Network Working Group G. Camarillo
Request for Comments: 3968 Ericsson
Updates: 3427 December 2004
BCP: 98
Category: Best Current Practice
Network Working Group G. Camarillo
Request for Comments: 3968 Ericsson
Updates: 3427 December 2004
BCP: 98
Category: Best Current Practice
The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) Header Field Parameter Registry for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
会话启动协议（SIP）的Internet Assigned Number Authority（IANA）头字段参数注册表
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
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).
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2004年）。
Abstract
摘要
This document creates an Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) registry for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) header field parameters and parameter values. It also lists the already existing parameters and parameter values to be used as the initial entries for this registry.
本文档为会话启动协议（SIP）头字段参数和参数值创建Internet分配号码管理局（IANA）注册表。它还列出了已存在的参数和要用作此注册表初始项的参数值。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Use of the Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Header Field Parameters Sub-Registry . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.2. Registration Policy for SIP Header Field Parameters. . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Use of the Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Header Field Parameters Sub-Registry . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.2. Registration Policy for SIP Header Field Parameters. . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
RFC 3261 [3] allows new header field parameters and new parameter values to be defined. However, RFC 3261 omitted an IANA registry for them. This document creates such a registry.
RFC 3261[3]允许定义新的标题字段参数和新的参数值。然而，RFC3261省略了他们的IANA注册。本文档创建了这样一个注册表。
RFC 3427 [4] documents the process to extend SIP. This document updates RFC 3427 by specifying how to define and register new SIP header field parameters and parameter values.
RFC 3427[4]记录了扩展SIP的过程。本文档通过指定如何定义和注册新的SIP头字段参数和参数值来更新RFC 3427。
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 [1] and indicate requirement levels for compliant implementations.
在本文件中，关键词“必须”、“不得”、“要求”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“不建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照BCP 14、RFC 2119[1]中的描述进行解释，并指出合规实施的要求级别。
SIP header field parameters and parameter values MUST be documented in an RFC in order to be registered by IANA. This documentation MUST fully explain the syntax, intended usage, and semantics of the parameter or parameter value. The intent of this requirement is to assure interoperability between independent implementations, and to prevent accidental namespace collisions between implementations of dissimilar features.
SIP头字段参数和参数值必须记录在RFC中，以便IANA注册。本文档必须充分解释参数或参数值的语法、预期用途和语义。此需求的目的是确保独立实现之间的互操作性，并防止不同功能实现之间的意外命名空间冲突。
Note that this registry, unlike other protocol registries, only deals with parameters and parameter values defined in RFCs (i.e., it lacks a vendor-extension tree). RFC 3427 [4] documents concerns with regards to new SIP extensions which may damage security, greatly increase the complexity of the protocol, or both. New parameters and parameter values need to be documented in RFCs as a result of these concerns.
请注意，与其他协议注册表不同，此注册表只处理RFCs中定义的参数和参数值（即，它缺少供应商扩展树）。RFC 3427[4]记录了与可能破坏安全性、大大增加协议复杂性或两者兼而有之的新SIP扩展有关的问题。由于这些问题，新参数和参数值需要记录在RFCs中。
RFCs defining SIP header field parameters or parameter values MUST register them with IANA as described below.
定义SIP头字段参数或参数值的RFC必须按照如下所述向IANA注册它们。
Registered SIP header field parameters and parameter values are to be considered "reserved words". In order to preserve interoperability, registered parameters and parameter values MUST be used in a manner consistent with that described in their defining RFC. Implementations MUST NOT utilize "private" or "locally defined" SIP header field parameters or parameter values that conflict with registered parameters.
注册的SIP头字段参数和参数值将被视为“保留字”。为了保持互操作性，必须以与其定义RFC中描述的方式一致的方式使用注册参数和参数值。实现不得使用“私有”或“本地定义”SIP头字段参数或与注册参数冲突的参数值。
Note that although unregistered SIP header field parameters and parameter values may be used in implementations, developers are cautioned that usage of such parameters is risky. New SIP header field parameters and parameter values may be registered at any time, and there is no assurance that these new registered parameters or parameter values will not conflict with unregistered parameters currently in use.
请注意，尽管未注册的SIP头字段参数和参数值可能会在实现中使用，但开发人员应注意使用此类参数存在风险。可以随时注册新的SIP头字段参数和参数值，并且不能保证这些新注册的参数或参数值不会与当前使用的未注册参数冲突。
Some SIP header field parameters only accept a set of predefined parameter values. For example, a parameter indicating the transport protocol in use may only accept the predefined tokens TCP, UDP, and SCTP as valid values. Registering all parameter values for all SIP header field parameters of this type would require a large number of subregistries. Instead, we have chosen to register parameter values by reference. That is, the entry in the parameter registry for a given header field parameter contains references to the RFCs defining new values of the parameter. References to RFCs defining parameter values appear in double brackets in the registry.
一些SIP头字段参数只接受一组预定义的参数值。例如，指示正在使用的传输协议的参数可能只接受预定义令牌TCP、UDP和SCTP作为有效值。为该类型的所有SIP头字段参数注册所有参数值将需要大量子域。相反，我们选择通过引用注册参数值。也就是说，参数注册表中给定标头字段参数的条目包含对定义参数新值的RFC的引用。对定义参数值的RFC的引用显示在注册表的双括号中。
So, the header field parameter registry contains a column that indicates whether or not each parameter only accepts a set of predefined values. Implementers of parameters with a "yes" in that column need to find all the valid parameter values in the RFCs provided as references.
因此，header字段参数注册表包含一列，指示每个参数是否仅接受一组预定义值。该列中带有“yes”的参数的实现者需要在作为参考提供的RFC中找到所有有效的参数值。
Section 27 of RFC 3261 [3] creates an IANA registry for method names, header field names, warning codes, status codes, and option tags. This specification creates a new sub-registry for header field parameters under the SIP Parameters registry.
RFC 3261[3]第27节为方法名称、标题字段名称、警告代码、状态代码和选项标记创建了IANA注册表。此规范在SIP参数注册表下为标头字段参数创建新的子注册表。
The majority of the SIP header fields can be extended by defining new parameters. New SIP header field parameters are registered by the IANA. When registering a new parameter for a header field or a new value for a parameter, the following information MUST be provided.
大多数SIP头字段可以通过定义新参数进行扩展。IANA注册了新的SIP头字段参数。为标题字段注册新参数或为参数注册新值时，必须提供以下信息。
o Header field in which the parameter can appear.
o 可以显示参数的标题字段。
o Name of the header field parameter being registered.
o 正在注册的标头字段参数的名称。
o Whether the parameter only accepts a set of predefined values.
o 参数是否仅接受一组预定义值。
o A reference to the RFC where the parameter is defined and to any RFC that defines new values for the parameter. References to RFCs defining parameter values appear in double brackets in the registry.
o 对定义参数的RFC和为参数定义新值的任何RFC的引用。对定义参数值的RFC的引用显示在注册表的双括号中。
Parameters that can appear in different header fields MAY have the same name. However, parameters that can appear in the same header field MUST have different names.
可以出现在不同标题字段中的参数可能具有相同的名称。但是，可以出现在同一标题字段中的参数必须具有不同的名称。
The following are the initial values for this sub-registry.
以下是此子注册表的初始值。
Header Field Parameter Name Predefined Reference
Values
_____________________________________________________________________
Accept q No [RFC 3261]
Accept-Encoding q No [RFC 3261]
Accept-Language q No [RFC 3261]
Authorization algorithm Yes [RFC 3261]
[[RFC 3310]]
Authorization auts No [RFC 3310]
Authorization cnonce No [RFC 3261]
Authorization nc No [RFC 3261]
Authorization nonce No [RFC 3261]
Authorization opaque No [RFC 3261]
Authorization qop Yes [RFC 3261]
Authorization realm No [RFC 3261]
Authorization response No [RFC 3261]
Authorization uri No [RFC 3261]
Authorization username No [RFC 3261]
Authentication-Info cnonce No [RFC 3261]
Authentication-Info nc No [RFC 3261]
Authentication-Info nextnonce No [RFC 3261]
Authentication-Info qop Yes [RFC 3261]
Authentication-Info rspauth No [RFC 3261]
Call-Info purpose Yes [RFC 3261]
Contact expires No [RFC 3261]
Contact q No [RFC 3261]
Content-Disposition handling Yes [RFC 3261]
Event id No [RFC 3265]
From tag No [RFC 3261]
P-Access-Network-Info cgi-3gpp No [RFC 3455]
P-Access-Network-Info utran-cell-id-3gpp No [RFC 3455]
P-Charging-Function-Addresses ccf No [RFC 3455]
P-Charging-Function-Addresses ecf No [RFC 3455]
P-Charging-Vector icid-value No [RFC 3455]
P-Charging-Vector icid-generated-at No [RFC 3455]
P-Charging-Vector orig-ioi No [RFC 3455]
P-Charging-Vector term-ioi No [RFC 3455]
Header Field Parameter Name Predefined Reference
Values
_____________________________________________________________________
Accept q No [RFC 3261]
Accept-Encoding q No [RFC 3261]
Accept-Language q No [RFC 3261]
Authorization algorithm Yes [RFC 3261]
[[RFC 3310]]
Authorization auts No [RFC 3310]
Authorization cnonce No [RFC 3261]
Authorization nc No [RFC 3261]
Authorization nonce No [RFC 3261]
Authorization opaque No [RFC 3261]
Authorization qop Yes [RFC 3261]
Authorization realm No [RFC 3261]
Authorization response No [RFC 3261]
Authorization uri No [RFC 3261]
Authorization username No [RFC 3261]
Authentication-Info cnonce No [RFC 3261]
Authentication-Info nc No [RFC 3261]
Authentication-Info nextnonce No [RFC 3261]
Authentication-Info qop Yes [RFC 3261]
Authentication-Info rspauth No [RFC 3261]
Call-Info purpose Yes [RFC 3261]
Contact expires No [RFC 3261]
Contact q No [RFC 3261]
Content-Disposition handling Yes [RFC 3261]
Event id No [RFC 3265]
From tag No [RFC 3261]
P-Access-Network-Info cgi-3gpp No [RFC 3455]
P-Access-Network-Info utran-cell-id-3gpp No [RFC 3455]
P-Charging-Function-Addresses ccf No [RFC 3455]
P-Charging-Function-Addresses ecf No [RFC 3455]
P-Charging-Vector icid-value No [RFC 3455]
P-Charging-Vector icid-generated-at No [RFC 3455]
P-Charging-Vector orig-ioi No [RFC 3455]
P-Charging-Vector term-ioi No [RFC 3455]
P-DCS-Billing-Info called No [RFC 3603]
P-DCS-Billing-Info calling No [RFC 3603]
P-DCS-Billing-Info charge No [RFC 3603]
P-DCS-Billing-Info locroute No [RFC 3603]
P-DCS-Billing-Info rksgroup No [RFC 3603]
P-DCS-Billing-Info routing No [RFC 3603]
P-DCS-LAES content No [RFC 3603]
P-DCS-LAES key No [RFC 3603]
P-DCS-Redirect count No [RFC 3603]
P-DCS-Redirect redirector-uri No [RFC 3603]
Proxy-Authenticate algorithm Yes [RFC 3261]
[[RFC 3310]]
Proxy-Authenticate domain No [RFC 3261]
Proxy-Authenticate nonce No [RFC 3261]
Proxy-Authenticate opaque No [RFC 3261]
Proxy-Authenticate qop Yes [RFC 3261]
Proxy-Authenticate realm No [RFC 3261]
Proxy-Authenticate stale Yes [RFC 3261]
Proxy-Authorization algorithm Yes [RFC 3261]
[[RFC 3310]]
Proxy-Authorization auts No [RFC 3310]
Proxy-Authorization cnonce No [RFC 3261]
Proxy-Authorization nc No [RFC 3261]
Proxy-Authorization nonce No [RFC 3261]
Proxy-Authorization opaque No [RFC 3261]
Proxy-Authorization qop Yes [RFC 3261]
Proxy-Authorization realm No [RFC 3261]
Proxy-Authorization response No [RFC 3261]
Proxy-Authorization uri No [RFC 3261]
Proxy-Authorization username No [RFC 3261]
Reason cause Yes [RFC 3326]
Reason text No [RFC 3326]
Retry-After duration No [RFC 3261]
Security-Client alg Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Client ealg Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Client d-alg Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Client d-qop Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Client d-ver No [RFC 3329]
Security-Client mod Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Client port1 No [RFC 3329]
Security-Client port2 No [RFC 3329]
Security-Client prot Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Client q No [RFC 3329]
Security-Client spi No [RFC 3329]
Security-Server alg Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Server ealg Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Server d-alg Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Server d-qop Yes [RFC 3329]
P-DCS-Billing-Info called No [RFC 3603]
P-DCS-Billing-Info calling No [RFC 3603]
P-DCS-Billing-Info charge No [RFC 3603]
P-DCS-Billing-Info locroute No [RFC 3603]
P-DCS-Billing-Info rksgroup No [RFC 3603]
P-DCS-Billing-Info routing No [RFC 3603]
P-DCS-LAES content No [RFC 3603]
P-DCS-LAES key No [RFC 3603]
P-DCS-Redirect count No [RFC 3603]
P-DCS-Redirect redirector-uri No [RFC 3603]
Proxy-Authenticate algorithm Yes [RFC 3261]
[[RFC 3310]]
Proxy-Authenticate domain No [RFC 3261]
Proxy-Authenticate nonce No [RFC 3261]
Proxy-Authenticate opaque No [RFC 3261]
Proxy-Authenticate qop Yes [RFC 3261]
Proxy-Authenticate realm No [RFC 3261]
Proxy-Authenticate stale Yes [RFC 3261]
Proxy-Authorization algorithm Yes [RFC 3261]
[[RFC 3310]]
Proxy-Authorization auts No [RFC 3310]
Proxy-Authorization cnonce No [RFC 3261]
Proxy-Authorization nc No [RFC 3261]
Proxy-Authorization nonce No [RFC 3261]
Proxy-Authorization opaque No [RFC 3261]
Proxy-Authorization qop Yes [RFC 3261]
Proxy-Authorization realm No [RFC 3261]
Proxy-Authorization response No [RFC 3261]
Proxy-Authorization uri No [RFC 3261]
Proxy-Authorization username No [RFC 3261]
Reason cause Yes [RFC 3326]
Reason text No [RFC 3326]
Retry-After duration No [RFC 3261]
Security-Client alg Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Client ealg Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Client d-alg Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Client d-qop Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Client d-ver No [RFC 3329]
Security-Client mod Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Client port1 No [RFC 3329]
Security-Client port2 No [RFC 3329]
Security-Client prot Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Client q No [RFC 3329]
Security-Client spi No [RFC 3329]
Security-Server alg Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Server ealg Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Server d-alg Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Server d-qop Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Server d-ver No [RFC 3329]
Security-Server mod Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Server port1 No [RFC 3329]
Security-Server port2 No [RFC 3329]
Security-Server prot Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Server q No [RFC 3329]
Security-Server spi No [RFC 3329]
Security-Verify alg Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Verify ealg Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Verify d-alg Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Verify d-qop Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Verify d-ver No [RFC 3329]
Security-Verify mod Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Verify port1 No [RFC 3329]
Security-Verify port2 No [RFC 3329]
Security-Verify prot Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Verify q No [RFC 3329]
Security-Verify spi No [RFC 3329]
Subscription-State expires No [RFC 3265]
Subscription-State reason Yes [RFC 3265]
Subscription-State retry-after No [RFC 3265]
To tag No [RFC 3261]
Via branch No [RFC 3261]
Via comp Yes [RFC 3486]
Via maddr No [RFC 3261]
Via received No [RFC 3261]
Via rport No [RFC 3581]
Via ttl No [RFC 3261]
WWW-Authenticate algorithm Yes [RFC 3261]
[[RFC 3310]]
WWW-Authenticate domain Yes [RFC 3261]
WWW-Authenticate nonce No [RFC 3261]
WWW-Authenticate opaque No [RFC 3261]
WWW-Authenticate qop Yes [RFC 3261]
WWW-Authenticate realm No [RFC 3261]
WWW-Authenticate stale Yes [RFC 3261]
Security-Server d-ver No [RFC 3329]
Security-Server mod Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Server port1 No [RFC 3329]
Security-Server port2 No [RFC 3329]
Security-Server prot Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Server q No [RFC 3329]
Security-Server spi No [RFC 3329]
Security-Verify alg Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Verify ealg Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Verify d-alg Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Verify d-qop Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Verify d-ver No [RFC 3329]
Security-Verify mod Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Verify port1 No [RFC 3329]
Security-Verify port2 No [RFC 3329]
Security-Verify prot Yes [RFC 3329]
Security-Verify q No [RFC 3329]
Security-Verify spi No [RFC 3329]
Subscription-State expires No [RFC 3265]
Subscription-State reason Yes [RFC 3265]
Subscription-State retry-after No [RFC 3265]
To tag No [RFC 3261]
Via branch No [RFC 3261]
Via comp Yes [RFC 3486]
Via maddr No [RFC 3261]
Via received No [RFC 3261]
Via rport No [RFC 3581]
Via ttl No [RFC 3261]
WWW-Authenticate algorithm Yes [RFC 3261]
[[RFC 3310]]
WWW-Authenticate domain Yes [RFC 3261]
WWW-Authenticate nonce No [RFC 3261]
WWW-Authenticate opaque No [RFC 3261]
WWW-Authenticate qop Yes [RFC 3261]
WWW-Authenticate realm No [RFC 3261]
WWW-Authenticate stale Yes [RFC 3261]
As per the terminology in RFC 2434 [2], the registration policy for SIP header field parameters and parameter values shall be "IETF Consensus."
根据RFC 2434[2]中的术语，SIP头字段参数和参数值的注册策略应为“IETF共识”
For the purposes of this registry, the parameter or the parameter value for which IANA registration is requested MUST be defined by an RFC. There is no requirement that this RFC be standards-track.
就本注册表而言，请求IANA注册的参数或参数值必须由RFC定义。不要求该RFC符合标准轨道。
The registry in this document does not in itself have security considerations. However, as mentioned in RFC 3427, an important reason for the IETF to manage the extensions of SIP is to ensure that all extensions and parameters are able to provide secure usage. The supporting RFC publications for parameter registrations described this specification MUST provide detailed security considerations for them.
本文档中的注册表本身没有安全考虑。然而，如RFC 3427所述，IETF管理SIP扩展的一个重要原因是确保所有扩展和参数都能够提供安全使用。本规范所述参数注册的支持RFC出版物必须提供详细的安全注意事项。
Jonathan Rosenberg, Henning Schulzrinne, Rohan Mahy, Dean Willis, Aki Niemi, Bill Marshall, Miguel A. Garcia-Martin, Jean Francois Mule, and Allison Mankin provided useful comments on this document.
Jonathan Rosenberg、Henning Schulzrinne、Rohan Mahy、Dean Willis、Aki Niemi、Bill Marshall、Miguel A.Garcia Martin、Jean-Francois Mule和Allison Mankin就本文件提供了有用的评论。
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[1] Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
[2] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.
[2] Narten，T.和H.Alvestrand，“在RFCs中编写IANA注意事项部分的指南”，BCP 26，RFC 2434，1998年10月。
[3] 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.
[3] Rosenberg，J.，Schulzrinne，H.，Camarillo，G.，Johnston，A.，Peterson，J.，Sparks，R.，Handley，M.，和E.Schooler，“SIP：会话启动协议”，RFC 3261，2002年6月。
[4] Mankin, A., Bradner, S., Mahy, R., Willis, D., Ott, J., and B. Rosen, "Change Process for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", BCP 67, RFC 3427, December 2002.
[4] Mankin，A.，Bradner，S.，Mahy，R.，Willis，D.，Ott，J.，和B.Rosen，“会话启动协议（SIP）的变更过程”，BCP 67，RFC 3427，2002年12月。
Author's Address
作者地址
Gonzalo Camarillo Ericsson Hirsalantie 11 Jorvas 02420 Finland
Gonzalo Camarillo Ericsson Hirsalantie 11 Jorvas 02420芬兰
EMail: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com
EMail: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com
Full Copyright Statement
完整版权声明
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2004年）。
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.
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 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF 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IETF文件中权利的IETF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。