mirror of
https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap.git
synced 2024-11-21 01:04:44 +08:00
620 lines
19 KiB
Plaintext
620 lines
19 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Network Working Group K. Zeilenga
|
|||
|
Request for Comments: 3088 OpenLDAP Foundation
|
|||
|
Category: Experimental April 2001
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
OpenLDAP Root Service
|
|||
|
An experimental LDAP referral service
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Status of this Memo
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
|
|||
|
community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
|
|||
|
Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
|
|||
|
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Copyright Notice
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Abstract
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The OpenLDAP Project is operating an experimental LDAP (Lightweight
|
|||
|
Directory Access Protocol) referral service known as the "OpenLDAP
|
|||
|
Root Service". The automated system generates referrals based upon
|
|||
|
service location information published in DNS SRV RRs (Domain Name
|
|||
|
System location of services resource records). This document
|
|||
|
describes this service.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1. Background
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
LDAP [RFC2251] directories use a hierarchical naming scheme inherited
|
|||
|
from X.500 [X500]. Traditionally, X.500 deployments have used a
|
|||
|
geo-political naming scheme (e.g., CN=Jane
|
|||
|
Doe,OU=Engineering,O=Example,ST=CA,C=US). However, registration
|
|||
|
infrastructure and location services in many portions of the naming
|
|||
|
hierarchical are inadequate or nonexistent.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The construction of a global directory requires a robust registration
|
|||
|
infrastructure and location service. Use of Internet domain-based
|
|||
|
naming [RFC2247] (e.g., UID=jdoe,DC=eng,DC=example,DC=net) allows
|
|||
|
LDAP directory services to leverage the existing DNS [RFC1034]
|
|||
|
registration infrastructure and DNS SRV [RFC2782] resource records
|
|||
|
can be used to locate services [LOCATE].
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Zeilenga Experimental [Page 1]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 3088 OpenLDAP Root Service April 2001
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1.1. The Glue
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Most existing LDAP implementations do not support location of
|
|||
|
directory services using DNS SRV resource records. However, most
|
|||
|
servers support generation of referrals to "superior" server(s).
|
|||
|
This service provides a "root" LDAP service which servers may use as
|
|||
|
their superior referral service.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Client may also use the service directly to locate services
|
|||
|
associated with an arbitrary Distinguished Name [RFC2253] within the
|
|||
|
domain based hierarchy.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Notice:
|
|||
|
The mechanisms used by service are experimental. The descriptions
|
|||
|
provided by this document are not definitive. Definitive
|
|||
|
mechanisms shall be published in a Standard Track document(s).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2. Generating Referrals based upon DNS SRV RRs
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This service returns referrals generated from DNS SRV resource
|
|||
|
records [RFC2782].
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2.1. DN to Domain Name Mapping
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The service maps a DN [RFC2253] to a fully qualified domain name
|
|||
|
using the following algorithm:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
domain = null;
|
|||
|
foreach RDN left-to-right // [1]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
{
|
|||
|
if not multi-valued RDN and
|
|||
|
RDN.type == domainComponent
|
|||
|
{
|
|||
|
if ( domain == null || domain == "." )
|
|||
|
{ // start
|
|||
|
domain = "";
|
|||
|
}
|
|||
|
else
|
|||
|
{ // append separator
|
|||
|
domain .= ".";
|
|||
|
}
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
if ( RDN.value == "." )
|
|||
|
{ // root
|
|||
|
domain = ".";
|
|||
|
}
|
|||
|
else
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Zeilenga Experimental [Page 2]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 3088 OpenLDAP Root Service April 2001
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
{ // append domainComponent
|
|||
|
domain .= RDN.value;
|
|||
|
}
|
|||
|
continue;
|
|||
|
}
|
|||
|
domain = null;
|
|||
|
}
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Examples:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Distinguished Name Domain
|
|||
|
----------------------------- ------------
|
|||
|
DC=example,DC=net example.net
|
|||
|
UID=jdoe,DC=example,DC=net example.net
|
|||
|
DC=. . [2]
|
|||
|
DC=example,DC=net,DC=. . [3]
|
|||
|
DC=example,DC=.,DC=net net [4]
|
|||
|
DC=example.net example.net [5]
|
|||
|
CN=Jane Doe,O=example,C=US null
|
|||
|
UID=jdoe,DC=example,C=US null
|
|||
|
DC=example,O=example,DC=net net
|
|||
|
DC=example+O=example,DC=net net
|
|||
|
DC=example,C=US+DC=net null
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Notes:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
0) A later incarnation will use a Standard Track mechanism.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1) A later incarnation of this service may use a right-to-left
|
|||
|
algorithm.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2) RFC 2247 does not state how one can map the domain representing
|
|||
|
the root of the domain tree to a DN. We suggest the root of the
|
|||
|
domain tree be mapped to "DC=." and that this be reversable.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3) RFC 2247 states that domain "example.net" should be mapped to the
|
|||
|
DN "DC=example,DC=net", not to "DC=example,DC=net,DC=.". As it is
|
|||
|
not our intent to introduce or support an alternative domain to DN
|
|||
|
mapping, the algorithm ignores domainComponents to the left of
|
|||
|
"DC=.".
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
4) RFC 2247 states that domain "example.net" should be mapped to the
|
|||
|
DN "DC=example,DC=net", not to "DC=example,DC=.,DC=net". As it is
|
|||
|
not our intent to introduce or support an alternative domain to DN
|
|||
|
mapping, the algorithm ignores domainComponents to the left of
|
|||
|
"DC=." and "DC=." itself if further domainComponents are found to
|
|||
|
the right.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Zeilenga Experimental [Page 3]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 3088 OpenLDAP Root Service April 2001
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
5) RFC 2247 states that value of an DC attribute type is a domain
|
|||
|
component. It should not contain multiple domain components. A
|
|||
|
later incarnation of this service may map this domain to null or
|
|||
|
be coded to return invalid DN error.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If the domain is null or ".", the service aborts further processing
|
|||
|
and returns noSuchObject. Later incarnation of this service may
|
|||
|
abort processing if the resulting domain is a top-level domain.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2.2. Locating LDAP services
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The root service locates services associated with a given fully
|
|||
|
qualified domain name by querying the Domain Name System for LDAP SRV
|
|||
|
resource records. For the domain example.net, the service would do a
|
|||
|
issue a SRV query for the domain "_ldap._tcp.example.net". A
|
|||
|
successful query will return one or more resource records of the
|
|||
|
form:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
_ldap._tcp.example.net. IN SRV 0 0 389 ldap.example.net.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If no LDAP SRV resource records are returned or any DNS error occurs,
|
|||
|
the service aborts further processing and returns noSuchObject.
|
|||
|
Later incarnations of this service will better handle transient
|
|||
|
errors.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2.3. Constructing an LDAP Referrals
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
For each DNS SRV resource record returned for the domain, a LDAP URL
|
|||
|
[RFC2255] is constructed. For the above resource record, the URL
|
|||
|
would be:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
ldap://ldap.example.net:389/
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
These URLs are then returned in the referral. The URLs are currently
|
|||
|
returned in resolver order. That is, the server itself does not make
|
|||
|
use of priority or weight information in the SRV resource records. A
|
|||
|
later incarnation of this service may.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3. Protocol Operations
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This section describes how the service performs basic LDAP
|
|||
|
operations. The service supports operations extended through certain
|
|||
|
controls as described in a later section.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Zeilenga Experimental [Page 4]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 3088 OpenLDAP Root Service April 2001
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3.1. Basic Operations
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Basic (add, compare, delete, modify, rename, search) operations
|
|||
|
return a referral result if the target (or base) DN can be mapped to
|
|||
|
a set of LDAP URLs as described above. Otherwise a noSuchObject
|
|||
|
response or other appropriate response is returned.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3.2. Bind Operation
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The service accepts "anonymous" bind specifying version 2 or version
|
|||
|
3 of the protocol. All other bind requests will return a non-
|
|||
|
successful resultCode. In particular, clients which submit clear
|
|||
|
text credentials will be sent an unwillingToPerform resultCode with a
|
|||
|
cautionary text regarding providing passwords to strangers.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
As this service is read-only, LDAPv3 authentication [RFC2829] is not
|
|||
|
supported.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3.3. Unbind Operations
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Upon receipt of an unbind request, the server abandons all
|
|||
|
outstanding requests made by client and disconnects.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3.4. Extended Operations
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The service currently does recognize any extended operation. Later
|
|||
|
incarnations of the service may support Start TLS [RFC2830] and other
|
|||
|
operations.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3.5. Update Operations
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A later incarnation of this service may return unwillingToPerform for
|
|||
|
all update operations as this is an unauthenticated service.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
4. Controls
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The service supports the ManageDSAit control. Unsupported controls
|
|||
|
are serviced per RFC 2251.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
4.1. ManageDSAit Control
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The server recognizes and honors the ManageDSAit control [NAMEDREF]
|
|||
|
provided with operations.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If DNS location information is available for the base DN itself, the
|
|||
|
service will return unwillingToPerform for non-search operations.
|
|||
|
For search operations, an entry will be returned if within scope and
|
|||
|
matches the provided filter. For example:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Zeilenga Experimental [Page 5]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 3088 OpenLDAP Root Service April 2001
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
c: searchRequest {
|
|||
|
base="DC=example,DC=net"
|
|||
|
scope=base
|
|||
|
filter=(objectClass=*)
|
|||
|
ManageDSAit
|
|||
|
}
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
s: searchEntry {
|
|||
|
dn: DC=example,DC=net
|
|||
|
objectClass: referral
|
|||
|
objectClass: extensibleObject
|
|||
|
dc: example
|
|||
|
ref: ldap://ldap.example.net:389/
|
|||
|
associatedDomain: example.net
|
|||
|
}
|
|||
|
s: searchResult {
|
|||
|
success
|
|||
|
}
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If DNS location information is available for the DC portion of a
|
|||
|
subordinate entry, the service will return noSuchObject with the
|
|||
|
matchedDN set to the DC portion of the base for search and update
|
|||
|
operations.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
c: searchRequest {
|
|||
|
base="CN=subordinate,DC=example,DC=net"
|
|||
|
scope=base
|
|||
|
filter=(objectClass=*)
|
|||
|
ManageDSAit
|
|||
|
}
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
s: searchResult {
|
|||
|
noSuchObject
|
|||
|
matchedDN="DC=example,DC=net"
|
|||
|
}
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
5. Using the Service
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Servers may be configured to refer superior requests to
|
|||
|
<ldap://root.openldap.org:389>.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Though clients may use the service directly, this is not encouraged.
|
|||
|
Clients should use a local service and only use this service when
|
|||
|
referred to it.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The service supports LDAPv3 and LDAPv2+ [LDAPv2+] clients over
|
|||
|
TCP/IPv4. Future incarnations of this service may support TCP/IPv6
|
|||
|
or other transport/internet protocols.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Zeilenga Experimental [Page 6]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 3088 OpenLDAP Root Service April 2001
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6. Lessons Learned
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.1. Scaling / Reliability
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This service currently runs on a single host. This host and
|
|||
|
associated network resources are not yet exhausted. If they do
|
|||
|
become exhausted, we believe we can easily scale to meet the demand
|
|||
|
through common distributed load balancing technics. The service can
|
|||
|
also easily be duplicated locally.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.2. Protocol interoperability
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This service has able avoided known interoperability issues in
|
|||
|
supporting variants of LDAP.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.2.1. LDAPv3
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The server implements all features of LDAPv3 [RFC2251] necessary to
|
|||
|
provide the service.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.2.2. LDAPv2
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
LDAPv2 [RFC1777] does not support the return of referrals and hence
|
|||
|
may not be referred to this service. Though a LDAPv2 client could
|
|||
|
connect and issue requests to this service, the client would treat
|
|||
|
any referral returned to it as an unknown error.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.2.3. LDAPv2+
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
LDAPv2+ [LDAPv2+] provides a number of extensions to LDAPv2,
|
|||
|
including referrals. LDAPv2+, like LDAPv3, does not require a bind
|
|||
|
operation before issuing of other operations. As the referral
|
|||
|
representation differ between LDAPv2+ and LDAPv3, the service returns
|
|||
|
LDAPv3 referrals in this case. However, as commonly deployed LDAPv2+
|
|||
|
clients issue bind requests (for compatibility with LDAPv2 servers),
|
|||
|
this has not generated any interoperability issues (yet).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A future incarnation of this service may drop support for LDAPv2+
|
|||
|
(and LDAPv2).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.2.4. CLDAP
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
CLDAP [RFC1798] does not support the return of referrals and hence is
|
|||
|
not supported.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Zeilenga Experimental [Page 7]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 3088 OpenLDAP Root Service April 2001
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
7. Security Considerations
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This service provides information to "anonymous" clients. This
|
|||
|
information is derived from the public directories, namely the Domain
|
|||
|
Name System.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The use of authentication would require clients to disclose
|
|||
|
information to the service. This would be an unnecessary invasion of
|
|||
|
privacy.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The lack of encryption allows eavesdropping upon client requests and
|
|||
|
responses. A later incarnation of this service may support
|
|||
|
encryption (such as via Start TLS [RFC2830]).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Information integrity protection is not provided by the service. The
|
|||
|
service is subject to varies forms of DNS spoofing and attacks. LDAP
|
|||
|
session or operation integrity would provide false sense of security
|
|||
|
concerning the integrity of DNS information. A later incarnation of
|
|||
|
this service may support DNSSEC and provide integrity protection (via
|
|||
|
SASL, TLS, or IPSEC).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The service is subject to a variety of denial of service attacks.
|
|||
|
The service is capable of blocking access by a number of factors.
|
|||
|
This capability have yet to be used and likely would be ineffective
|
|||
|
in preventing sophisticated attacks. Later incarnations of this
|
|||
|
service will likely need better protection from such attacks.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
8. Conclusions
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
DNS is good glue. By leveraging of the Domain Name System, global
|
|||
|
LDAP directories may be built without requiring a protocol specific
|
|||
|
registration infrastructures.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
In addition, use of DNS service location allows global directories to
|
|||
|
be built "ad hoc". That is, anyone with a domain name can
|
|||
|
participate. There is no requirement that the superior domain
|
|||
|
participate.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
9. Additional Information
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Additional information about the OpenLDAP Project and the OpenLDAP
|
|||
|
Root Service can be found at <http://www.openldap.org/>.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Zeilenga Experimental [Page 8]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 3088 OpenLDAP Root Service April 2001
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
10. Author's Address
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Kurt Zeilenga
|
|||
|
OpenLDAP Foundation
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
EMail: kurt@openldap.org
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
11. Acknowledgments
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Internet hosting for this experiment is provided by the Internet
|
|||
|
Software Consortium <http://www.isc.org/>. Computing resources were
|
|||
|
provided by Net Boolean Incorporated <http://www.boolean.net/>. This
|
|||
|
experiment would not have been possible without the contributions of
|
|||
|
numerous volunteers of the open source community. Mechanisms
|
|||
|
described in this document are based upon those introduced in
|
|||
|
[RFC2247] and [LOCATE].
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
References
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities",
|
|||
|
STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[RFC1777] Yeong, W., Howes, T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory
|
|||
|
Access Protocol", RFC 1777, March 1995.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[RFC1798] Young, A., "Connection-less Lightweight Directory Access
|
|||
|
Protocol", RFC 1798, June 1995.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key Words for use in RFCs to Indicate
|
|||
|
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[RFC2247] Kille, S., Wahl, M., Grimstad, A., Huber, R. and S.
|
|||
|
Sataluri, "Using Domains in LDAP/X.500 Distinguished
|
|||
|
Names", RFC 2247, January 1998.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[RFC2251] Wahl, M., Howes, T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory
|
|||
|
Access Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[RFC2253] Wahl, M., Kille, S. and T. Howes, "Lightweight Directory
|
|||
|
Access Protocol (v3): UTF-8 String Representation of
|
|||
|
Distinguished Names", RFC 2253, December 1997.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[RFC2255] Howes, T. and M. Smith, "The LDAP URL Format", RFC 2255,
|
|||
|
December 1997.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P. and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
|
|||
|
specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
|
|||
|
February 2000.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Zeilenga Experimental [Page 9]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 3088 OpenLDAP Root Service April 2001
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[RFC2829] Wahl, M., Alvestrand, H., Hodges, J. and R. Morgan,
|
|||
|
"Authentication Methods for LDAP", RFC 2829, May 2000.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[RFC2830] Hodges, J., Morgan, R. and M. Wahl, "Lightweight Directory
|
|||
|
Access Protocol (v3): Extension for Transport Layer
|
|||
|
Security", RFC 2830, May 2000.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[LOCATE] IETF LDAPext WG, "Discovering LDAP Services with DNS",
|
|||
|
Work in Progress.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[LDAPv2+] University of Michigan LDAP Team, "Referrals within the
|
|||
|
LDAPv2 Protocol", August 1996.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[NAMEDREF] Zeilenga, K. (editor), "Named Subordinate References in
|
|||
|
LDAP Directories", Work in Progress.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[X500] ITU-T Rec. X.500, "The Directory: Overview of Concepts,
|
|||
|
Models and Service", 1993.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Zeilenga Experimental [Page 10]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 3088 OpenLDAP Root Service April 2001
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Full Copyright Statement
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
|
|||
|
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
|
|||
|
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
|
|||
|
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
|
|||
|
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
|
|||
|
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
|
|||
|
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
|
|||
|
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
|
|||
|
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
|
|||
|
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
|
|||
|
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
|
|||
|
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
|
|||
|
English.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
|
|||
|
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
|
|||
|
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
|
|||
|
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Acknowledgement
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
|
|||
|
Internet Society.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Zeilenga Experimental [Page 11]
|
|||
|
|