Network Working Group N. Freed
Request for Comments: 4289 Sun Microsystems
BCP: 13 J. Klensin
Obsoletes: 2048 December 2005
Category: Best Current Practice
Network Working Group N. Freed
Request for Comments: 4289 Sun Microsystems
BCP: 13 J. Klensin
Obsoletes: 2048 December 2005
Category: Best Current Practice
Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration Procedures
多用途Internet邮件扩展（MIME）第四部分：注册程序
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 (2005).
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2005年）。
Abstract
摘要
This document specifies IANA registration procedures for MIME external body access types and content-transfer-encodings.
本文档规定了MIME外部主体访问类型和内容传输编码的IANA注册程序。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. External Body Access Types ......................................3
2.1. Registration Requirements ..................................3
2.1.1. Naming Requirements ...................................3
2.1.2. Mechanism Specification Requirements ..................3
2.1.3. Publication Requirements ..............................4
2.1.4. Security Requirements .................................4
2.2. Registration Procedure .....................................4
2.2.1. Present the Access Type to the Community ..............4
2.2.2. Access Type Reviewer ..................................4
2.2.3. IANA Registration .....................................5
2.3. Location of Registered Access Type List ....................5
2.4. IANA Procedures for Registering Access Types ...............5
3. Transfer Encodings ..............................................5
3.1. Transfer Encoding Requirements .............................6
3.1.1. Naming Requirements ...................................6
3.1.2. Algorithm Specification Requirements ..................6
3.1.3. Input Domain Requirements .............................6
3.1.4. Output Range Requirements .............................6
3.1.5. Data Integrity and Generality Requirements ............7
3.1.6. New Functionality Requirements ........................7
3.1.7. Security Requirements .................................7
3.2. Transfer Encoding Definition Procedure .....................7
3.3. IANA Procedures for Transfer Encoding Registration .........8
3.4. Location of Registered Transfer Encodings List .............8
4. Security Considerations .........................................8
5. IANA Considerations .............................................8
6. Acknowledgements ................................................8
7. References ......................................................9
A. Changes Since RFC 2048 .........................................9
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. External Body Access Types ......................................3
2.1. Registration Requirements ..................................3
2.1.1. Naming Requirements ...................................3
2.1.2. Mechanism Specification Requirements ..................3
2.1.3. Publication Requirements ..............................4
2.1.4. Security Requirements .................................4
2.2. Registration Procedure .....................................4
2.2.1. Present the Access Type to the Community ..............4
2.2.2. Access Type Reviewer ..................................4
2.2.3. IANA Registration .....................................5
2.3. Location of Registered Access Type List ....................5
2.4. IANA Procedures for Registering Access Types ...............5
3. Transfer Encodings ..............................................5
3.1. Transfer Encoding Requirements .............................6
3.1.1. Naming Requirements ...................................6
3.1.2. Algorithm Specification Requirements ..................6
3.1.3. Input Domain Requirements .............................6
3.1.4. Output Range Requirements .............................6
3.1.5. Data Integrity and Generality Requirements ............7
3.1.6. New Functionality Requirements ........................7
3.1.7. Security Requirements .................................7
3.2. Transfer Encoding Definition Procedure .....................7
3.3. IANA Procedures for Transfer Encoding Registration .........8
3.4. Location of Registered Transfer Encodings List .............8
4. Security Considerations .........................................8
5. IANA Considerations .............................................8
6. Acknowledgements ................................................8
7. References ......................................................9
A. Changes Since RFC 2048 .........................................9
Recent Internet protocols have been carefully designed to be easily extensible in certain areas. In particular, MIME [RFC2045] is an open-ended framework and can accommodate additional object types, charsets, and access methods without any changes to the basic protocol. A registration process is needed, however, to ensure that the set of such values is developed in an orderly, well-specified, and public manner.
最近的互联网协议经过精心设计，在某些领域易于扩展。特别是，MIME[RFC2045]是一个开放式框架，可以容纳其他对象类型、字符集和访问方法，而无需对基本协议进行任何更改。然而，需要一个注册过程来确保以有序、明确和公开的方式开发这组值。
This document defines registration procedures that use the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) as a central registry for these values.
本文件定义了使用互联网分配号码管理局（IANA）作为这些值的中央注册表的注册程序。
Note:
注:
Registration of media types and charsets for use in MIME are specified in separate documents [RFC4288] [RFC2978] and are not addressed here.
MIME中使用的媒体类型和字符集的注册在单独的文档[RFC4288][RFC2978]中有规定，此处没有说明。
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 [RFC2119].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“必需”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照[RFC2119]中所述进行解释。
[RFC2046] defines the message/external-body media type, whereby a MIME entity can act as pointer to the actual body data in lieu of including the data directly in the entity body. Each message/external-body reference specifies an access type, which determines the mechanism used to retrieve the actual body data. RFC 2046 defines an initial set of access types but allows for the registration of additional access types to accommodate new retrieval mechanisms.
[RFC2046]定义消息/外部主体媒体类型，MIME实体可以作为指向实际主体数据的指针，而不是直接将数据包含在实体主体中。每个message/external body引用指定一个访问类型，该类型确定用于检索实际body数据的机制。RFC 2046定义了一组初始访问类型，但允许注册其他访问类型以适应新的检索机制。
New access type specifications MUST conform to the requirements described below.
新的接入类型规范必须符合以下要求。
Each access type MUST have a unique name. This name appears in the access-type parameter in the message/external-body content-type header field and MUST conform to MIME content type parameter syntax.
每个访问类型必须具有唯一的名称。此名称出现在消息/外部正文内容类型标题字段的访问类型参数中，并且必须符合MIME内容类型参数语法。
All of the protocols, transports, and procedures used by a given access type MUST be described, either in the specification of the access type itself or in some other publicly available specification, in sufficient detail for the access type to be implemented by any competent implementor. Use of secret and/or proprietary methods in access types is expressly prohibited. The restrictions imposed by [RFC2026] on the standardization of patented algorithms must be respected as well.
给定访问类型使用的所有协议、传输和过程必须在访问类型本身的规范或其他一些公开可用的规范中进行详细描述，以便任何有能力的实现者实现该访问类型。明确禁止在访问类型中使用秘密和/或专有方法。[RFC2026]对专利算法标准化的限制也必须得到尊重。
All access types MUST be described by an RFC. The RFC may be informational rather than standards-track, although standards-track review and approval are encouraged for all access types.
所有访问类型必须由RFC描述。RFC可能是信息性的，而不是标准跟踪，尽管鼓励对所有访问类型进行标准跟踪审查和批准。
Any known security issues that arise from the use of the access type MUST be completely and fully described. It is not required that the access type be secure or that it be free from risks, but it is required that the known risks be identified. Publication of a new access type does not require an exhaustive security review, and the security considerations section is subject to continuing evaluation. Additional security considerations SHOULD be addressed by publishing revised versions of the access type specification.
必须完整完整地描述因使用访问类型而产生的任何已知安全问题。不要求访问类型安全或无风险，但要求识别已知风险。发布新的访问类型不需要进行详尽的安全审查，安全注意事项部分需要持续评估。应通过发布访问类型规范的修订版本来解决其他安全注意事项。
Registration of a new access type starts with the publication of the specification as an Internet Draft.
新访问类型的注册从规范作为互联网草案发布开始。
A proposed access type specification is sent to the "ietf-types@iana.org" mailing list for a two-week review period. This mailing list has been established for the purpose of reviewing proposed access and media types. Proposed access types are not formally registered and must not be used.
建议的访问类型规范发送至“ietf”-types@iana.org“两周审查期的邮件列表。建立此邮件列表是为了审查提议的访问和媒体类型。提议的访问类型未正式注册，不得使用。
The intent of the public posting is to solicit comments and feedback on the access type specification and a review of any security considerations.
公开发布的目的是征求关于访问类型规范的意见和反馈，并审查任何安全考虑。
When the two-week period has passed, the access type reviewer, who is appointed by the IETF Applications Area Director(s), either forwards the request to iana@iana.org or rejects it because of significant objections raised on the list.
两周后，IETF应用领域主管指定的访问类型审查员将请求转发给iana@iana.org或者因为名单上提出的重大反对意见而拒绝。
Decisions made by the reviewer must be posted to the ietf-types mailing list within 14 days. Decisions made by the reviewer may be appealed to the IESG as specified in [RFC2026].
评审员做出的决定必须在14天内发布到ietf类型邮件列表中。根据[RFC2026]的规定，评审员做出的决定可向IESG提出上诉。
Provided that the access type either has passed review or has been successfully appealed to the IESG, the IANA will register the access type and make the registration available to the community. The specification of the access type must also be published as an RFC.
如果访问类型已通过审查或已成功向IESG上诉，IANA将注册访问类型并向社区提供注册。访问类型的规范也必须作为RFC发布。
Access type registrations are listed by the IANA on the following web page:
IANA在以下网页上列出了访问类型注册：
http://www.iana.org/assignments/access-types
http://www.iana.org/assignments/access-types
The identity of the access type reviewer is communicated to the IANA by the IESG. The IANA then only acts either in response to access type definitions that are approved by the access type reviewer and forwarded to the IANA for registration, or in response to a communication from the IESG that an access type definition appeal has overturned the access type reviewer's ruling.
访问类型审核人的身份由IESG传达给IANA。然后，IANA仅在响应由访问类型审核人批准并转发给IANA注册的访问类型定义时，或在响应IESG发出的访问类型定义上诉推翻访问类型审核人裁决的通知时才采取行动。
Transfer encodings are transformations applied to MIME media types after conversion to the media type's canonical form. Transfer encodings are used for several purposes:
传输编码是在转换为媒体类型的规范形式后应用于MIME媒体类型的转换。传输编码有多种用途：
o Many transports, especially message transports, can only handle data consisting of relatively short lines of text. There can be severe restrictions on what characters can be used in these lines of text. Some transports are restricted to a small subset of US-ASCII, and others cannot handle certain character sequences. Transfer encodings are used to transform binary data into a textual form that can survive such transports. Examples of this sort of transfer encoding include the base64 and quoted-printable transfer encodings defined in [RFC2045].
o 许多传输，尤其是消息传输，只能处理由相对较短的文本行组成的数据。在这些文本行中可以使用哪些字符可能有严格的限制。一些传输仅限于US-ASCII的一小部分，而其他传输无法处理某些字符序列。传输编码用于将二进制数据转换为文本形式，以便在这种传输中幸存下来。此类传输编码的示例包括[RFC2045]中定义的base64和引用的可打印传输编码。
o Image, audio, video, and even application entities are sometimes quite large. Compression algorithms are often effective in reducing the size of large entities. Transfer encodings can be used to apply general-purpose non-lossy compression algorithms to MIME entities.
o 图像、音频、视频甚至应用程序实体有时都相当大。压缩算法通常能有效地减小大型实体的大小。传输编码可用于将通用无损耗压缩算法应用于MIME实体。
o Transport encodings can be defined as a means of representing existing encoding formats in a MIME context.
o 传输编码可以定义为在MIME上下文中表示现有编码格式的一种方法。
IMPORTANT: The standardization of a large number of different transfer encodings is seen as a significant barrier to widespread interoperability and is expressly discouraged. Nevertheless, the following procedure has been defined in order to provide a means of defining additional transfer encodings, should standardization actually be justified.
重要提示：大量不同传输编码的标准化被视为广泛互操作性的一个重要障碍，并被明确禁止。尽管如此，如果标准化是合理的，为了提供定义附加传输编码的方法，定义了以下程序。
Transfer encoding specifications MUST conform to the requirements described below.
传输编码规范必须符合下述要求。
Each transfer encoding MUST have a unique name. This name appears in the Content-Transfer-Encoding header field and MUST conform to the syntax of that field.
每个传输编码必须具有唯一的名称。此名称出现在内容传输编码标题字段中，并且必须符合该字段的语法。
All of the algorithms used in a transfer encoding (e.g., conversion to printable form, compression) MUST be described in their entirety in the transfer encoding specification. Use of secret and/or
传输编码规范中必须完整描述传输编码中使用的所有算法（例如，转换为可打印形式、压缩）。使用秘密和/或
proprietary algorithms in standardized transfer encodings is expressly prohibited. The restrictions imposed by [RFC2026] on the standardization of patented algorithms MUST be respected as well.
明确禁止标准化传输编码中的专有算法。[RFC2026]对专利算法标准化的限制也必须得到尊重。
All transfer encodings MUST be applicable to an arbitrary sequence of octets of any length. Dependence on particular input forms is not allowed.
所有传输编码必须适用于任意长度的八位字节的任意序列。不允许依赖特定的输入表单。
It should be noted that the 7bit and 8bit encodings do not conform to this requirement. Aside from the undesirability of having specialized encodings, the intent here is to forbid the addition of additional encodings similar to, or redundant with, 7bit and 8bit.
应注意，7位和8位编码不符合此要求。除了不希望有专门的编码之外，这里的目的是禁止添加类似于7位和8位的额外编码，或与7位和8位冗余的额外编码。
There is no requirement that a particular transfer encoding produce a particular form of encoded output. However, the output format for each transfer encoding MUST be fully and completely documented. In particular, each specification MUST clearly state whether the output format always lies within the confines of 7bit or 8bit or is simply pure binary data.
不要求特定的传输编码产生特定形式的编码输出。但是，必须完整记录每个传输编码的输出格式。特别是，每个规范必须清楚地说明输出格式是否总是在7位或8位的范围内，或者仅仅是纯二进制数据。
All transfer encodings MUST be fully invertible on any platform; it MUST be possible for anyone to recover the original data by performing the corresponding decoding operation. Note that this requirement effectively excludes all forms of lossy compression as well as all forms of encryption from use as a transfer encoding.
所有传输编码必须在任何平台上完全可逆；任何人都必须能够通过执行相应的解码操作来恢复原始数据。请注意，此要求有效地排除了所有形式的有损压缩以及所有形式的加密作为传输编码使用。
All transfer encodings MUST provide some sort of new functionality. Some degree of functionality overlap with previously defined transfer encodings is acceptable, but any new transfer encoding MUST also offer something no other transfer encoding provides.
所有传输编码必须提供某种新功能。与先前定义的传输编码有一定程度的功能重叠是可以接受的，但任何新的传输编码也必须提供其他传输编码无法提供的功能。
To the greatest extent possible, transfer encodings SHOULD NOT contain known security issues. Regardless, any known security issues that arise from the use of the transfer encoding MUST be completely and fully described. If additional security issues come to light after initial publication and registration, they SHOULD be addressed by publishing revised versions of the transfer encoding specification.
在最大可能的范围内，传输编码不应包含已知的安全问题。无论如何，必须完整完整地描述因使用传输编码而产生的任何已知安全问题。如果在初次发布和注册后发现了其他安全问题，则应通过发布传输编码规范的修订版本来解决这些问题。
Definition of a new transfer encoding starts with the publication of the specification as an Internet Draft. The draft MUST define the transfer encoding precisely and completely, and it MUST also provide substantial justification for defining and standardizing a new transfer encoding. This specification MUST then be presented to the IESG for consideration. The IESG can:
新传输编码的定义从规范作为互联网草案发布开始。草案必须准确、完整地定义传输编码，还必须为定义和标准化新的传输编码提供充分的理由。然后，必须将本规范提交给IESG考虑。IESG可以：
o reject the specification outright as being inappropriate for standardization,
o 完全拒绝该规范，因为该规范不适合标准化，
o assign the specification to an existing IETF working group for further work,
o 将规范分配给现有IETF工作组进行进一步工作，
o approve the formation of an IETF working group to work on the specification in accordance with IETF procedures, or
o 批准成立IETF工作组，根据IETF程序制定规范，或
o accept the specification as-is for processing as an individual standards-track submission.
o 按原样接受规范，作为单独的标准跟踪提交进行处理。
Transfer encoding specifications on the standards track follow normal IETF rules for standards-track documents. A transfer encoding is
标准轨道上的传输编码规范遵循标准轨道文档的正常IETF规则。传输编码是
considered to be defined and available for use once it is on the standards track.
被认为是定义的，一旦进入标准轨道即可使用。
There is no need for a special procedure for registering Transfer Encodings with the IANA. All legitimate transfer encoding registrations MUST appear as a standards-track RFC, so it is the IESG's responsibility to notify the IANA when a new transfer encoding has been approved.
向IANA注册传输编码不需要特殊程序。所有合法的传输编码注册必须显示为标准跟踪RFC，因此IESG有责任在新传输编码获得批准时通知IANA。
The list of transfer encoding registrations can be found at:
传输编码注册列表可在以下位置找到：
http://www.iana.org/assignments/transfer-encodings
http://www.iana.org/assignments/transfer-encodings
Security requirements for access types are discussed in Section 2.1.4. Security requirements for transfer encodings are discussed in Section 3.1.7.
第2.1.4节讨论了访问类型的安全要求。第3.1.7节讨论了传输编码的安全要求。
The sole purpose of this document is to define IANA registries for access types and transfer encodings. The IANA procedures for these registries are specified in Section 2.4 and Section 3.3 respectively.
本文档的唯一目的是为访问类型和传输编码定义IANA注册表。第2.4节和第3.3节分别规定了这些登记处的IANA程序。
The current authors would like to acknowledge their debt to the late Dr. Jon Postel, whose general model of IANA registration procedures and specific contributions shaped the predecessors of this document [RFC2048]. We hope that the current version is one with which he would have agreed but, as it is impossible to verify that agreement, we have regretfully removed his name as a co-author.
目前的作者要感谢已故的Jon Postel博士，他的IANA注册程序的一般模型和具体贡献形成了本文件的前身[RFC2048]。我们希望目前的版本是他本会同意的版本，但由于无法核实这一协议，我们遗憾地删除了他作为合著者的姓名。
[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
[RFC2045]Freed，N.和N.Borenstein，“多用途Internet邮件扩展（MIME）第一部分：Internet邮件正文格式”，RFC 20451996年11月。
[RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, November 1996.
[RFC2046]Freed，N.和N.Borenstein，“多用途Internet邮件扩展（MIME）第二部分：媒体类型”，RFC 20461996年11月。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
[RFC4288] Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4288, December 2005.
[RFC4288]Freed，N.和J.Klensin，“介质类型规范和注册程序”，BCP 13，RFC 4288，2005年12月。
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2026]Bradner，S.，“互联网标准过程——第3版”，BCP 9，RFC 2026，1996年10月。
[RFC2048] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and J. Postel, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 2048, November 1996.
[RFC2048]Freed，N.，Klensin，J.和J.Postel，“多用途互联网邮件扩展（MIME）第四部分：注册程序”，BCP 13，RFC 2048，1996年11月。
[RFC2978] Freed, N. and J. Postel, "IANA Charset Registration Procedures", BCP 19, RFC 2978, October 2000.
[RFC2978]Freed，N.和J.Postel，“IANA字符集注册程序”，BCP 19，RFC 2978，2000年10月。
o Media type registration procedures are now described in a separate document [RFC4288].
o 介质类型注册程序现在在单独的文档[RFC4288]中描述。
o The various URLs and addresses in this document have been changed so they all refer to iana.org rather than isi.edu. Additionally, many of the URLs have been changed to use HTTP; formerly they used FTP.
o 本文档中的各种URL和地址已更改，因此它们都指向iana.org而不是isi.edu。此外，许多URL已更改为使用HTTP；以前他们使用FTP。
o Much of the document has been clarified in the light of operational experience with these procedures.
o 根据这些程序的运行经验，文件的大部分内容已得到澄清。
o Several of the references in this document have been updated to refer to current versions of the relevant specifications.
o 本文件中的几个参考文件已更新，以参考相关规范的当前版本。
o The option of assigning the task of working on a new transfer encoding to an existing working group has been added to the list of possible actions the IESG can take.
o 将新传输编码工作任务分配给现有工作组的选项已添加到IESG可采取的可能行动列表中。
o Security considerations and IANA considerations sections have been added.
o 增加了安全注意事项和IANA注意事项部分。
o Registration of charsets for use in MIME is specified in [RFC2978] and is no longer addressed by this document.
o [RFC2978]中规定了在MIME中使用的字符集注册，本文档不再对此进行说明。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Ned Freed Sun Microsystems 3401 Centrelake Drive, Suite 410 Ontario, CA 92761-1205 USA
Ned Freed Sun Microsystems 3401 Centrelake Drive，美国加利福尼亚州安大略省410号套房92761-1205
Phone: +1 909 457 4293
EMail: ned.freed@mrochek.com
Phone: +1 909 457 4293
EMail: ned.freed@mrochek.com
John C. Klensin 1770 Massachusetts Ave, #322 Cambridge, MA 02140
马萨诸塞州剑桥322号马萨诸塞大道1770号约翰·C·克伦辛，邮编：02140
EMail: klensin+ietf@jck.com
EMail: klensin+ietf@jck.com
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 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。