国伊利诺伊州巴达维亚500号邮政信箱60510
Phone: +1 630 840-3461
EMail: crawdad@fnal.gov
Phone: +1 630 840-3461
EMail: crawdad@fnal.gov
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（1999年）。版权所有。
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English.
本文件及其译本可复制并提供给他人，对其进行评论或解释或协助其实施的衍生作品可全部或部分编制、复制、出版和分发，不受任何限制，前提是上述版权声明和本段包含在所有此类副本和衍生作品中。但是，不得以任何方式修改本文件本身，例如删除版权通知或对互联网协会或其他互联网组织的引用，除非出于制定互联网标准的需要，在这种情况下，必须遵循互联网标准过程中定义的版权程序，或根据需要将其翻译成英语以外的其他语言。
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
上述授予的有限许可是永久性的，互联网协会或其继承人或受让人不会撤销。
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
本文件和其中包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，互联网协会和互联网工程任务组否认所有明示或暗示的保证，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。
Acknowledgement
确认
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.
RFC编辑功能的资金目前由互联网协会提供。