Network Working Group S. Bradner
Request for Comments: 3668 Harvard University
BCP: 79 February 2004
Updates: 2028, 2026
Category: Best Current Practice
Network Working Group S. Bradner
Request for Comments: 3668 Harvard University
BCP: 79 February 2004
Updates: 2028, 2026
Category: Best Current Practice
Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology
IETF技术中的知识产权
Status of this Memo
本备忘录的状况
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
本文件规定了互联网社区的最佳现行做法，并要求进行讨论和提出改进建议。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2004年）。版权所有。
Abstract
摘要
The IETF policies about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as patent rights, relative to technologies developed in the IETF are designed to ensure that IETF working groups and participants have as much information about any IPR constraints on a technical proposal as possible. The policies are also intended to benefit the Internet community and the public at large, while respecting the legitimate rights of IPR holders. This memo details the IETF policies concerning IPR related to technology worked on within the IETF. It also describes the objectives that the policies are designed to meet. This memo updates RFC 2026 and, with RFC 3667, replaces Section 10 of RFC 2026. This memo also updates paragraph 4 of Section 3.2 of RFC 2028, for all purposes, including reference [2] in RFC 2418.
IETF与IETF中开发的技术相关的知识产权（IPR）政策（如专利权）旨在确保IETF工作组和参与者尽可能多地了解技术提案中的任何知识产权限制。这些政策还旨在使互联网社区和广大公众受益，同时尊重知识产权持有人的合法权利。本备忘录详细说明了IETF关于IETF内工作技术相关知识产权的政策。它还描述了政策旨在实现的目标。本备忘录更新了RFC 2026，并用RFC 3667取代了RFC 2026第10节。本备忘录还更新了RFC 2028第3.2节第4段，用于所有目的，包括RFC 2418中的参考[2]。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Contributions to the IETF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. General Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Rights and Permissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Actions for Documents for which IPR Disclosure(s) Have Been
Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. No Determination of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory
Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Notice to be included in RFCs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. IPR Disclosures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Who must make an IPR disclosure? . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Contributions to the IETF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. General Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Rights and Permissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Actions for Documents for which IPR Disclosure(s) Have Been
Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. No Determination of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory
Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Notice to be included in RFCs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. IPR Disclosures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Who must make an IPR disclosure? . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. The timing of providing disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3. How must a disclosure be made? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.4. What must be in a disclosure?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.5. What licensing information to detail in a disclosure . . 12
6.6. When is a disclosure required? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Failure to disclose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Evaluating alternative technologies in IETF working groups . . 13
9. Change control for technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Licensing requirements to advance standards track documents. . 14
11. No IPR disclosures in IETF documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
15. Editor's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
16. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2. The timing of providing disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3. How must a disclosure be made? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.4. What must be in a disclosure?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.5. What licensing information to detail in a disclosure . . 12
6.6. When is a disclosure required? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Failure to disclose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Evaluating alternative technologies in IETF working groups . . 13
9. Change control for technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Licensing requirements to advance standards track documents. . 14
11. No IPR disclosures in IETF documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
15. Editor's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
16. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
The following definitions are for terms used in the context of this document. Other terms, including "IESG," "ISOC," "IAB," and "RFC Editor," are defined in [RFC 2028].
以下定义适用于本文件中使用的术语。[RFC 2028]中定义了其他术语，包括“IESG”、“ISOC”、“IAB”和“RFC编辑器”。
a. "IETF": In the context of this document, the IETF includes all individuals who participate in meetings, working groups, mailing lists, functions and other activities which are organized or initiated by ISOC, the IESG or the IAB under the general designation of the Internet Engineering Task Force or IETF, but solely to the extent of such participation.
a. “IETF”：在本文件中，IETF包括所有参加由ISOC、IESG或IAB在互联网工程任务组或IETF的总体指定下组织或发起的会议、工作组、邮件列表、职能和其他活动的个人，但仅限于此类参与的范围。
b. "IETF Standards Process": the activities undertaken by the IETF in any of the settings described in 1(c) below.
b. “IETF标准过程”：IETF在下文第1（c）条所述的任何环境中开展的活动。
c. "IETF Contribution": any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an Internet-Draft or RFC (except for RFC Editor Contributions described below) and any statement made within the context of an IETF activity. Such statements include oral statements in IETF sessions, as well as written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are addressed to:
c. “IETF贡献”：由贡献者向IETF提交的、作为互联网草案或RFC（下文所述RFC编者贡献除外）全部或部分发布的任何信息，以及在IETF活动背景下所作的任何声明。此类声明包括IETF会议上的口头声明，以及在任何时间或地点进行的书面和电子通信，其目的是：
o the IETF plenary session, o any IETF working group or portion thereof, o the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG, o the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB,
o IETF全体会议、任何IETF工作组或其部分、IESG或代表IESG的任何成员、IAB或代表IAB的任何成员，
o any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any working group or design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF auspices, o the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function (except for RFC Editor Contributions described below).
o 任何IETF邮件列表，包括IETF列表本身、任何工作组或设计团队列表，或在IETF主持下运行的任何其他列表，或RFC编辑器或互联网草稿功能（下文描述的RFC编辑器贡献除外）。
Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or other function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF activity, group or function, are not IETF Contributions in the context of this document.
在IETF会话、邮件列表或其他功能之外做出的声明，显然不打算输入到IETF活动、组或功能中，在本文件上下文中不属于IETF贡献。
d. "Internet-Draft": temporary documents used in the IETF and RFC Editor processes. Internet-Drafts are posted on the IETF web site by the IETF Secretariat and have a nominal maximum lifetime in the Secretariat's public directory of 6 months, after which they are removed. Note that Internet-Drafts are archived many places on the Internet, and not all of these places remove expired Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts that are under active consideration by the IESG are not removed from the Secretariat's public directory until that consideration is complete. In addition, the author of an Internet-Draft can request that the lifetime in the Secretariat's public directory be extended before the expiration.
d. “互联网草案”：IETF和RFC编辑过程中使用的临时文件。互联网草稿由IETF秘书处发布在IETF网站上，在秘书处的公共目录中名义上最长使用期限为6个月，之后将被删除。请注意，Internet草稿在Internet上的许多位置存档，并且并非所有这些位置都会删除过期的Internet草稿。IESG正在积极审议的互联网草案在审议完成之前不会从秘书处的公共目录中删除。此外，因特网草案的作者可以要求在期满之前延长秘书处公共目录中的有效期。
e. "RFC": the basic publication series for the IETF. RFCs are published by the RFC Editor and once published are never modified. (See [RFC 2026] Section 2.1)
e. “RFC”：IETF的基本出版物系列。RFC由RFC编辑器发布，一旦发布，就不会修改。（见[RFC 2026]第2.1节）
f. "RFC Editor Contribution": An Internet-Draft intended by the Contributor to be submitted to the RFC Editor for publication as an Informational or Experimental RFC but not intended to be part of the IETF Standards Process.
f. “RFC编者贡献”：由贡献者提交给RFC编者的互联网草稿，作为信息性或实验性RFC发布，但不作为IETF标准过程的一部分。
g. "IETF Internet-Drafts": Internet-Drafts other than RFC Editor Contributions. Note that under Section 3.3(a) the grant of rights in regards to IETF Internet-Drafts as specified in this document is perpetual and irrevocable and thus survives the Secretariat's removal of an Internet-Draft from the public directory, except as limited by Section 3.3(a)(C). (See [RFC 2026] Sections 2.2 and 8)
g. “IETF互联网草案”：除RFC编辑贡献之外的互联网草案。注意，根据第3.3（a）节，本文件中规定的IETF互联网草案相关权利的授予是永久和不可撤销的，因此在秘书处从公共目录中删除互联网草案后仍然有效，但第3.3（a）（C）节限制的情况除外。（见[RFC 2026]第2.2节和第8节）
h. "IETF Documents": RFCs and Internet-Drafts except for Internet-Drafts that are RFC Editor Contributions and the RFCs that are published from them.
h. “IETF文件”：RFC和互联网草稿，但作为RFC编辑贡献的互联网草稿以及由此发布的RFC除外。
i. "RFC Editor Documents": RFCs and Internet-Drafts that are RFC Editor Contributions and the RFCs that may be published from them.
i. “RFC编辑文档”：RFC编辑贡献的RFC和互联网草稿，以及可能从中发布的RFC。
j. "Contribution": IETF Contributions or RFC Editor Contributions
j. “贡献”：IETF贡献或RFC编辑贡献
k. "Contributor": an individual submitting a Contribution
k. “贡献者”：提交贡献的个人
l. "Reasonably and personally known": means something an individual knows personally or, because of the job the individual holds, would reasonably be expected to know. This wording is used to indicate that an organization cannot purposely keep an individual in the dark about patents or patent applications just to avoid the disclosure requirement. But this requirement should not be interpreted as requiring the IETF Contributor or participant (or his or her represented organization, if any) to perform a patent search to find applicable IPR.
l. “合理和个人知晓”：指个人亲自知道的事情，或由于个人所从事的工作，合理预期会知道的事情。该措辞用于表示组织不能为了避免披露要求而故意将个人的专利或专利申请蒙在鼓里。但这一要求不应被解释为要求IETF贡献者或参与者（或其代表的组织，如有）进行专利搜索以找到适用的知识产权。
m. "Implementing Technology": means a technology that implements an IETF specification or standard.
m. “实施技术”：指实施IETF规范或标准的技术。
n. "Covers" or "Covered" mean that a valid claim of a patent or a patent application in any jurisdiction or a protected claim, or any other Intellectual Property Right, would necessarily be infringed by the exercise of a right (e.g., making, using, selling, importing, distribution, copying, etc.) with respect to an Implementing Technology. For purposes of this definition, "valid claim" means a claim of any unexpired patent or patent application which shall not have been withdrawn, cancelled or disclaimed, nor held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction in an unappealed or unappealable decision.
n. “覆盖范围”或“覆盖范围”是指在任何司法管辖区内的专利或专利申请的有效权利要求或受保护的权利要求或任何其他知识产权，必然会因行使与实施技术有关的权利（例如，制造、使用、销售、进口、分发、复制等）而受到侵犯。就本定义而言，“有效权利要求”是指任何未过期的专利或专利申请的权利要求，该权利要求不得被具有管辖权的法院在未被上诉或不可上诉的判决中撤回、取消或放弃，也不得被认定为无效。
o. "IPR" or "Intellectual Property Rights": means patent, copyright, utility model, invention registration, database and data rights that may Cover an Implementing Technology, whether such rights arise from a registration or renewal thereof, or an application therefore, in each case anywhere in the world.
o. “知识产权”或“知识产权”：是指可能涉及实施技术的专利、版权、实用新型、发明注册、数据库和数据权利，无论此类权利是由注册或更新产生的，还是在世界任何地方的申请产生的。
In the years since RFC 2026 was published there have been a number of times when the exact intent of Section 10, the section which deals with IPR disclosures has been the subject of vigorous debate within the IETF community. This is because it is becoming increasingly common for IETF working groups to have to deal with claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as patent rights, with regards to technology under discussion in working groups. The aim of this document is to clarify various ambiguities in Section 10 of [RFC 2026] that led to these debates and to amplify the policy in order to clarify what the IETF is, or should be, doing.
自RFC 2026发布以来，第10节（涉及知识产权披露的一节）的确切意图多次成为IETF界激烈辩论的主题。这是因为IETF工作组处理知识产权（IPR）索赔（如专利权）的情况越来越普遍，这些索赔涉及工作组正在讨论的技术。本文件的目的是澄清[RFC 2026]第10节中导致这些辩论的各种含糊不清之处，并扩大政策，以澄清IETF正在或应该做什么。
IPR disclosures can come at any point in the IETF Standards Process, e.g., before the first Internet-Draft has been submitted, prior to RFC publication, or after an RFC has been published and the working
知识产权披露可以在IETF标准过程中的任何时候进行，例如，在提交第一份互联网草案之前、在RFC发布之前，或者在RFC发布和工作流程完成之后
group has been closed down; they can come from people submitting technical proposals as Internet-Drafts, on mailing lists or at meetings, from other people participating in the working group or from third parties who find out that the work is going or has gone on; and they can be based on granted patents or on patent applications, and in some cases be disingenuous, i.e., made to affect the IETF Standards Process rather than to inform.
集团已被关闭；它们可以来自以互联网草案形式提交技术建议书的人、邮件列表上的人或会议上的人、参加工作组的其他人或发现工作正在进行或已经进行的第三方；它们可以基于授予的专利或专利申请，在某些情况下是不真实的，也就是说，是为了影响IETF标准过程而不是为了提供信息。
RFC 2026, Section 10 established three basic principles regarding the IETF dealing with claims of Intellectual Property Rights:
RFC 2026第10节确立了IETF处理知识产权索赔的三项基本原则：
(a) the IETF will make no determination about the validity of any particular IPR claim (b) the IETF following normal processes can decide to use technology for which IPR disclosures have been made if it decides that such a use is warranted (c) in order for the working group and the rest of the IETF to have the information needed to make an informed decision about the use of a particular technology, all those contributing to the working group's discussions must disclose the existence of any IPR the Contributor or other IETF participant believes Covers or may ultimately Cover the technology under discussion. This applies to both Contributors and other participants, and applies whether they contribute in person, via email or by other means. The requirement applies to all IPR of the participant, the participant's employer, sponsor, or others represented by the participants, that is reasonably and personally known to the participant. No patent search is required.
(a) IETF不会对任何特定知识产权权利要求的有效性做出任何决定（b）IETF按照正常流程可以决定使用已进行知识产权披露的技术，前提是IETF决定允许使用该技术（c）为了使工作组和IETF的其他成员获得必要的信息，以便就特定技术的使用做出明智的决定，所有参与工作组讨论的人员必须披露撰稿人或其他IETF参与者认为涵盖或可能最终涵盖所讨论技术的任何知识产权的存在。这适用于贡献者和其他参与者，也适用于他们是否亲自、通过电子邮件或其他方式贡献。该要求适用于参与者、参与者的雇主、赞助人或参与者代表的其他人的所有知识产权，这些知识产权是参与者合理且亲自知道的。不需要进行专利检索。
Section 1 defines the terms used in this document. Sections 3, 4 and 5 of this document address the intellectual property issues previously addressed by Section 10 of RFC 2026. Sections 6 thru 12 then explain the rationale for these provisions, including some of the clarifications that have been made since the adoption of RFC 2026. The rules and procedures set out in this document are not intended to modify or alter the IETF's current policy toward IPR in the context of the IETF Standards Process. They are intended to clarify and fill in procedural gaps.
第1节定义了本文件中使用的术语。本文件第3节、第4节和第5节阐述了RFC 2026第10节之前解决的知识产权问题。第6节至第12节解释了这些规定的基本原理，包括自采用RFC 2026以来所做的一些澄清。本文件中规定的规则和程序无意在IETF标准过程中修改或改变IETF当前的知识产权政策。它们旨在澄清和填补程序上的空白。
A companion document [RFC 3667] deals with rights (such as copyrights and trademarks) in Contributions, including the right of IETF and its participants to publish and create derivative works of those Contributions. This document is not intended to address those issues.
附带文件[RFC 3667]涉及稿件中的权利（如版权和商标），包括IETF及其参与者出版和创作这些稿件衍生作品的权利。本文件无意解决这些问题。
This document is not intended as legal advice. Readers are advised to consult their own legal advisors if they would like a legal interpretation of their rights or the rights of the IETF in any Contributions they make.
本文件不作为法律意见。建议读者咨询自己的法律顾问，如果他们希望对自己的权利或IETF在其所做贡献中的权利进行法律解释。
In all matters of Intellectual Property Rights, the intent is to benefit the Internet community and the public at large, while respecting the legitimate rights of others.
在所有知识产权问题上，目的都是为了使互联网社区和广大公众受益，同时尊重他人的合法权利。
By submission of a Contribution, each person actually submitting the Contribution, and each named co-Contributor, is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions, on his or her own behalf, and on behalf of the organizations the Contributor represents or is sponsored by (if any) when submitting the Contribution.
通过提交出资，实际提交出资的每个人和每个指定共同出资人在提交出资时被视为代表其本人以及出资人代表或赞助的组织（如有）同意以下条款和条件。
A. The Contributor represents that he or she has made or will promptly make all disclosures required by Section 6.1.1 of this document.
A.出资人表示，他或她已经或将立即进行本文件第6.1.1节要求的所有披露。
B. The Contributor represents that there are no limits to the Contributor's ability to make the grants, acknowledgments and agreements herein that are reasonably and personally known to the Contributor.
B.出资人表示，出资人在本协议中做出出资人合理且亲自知晓的授予、确认和协议的能力不受限制。
C. If the Contribution is an Internet-Draft, this agreement must be acknowledged, by including in the "Status of this Memo" section on the first page of the Contribution, the appropriate notices described in Section 5 of [RFC 3667].
C.如果出资是互联网草案，则必须通过在出资第一页的“本备忘录状态”一节中包括[RFC 3667]第5节中所述的适当通知来确认本协议。
(A) When any Intellectual Property Right is disclosed before publication as an RFC, with respect to any technology or specification, described in a Contribution in the manner set forth in Section 6 of this document, the RFC Editor shall ensure that the document include a note indicating the existence of such claimed Intellectual Property Rights in any RFC published from the Contribution. (See Section 5 below.)
（A） 当任何知识产权在作为RFC发布之前被披露时，与任何技术或规范有关，以本文件第6节规定的方式在贡献中描述，RFC编辑应确保文件中包含一条注释，表明该贡献发布的任何RFC中存在此类声称的知识产权。（见下文第5节。）
(B) The IESG disclaims any responsibility for identifying the existence of or for evaluating the applicability of any IPR, disclosed or otherwise, to any IETF technology, specification or standard, and will take no position on the validity or scope of any such IPR claims.
（B） IESG不承担识别任何知识产权的存在或评估任何知识产权的适用性的任何责任，无论是公开的还是其他形式的，都适用于任何IETF技术、规范或标准，并且不对任何此类知识产权权利主张的有效性或范围采取任何立场。
(C) Where Intellectual Property Rights have been disclosed for IETF Documents as provided in Section 6 of this document, the IETF Executive Director shall request from the discloser of such IPR, a written assurance that upon approval by the IESG for publication as RFCs of the relevant IETF specification(s), all persons will be able to obtain the right to implement, use, distribute and exercise other rights with respect to Implementing Technology under one of the licensing options specified in Section 6.5 below unless such a statement has already been submitted. The working group proposing the use of the technology with respect to which the Intellectual Property Rights are disclosed may assist the IETF Executive Director in this effort.
（C） 如果已按照本文件第6节的规定披露了IETF文件的知识产权，IETF执行董事应要求此类知识产权的披露方提供书面保证，在IESG批准作为相关IETF规范的RFC发布后，除非已经提交了该声明，否则所有人都将有权根据下文第6.5节规定的许可方案之一实施、使用、分发和行使与实施技术有关的其他权利。建议使用披露知识产权的技术的工作组可协助IETF执行主任进行这项工作。
The results of this procedure shall not, in themselves, block publication of an IETF Document or advancement of an IETF Document along the standards track. A working group may take into consideration the results of this procedure in evaluating the technology, and the IESG may defer approval when a delay may facilitate obtaining such assurances. The results will, however, be recorded by the IETF Executive Director, and be made available online.
本程序的结果本身不得阻止IETF文件的发布或IETF文件在标准轨道上的推进。工作组可在评估技术时考虑该程序的结果，当延迟可能有助于获得此类保证时，IESG可推迟批准。然而，结果将由IETF执行主任记录，并在线提供。
The IESG will not make any explicit determination that the assurance of reasonable and non-discriminatory terms or any other terms for the use of an Implementing Technology has been fulfilled in practice. It will instead apply the normal requirements for the advancement of Internet Standards. If the two unrelated implementations of the specification that are required to advance from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard have been produced by different organizations or individuals, or if the "significant implementation and successful operational experience" required to advance from Draft Standard to Standard has been achieved, the IESG will presume that the terms are reasonable and to some degree non-discriminatory. (See RFC 2026, Section 4.1.3.) Note that this also applies to the case where multiple implementers have concluded that no licensing is required. This presumption may be challenged at any time, including during the Last-Call period by sending email to the IESG.
IESG不会做出任何明确的决定，以确定在实践中已满足合理和非歧视性条款的保证或实施技术使用的任何其他条款。相反，它将应用互联网标准发展的正常要求。如果不同的组织或个人制定了从拟定标准推进到标准草案所需的两个不相关的规范实施，或者如果实现了从标准草案推进到标准草案所需的“重大实施和成功运行经验”，IESG将假定这些条款是合理的，在某种程度上是非歧视性的。（参见RFC 2026，第4.1.3节）注意，这也适用于多个实施者得出无需许可的结论的情况。这一假设可能会在任何时候受到质疑，包括在最后一次通话期间，通过向IESG发送电子邮件。
The RFC Editor will ensure that the following notice is present in all IETF RFCs and all other RFCs for which an IPR disclosure or assertion has been received prior to publication.
RFC编辑将确保在所有IETF RFC和所有其他RFC中出现以下通知，这些RFC在发布前已收到知识产权披露或声明。
Disclaimer of validity:
有效性免责声明：
"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.
“IETF对可能声称与本文件所述技术的实施或使用有关的任何知识产权或其他权利的有效性或范围，或此类权利下的任何许可可能或可能不可用的程度，不采取任何立场；IETF也不表示其已作出任何独立努力确定任何此类权利。有关RFC文件中权利相关程序的信息，请参见BCP 78和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.
向IETF秘书处披露的知识产权副本和任何许可证保证，或本规范实施者或用户试图获得使用此类专有权利的一般许可证或许可的结果，可从IETF在线知识产权存储库获取，网址为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."
IETF邀请任何相关方提请其注意任何版权、专利或专利申请，或其他可能涵盖实施本标准所需技术的专有权利。请将信息发送至IETF的IETF-ipr@ietf.org."
This section discusses aspects of obligations associated with IPR disclosure.
本节讨论与知识产权披露相关的义务方面。
This document refers to the IETF participant making disclosures, consistent with the general IETF philosophy that participants in the IETF act as individuals. A participant's obligation to make a disclosure is also considered satisfied if the IPR owner or the participant's employer or sponsor makes an appropriate disclosure in place of the participant doing so.
本文件是指IETF参与者进行披露，符合IETF的一般理念，即IETF参与者作为个人行事。如果知识产权所有人或参与者的雇主或赞助人进行了适当的披露以代替参与者进行披露，则参与者的披露义务也被视为已履行。
Any Contributor who reasonably and personally knows of IPR meeting the conditions of Section 6.6 which the Contributor believes Covers or may ultimately Cover his or her Contribution, or which the Contributor reasonably and personally knows his or her employer or sponsor may assert against Implementing Technologies based on such Contribution, must make a disclosure in accordance with this Section 6.
任何出资人合理且亲自知道知识产权符合第6.6节的条件，且出资人认为该条件涵盖或可能最终涵盖其出资，或者出资人合理且亲自知道其雇主或赞助人可能反对基于该出资实施技术，必须按照第6节的规定进行披露。
This requirement specifically includes Contributions that are made by any means including electronic or spoken comments, unless the latter are rejected from consideration before a disclosure could reasonably be submitted. An IPR discloser is requested to withdraw a previous disclosure if a revised Contribution negates the previous IPR disclosure, or to amend a previous disclosure if a revised Contribution substantially alters the previous disclosure.
该要求特别包括通过任何方式（包括电子或口头评论）作出的贡献，除非在合理提交披露之前拒绝考虑后者。如果修改后的贡献否定了先前的知识产权披露，则要求知识产权披露方撤销先前的披露；如果修改后的贡献实质上改变了先前的披露，则要求知识产权披露方修改先前的披露。
Contributors must disclose IPR meeting the description in this section; there are no exceptions to this rule.
贡献者必须披露符合本节描述的知识产权；这条规则没有例外。
Any individual participating in an IETF discussion who reasonably and personally knows of IPR meeting the conditions of Section 6.6 which the individual believes Covers or may ultimately Cover a Contribution made by another person, or which such IETF participant reasonably and personally knows his or her employer or sponsor may assert against Implementing Technologies based on such Contribution, must make a disclosure in accordance with this Section 6.
参与IETF讨论的任何个人，其合理且亲自知道知识产权符合第6.6节的条件，且该个人认为该知识产权涵盖或可能最终涵盖另一个人的贡献，或该IETF参与者合理且亲自知道其雇主或赞助人可能反对基于该贡献实施技术的，必须根据本第6节进行披露。
If a person has information about IPR that may Cover IETF Contributions, but the participant is not required to disclose because they do not meet the criteria in Section 6.6 (e.g., the IPR is owned by some other company), such person is encouraged to notify the IETF by sending an email message to ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Such a notice should be sent as soon as reasonably possible after the person realizes the connection.
如果一个人有可能涉及IETF贡献的知识产权信息，但由于不符合第6.6节的标准（例如，知识产权归其他公司所有），参与者无需披露，鼓励该人通过向IETF发送电子邮件通知IETF-ipr@ietf.org. 此类通知应在该人意识到连接后尽快发送。
Timely IPR disclosure is important because working groups need to have as much information as they can while they are evaluating alternative solutions.
及时披露知识产权非常重要，因为工作组在评估替代解决方案时需要尽可能多的信息。
The IPR disclosure required pursuant to section 6.1.1 must be made as soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is published in an Internet Draft unless the required disclosure is already on file. For example, if the Contribution is an update to a Contribution for which an IPR disclosure has already been made and the applicability of the disclosure is not changed by the new Contribution, then no new disclosure is required. But if the Contribution is a new one, or is one that changes an existing Contribution such that the revised Contribution is no longer Covered by the disclosed IPR or would be Covered by new or different IPR, then a disclosure must be made.
根据第6.1.1节要求的知识产权披露必须在贡献在互联网草稿中发布后尽快进行，除非要求的披露已经存档。例如，如果该贡献是对已进行知识产权披露的贡献的更新，且新贡献未改变披露的适用性，则无需进行新披露。但是，如果该贡献是新的贡献，或者是改变现有贡献的贡献，使得修改后的贡献不再包含在披露的知识产权中，或者将包含在新的或不同的知识产权中，则必须进行披露。
If a Contributor first learns of IPR in its Contribution that meets the conditions of Section 6.6, for example a new patent application or the discovery of a relevant patent in a patent portfolio, after the Contribution is published in an Internet-Draft, a disclosure must be made as soon as reasonably possible after the IPR becomes reasonably and personally known to the Contributor.
如果贡献者在其满足第6.6节条件的贡献中首先了解到知识产权，例如新的专利申请或在专利组合中发现相关专利，则贡献发表在互联网草稿中后，在出资人合理且亲自了解知识产权后，必须尽快进行披露。
Participants who realize that a Contribution will be or has been incorporated into a submission to be published in an Internet Draft, or is seriously being discussed in a working group, are strongly encouraged to make at least a preliminary disclosure. That disclosure should be made as soon after coming to the realization as reasonably possible, not waiting until the document is actually posted or ready for posting.
强烈鼓励那些意识到某一贡献将或已被纳入将在互联网草案中公布的提交文件，或正在工作组中认真讨论的参与者至少进行初步披露。该披露应在实现后尽快进行，而不是等到文件实际过账或准备过账。
The IPR disclosure required pursuant to section 6.1.2 must be made as soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is published in an Internet Draft or RFC, unless the required disclosure is already on file. Participants who realize that the IPR will be or has been incorporated into a submission to be published in an Internet Draft, or is seriously being discussed in a working group, are strongly encouraged to make at least a preliminary disclosure. That disclosure should be made as soon after coming to the realization as reasonably possible, not waiting until the document is actually posted or ready for posting.
根据第6.1.2节要求的知识产权披露必须在贡献在互联网草稿或RFC中发布后尽快进行，除非要求的披露已经存档。强烈鼓励意识到知识产权将或已纳入将在互联网草案中发布的提交文件中，或正在工作组中认真讨论的参与者至少进行初步披露。该披露应在实现后尽快进行，而不是等到文件实际过账或准备过账。
If a participant first learns of IPR that meets the conditions of Section 6.6 in a Contribution by another party, for example a new patent application or the discovery of a relevant patent in a patent portfolio, after the Contribution was published in an Internet-Draft or RFC, a disclosure must be made as soon as reasonably possible after the IPR becomes reasonably and personally known to the participant.
如果参与者在互联网草稿或RFC中发布贡献后，在另一方的贡献中首先了解到符合第6.6节条件的知识产权，例如新专利申请或在专利组合中发现相关专利，在参与者合理且亲自了解知识产权后，必须尽快进行披露。
IPR disclosures are made by following the instructions at http://www.ietf.org/ipr-instructions.
知识产权披露按照以下说明进行：http://www.ietf.org/ipr-instructions.
6.4.1. The disclosure must list the numbers of any issued patents or published patent applications or indicate that the claim is based on unpublished patent applications. The disclosure must also list the specific IETF or RFC Editor Document(s) or activity affected. If the IETF Document is an Internet-Draft, it must be referenced by specific version number. In addition, if the IETF Document includes multiple parts and it is not reasonably apparent which part of such IETF Document is alleged to be Covered by the IPR in question, it is helpful if the discloser identifies the sections of the IETF Document that are alleged to be so Covered.
6.4.1. 披露必须列出任何已发布专利或已发布专利申请的编号，或表明该权利要求基于未发布的专利申请。披露还必须列出受影响的特定IETF或RFC编辑器文档或活动。如果IETF文件是互联网草案，则必须通过特定版本号引用。此外，如果IETF文件包含多个部分，并且无法合理确定该IETF文件的哪个部分被指称为相关知识产权所涵盖，则披露方确定IETF文件中被指称为涵盖的部分是有帮助的。
6.4.2. If a disclosure was made on the basis of a patent application (either published or unpublished), then, if requested to do so by the IESG or by a working group chair, the IETF Executive Director can request a new disclosure indicating whether any of the following has occurred: the publication of a previously unpublished patent application, the abandonment of the application and/or the issuance of a patent thereon. If the patent has issued, then the new disclosure must include the patent number and, if the claims of the granted patent differ from those of the application in manner material to the relevant Contribution, it is helpful if such a disclosure describes any differences in applicability to the Contribution. If the patent application was abandoned, then the new disclosure must explicitly withdraw any earlier disclosures based on the application.
6.4.2. 如果根据专利申请（已发布或未发布）进行了披露，那么，如果IESG或工作组主席提出要求，IETF执行董事可以要求进行新的披露，说明是否发生了以下任何情况：先前未发布的专利申请的发布，放弃申请和/或就此发布专利。如果专利已经发布，那么新的披露必须包括专利号，并且，如果授予专利的权利要求与申请的权利要求在对相关贡献的实质性方式上不同，那么如果这样的披露描述了对贡献的适用性上的任何差异，则是有帮助的。如果专利申请被放弃，则新披露必须明确撤回基于该申请的任何早期披露。
New or revised disclosures may be made voluntarily at any time.
可在任何时候自愿进行新的或修订的披露。
6.4.3. The requirement for an IPR disclosure is not satisfied by the submission of a blanket statement of possible IPR on every Contribution. This is the case because the aim of the disclosure requirement is to provide information about specific IPR against specific technology under discussion in the IETF. The requirement is also not satisfied by a blanket statement of willingness to license all potential IPR under fair and non-discriminatory terms for the same reason. However, the requirement for an IPR disclosure is satisfied by a blanket statement of the IPR discloser's willingness to license all of its potential IPR meeting the requirements of Section 6.6 (and either Section 6.1.1 or 6.1.2) to implementers of an IETF specification on a royalty-free basis as long as any other terms and conditions are disclosed in the IPR disclosure statement.
6.4.3. 对于每一份贡献，提交一份可能的知识产权的全面声明并不符合知识产权披露的要求。之所以如此，是因为披露要求的目的是针对IETF中讨论的特定技术提供有关特定知识产权的信息。出于同样的原因，一份愿意以公平和非歧视性条款许可所有潜在知识产权的全面声明也不能满足这一要求。但是，知识产权披露方愿意许可其所有符合第6.6节（以及第6.1.1或6.1.2节）要求的潜在知识产权的总体声明满足了知识产权披露的要求只要知识产权披露声明中披露了任何其他条款和条件，则在免版税的基础上向IETF规范的实施者提供。
6.5. What licensing information to detail in a disclosure.
6.5. 要在披露中详细说明哪些许可信息。
Since IPR disclosures will be used by IETF working groups during their evaluation of alternative technical solutions, it is helpful if an IPR disclosure includes information about licensing of the IPR in case Implementing Technologies require a license. Specifically, it is helpful to indicate whether, upon approval by the IESG for publication as RFCs of the relevant IETF specification(s), all persons will be able to obtain the right to implement, use, distribute and exercise other rights with respect to an Implementing Technology a) under a royalty-free and otherwise reasonable and non-discriminatory license, or b) under a license that contains reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions, including a reasonable royalty or other payment, or c) without the need to obtain a license from the IPR holder.
由于IETF工作组在评估替代技术解决方案时将使用知识产权披露，因此，如果知识产权披露包括在实施技术需要许可证的情况下的知识产权许可信息，则会有所帮助。具体而言，在IESG批准作为相关IETF规范的RFC发布后，指出是否所有人都能够获得实施、使用、，分配和行使与实施技术相关的其他权利a）根据免版税和其他合理的非歧视性许可，或b）根据包含合理的非歧视性条款和条件的许可，包括合理的版税或其他付款，或c）无需从知识产权持有人处获得许可证。
The inclusion of licensing information in IPR disclosures is not mandatory but it is encouraged so that the working groups will have as much information as they can during their deliberations. If the inclusion of licensing information in an IPR disclosure would significantly delay its submission it is quite reasonable to submit a disclosure without licensing information and then submit a new disclosure when the licensing information becomes available.
在知识产权披露中纳入许可信息不是强制性的，但鼓励这样做，以便工作组在审议过程中能够获得尽可能多的信息。如果在知识产权披露中包含许可信息会显著延迟其提交，则在没有许可信息的情况下提交披露，然后在许可信息可用时提交新的披露是非常合理的。
IPR disclosures under Sections 6.1.1. and 6.1.2 are required with respect to IPR that is owned directly or indirectly, by the individual or his/her employer or sponsor (if any) or that such persons otherwise have the right to license or assert.
第6.1.1节规定的知识产权披露。对于个人或其雇主或赞助人（如有）直接或间接拥有的知识产权，或该等人员有权许可或主张的知识产权，要求第6.1.2条。
There are cases where individuals are not permitted by their employers or by other factors to disclose the existence or substance of patent applications or other IPR. Since disclosure is required for anyone submitting documents or participating in IETF discussions, a person who does not disclose IPR for this reason, or any other reason, must not contribute to or participate in IETF activities with respect to technologies that he or she reasonably and personally knows to be Covered by IPR which he or she will not disclose. Contributing to or participating in IETF discussions about a technology without making required IPR disclosures is a violation of IETF process.
有些情况下，雇主或其他因素不允许个人披露专利申请或其他知识产权的存在或实质内容。由于提交文件或参与IETF讨论的任何人都需要披露，因此不披露知识产权的人，不得对IETF活动作出贡献或参与IETF活动，这些活动与他或她合理且个人知道的知识产权涵盖的技术有关，但他或她不会披露。参与或参与IETF关于某项技术的讨论，而不进行必要的知识产权披露，是违反IETF流程的行为。
In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of royalty-free licensing. But IETF working groups have the discretion to adopt technology with a commitment of fair and non-discriminatory terms, or even with no licensing commitment, if they feel that this technology is superior enough to alternatives with fewer IPR claims or free licensing to outweigh the potential cost of the licenses.
一般来说，IETF工作组更喜欢没有已知知识产权声明的技术，或者，对于有针对性声明的技术，提供免版税许可。但是，如果IETF工作组认为该技术优于知识产权要求较少或免费许可的替代方案，从而超过了许可的潜在成本，则他们有权酌情采用具有公平和非歧视性条款承诺的技术，甚至没有许可承诺的技术。
Over the last few years the IETF has adopted stricter requirements for some security technologies. It has become common to have a mandatory-to-implement security technology in IETF technology specifications. This is to ensure that there will be at least one common security technology present in all implementations of such a specification that can be used in all cases. This does not limit the specification from including other security technologies, the use of which could be negotiated between implementations. An IETF consensus has developed that no mandatory-to-implement security technology can be specified in an IETF specification unless it has no known IPR claims against it or a royalty-free license is available to implementers of the specification unless there is a very good reason to do so. This limitation does not extend to other security technologies in the same specification if they are not listed as mandatory-to-implement.
在过去几年中，IETF对某些安全技术采用了更严格的要求。在IETF技术规范中，强制实施安全技术已成为普遍现象。这是为了确保在此类规范的所有实现中至少存在一种通用安全技术，可以在所有情况下使用。这并不限制规范包括其他安全技术，这些技术的使用可以在实现之间协商。IETF已达成共识，除非IETF规范中没有已知的知识产权要求，或者除非有很好的理由，否则IETF规范的实施者可以获得免版税许可证，否则IETF规范中不能规定强制实施安全技术。如果同一规范中的其他安全技术未被列为强制实施，则此限制不扩展到这些技术。
It should also be noted that the absence of IPR disclosures is not the same thing as the knowledge that there will be no IPR claims in the future. People or organizations not currently involved in the IETF or people or organizations that discover IPR they feel to be relevant in their patent portfolios can make IPR disclosures at any time.
还应注意的是，不披露知识产权与知道未来不会有知识产权索赔是两码事。目前未参与IETF的人员或组织，或发现他们认为与其专利组合相关的知识产权的人员或组织，可以随时披露知识产权。
It should also be noted that the validity and enforceability of any IPR may be challenged for legitimate reasons, and the mere existence of an IPR disclosure should not automatically be taken to mean that the disclosed IPR is valid or enforceable. Although the IETF can make no actual determination of validity, enforceability or applicability of any particular IPR claim, it is reasonable that a working group will take into account on their own opinions of the validity, enforceability or applicability of Intellectual Property Rights in their evaluation of alternative technologies.
还应注意的是，任何知识产权的有效性和可执行性可能会因合法原因受到质疑，仅存在知识产权披露不应自动被视为所披露的知识产权有效或可执行。尽管IETF无法实际确定任何特定知识产权权利主张的有效性、可执行性或适用性，但工作组在评估替代技术时，将根据自己对知识产权的有效性、可执行性或适用性的意见予以考虑是合理的。
The IETF must have change control over the technology described in any standards track IETF Documents in order to fix problems that may be discovered or to produce other derivative works.
IETF必须对任何标准跟踪IETF文件中描述的技术进行变更控制，以修复可能发现的问题或产生其他衍生作品。
In some cases the developer of patented or otherwise controlled technology may decide to hand over to the IETF the right to evolve the technology (a.k.a., "change control"). The implementation of an agreement between the IETF and the developer of the technology can be complex. (See [RFC 1790] and [RFC 2339] for examples.)
在某些情况下，专利技术或其他受控技术的开发人员可能决定将技术发展权移交给IETF（也称为“变更控制”）。IETF和技术开发人员之间协议的实施可能很复杂。（有关示例，请参见[RFC 1790]和[RFC 2339]）
Note that there is no inherent prohibition against a standards track IETF Document making a normative reference to proprietary technology. For example, a number of IETF Standards support proprietary cryptographic transforms.
请注意，标准跟踪IETF文件对专有技术的规范性引用没有固有的禁止。例如，许多IETF标准支持专有密码转换。
RFC 2026 Section 4.1.2 states: "If patented or otherwise controlled technology is required for implementation, the separate implementations must also have resulted from separate exercise of the licensing process." A key word in this text is "required." The mere existence of disclosed IPR does not necessarily mean that licenses are actually required in order to implement the technology. Section 4.1 of this document should be taken to apply to the case where there are multiple implementations and none of the implementers have felt that they needed to license the technology and they have no plausible indications that any IPR holder(s) will try to enforce their IPR.
RFC 2026第4.1.2节规定：“如果实施需要专利或其他受控技术，则单独实施也必须是单独实施许可过程的结果。”本文中的关键词为“必需”仅仅存在已披露的知识产权并不一定意味着实施该技术实际上需要许可证。本文件第4.1节应适用于存在多个实施的情况，且实施者均未感到需要许可该技术，且没有任何合理迹象表明任何知识产权持有人将尝试实施其知识产权。
IETF and RFC Editor Documents must not contain any mention of specific IPR. All specific IPR disclosures must be submitted as described in Section 6. Specific IPR disclosures must not be in the affected IETF and RFC Editor Documents because the reader could be misled. The inclusion of a particular IPR disclosure in a document could be interpreted to mean that the IETF, IESG or RFC Editor has formed an opinion on the validity, enforceability or applicability of the IPR. The reader could also be misled to think that the included IPR disclosures are the only IPR disclosures the IETF has received concerning the IETF document. Readers should always refer to the on-line web page to get a full list of IPR disclosures received by the IETF concerning any Contribution. (http://www.ietf.org/ipr/)
IETF和RFC编辑器文档不得包含任何特定知识产权的提及。必须按照第6节的规定提交所有特定的知识产权披露。特定的知识产权披露不得出现在受影响的IETF和RFC编辑器文档中，因为读者可能会被误导。文件中包含特定的知识产权披露可能被解释为IETF、IESG或RFC编辑已对知识产权的有效性、可执行性或适用性形成了意见。读者还可能被误导，以为所包含的知识产权披露是IETF收到的关于IETF文件的唯一知识产权披露。读者应始终参考在线网页，以获得IETF收到的与任何贡献有关的知识产权披露的完整列表。(http://www.ietf.org/ipr/)
This memo relates to IETF process, not any particular technology. There are security considerations when adopting any technology, whether IPR-protected or not. A working group should take those security considerations into account as one part of evaluating the technology, just as IPR is one part, but there are no known issues of security with IPR procedures.
本备忘录涉及IETF过程，而非任何特定技术。无论是否受知识产权保护，在采用任何技术时都要考虑安全因素。工作组应将这些安全考虑因素作为评估技术的一部分加以考虑，正如知识产权是其中一部分，但知识产权程序不存在已知的安全问题。
[RFC 2026] Bradner, S., Ed., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC 2026]Bradner，S.，Ed.，“互联网标准过程——第3版”，BCP 9，RFC 2026，1996年10月。
[RFC 2028] Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in the IETF Standards Process", BCP 11, RFC 2028, October 1996.
[RFC 2028]Hovey，R.和S.Bradner，“参与IETF标准过程的组织”，BCP 11，RFC 2028，1996年10月。
[RFC 2418] Bradner, S., Ed., "Working Group Guidelines and Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.
[RFC 2418]Bradner，S.，Ed.，“工作组指南和程序”，BCP 25，RFC 2418，1998年9月。
[RFC 3667] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, RFC 3667, February 2004.
[RFC 3667]Bradner，S.，“IETF在贡献中的权利”，BCP 78，RFC 3667，2004年2月。
[RFC 1790] Cerf, V., "An Agreement between the Internet Society and Sun Microsystems, Inc. in the Matter of ONC RPC and XDR Protocols", RFC 1790, April 1995.
[RFC 1790]Cerf，V.，“互联网协会与Sun Microsystems，Inc.就ONC RPC和XDR协议达成的协议”，RFC 1790，1995年4月。
[RFC 2339] IETF & Sun Microsystems, "An Agreement Between the Internet Society, the IETF, and Sun Microsystems, Inc. in the matter of NFS V.4 Protocols", RFC 2339, May 1998.
[RFC 2339]IETF和Sun Microsystems，“互联网协会、IETF和Sun Microsystems，Inc.之间关于NFS V.4协议的协议”，RFC 2339，1998年5月。
The editor would like to acknowledge the help of the IETF IPR Working Group and, in particular the help of Jorge Contreras of Hale and Dorr for his careful legal reviews of this and other IETF IPR-related and process documents. The editor would also like to thank Valerie See for her extensive comments and suggestions.
编辑要感谢IETF知识产权工作组的帮助，特别是Hale和Dorr的Jorge Contreras对本文件和其他IETF知识产权相关文件和过程文件进行了仔细的法律审查。编辑还要感谢Valerie See的广泛评论和建议。
Scott Bradner Harvard University 29 Oxford St. Cambridge MA, 02138
斯科特·布拉德纳哈佛大学马萨诸塞州牛津圣剑桥29号，邮编02138
Phone: +1 617 495 3864
EMail: sob@harvard.edu
Phone: +1 617 495 3864
EMail: sob@harvard.edu
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 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.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2004年）。本文件受BCP 78中包含的权利、许可和限制的约束，除其中规定外，作者保留其所有权利。
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.
本文件及其包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，贡献者、他/她所代表或赞助的组织（如有）、互联网协会和互联网工程任务组不承担任何明示或暗示的担保，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。
Intellectual Property
知识产权
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.
IETF对可能声称与本文件所述技术的实施或使用有关的任何知识产权或其他权利的有效性或范围，或此类权利下的任何许可可能或可能不可用的程度，不采取任何立场；它也不表示它已作出任何独立努力来确定任何此类权利。有关RFC文件中权利的程序信息，请参见BCP 78和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.
向IETF秘书处披露的知识产权副本和任何许可证保证，或本规范实施者或用户试图获得使用此类专有权利的一般许可证或许可的结果，可从IETF在线知识产权存储库获取，网址为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.
IETF邀请任何相关方提请其注意任何版权、专利或专利申请，或其他可能涵盖实施本标准所需技术的专有权利。请将信息发送至IETF的IETF-ipr@ietf.org.
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。