Network Working Group R. Brandner
Request for Comments: 4002 Siemens AG
Category: Standards Track L. Conroy
Siemens Roke Manor Research
R. Stastny
Oefeg
February 2005
Network Working Group R. Brandner
Request for Comments: 4002 Siemens AG
Category: Standards Track L. Conroy
Siemens Roke Manor Research
R. Stastny
Oefeg
February 2005
IANA Registration for Enumservice 'web' and 'ft'
Enumservice“web”和“ft”的IANA注册
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
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 (2005).
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2005年）。
Abstract
摘要
This document registers the Enumservices 'web' and 'ft' by using the URI schemes 'http:', 'https:' and 'ftp:' as per the IANA registration process defined in the ENUM specification (RFC 3761).
本文档根据枚举规范（RFC 3761）中定义的IANA注册过程，使用URI方案“http:”、“https:”和“ftp:”注册Enumservices“web”和“ft”。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Web Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Web Service Registration with 'http:' . . . . . . . . . 3
3.3. Web Service Registration with 'https:' . . . . . . . . . 4
4. FT Service Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Web Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Web Service Registration with 'http:' . . . . . . . . . 3
3.3. Web Service Registration with 'https:' . . . . . . . . . 4
4. FT Service Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
ENUM (E.164 Number Mapping, RFC 3761 [2]) is a system that transforms E.164 numbers [3] into domain names and that then uses DNS (Domain Name Service, RFC 1034 [4]) services such as delegation through NS records and NAPTR records to look up what services are available for a specific domain name.
ENUM（E.164数字映射，RFC 3761[2]）是一个将E.164数字[3]转换为域名的系统，然后使用DNS（域名服务，RFC 1034[4]）服务，例如通过NS记录和NAPTR记录进行委派，以查找特定域名的可用服务。
This document registers 'Enumservices' according to the guidelines given in RFC 3761 [2] to be used for provisioning in the services field of an NAPTR [7] resource record to indicate what class of functionality a given end point offers. The registration is defined within the DDDS (Dynamic Delegation Discovery System [5][6][7][8][9]) hierarchy, for use with the "E2U" DDDS Application, defined in RFC 3761 [2].
本文档根据RFC 3761[2]中给出的指南注册“Enumservices”，用于在NAPTR[7]资源记录的服务字段中进行配置，以指示给定端点提供的功能类别。注册在DDDS（动态委派发现系统[5][6][7][8][9]）层次结构中定义，用于RFC 3761[2]中定义的“E2U”DDDS应用程序。
The following 'Enumservices' are registered with this document: 'web' and 'ft'. These share a common feature in that they each indicate that the functionality of the given end points and the associated resources are primarily sources of information.
以下“Enumservices”已注册到此文档：“web”和“ft”。它们有一个共同的特点，即它们都表明给定端点的功能和相关资源主要是信息源。
According to RFC 3761 [2], the 'Enumservice' registered must be able to function as a selection mechanism when one chooses between one NAPTR resource record and another. This means that the registration MUST specify what is expected when that NAPTR record is used, and the URI scheme that is the outcome of use.
根据RFC 3761[2]，当在一个NAPTR资源记录和另一个NAPTR资源记录之间进行选择时，注册的“Enumservice”必须能够起到选择机制的作用。这意味着注册必须指定使用NAPTR记录时的预期内容，以及作为使用结果的URI方案。
Therefore an 'Enumservice' acts as a hint, indicating the kind of service with which the URI constructed by using the regexp field is associated. More than one 'Enumservice' can be included within a single NAPTR; this indicates that there is more than one service that can be achieved by using the associated URI scheme.
因此，“Enumservice”充当提示，指示使用regexp字段构造的URI所关联的服务类型。一个NAPTR中可以包含多个“Enumservice”；这表示通过使用关联的URI方案可以实现多个服务。
The common thread with this set of definitions is that they reflect the kind of service that the end user will hope to achieve with the communication by using the associated URI.
这组定义的共同点是，它们反映了最终用户希望通过使用相关URI通过通信实现的服务类型。
The services specified here are NOT intended to specify the protocol or even the method of connection that MUST be used to achieve each service. Instead, we define the kind of interactive behavior that an end user will expect, leaving the end system to decide (based on policies outside the scope of this specification) how to execute the service.
此处指定的服务并非旨在指定实现每个服务必须使用的协议或连接方法。相反，我们定义了最终用户期望的交互行为类型，让最终系统决定（基于本规范范围之外的策略）如何执行服务。
As the same URI scheme may be used for different services (e.g., 'tel:') and the same kind of service may use different URI schemes (e.g., for VoIP, 'sip:', 'h323:', and 'tel:' may be used), it is necessary in some cases to specify the service and the URI scheme used.
由于同一URI方案可用于不同的服务（例如，“tel:”），并且同一类型的服务可使用不同的URI方案（例如，对于VoIP，可使用“sip:”、“h323:”和“tel:”），因此在某些情况下有必要指定所使用的服务和URI方案。
The service parameters defined in RFC 3761 [2] therefore allow a 'type' and a 'subtype' to be specified. Within this set of specifications, it is assumed that the 'type' (being the more generic term) defines the service and the 'subtype' defines the URI scheme.
因此，RFC 3761[2]中定义的服务参数允许指定“类型”和“子类型”。在这组规范中，假定“类型”（更通用的术语）定义了服务，“子类型”定义了URI方案。
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 BCP 14, RFC 2119 [1].
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BCP 14、RFC 2119[1]中的描述进行解释。
The Enumservices registered in this section indicate that the resource identified by the associated URI is capable of being a source of information.
本节中注册的Enumservices表示由关联URI标识的资源能够作为信息源。
Enumservice Name: "web"
枚举服务名称：“web”
Enumservice Type: "web"
枚举服务类型：“web”
Enumservice Subtype: "http"
枚举服务子类型：“http”
URI Scheme: 'http:'
URI方案：“http:”
Functional Specification:
功能规格：
This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified by the associated URI scheme is capable of being a source of information.
此Enumservice表示由关联URI方案标识的资源能够成为信息源。
Note that the kind of information retrieved can be manifold. Usually, contacting a resource by an 'http:' [11] URI provides a document. This document can contain references that will trigger the download of many different kinds of information, such as audio, video, or executable code. Thus, one cannot be more specific about the kind of information expected when contacting the resource.
请注意，检索到的信息可能是多种多样的。通常，通过“http:”[11]URI联系资源会提供一个文档。此文档可以包含引用，这些引用将触发许多不同类型信息的下载，例如音频、视频或可执行代码。因此，在联系资源时，不能更具体地说明所期望的信息类型。
Security Considerations:
安全考虑：
There are no specific security issues with this 'Enumservice'. However, the general considerations of Section 5 apply.
此“Enumservice”没有特定的安全问题。但是，第5节的一般考虑因素适用。
Intended Usage: COMMON
预期用途：普通
Authors:
作者：
Rudolf Brandner, Lawrence Conroy, Richard Stastny (for author contact detail, see the Authors' Addresses section)
鲁道夫·布兰德纳、劳伦斯·康罗伊、理查德·斯塔斯尼（有关作者联系方式的详细信息，请参见作者地址部分）
Any other information the author deems interesting:
作者认为有趣的任何其他信息：
None
没有一个
Enumservice Name: "web"
枚举服务名称：“web”
Enumservice Type: "web"
枚举服务类型：“web”
Enumservice Subtype: "https"
枚举服务子类型：“https”
URI Scheme: 'https:'
URI方案：“https:”
Functional Specification:
功能规格：
This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified by the associated URI scheme is capable of being a source of information, which can be contacted by using TLS or the Secure Socket Layer protocol.
此Enumservice表示由关联URI方案标识的资源能够作为信息源，可以使用TLS或安全套接字层协议来联系该信息源。
Note that the kind of information retrieved can be manifold. Usually, contacting a resource by an 'https:' URI [12] provides a document. This document can contain many different kinds of information, such as audio, video, or executable code. Thus, one cannot be more specific about what information to expect when contacting the resource.
请注意，检索到的信息可能是多种多样的。通常，通过“https:”URI[12]联系资源会提供一个文档。此文档可以包含许多不同类型的信息，例如音频、视频或可执行代码。因此，在联系资源时，我们无法更具体地了解所期望的信息。
Security Considerations:
安全考虑：
There are no specific security issues with this 'Enumservice'. However, the general considerations of Section 5 apply.
此“Enumservice”没有特定的安全问题。但是，第5节的一般考虑因素适用。
Intended Usage: COMMON
预期用途：普通
Authors:
作者：
Rudolf Brandner, Lawrence Conroy, Richard Stastny (for author contact detail, see the Authors' Addresses section)
鲁道夫·布兰德纳、劳伦斯·康罗伊、理查德·斯塔斯尼（有关作者联系方式的详细信息，请参见作者地址部分）
Any other information the author deems interesting:
作者认为有趣的任何其他信息：
None
没有一个
Enumservice Name: "ft"
枚举服务名称：“ft”
Enumservice Type: "ft"
枚举服务类型：“ft”
Enumservice Subtype: "ftp"
枚举服务子类型：“ftp”
URI Scheme: 'ftp:'
URI方案：“ftp:”
Functional Specification:
功能规格：
This Enumservice indicates that the resource identified by the associated URI scheme is a service usable in the manner specified for ftp: in RFC 1738 [10], for instance, file retrieval.
此Enumservice表示由关联URI方案标识的资源是一个以ftp指定的方式可用的服务：在RFC 1738[10]中，例如，文件检索。
Security Considerations:
安全考虑：
There are no specific security issues with this 'Enumservice'. However, the general considerations of Section 5 apply.
此“Enumservice”没有特定的安全问题。但是，第5节的一般考虑因素适用。
Intended Usage: COMMON
预期用途：普通
Authors:
作者：
Rudolf Brandner, Lawrence Conroy, Richard Stastny (for author contact detail, see the Authors' Addresses section)
鲁道夫·布兰德纳、劳伦斯·康罗伊、理查德·斯塔斯尼（有关作者联系方式的详细信息，请参见作者地址部分）
Any other information the author deems interesting:
作者认为有趣的任何其他信息：
None
没有一个
As used by ENUM, DNS is a global, distributed database. Thus any information stored there is visible to anyone anonymously. Although this is not qualitatively different from publication in a telephone directory, it does expose the data subject to having "their"
正如ENUM所使用的，DNS是一个全局分布式数据库。因此，任何人都可以匿名看到存储在那里的任何信息。虽然这与在电话簿中发布没有本质上的区别，但它确实会将数据暴露在“他们的”
information collected automatically without any indication that this has been done, or by whom.
自动收集的信息，没有任何迹象表明已完成或由谁完成。
Data harvesting by third parties is often used to generate lists of targets for unrequested information; in short, it is used to address "spam". Anyone who uses a Web-archived mailing list is aware that the volume of "spam" email they receive increases when they post to the mailing list; publication of a telephone number in ENUM is no different and may be used to send "junk faxes" or "junk SMS", for example.
第三方收集的数据通常用于生成未请求信息的目标列表；简而言之，它是用来解决“垃圾邮件”。任何使用网络存档邮件列表的人都知道，当他们发布到邮件列表时，他们收到的“垃圾邮件”数量会增加；在ENUM中公布电话号码也没什么不同，例如，可以用来发送“垃圾传真”或“垃圾短信”。
Many mailing list users have more than one email address and use "sacrificial" email accounts when they post to these lists to help filter out unrequested emails. This is not so easy with published telephone numbers; the PSTN E.164 number assignment process is much more involved, and usually a single E.164 number (or a fixed range of numbers) is associated with each PSTN access. Thus, providing a "sacrificial" phone number in any publication is not possible.
许多邮件列表用户有不止一个电子邮件地址，并在向这些列表投递邮件时使用“牺牲性”电子邮件帐户来帮助过滤未请求的电子邮件。对于公开的电话号码来说，这并不容易；PSTN E.164号码分配过程更为复杂，通常单个E.164号码（或固定范围的号码）与每个PSTN接入相关联。因此，在任何出版物中提供“牺牲性”电话号码是不可能的。
Due to the implications of publishing data on a globally accessible database, as a principle the data subject MUST give explicit informed consent when data is published in ENUM.
由于在全球可访问数据库上发布数据的影响，作为一项原则，数据主体在ENUM中发布数据时必须给予明确的知情同意。
In addition, the data subject should be made aware that, due to storage of such data during harvesting by third parties, removal of the data from publication will not remove any copies that have been taken; in effect, any publication may be permanent.
此外，应使数据主体意识到，由于第三方在采集过程中存储了此类数据，因此从发布中删除数据不会删除已获取的任何副本；实际上，任何出版物都可能是永久性的。
However, regulations in many regions will require that the data subject can at any time request that the data is removed from publication, and that consent for its publication is explicitly confirmed at regular intervals.
然而，许多地区的法规将要求数据主体可以在任何时候要求从发布中删除数据，并定期明确确认对其发布的同意。
The user SHOULD be asked to confirm opening a web page or starting an ftp session (particularly if the ftp client is configured to send the user's email address as an "anonymous" user password).
应要求用户确认打开网页或启动ftp会话（特别是如果ftp客户端配置为将用户的电子邮件地址作为“匿名”用户密码发送）。
Using a web:http or ft:ftp service is not secure, so the user should apply the same caution when entering personal data as they would do if using a client application started with any other method. Although this is not a feature of ENUM or these Enumservices, the ENUM-using application on the end system may appear different from the user's "normal" browser, so the user SHOULD receive an indication of whether their communication is secured.
使用web:http或ft:ftp服务是不安全的，因此用户在输入个人数据时应该像使用以任何其他方法启动的客户端应用程序一样小心。尽管这不是ENUM或这些ENUM服务的一项功能，但终端系统上使用ENUM的应用程序可能与用户的“普通”浏览器不同，因此用户应收到其通信是否安全的指示。
As evaluating a web page can involve execution of embedded (or linked) content that may include executable code, evaluating a web URL involves risks. If automatic evaluation of a web link were to be used, the querying user would be exposed to risks associated with that automatic download and execution of content. Thus, the client MUST ask the querying user for confirmation before evaluating the web URL; the client MUST NOT download and evaluate the web content automatically.
由于评估网页可能涉及执行可能包含可执行代码的嵌入（或链接）内容，因此评估web URL涉及风险。如果要使用web链接的自动评估，查询用户将面临与自动下载和执行内容相关的风险。因此，客户机必须在评估web URL之前要求查询用户进行确认；客户端不得自动下载和评估web内容。
An analysis of threats specific to the dependence of ENUM on the DNS, (threats against which are covered in [14]) and the applicability of DNSSEC [13] to these, is provided in RFC 3761 [2].
RFC 3761[2]中提供了对特定于ENUM对DNS依赖性的威胁的分析（针对这些威胁的分析见[14]）以及DNSSEC[13]对这些威胁的适用性。
The IANA has registered Enumservice 'web' and 'ft' per the registration process defined in the ENUM specification [2].
IANA已按照ENUM规范[2]中定义的注册过程注册了Enumservice“web”和“ft”。
[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] Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)", RFC 3761, April 2004.
[2] Faltstrom，P.和M.Mealling，“E.164到统一资源标识符（URI）动态委托发现系统（DDDS）应用程序（ENUM）”，RFC 3761，2004年4月。
[3] ITU-T, "The International Public Telecommunication Number Plan", Recommendation E.164 , May 1997.
[3] ITU-T，“国际公共电信号码计划”，建议E.164，1997年5月。
[4] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[4] Mockapetris，P.，“域名-概念和设施”，STD 13，RFC 1034，1987年11月。
[5] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part One: The Comprehensive DDDS", RFC 3401, October 2002.
[5] Mealling，M，“动态委托发现系统（DDDS）第一部分：综合DDDS”，RFC 3401，2002年10月。
[6] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Two: The Algorithm", RFC 3402, October 2002.
[6] Mealling，M.，“动态委托发现系统（DDDS）第二部分：算法”，RFC3402，2002年10月。
[7] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database", RFC 3403, October 2002.
[7] Mealling，M.“动态委托发现系统（DDDS）第三部分：域名系统（DNS）数据库”，RFC3403，2002年10月。
[8] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Four: The Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)", RFC 3404, October 2002.
[8] Mealling，M.“动态委托发现系统（DDDS）第四部分：统一资源标识符（URI）”，RFC34042002年10月。
[9] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Five: URI.ARPA Assignment Procedures", BCP 65, RFC 3405, October 2002.
[9] Mealling，M.“动态委托发现系统（DDDS）第五部分：URI.ARPA分配程序”，BCP 65，RFC 3405，2002年10月。
[10] Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L., and M. McCahill, "Uniform Resource Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, December 1994.
[10] Berners Lee，T.，Masinter，L.，和M.McCahill，“统一资源定位器（URL）”，RFC 17381994年12月。
[11] 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.
[11] 菲尔丁，R.，盖蒂斯，J.，莫卧儿，J.，弗莱斯蒂克，H.，马斯特，L.，利奇，P.，和T.伯纳斯李，“超文本传输协议——HTTP/1.1”，RFC2616，1999年6月。
[12] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.
[12] Rescorla，E.，“TLS上的HTTP”，RFC 2818，2000年5月。
[13] Arends, R. and et al., "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", Work in Progress.
[13] Arends，R.和等人，“DNS安全扩展的协议修改”，正在进行中。
[14] Atkins, D. and R. Austein, "Threat Analysis of the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3833, August 2004.
[14] Atkins, D. and R. Austein, "Threat Analysis of the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3833, August 2004.translate error, please retry
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Rudolf Brandner Siemens AG Hofmannstr. 51 81359 Munich Germany
鲁道夫·布兰德纳西门子公司Hofmannstr。5181359德国慕尼黑
Phone: +49-89-722-51003
EMail: rudolf.brandner@siemens.com
Phone: +49-89-722-51003
EMail: rudolf.brandner@siemens.com
Lawrence Conroy Siemens Roke Manor Research Roke Manor Romsey United Kingdom
劳伦斯·康罗伊·西门子Roke Manor Research Roke Manor Romsey英国
Phone: +44-1794-833666
EMail: lwc@roke.co.uk
Phone: +44-1794-833666
EMail: lwc@roke.co.uk
Richard Stastny Oefeg Postbox 147 1103 Vienna Austria
Richard Stastny Oefeg邮箱147 1103奥地利维也纳
Phone: +43-664-420-4100
EMail: richard.stastny@oefeg.at
Phone: +43-664-420-4100
EMail: richard.stastny@oefeg.at
Full Copyright Statement
完整版权声明
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2005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。