Network Working Group B. Fenner
Request for Comments: 4727 AT&T Labs - Research
Category: Standards Track November 2006
Network Working Group B. Fenner
Request for Comments: 4727 AT&T Labs - Research
Category: Standards Track November 2006
Experimental Values in IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers
IPv4、IPv6、ICMPv4、ICMPv6、UDP和TCP标头中的实验值
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 IETF Trust (2006).
版权所有（C）IETF信托基金（2006年）。
Abstract
摘要
When experimenting with or extending protocols, it is often necessary to use some sort of protocol number or constant in order to actually test or experiment with the new function, even when testing in a closed environment. This document reserves some ranges of numbers for experimentation purposes in specific protocols where the need to support experimentation has been identified, and it describes the numbers that have already been reserved by other documents.
在试验或扩展协议时，通常需要使用某种协议编号或常量，以便实际测试或试验新功能，即使在封闭环境中进行测试时也是如此。本文件为特定协议中的实验目的保留了一定范围的数字，其中确定了支持实验的需要，并描述了其他文件已经保留的数字。
[RFC3692] recommends assigning option numbers for experiments and testing. This document documents several such assignments for the number spaces whose IANA considerations are documented in [RFC2780]. This document generally follows the form of [RFC2780].
[RFC3692]建议为实验和测试分配选项编号。本文件记录了[RFC2780]中记录的IANA注意事项的数字空间的若干此类分配。本文件一般采用[RFC2780]的格式。
When using these values, carefully consider the advice in Sections 1 and 1.1 of [RFC3692]. It is not appropriate to simply select one of these values and hard code it into a system.
在使用这些值时，仔细考虑[RCF3692]第1和第1.1节中的建议。简单地选择其中一个值并将其硬编码到系统中是不合适的。
Note: while [RFC3692] says that it may not be necessary to allocate values for UDP and TCP ports, Sections 6 and 7.1 explicitly reserve ports for this purpose to avoid any possible conflict.
注：虽然[RFC3692]指出可能不需要为UDP和TCP端口分配值，但第6节和第7.1节明确为此保留端口，以避免任何可能的冲突。
The IPv4 header [RFC0791] contains the following fields that carry values assigned by the IANA: Version, Type of Service, Protocol, Source Address, Destination Address, and Option Type.
IPv4标头[RFC0791]包含以下字段，这些字段携带IANA分配的值：版本、服务类型、协议、源地址、目标地址和选项类型。
The Version field in IPv4 packets is always 4.
IPv4数据包中的版本字段始终为4。
[RFC2474] defines Pool 2 (all code points xxxx11, where 'x' refers to either '0' or '1') as Experimental/Local Use, so no additional code points should be needed. The Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) field [RFC3168] has no free code points to assign.
[RFC2474]将池2（所有代码点XX11，其中“x”表示“0”或“1”）定义为实验/本地使用，因此不需要额外的代码点。显式拥塞通知（ECN）字段[RFC3168]没有可分配的可用代码点。
[RFC3692] allocates two experimental code points (253 and 254) for the IPv4 Protocol field.
[RFC3692]为IPv4协议字段分配两个实验代码点（253和254）。
No experimental IPv4 addresses are defined. For certain experiments, the address ranges set aside for Private Internets in [RFC1918] may be useful. It is not appropriate to use other special-purpose IPv4 addresses [RFC3330] for experimentation.
没有定义实验性IPv4地址。对于某些实验，[RFC1918]中为私人互联网预留的地址范围可能有用。不适合使用其他专用IPv4地址[RFC3330]进行实验。
At the time of this writing, some Internet Registries have policies allowing experimental assignments from number spaces that they control. Depending on the experiment, the registry, and their policy, this may be an appropriate path to pursue.
在撰写本文时，一些互联网注册中心制定了允许从其控制的数字空间进行实验性分配的政策。根据实验、注册中心和他们的政策，这可能是一条合适的途径。
The globally routable group 224.0.1.20 is set aside for experimentation. For certain experiments, the administratively scoped multicast groups defined in [RFC2365] may be useful. This document assigns a single link-local scoped group, 224.0.0.254, and a single scope-relative group, 254.
全球可路由组224.0.1.20留作实验之用。对于某些实验，[RFC2365]中定义的管理范围的多播组可能有用。本文档分配一个单链接本地作用域组224.0.0.254和一个单作用域相对组254。
This document assigns a single option number, with all defined values of the "copy" and "class" fields, resulting in four distinct option type codes. See Section 8 for the assigned values.
本文档指定一个选项编号，以及“复制”和“类别”字段的所有定义值，从而产生四个不同的选项类型代码。有关指定值，请参见第8节。
The IPv6 header [RFC2460] contains the following fields that carry values assigned from IANA-managed name spaces: Version, Traffic Class, Next Header, Source and Destination Address. In addition, the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options and Destination Options extension headers include an Option Type field with values assigned from an IANA-managed name space. The IPv6 Routing Header contains a Type field for which there is not currently an explicit IANA assignment policy.
IPv6标头[RFC2460]包含以下字段，这些字段携带从IANA管理的名称空间分配的值：版本、流量类别、下一个标头、源地址和目标地址。此外，IPv6逐跳选项和目标选项扩展标头包含一个选项类型字段，其中的值是从IANA管理的名称空间分配的。IPv6路由标头包含当前没有明确IANA分配策略的类型字段。
The Version field in IPv6 packets is always 6.
IPv6数据包中的版本字段始终为6。
[RFC2474] defines Pool 2 (all code points xxxx11, where 'x' refers to either '0' or '1') as Experimental/Local Use, so no additional code points should be needed. The ECN field [RFC3168] has no free code points to assign.
[RFC2474]将池2（所有代码点XX11，其中“x”表示“0”或“1”）定义为实验/本地使用，因此不需要额外的代码点。ECN字段[RFC3168]没有可分配的自由代码点。
[RFC3692] allocates two experimental code points (253 and 254) for the IPv6 Next Header field.
[RFC3692]为IPv6下一个报头字段分配两个实验代码点（253和254）。
[RFC2928] defines a set of IPv6 addresses for testing and experimental usage:
[RFC2928]定义了一组用于测试和实验用途的IPv6地址：
The block of Sub-TLA IDs assigned to the IANA (i.e., 2001:0000::/29 - 2001:01F8::/29) is for assignment for testing and experimental usage to support activities such as the 6bone, and for new approaches like exchanges.
分配给IANA的子TLA ID块（即，2001:0000:：/29-2001:01F8:：/29）用于测试和实验使用，以支持活动（如6bone）和新方法（如交换）。
However, at this writing, there are no RFC3692-style experimental IPv6 addresses assigned. [HUSTON05] creates an IANA registry that may in the future contain such assignments. For certain experiments, Unique Local Addresses [RFC4193] may be useful. It is not appropriate to use addresses in the documentation prefix [RFC3849] for experimentation.
然而，在撰写本文时，没有分配RFC3692样式的实验IPv6地址。[HUSTON05]创建一个IANA注册表，该注册表将来可能包含此类分配。对于某些实验，唯一的本地地址[RFC4193]可能有用。使用文档前缀[RFC3849]中的地址进行实验是不合适的。
At the time of this writing, some Internet Registries have policies allowing experimental assignments from number spaces that they control. Depending on the experiment, the registry, and their policy, this may be an appropriate path to pursue.
在撰写本文时，一些互联网注册中心制定了允许从其控制的数字空间进行实验性分配的政策。根据实验、注册中心和他们的政策，这可能是一条合适的途径。
The group FF0X::114 is set aside for experimentation at all scope levels. Smaller scopes may be particularly useful for experimentation, since they are defined not to leak out of a given defined boundary, which can be set to be the boundary of the experiment. For certain experiments, other multicast addresses with the T (non-permanently-assigned or "transient" address) bit [RFC4291] set may be useful.
FF0X:：114组被预留用于所有范围级别的实验。较小的范围可能对实验特别有用，因为它们被定义为不会泄漏出给定的定义边界，该边界可以设置为实验的边界。对于某些实验，设置了T（非永久分配或“瞬时”地址）位[RFC4291]的其他多播地址可能有用。
This document assigns a single option type, with all possible values of the "act" and "chg" fields, resulting in eight distinct option type codes. See Section 8 for the assigned values.
本文档指定一个选项类型，包含“act”和“chg”字段的所有可能值，从而生成八个不同的选项类型代码。有关指定值，请参见第8节。
This document assigns two values for the Routing Type field in the IPv6 Routing Header, 253 and 254.
本文档为IPv6路由标头中的路由类型字段分配两个值253和254。
This document assigns two ICMPv4 type numbers, 253 and 254. ICMPv4 code values are allocated per type, so it's not feasible to assign experimental values in this document.
本文件指定了两个ICMPv4类型编号253和254。ICMPv4代码值是按类型分配的，因此在本文档中分配实验值是不可行的。
[RFC4443] includes experimental ICMPv6 type values for Informational (200, 201) and Error (100, 101) message types. ICMPv6 code values are allocated per type, so it's not feasible to assign experimental values in this document.
[RFC4443]包括信息（200201）和错误（100101）消息类型的实验ICMPv6类型值。ICMPv6代码值是按类型分配的，因此在本文档中分配实验值是不可行的。
The IPv6 Neighbor Discovery header [RFC2461] contains the following fields that carry values assigned from IANA-managed name spaces: Type, Code, and Option Type.
IPv6邻居发现标头[RFC2461]包含以下字段，这些字段携带从IANA托管名称空间分配的值：类型、代码和选项类型。
The Neighbor Discovery Type field is the same as the ICMPv6 Type field. See Section 5 for those code points.
邻居发现类型字段与ICMPv6类型字段相同。有关这些代码点，请参见第5节。
The ICMPv6 Code field is not used in IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, so no experimental code points are necessary.
IPv6邻居发现中未使用ICMPv6代码字段，因此不需要实验代码点。
This document assigns two IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Types, 253 and 254.
本文档指定了两种IPv6邻居发现选项类型253和254。
Two system ports, 1021 and 1022, have been reserved for experimentation for UDP and TCP.
两个系统端口1021和1022已预留用于UDP和TCP的实验。
Two system ports, 1021 and 1022, have been reserved for experimentation for UDP and TCP.
两个系统端口1021和1022已预留用于UDP和TCP的实验。
There are not enough reserved bits to allocate any for experimentation.
没有足够的保留位来分配任何用于实验的位。
Two TCP options, 253 and 254, have been reserved for experimentation with TCP Options.
两个TCP选项253和254已保留用于TCP选项的实验。
The new assignments are summarized below.
新的作业总结如下。
IPv4 Multicast Addresses (multicast-addresses (224.0.0/24) Local Network Control Block section) (Section 2.4.2)
IPv4多播地址（多播地址（224.0.0/24）本地网络控制块部分）（第2.4.2节）
Group Address Name
------------- ----------------------------
224.0.0.254 RFC3692-style Experiment (*)
Group Address Name
------------- ----------------------------
224.0.0.254 RFC3692-style Experiment (*)
IPv4 Multicast Addresses (multicast-addresses relative addresses section) (Section 2.4.2)
IPv4多播地址（多播地址相对地址部分）（第2.4.2节）
Relative Description
-------- ----------------------------
254 RFC3692-style Experiment (*)
Relative Description
-------- ----------------------------
254 RFC3692-style Experiment (*)
IPv4 Option Numbers (ip-parameters initial section) (Section 2.5)
IPv4选项编号（ip参数初始部分）（第2.5节）
Copy Class Number Value
---- ----- ------ -----
0 0 30 30
0 2 30 94
1 0 30 158
1 2 30 222
Copy Class Number Value
---- ----- ------ -----
0 0 30 30
0 2 30 94
1 0 30 158
1 2 30 222
IPv6 Option Types (ipv6-parameters Section 5.b.) (Section 3.5)
IPv6选项类型（IPv6参数第5.b节）（第3.5节）
HEX act chg rest
---- --- --- -----
0x1e 00 0 11110
0x3e 00 1 11110
0x5e 01 0 11110
0x7e 01 1 11110
0x9e 10 0 11110
0xbe 10 1 11110
0xde 11 0 11110
0xfe 11 1 11110
HEX act chg rest
---- --- --- -----
0x1e 00 0 11110
0x3e 00 1 11110
0x5e 01 0 11110
0x7e 01 1 11110
0x9e 10 0 11110
0xbe 10 1 11110
0xde 11 0 11110
0xfe 11 1 11110
IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Formats (icmpv6-parameters) (Section 5.1.3)
IPv6邻居发现选项格式（icmpv6参数）（第5.1.3节）
Type Description
---- ------------------------------
253 RFC3692-style Experiment 1 (*)
254 RFC3692-style Experiment 2 (*)
Type Description
---- ------------------------------
253 RFC3692-style Experiment 1 (*)
254 RFC3692-style Experiment 2 (*)
IPv6 Routing Header Routing Types (ipv6-parameters Section 5.c.) (Section 3.6)
IPv6路由头路由类型（IPv6参数第5.c节）（第3.6节）
Type Description
---- ------------------------------
253 RFC3692-style Experiment 1 (*)
254 RFC3692-style Experiment 2 (*)
Type Description
---- ------------------------------
253 RFC3692-style Experiment 1 (*)
254 RFC3692-style Experiment 2 (*)
ICMPv4 Type Numbers (icmp-parameters) (Section 4)
ICMPv4类型编号（icmp参数）（第4节）
Type Name
---- ------------------------------
253 RFC3692-style Experiment 1 (*)
254 RFC3692-style Experiment 2 (*)
Type Name
---- ------------------------------
253 RFC3692-style Experiment 1 (*)
254 RFC3692-style Experiment 2 (*)
System Port Numbers (port-numbers) (Sections 6 and 7.1)
系统端口号（端口号）（第6节和第7.1节）
Keyword Decimal Description
------- -------- ------------------------------
exp1 1021/udp RFC3692-style Experiment 1 (*)
exp1 1021/tcp RFC3692-style Experiment 1 (*)
exp2 1022/udp RFC3692-style Experiment 2 (*)
exp2 1022/tcp RFC3692-style Experiment 2 (*)
Keyword Decimal Description
------- -------- ------------------------------
exp1 1021/udp RFC3692-style Experiment 1 (*)
exp1 1021/tcp RFC3692-style Experiment 1 (*)
exp2 1022/udp RFC3692-style Experiment 2 (*)
exp2 1022/tcp RFC3692-style Experiment 2 (*)
TCP Option Numbers (tcp-parameters) (Section 7.3)
TCP选项编号（TCP参数）（第7.3节）
Kind Length Meaning
---- ------ ------------------------------
253 N RFC3692-style Experiment 1 (*)
254 N RFC3692-style Experiment 2 (*)
Kind Length Meaning
---- ------ ------------------------------
253 N RFC3692-style Experiment 1 (*)
254 N RFC3692-style Experiment 2 (*)
Each of these registrations is accompanied by the following footnote:
每项注册均附有以下脚注：
(*) It is only appropriate to use these values in explicitly-configured experiments; they MUST NOT be shipped as defaults in implementations. See RFC 3692 for details.
（*）仅适用于在明确配置的实验中使用这些值；它们在实现中不能作为默认值提供。详见RFC 3692。
Production networks do not necessarily support the use of experimental code points in IP headers. The network scope of support for experimental values should carefully be evaluated before deploying any experiment across extended network domains, such as the public Internet. The potential to disrupt the stable operation of the network hosting the experiment through the use of unsupported experimental code points is a serious consideration when planning an experiment using such code points.
生产网络不一定支持在IP头中使用实验性代码点。在跨扩展网络域（如公共互联网）部署任何实验之前，应仔细评估实验值的网络支持范围。在规划使用此类代码点的实验时，通过使用不受支持的实验代码点来中断承载实验的网络的稳定运行的可能性是一个重要的考虑因素。
Security analyzers such as firewalls and network intrusion detection monitors often rely on unambiguous interpretations of the fields described in this memo. As new values for the fields are assigned, existing security analyzers that do not understand the new values may fail, resulting in either loss of connectivity, if the analyzer declines to forward the unrecognized traffic, or in loss of security if it does forward the traffic and the new values are used as part of an attack. Assigning known values for experiments can allow such analyzers to take a known action for explicitly experimental traffic.
防火墙和网络入侵检测监视器等安全分析器通常依赖于本备忘录中所述字段的明确解释。在为字段分配新值时，不了解新值的现有安全分析器可能会失败，如果分析器拒绝转发未识别的流量，则会导致连接丢失；如果确实转发了流量，并且新值被用作攻击的一部分，则会导致安全性丧失。为实验指定已知值可以允许此类分析器对明确的实验流量采取已知操作。
Because the experimental IPv4 options defined in Section 2.5 are not included in the IPsec AH [RFC4302] calculations, it is not possible for one to authenticate their use. Experimenters ought to keep this in mind when designing their experiments. Users of the experimental IPv6 options defined in Section 3.5 can choose whether or not the option is included in the AH calculations by choosing the value of the "chg" field.
由于第2.5节中定义的实验性IPv4选项未包含在IPsec AH[RFC4302]计算中，因此无法验证其使用情况。实验者在设计实验时应该牢记这一点。第3.5节中定义的实验性IPv6选项的用户可以通过选择“chg”字段的值来选择该选项是否包含在AH计算中。
When experimental code points are deployed within an administratively self-contained network domain, the network administrators should ensure that each code point is used consistently to avoid interference between experiments. When experimental code points are used in traffic that crosses multiple administrative domains, the
当在管理上自包含的网络域中部署实验代码点时，网络管理员应确保一致使用每个代码点，以避免实验之间的干扰。在跨多个管理域的流量中使用实验性代码点时
experimenters should assume that there is a risk that the same code points will be used simultaneously by other experiments and thus that there is a possibility that the experiments will interfere. Particular attention should be given to security threats that such interference might create.
实验者应该假设存在一种风险，即相同的代码点将被其他实验同时使用，因此实验可能会产生干扰。应特别注意这种干扰可能造成的安全威胁。
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981.
[RFC0791]Postel，J.，“互联网协议”，STD 5，RFC 7911981年9月。
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G., and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
[RFC1918]Rekhter，Y.，Moskowitz，B.，Karrenberg，D.，de Groot，G.，和E.Lear，“私人互联网地址分配”，BCP 5，RFC 1918，1996年2月。
[RFC2365] Meyer, D., "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", BCP 23, RFC 2365, July 1998.
[RFC2365]Meyer，D.，“管理范围的IP多播”，BCP 23，RFC 2365，1998年7月。
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC2460]Deering，S.和R.Hinden，“互联网协议，第6版（IPv6）规范”，RFC 2460，1998年12月。
[RFC2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998.
[RFC2461]Narten，T.，Nordmark，E.，和W.Simpson，“IP版本6（IPv6）的邻居发现”，RFC2461，1998年12月。
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December 1998.
[RFC2474]Nichols，K.，Blake，S.，Baker，F.，和D.Black，“IPv4和IPv6头中区分服务字段（DS字段）的定义”，RFC 2474，1998年12月。
[RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers", BCP 37, RFC 2780, March 2000.
[RFC2780]Bradner，S.和V.Paxson，“互联网协议和相关报头中值的IANA分配指南”，BCP 37，RFC 2780，2000年3月。
[RFC2928] Hinden, R., Deering, S., Fink, R., and T. Hain, "Initial IPv6 Sub-TLA ID Assignments", RFC 2928, September 2000.
[RFC2928]Hinden，R.，Deering，S.，Fink，R.，和T.Hain，“初始IPv6子TLA ID分配”，RFC 29282000年9月。
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 3168, September 2001.
[RFC3168]Ramakrishnan，K.，Floyd，S.，和D.Black，“向IP添加显式拥塞通知（ECN）”，RFC 3168，2001年9月。
[RFC3330] IANA, "Special-Use IPv4 Addresses", RFC 3330, September 2002.
[RFC3330]IANA，“特殊用途IPv4地址”，RFC33302002年9月。
[RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004.
[RFC3692]Narten，T.，“分配被认为有用的实验和测试数字”，BCP 82，RFC 3692，2004年1月。
[RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, July 2004.
[RFC3849]Huston，G.，Lord，A.，和P.Smith，“为文档保留IPv6地址前缀”，RFC 3849，2004年7月。
[RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005.
[RFC4193]Hinden，R.和B.Haberman，“唯一本地IPv6单播地址”，RFC 41932005年10月。
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
[RFC4291]Hinden，R.和S.Deering，“IP版本6寻址体系结构”，RFC 42912006年2月。
[RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, December 2005.
[RFC4302]Kent，S.，“IP认证头”，RFC43022005年12月。
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.
[RFC4443]Conta，A.，Deering，S.和M.Gupta，“互联网协议版本6（IPv6）规范的互联网控制消息协议（ICMPv6）”，RFC 4443，2006年3月。
[HUSTON05] Huston, G., "Administration of the IANA Special Purpose Address Block", Work in Progress, December 2005.
[HUSTON05]Huston，G.，“IANA专用地址块的管理”，正在进行的工作，2005年12月。
Author's Address
作者地址
Bill Fenner AT&T Labs - Research 75 Willow Rd Menlo Park, CA 94025 USA
比尔·芬纳AT&T实验室-美国加利福尼亚州门罗公园威洛路75号研究室，邮编94025
Phone: +1 650 330-7893
EMail: fenner@research.att.com
Phone: +1 650 330-7893
EMail: fenner@research.att.com
Full Copyright Statement
完整版权声明
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).
版权所有（C）IETF信托基金（2006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, THE IETF TRUST, 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以“原样”为基础提供，贡献者、他/她所代表或赞助的组织（如有）、互联网协会、IETF信托基金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。