| TOC |
|
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work in progress.”
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 23, 2007.
Copyright © The Internet Society (2006).
This document outlines the hierarchical P2P-SIP architecture, which makes the combination of P2P and SIP practical. In this architecture, heterogeneous overlays are inter-connected via a decentralized manner provided by the hierarchical P2P-SIP architecture. The overhead of the session control process is reduced since the P2P overlay is used by SIP as the underlying peer locating approach. Some nodes in the overlay are proposed to be stateful to improve the reliability of the overlay. Finally, a session initial example is presented to illustrate this architecture.This work is being discussed on the p2psip@cs.columbia.edu mailing list.
1.
Introduction
1.1.
Background
1.2.
Motivation
2.
Requirements notation
3.
Hierarchical P2P-SIP Architecture
3.1.
Network architecture
3.2.
Protocol Stack Architecture
4.
Generic P2P Overlay Service
4.1.
Bootstrap
4.2.
Node Operations
4.2.1.
Node Registration
4.2.2.
Node Leaving and Failure
4.3.
Resource Operations
5.
P2P-SIP Naming
6.
P2P Proxy
6.1.
P2P Proxy Election
6.2.
P2P Proxy Behavior on Routing the SIP Message
6.3.
P2P Proxy Leaving and Failure
7.
An example of Inter-Domain Communication Process
8.
Security Considerations
9.
Open Issues
9.1.
Stateful and Stateless Problems
9.2.
Decentralized Bootstrap Process
10.
Acknowledgements
11.
References
11.1.
Normative References
11.2.
Informative References
§
Authors' Addresses
§
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements
| TOC |
| TOC |
Many benefits can be gained from the combination of SIP [2] (Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Scholler, “SIP: session initiation protocol,” June 2002.) and P2P [3] (Milojicic, D., Kalogeraki, V., Lukose, R., Nagaraja, K., Pruyne, J., Richard, B., Rollins, S., and Z. Xu, “Peer-to-peer computing,” Mar 2002.). From the SIP point of view, central servers such as the proxy and registrar can be removed to reduce the deployment and maintenance cost, and the robustness of SIP will also be increased. From the P2P point of view, the introducing of SIP will make the overlay controllable, and specific applications such as P2P Internet Phone and IM can be enabled.
| TOC |
To combine P2P and SIP together, there are two approaches:
P2P-over-SIP [4] (Singh, K. and H. Schulzrinne, “Peer-to-peer Internet Telephony using SIP,” June 2005.) [10] (Bryan, D., Lowekamp, B., and C. Jennings, “A P2P Approach to SIP Registration and Resource Location,” Mar 2006.) and SIP-over-P2P [11] (Shim, E., Narayanan, S., and G. Daley, “An Architecture for Peer-to-Peer Session Initiation Protocol (P2P SIP),” Feb 2006.).
The former approach focuses on using SIP messages to maintain P2P overlay networks.
The approach is motivated by specific multimedia session control
requirements in P2P overlays. The upper layer SIP provides the P2P overlay
with control functions and establishes multimedia sessions over unreliable
P2P overlay networks. However, the primary disadvantage of the
approach is that P2P-over-SIP needs to maintain many SIP dialog states
during the overlay control course. For example, using P2P-over-SIP, we
need to forward over 17 kinds of SIP messages from joining DHT to
finishing registering and each SIP message has its own dialog
states in user agents.
An alternative approach is to layer SIP over the P2P overlay network.
The underlying P2P overlay networks such as Chord [5] (Stoica, I., Morris, R., and D. Karger, “Chord A Scalable Peer-to-peer Lookup Service for Internet Applications,” 2001.),
CAN [6] (Ratnasamy, Sylvia., Francis, Paul., Handley, Mark., Karp, Richard., and Scott. Shenker, “A Scalable Content-Addressable Network,” 2001.), Pastry [7] (Rowstron, Antony. and Peter. Druschel, “Pastry: Scalable, decentralized object location and routing for large-scale peer-to-peer systems,” 2001.) and etc provides
SIP with the peer locating service. That is to say, the
traditional centralized SIP trapezoid will be replaced by the
decentralized P2P location service. Thus we can reduce the deploying
cost of P2P-SIP and increase the robustness of the network. However, when
we use P2P overlays as the SIP's peer locating service, there are some
problems need to be solved. First, one of the essential design targets
of SIP is to find the peer anytime and anywhere using DNS, however,
when we replace the DNS and SIP Proxy with P2P overlays,
heterogeneous overlays will cause the connectivity problem. A peer
in one P2P overlay (such as Chord) is difficult to route the SIP
message to another P2P overlay (such as Pastry) based on their
individual P2P peer locating service. Second, SIP is a stateful protocol
which controls the session establishing, modifying and terminating
process over stateless IP networks, however, when we use the P2P
overlay to provide the peer locating service, how to inherit features
of stateful proxy from the traditional SIP is unclear.
Here we summarize some crucial issues need to be considered when we
combine P2P and SIP together.
The above issues motivate this document of the hierarchical
architecture for P2P and SIP combination. P2P overlays are used by SIP
as the underlying peer locating protocol thus the overhead will be
significantly reduced compared with the P2P-over-SIP approach .
Then, each overlay will elect one or more powerful peers to be P2P
proxies which logically construct an upper level overlay and forward
messages among heterogeneous overlays. Thus the connectivity problem
is solved. Furthermore, it is also proposed to make several peers in
an overlay to be starteful to inherit the controllable feature of
stateful SIP proxies.
| TOC |
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 [1] (Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” March 1997.).
Terminology defined in RFC 3261 [2] (Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Scholler, “SIP: session initiation protocol,” June 2002.) and in P2PSIP concepts draft
[12] (Willis., D., Byran, D., and P. Matthews, “Concepts and Terminology for Peer to Peer SIP,” June 2006.) is used without definition.
Local P2P Overlay: A basic P2P overlay network that provides the
location and routing functionalities.
Global P2P Overlay: An upper level P2P overlay that
inter-connects hierarchical local P2P overlays.
P2P Proxy: A SIP proxy elected from P2P Proxy candidates. It runs both
local P2P overlay and global P2P overlay's stack, and it is
responsive for inter-overlay SIP message exchange.
P2P Proxy Candidates: A node elected from the P2P-SIP Overlay Peer
prepares to become the P2P Proxy when the proxy current leaves or
fails.
P2P-SIP User URI: A SIP URI used for identifying the P2P-SIP user
P2P-SIP Overlay URI: A SIP URI used for identify the P2P-SIP overlay.
| TOC |
| TOC |
Figure 1 illustrates the proposed hierarchical P2P-SIP
structure. Various P2P overlays (such as Pastry, CAN and etc, we call it the
local overlay. Their real overlay structures may not be ring-based and here
we only use ring for illustratation) are respectively used as the underlying route
discovery protocol for the decentralized SIP scheme, that is,
when two peers of a call are in the same overlay network, the
callee lookup course will be base on the overlay's specific
resource locating process. In this way, the communication
overhead will be significantly reduced since relaying nodes need
not maintain dialog-states.
0 1 2 0 1 2
0----N----N 0----0----0
/ \ / \
15 0 0 3 15 0 N 3
/ \ / \
14 0 Pastry 0 4 14 0 CAN 0 4
| (P2P Domain) | | (P2P Domain) |
13 N N 5 13 0 N 5
| Hash(sip:bob | | |
12 0 @bupt.pastry) 0 6 12 0 0 6
\ / \ /
11 0 0------------N 0 7
\ / 7 11 \ /
N----0----N 0----0----0
10 9 / 8 10 \ 9 8
/ \
0 0
| Hash(sip:overlay |
| @pastry) |
| (Global Overlay) |
| |
| |
0 0
\ 0 1 2 /
\ 0----0----0 /
\ / \ /
15 N-------------N 3
/ \
14 0 0 4
| |
13 0 0 5
| BT |
12 0 (P2P Domain) 0 6
\ /
11 0 0 7
\ /
0----0----0
10 9 8
Hierarchical P2P-SIP Structure
| Figure 1 |
| TOC |
Protocols are composed of two separate layers, the upper layer is
the SIP layer and the lower one is the P2P overlay layer. The SIP
layer is responsible for sending, receiving and processing SIP
messages so as to establish or terminate multimedia sessions. The
P2P overlay layer handles all the P2P overlay functions,
including formation, maintenance, lookup, as well as offering
peer locating service to the SIP layer.
For a peer node, the SIP layer can be a SIP User Agent; while for
the proxy node, the SIP layer can be a B2BUA. Both SIP UA and
B2BUA act the same as defined in the traditional SIP protocol
except for the peer locating service. The upper layer SIP gets the
location (i.e. IP address) of the destination user from the P2P
overlay layer instead of location severs. That is, we implement
the function of location related severs in a distributed manner,
using P2P overlay networks.
The P2P overlay layer of ordinary peer nodes differs from that of
P2P proxy nodes. There is only one specific P2P technology in a
normal peer node. Peers with the same P2P technology will
logically form a P2P overlay. However, in a P2P Proxy node, the
P2P overlay layer has double stacks. One is the P2P approach
used in Local P2P Overlay, and the other is the Global P2P
Overlay approach (i.e. Chord in Fig.I). On the one hand, a proxy
node joins to form the Local P2P Overlay with other peer nodes
in the specific overlay; on the other hand, all the elected P2P
proxy nodes will join together to form a Global P2P Overlay
network. Nodes located in different P2P domains can communicate
with each other via this global overlay network.
Peer Node P2P Proxy Node P2P Proxy Node Peer Node |--------| |------|---------| |---------|-----| |-----| | | | | | | | | | | | SIP | | SIP | SIP | | SIP | SIP | | SIP | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |--------| |------|---------| |---------|-----| |-----| | | | | | | | | | | | Pastry | |Pastry| Chord | | Chord | CAN | | CAN | |(local | | | (global | | (global | | | | |overlay)| | | Overlay)| | Overlay)| | | | | | | | | | | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | SocketAPI | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Protocol stack architecture
| Figure 2 |
| TOC |
Generic P2P overlay service is used by SIP as the underlying peer locating service. In this section, we describes the generic DHT-based P2P overlay functions. Any non-DHT based approach is also acceptable for the P2P-SIP implementation.
| TOC |
When a node intends to join an existing overlay, it must first locate some nodes that are already active in the overlay. Then it can join the overlay with the help of that node. We call this process bootstrap. There are several methods for bootstrap implementation.
| TOC |
| TOC |
Node registration enables a peer node to join the structured
overlay network with its Node-ID. The Node-ID is generated by the
specific Hash algorithms the overlay adopts, that is:
Node-ID = Hash(Node-IP)
Then the joining peer will contact the bootstrap node to help it
join the overlay. Specific DHT algorithms such as
Chord, Pastry, CAN and etc have specified the node registration
process. Note that in the hierarchical P2P-SIP overlay, the P2P
proxy should register its Node-ID to both the local overlay and
the global overlay, thus it can inter-connect various overlays.
| TOC |
The maintenance of node leaving and failure is described in
specific DHT algorithm and we do not discuss it in detail here.
When a node leaves the overlay, another node should be notified
to be responsible for the resources of the leaving node. When a
node fails, the self-recovery approach should be adopted to
re-organize the overlay network.
The P2P proxy node is particularly important in the hierarchical
P2P-SIP overlay, and the leaving and failure of the P2P proxy is
described in section 6.3 (P2P Proxy Leaving and Failure).
| TOC |
In the hierarchical P2P-SIP overlay network, there are primarily
two kinds of resources need to be managed, that is, the P2P-SIP
user's identifier (P2P-SIP User URI) and the P2P overlay's
identifier (P2P-SIP Overlay URI). The former URI is used to
uniformly identify P2P-SIP users and the latter URI is used to
identify various overlays. The naming rule is described in
section 5 (P2P-SIP Naming).
P2P overlays provide the approach which manages URI resources in
a distributed manner. Thus the route discovery related elements
such as DNS servers could be replaced by the distributed resource
management functions provided by the P2P overlay.
In the hierarchical P2P-SIP protocol, two new SIP headers called
Overlay-ID and Node-ID are added to identify the P2P-SIP scheme.
For example, some headers of an INVITE Message might look like this:
INVITE sip: bob@bupt.pastry SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 59.64.186.33; branch=z9hG4bK776asdhds
Max-Forwards: 70
From: Bob <sip:bob@bupt.pastry>;tag=1928301774
Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710@59.64.186.33
CSeq: 314159 INVITE
Contact: <sip:bob@59.64.186.33>
Node-ID: <sip:bob@bupt.pastry>
Overlay-ID: <sip:overlay@pastry>
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 142
| TOC |
There should be a district name that identifies the specific P2P-SIP
user and overlay. The specific naming rule can refer to the SIP
Address of Record (AOR).
Although the P2P-SIP paradigms intend to remove the dependence on
central servers such as the DNS server, P2P-SIP User ID can also
inherit the hierarchical organization feature of DNS. In this
way, top level labels identify heterogeneous overlays such as CAN
and Pastry in Figure 1, while the second level labels
identify the specific users or groups within each overlay network.
Furthermore, since there're two kinds of URI in the P2P-SIP
overlay, the overlay URI should be automatically generated by the
P2P proxy using the user URI.
For instance, the URI sip:bob@bupt.pastry can be one of the
implementation of the P2P-SIP user identifier. Bob at Beijing
University of Posts and Telecommunications (BUPT) should register
the P2P-SIP User URI sip:bob@bupt.pastry to the Pastry overlay based on
the Pastry algorithm and one or more P2P proxies of BUPT in the
Pastry overlay should register the P2P-SIP Overlay URI sip:overlay@pastry
to the top level overlay. Then when Bob wants to call Alice
(sip:alice@pku.can) at Peking University in the CAN overlay, the
request message will first be routed to the P2P proxy at BUPT
since the callee's URI does not belong to the Pastry overlay. Then
the proxy will forward the message to the P2P proxy at Peking
University in the CAN overlay based on the overlay's URI
(sip:overlay@can). Finally the P2P proxy at Peking University
will route the message to Alice based on the user ID (sip:alice
@pku.can).
Note that this kind of naming and addressing method significantly
differs from that of DNS although both of them are hierarchically
organized. The addressing process in DNS is based on centralized
DNS servers while that in P2P paradigms is based on
self-organized overlay hosts. Thus we can call it the P2P Domain
System.
| TOC |
| TOC |
The P2P proxy election approach is proposed to make the
proxies to be more stable and powerful. The election metrics
should be online time, bandwidth, CPU capacity and etc. Then
specific utility functions could be formulated to evaluate
the peer's capacity.
U = f(online, bandwidth, cpu, others)
Based on the utility function, each node is evaluated and
assigned a score. Nodes with higher score will become
P2P proxy candidates. Then the P2P proxy will be elected
from the P2P proxy candidates.
The elected proxy candidates do not perform as P2P proxies,
but only monitor the P2P proxy and prepare to replace it
when it leaves or fails. Thus we call the P2P proxy
candidate inactivated proxy. Each overlay should maintain
its inactivated proxy list. Thus when the P2P proxy fails, the
connectivity can be fast recovered.
| TOC |
The P2P proxy serves as a gateway-like element among
heterogeneous overlay networks, and it runs double stacks
(i.e. the local overlay protocol and global overlay
protocol). The P2P proxy registers to both the local overlay
and the global overlay using respective protocol stacks.
When peers in the local overlay detect that the callee's
domain name doesn't belong to the overlay, they will send
the SIP message to the P2P proxy. Then the P2P proxy is
responsible for routing the message to another P2P domain
using the upper level overlay's peer locating service. When the
P2P proxy in the callee's overlay receives the inter-domain
routed SIP message, it will send it to the callee's UA using
the local overlay's peer locating service. Examples in section 7 (An example of Inter-Domain Communication Process)
illustrate the routing behavior of the P2P proxy.
| TOC |
The local overlay will maintain an inactivated P2P proxy list, and members in the list are considered as the P2P proxy candidates. P2P proxy candidate will periodically send the HELLO message to the P2P proxy so as to determine whether the proxy is alive. When the P2P proxy fails, a P2P proxy candidate in the list will be elected to become the active P2P proxy which joins the upper level overlay. If the P2P proxy leaves, it will elect a candidate to make it the proxy.
| TOC |
_______ _________ _______ _________ _______ _________ _________ |Bob's| |Pastry | | P1 | | chord | | P2 | | CAN | |Alice's| | UA | |Overlay| |Proxy| |Overlay| |Proxy| |Overlay| | UA | |_____| |_______| |_____| |_______| |_____| |_______| |_______| | | | | | | | | F1 Get | | | | | | | Local | | | | | | | Proxy | | | | | | |--------->| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |F2 Addr Of| | | | | | |LocalProxy| | | | | | |<---------| | | | | | | | | | | | | |------F3 INVITE----->| | | | | | | | | | | | |<---F4 100 TRYING----| | | | | | | | F5 Get | | | | | | |Addr of P2| | | | | | |--------->| | | | | | | F6 | | | | | | |Addr of P2| | | | | | |<---------| | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----F7 INVITE---->| | | | | | | | | | | | |--F8 100 TRYINGG-->| | | | | | | | F9 Get | | | | | | |Alice's UA | | | | | | |---------->| | | | | | | | | | | | | |F10 Addr of| | | | | | |Alice's UA | | | | | | |---------->| | | | | | | | | | | | | |----F11 INVITNE----->| | | | | | | | | | | | |<--F12 180 RINGING---| | | | | | | | | | |<--F13 180 RINGING-| | | | | | | | | | |<---F14 180 RINGING--| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |<----F15 20OOK-------| | | | | | | | | | |<-----F16 200OK----| | | | | | | | | | |<----F17 200OK-------| | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------------------F18 ACK-------------------------------->| | | | | | | | /___________|__________|__________|________|___________|__________\ / Multimedia Session \ \ __________________________________________________________________/ \ /
| Figure 3 |
| TOC |
Security related problems such as DoS attack are not discussed in this document. However, the attacker may have powerful machine to DoS the proxy node and these problems need to be considered in the future draft.
| TOC |
| TOC |
SIP can be base on the control of stateful proxy which
makes the session management reliable. However, when we
use the P2P overlay as SIP's route discovery protocol,
the state in peers is unclear. The essence is the tradeoff
between controllability and overhead when we consider
whether the peers should be stateful or stateless.
One of the design choices is to make some peers such as
the P2P proxy to be stateful, and both P2P-SIP UA and
the stateful node will be aware of the state of the
underlying overlay. For example, the P2P proxy
mentioned in this draft should be stateful.
| TOC |
Although several approaches are proposed to implement
the bootstrap process, the decentralized zero-configure
bootstrap is still hard to achieve. Thus the session
initial process can not be absolutely decentralized.
It is practical to deploy a centralized bootstrap
server, however, if we want the SIP to be absolutely
decentralized, we should seek for some novel decentralized
bootstrap methods.
| TOC |
The authors wish to thank Yao Wang, Hua Xu, Xiaosheng Tang, Xu Wang and Zhiyong Feng for their comments. The authors would like to thank Hui Wang and Ning Zhang for the help of review.
| TOC |
| TOC |
| [1] | Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997. |
| [2] | Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Scholler, “SIP: session initiation protocol,” RFC 3261, June 2002. |
| [3] | Milojicic, D., Kalogeraki, V., Lukose, R., Nagaraja, K., Pruyne, J., Richard, B., Rollins, S., and Z. Xu, “Peer-to-peer computing,” Mar 2002. |
| [4] | Singh, K. and H. Schulzrinne, “Peer-to-peer Internet Telephony using SIP,” June 2005. |
| [5] | Stoica, I., Morris, R., and D. Karger, “Chord A Scalable Peer-to-peer Lookup Service for Internet Applications,” 2001. |
| [6] | Ratnasamy, Sylvia., Francis, Paul., Handley, Mark., Karp, Richard., and Scott. Shenker, “A Scalable Content-Addressable Network,” 2001. |
| [7] | Rowstron, Antony. and Peter. Druschel, “Pastry: Scalable, decentralized object location and routing for large-scale peer-to-peer systems,” 2001. |
| [8] | Karbhari, Pradnya., Ammar, Mostafa., Dhamdhere, Amogh., Raj, Himanshu., Riley, George., and Ellen. Zegura, “Bootstrapping in Gnutella: A Measurement Study,” 2004. |
| TOC |
| [10] | Bryan, D., Lowekamp, B., and C. Jennings, “A P2P Approach to SIP Registration and Resource Location,” draft-bryan-sipping-p2p-02 , Mar 2006. |
| [11] | Shim, E., Narayanan, S., and G. Daley, “An Architecture for Peer-to-Peer Session Initiation Protocol (P2P SIP),” draft-shim-sipping-p2p-arch-00 , Feb 2006. |
| [12] | Willis., D., Byran, D., and P. Matthews, “Concepts and Terminology for Peer to Peer SIP,” draft-willis-p2psip-concepts-00 , June 2006. |
| TOC |
| JuWei | |
| Wireless Technology Innovation (WTI) Institute of BUPT. | |
| P.O. Box 92, No.10, Xitucheng Road | |
| BeiJing, Haidian District 100876 | |
| CN | |
| Email: | jwshi@bupt.edu.cn |
| Yang | |
| Wireless Technology Innovation (WTI) Institute of BUPT. | |
| P.O. Box 92, No.10, Xitucheng Road | |
| BeiJing, Haidian District 100876 | |
| CN | |
| Email: | jiyang@bupt.edu.cn |
| Hua | |
| Wireless Technology Innovation (WTI) Institute of BUPT. | |
| P.O. Box 92, No.10, Xitucheng Road | |
| BeiJing, Haidian District 100876 | |
| CN | |
| Email: | hbzhzw@gmail.com |
| YiNong | |
| Wireless Technology Innovation (WTI) Institute of BUPT. | |
| P.O. Box 92, No.10, Xitucheng Road | |
| BeiJing, Haidian District 100876 | |
| CN | |
| Email: | hoplee@bupt.edu.cn |
| TOC |
Copyright © The Internet Society (2006).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA).