Network Working Group                                         C. Hutzler
Request for Comments: 5068
BCP: 134                                                      D. Crocker
Category: Best Current Practice              Brandenburg InternetWorking
                                                              P. Resnick
                                                   QUALCOMM Incorporated
                                                               E. Allman
                                                          Sendmail, Inc.
                                                                T. Finch
                               University of Cambridge Computing Service
                                                           November 2007

Email Submission Operations: Access and Accountability Requirements


Status of This Memo


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.

このドキュメントはインターネットコミュニティのためのインターネットBest Current Practicesを指定し、改善のための議論と提案を要求します。このメモの配布は無制限です。



Email has become a popular distribution service for a variety of socially unacceptable, mass-effect purposes. The most obvious ones include spam and worms. This note recommends conventions for the operation of email submission and transport services between independent operators, such as enterprises and Internet Service Providers. Its goal is to improve lines of accountability for controlling abusive uses of the Internet mail service. To this end, this document offers recommendations for constructive operational policies between independent operators of email submission and transmission services.


Email authentication technologies are aimed at providing assurances and traceability between internetworked networks. In many email services, the weakest link in the chain of assurances is initial submission of a message. This document offers recommendations for constructive operational policies for this first step of email sending, the submission (or posting) of email into the transmission network. Relaying and delivery entail policies that occur subsequent to submission and are outside the scope of this document.


Table of Contents


   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Submission, Relaying, Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1.  Best Practices for Submission Operation  . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  Transitioning to Submission Port . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  External Submission  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1.  Best Practices for Support of External Submissions . . . .  7
   5.  Message Submission Authentication/Authorization
       Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
1. はじめに

The very characteristics that make email such a convenient communications medium -- its near ubiquity, rapid delivery, low cost, and support for exchanges without prior arrangement -- have made it a fertile ground for the distribution of unwanted or malicious content. Spam, fraud, and worms have become a serious problem, threatening the viability of email and costing end users and providers millions of dollars in damages and lost productivity. In recent years, independent operators including enterprises and ISPs have turned to a number of different technologies and procedures, in an attempt to combat these problems. The results have been mixed, at best.

事前の取り決めのない交流のその近くユビキタス、迅速な納期、低コスト、およびサポート - - 電子メールなど便利な通信媒体を作る非常に特性がそれ不要なまたは悪意のあるコンテンツの配信のための肥沃な土地作られてきました。スパム、詐欺、およびワームは、電子メールの生存率および損害賠償と生産性の損失にドルのエンドユーザーとプロバイダ何百万人もの原価計算を脅かし、深刻な問題となっています。近年では、企業やISPなどの独立した事業者は、これらの問題に対処するための試みで、異なる技術や手順の数になっています。結果は最高の状態で、混合されました。

En route to its final destination, email will often travel between multiple independent providers of email transmission services. These services will generally have no prior arrangement with one another and may employ different rules on the transmission. It is therefore difficult both to debug problems that occur in mail transmission and to assign accountability if undesired or malicious mail is injected into the Internet mail infrastructure.


Many email authentication technologies exist. They provide some accountability and traceability between disparate networks. This document aims to build upon the availability of these technologies by exploring best practices for authenticating and authorizing the first step of an email's delivery, from a Mail User Agent (MUA) to a Mail Submission Agent (MSA), known as submission. Without strong practices on email submission, the use of authentication technologies elsewhere in the service provides limited benefit.


This document specifies operational policies to be used for the first step of email sending, the submission -- or posting from an MUA to an MSA as defined below -- of email into the transmission service. These policies will permit continued, smooth operation of Internet email, with controls added to improve accountability. Relaying and delivering employ policies that occur after submission and are outside the scope of this document. The policies listed here are appropriate for operators of all sizes of networks and may be implemented by operators independently, without regard for whether the other side of an email exchange has implemented them.

以下に定義するか、MSAへのMUAからの投稿 - - 電子メールの送信サービスにこの文書は、電子メールは、送信を送信する最初のステップのために使用される運用ポリシーを指定します。コントロールが説明責任を向上させるために添加して、これらのポリシーは、インターネット電子メールの継続、スムーズな操作を可能にします。リレーと服従の後に発生し、この文書の範囲外にある政策を採用して実現します。ここに記載されているポリシーは、ネットワークのあらゆる規模の事業者に適しているとメール交換の他の側面は、それらを実装しているかどうかに関係なく、独立して事業者によって実施されてもよいです。

It is important to note that the adoption of these policies alone will not solve the problems of spam and other undesirable email. However, these policies provide a useful step in clarifying lines of accountability and interoperability between operators. This helps raise the bar against abusers and provides a foundation for additional tools to preserve the utility of the Internet email infrastructure.


NOTE: This document does not delve into other anti-spam operational issues such as standards for rejection of email. The authors note that this could be a valuable effort to undertake and encourage its pursuit.


2. Terminology

The Internet email architecture distinguishes four message-handling components:


o Mail User Agents (MUAs)


o Mail Submission Agents (MSAs)


o Mail Transfer Agents (MTAs)


o Mail Delivery Agents (MDAs)


At the origination end, an MUA works on behalf of end users to create a message and perform initial "submission" into the transmission infrastructure, via an MSA. An MSA accepts the message submission, performs any necessary preprocessing on the message, and relays the message to an MTA for transmission. MTAs 'relay' messages to other MTAs, in a sequence reaching a destination MDA that, in turn, 'delivers' the email to the recipient's inbox. The inbox is part of the recipient-side MUA that works on behalf of the end user to process received mail.

発信側では、MUAはMSAを経由して、メッセージを作成し、送信インフラストラクチャに最初の「提出」を実行するために、エンドユーザーに代わって動作します。 MSAは、メッセージの送信を受け付けるメッセージに必要な前処理を行い、送信用のMTAへメッセージを中継します。今度は、受信者の受信トレイにメール「を提供する」という先MDAに達したシーケンス内の他のMTAへのMTA「リレー」メッセージ、。受信トレイには、受信したメールを処理するために、エンドユーザーに代わって動作する受信者側のMUAの一部です。

These architectural components are often compressed, such as having the same software do MSA, MTA and MDA functions. However the requirements for each of these components of the architecture are becoming more extensive, so that their software and even physical platform separation is increasingly common.


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].

この文書のキーワード "MUST"、 "MUST NOT"、 "REQUIRED"、、、、 "べきではない" "べきである" "ないもの" "ものとし"、 "推奨"、 "MAY"、および "OPTIONAL" はあります[RFC2119]に記載されているように解釈されます。

3. Submission, Relaying, Delivery

Originally the MSA, MTA, and MDA architectural components were considered to be a single unit. This was reflected in the practice of having MSA, MTA, and MDA transfers all be performed with SMTP [RFC2821] [RFC0821], over TCP port 25. Internet mail permits email to be exchanged without prior arrangement and without sender authentication. That is, the confirmed identity of the originator of the message is not necessarily known by the relaying MTAs or the MDA.

元々MSA、MTA、およびMDAアーキテクチャコンポーネントは、単一のユニットであると考えられました。これは、全てのTCPポートを介して25インターネットメールが事前配置することなく、送信者認証なしで交換される電子メールを可能にする、SMTP [RFC2821]、[RFC0821]を用いて行うことがMSA、MTA、およびMDA転送を有する実際に反映されました。つまり、メッセージの発信者の身元確認は、必ずしも中継のMTAまたはMDAで知られていません。

It is important to distinguish MUA-to-MSA email submission, versus MTA relaying, versus the final MTA-to-MDA transition. Submission typically does entail a pre-established relationship between the user of the client and operator of the server; equally, the MDA is performing final delivery and can determine that it has an existing relationship with the recipient. That is, MSAs and MDAs can take advantage of having prior relationships with users in order to constrain their transfer activities.


Specifically, an MSA can choose to reject all postings from MUAs for which it has no existing relationship. Similarly, an MDA can choose to reject all mail to recipients for which it has no arrangement to perform delivery. Indeed, both of these policies are already in common practice.


3.1. Best Practices for Submission Operation
3.1. 提出運用のベストプラクティス

Submission Port Availability:


If external submissions are supported -- that is, from outside a site's administrative domain -- then the domain's MSAs MUST support the SUBMISSION port 587 [RFC4409]. Operators MAY standardize on the SUBMISSION port for both external AND LOCAL users; this can significantly simplify submission operations.

外部の提出がサポートされている場合 - つまり、サイトの管理ドメイン外から - その後、ドメインののMSAは、サブミッションポート587 [使いrfc4409]をサポートしなければなりません。オペレータは、外部とローカルの両方のユーザーのためのサブミッションポートを標準化してもよい(MAY)。これは大幅に提出操作を簡素化することができます。

Submission Port Use:


MUAs SHOULD use the SUBMISSION port for message submission.


Submission Authentication:


MSAs MUST perform authentication on the identity asserted during all mail transactions on the SUBMISSION port, even for a message having a RCPT TO address that would not cause the message to be relayed outside of the local administrative domain.

MSAは、アイデンティティに認証を実行しなければなりませんでも、それはメッセージがローカル管理ドメインの外に中継させないだろうRCPT TOアドレスを持つメッセージに対して、サブミッションポート上のすべてのメールトランザクションの中にアサート。

Submission Authorization:


An operator of an MSA MUST ensure that the authenticated identity is authorized to submit email, based on an existing relationship between the submitting entity and the operator. This requirement applies to all mail submission mechanisms (MUA to MSA).


Submission Accountability after Submission:


For a reasonable period of time after submission, the message SHOULD be traceable by the MSA operator to the authenticated identity of the user who sent the message. Such tracing MAY be based on transactional identifiers stored in the headers (received lines, etc.) or other fields in the message, on audit data stored elsewhere, or on any other mechanism that supports sufficient post-submission accountability. The specific length of time, after message submission, that traceability is supported is not specified here. However, issues regarding transit often occur as much as one week after submission.


Note that [RFC3848] defines a means of recording submission-time information in Received header fields. This information can help receive-side analysis software establish a sending MSA's accountability and then make decisions about processing the message.


3.2. Transitioning to Submission Port
3.2. サブミッションポートへの移行

In order to promote transition of initial message submission from port 25 to port 587, MSAs MUST listen on port 587 by default and SHOULD have the ability to listen on other ports. MSAs MUST require authentication on port 587 and SHOULD require authentication on any other port used for submission. MSAs MAY also listen on other ports. Regardless of the ports on which messages are accepted, MSAs MUST NOT permit relaying of unauthenticated messages to other domains. That is, they must not be open relays.

ポート25からポート587への最初のメッセージ送信の移行を促進するために、MSAには、デフォルトではポート587をリッスンしなければならなくて、他のポートをリッスンする能力を有するべきです。 MSAは、ポート587上で認証を必要としなければならなくて、提出のために使用される他の任意のポート上で認証を要求する必要があります。 MSAは、他のポートで聴取することができます。かかわらず、メッセージが受け入れされているポートの、のMSAは、他のドメインに認証されていないメッセージの中継を許可してはなりません。つまり、彼らはオープンリレーであってはなりません。

As a default, MUAs SHOULD attempt to find the best possible submission port from a list of alternatives. The SUBMISSION port 587 SHOULD be placed first in the list. Since most MUAs available today do not permit falling back to alternate ports, sites SHOULD pre-configure or encourage their users to connect on the SUBMISSION port 587, assuming that site supports that port.


4. External Submission

An MUA might need to submit mail across the Internet, rather than to a local MSA, in order to obtain particular services from its home site. Examples include active privacy protection against third-party content monitoring, timely processing, and being subject to the most appropriate authentication and accountability protocols. Further, the privacy requirement might reasonably include protection against monitoring by the operator of the MUA's access network. This requirement creates a challenge for the provider operating the IP network through which the MUA gains access. It makes that provider an involuntary recruit to the task of solving mass-effect email problems: When the MUA participates in a problem that affects large numbers of Internet users, the provider is expected to effect remedies and is often expected to prevent such occurrences.

MUAはそのホームサイトから特定のサービスを得るためには、インターネットを介してではなく、地元のMSAにメールを提出する必要があります。例としては、サードパーティのコンテンツの監視、タイムリーな処理、および最も適切な認証とアカウンタビリティのプロトコルを受けることに対して活性プライバシー保護が含まれます。さらに、プライバシーの要件は、合理的にMUAのアクセスネットワークのオペレータによって監視に対する保護が含まれる場合があります。この要件は、IPネットワークを介してMUAゲインアクセスを操作するプロバイダの挑戦を作成します。 MUAは、インターネットユーザーの多くに影響を与える問題に関与した場合、プロバイダは救済をもたらすことが期待され、多くの場合、このような発生を防ぐことが期待されています。それは、そのプロバイダ質量効果、電子メールの問題を解決するためのタスクに不随意リクルートます。

A proactive technique used by some providers is to block all use of port 25 SMTP for mail that is being sent outbound, or to automatically redirect this traffic through a local SMTP proxy, except for hosts that are explicitly authorized. This can be problematic for some users, notably legitimate mobile users attempting to use their "home" MSA, even though those users might already employ legitimate, port 25-based authentication.

一部のプロバイダで使用される積極的な手法はアウトバウンドに送信される、または自動的に明示的に許可されているホストを除き、ローカルのSMTPプロキシを介して、このトラフィックをリダイレクトするために、メール用のポート25 SMTPのすべての使用をブロックすることです。これは、それらのユーザーが既に合法的な、ポート25ベースの認証を採用する場合でも、一部のユーザー、自分の「ホーム」MSAを使用しようとし、特に、正当なモバイルユーザーのために問題となる可能性があります。

This document offers no recommendation concerning the blocking of SMTP port 25 or similar practices for controlling abuse of the standard anonymous mail transfer port. Rather, it pursues the mutually constructive benefit of using the official SUBMISSION port 587 [RFC4409].

この文書は、標準的な匿名のメール転送ポートの乱用を制御するためのSMTPポート25または類似の慣行のブロックに関するいかなる勧告を提供しています。むしろ、それは公式のサブミッションポート587 [使いrfc4409]を使用しての互いに建設的利益を追求します。

NOTE: Many established practices for controlling abuse of port 25, for mail that is being sent outbound, currently do exist. These include the proxy of SMTP traffic to local hosts for screening, combined with various forms of rate limits. The authors suggest that a separate document on this topic would benefit the email operations community.


4.1. Best Practices for Support of External Submissions
4.1. 外部の提出をサポートするためのベストプラクティス

Open Submission Port:


Access Providers MUST NOT block users from accessing the external Internet using the SUBMISSION port 587 [RFC4409].

アクセスプロバイダは、サブミッションポート587 [使いrfc4409]を使用して外部のインターネットにアクセスするユーザーをブロックしてはなりません。

Traffic Identification -- External Posting (MSA) Versus Relaying (MX):

トラフィックの識別 - 外部ポスティング中継(MX)対(MSA):

When receiving email from outside their local operational environment, email service providers MUST distinguish between unauthenticated email addressed to local domains (MX traffic) versus submission-related authenticated email that can be addressed anywhere (MSA traffic). This allows the MTA to restrict relaying operations, and thereby prevent "open" relays. Note that there are situations where this may not apply, such as secondary MXs and related implementations internal to an operator's network and within their control.


Figure 1 depicts a local user (MUA.l) submitting a message to an MSA (MSA). It also shows a remote user (MUA.r), such as might be in a coffee shop offering "hotspot" wireless access, submitting a message to their "home" MSA via an authenticated port 587 transaction. The figure shows the alternative of using port 587 or port 25 within the MSA's network. This document makes no recommendations about the use of port 25 for submission. The diagram merely seeks to note that it is in common use and to acknowledge that port 25 can be used with sufficient accountability within an organization's network.


                 HOME  NETWORK                       DESTINATION
      | MUA.l |
   port   |  port     port                          port
   587/25 V   25       25          --------          25
       +-----+  +-----+  ******   /        \   ******  +-----+  +-----+
       | MSA |->| MTA |->* AP *->|          |->* AP *->| MTA |->| MDA |
       +--^--+  +-----+  ******  | INTERNET |  ******  +-----+  +-----+
          |                      |          |
          +-------<--------------|----+     |
                                  \   |    /
        AP = Access Provider        * AP *
                                      | port 587
                                  |  MUA.r |

Figure 1: Example of Port 587 Usage via Internet


5. Message Submission Authentication/Authorization Technologies

There are many competent technologies and standards for authenticating message submissions. Two component mechanisms that have been standardized include SMTP AUTH [RFC4954] and TLS [RFC3207]. Depending upon the environment, different mechanisms can be more or less effective and convenient. Mechanisms might also have to be used in combination with each other to make a secure system. Organizations SHOULD choose the most secure approaches that are practical.

メッセージの送信を認証するための多くの有能な技術や標準があります。標準化された2つの成分の機構がSMTP AUTH [RFC4954]とTLS [RFC3207]を含みます。環境に応じて、異なるメカニズムは、多かれ少なかれ効果的かつ便利にすることができます。メカニズムはまた、安全なシステムを作るために互いに組み合わせて使用​​することが必要になる場合があります。組織は、実用的で最も安全なアプローチを選択する必要があります。

This document does not provide recommendations on specific security implementations. It simply provides a warning that transmitting user credentials in clear text over insecure networks SHOULD be avoided in all scenarios as this could allow attackers to listen for this traffic and steal account data. In these cases, it is strongly suggested that an appropriate security technology MUST be used.


6. Security Considerations

Email transfer between independent administrations can be the source of large volumes of unwanted email and email containing malicious content designed to attack the recipient's system. This document addresses the requirements and procedures to permit such exchanges while reducing the likelihood that malicious mail will be transmitted.


7. References
7.1. Normative References
7.1. 引用規格

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC2119]ブラドナーの、S.、 "要件レベルを示すためにRFCsにおける使用のためのキーワード"、BCP 14、RFC 2119、1997年3月。

[RFC2821] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821, April 2001.

[RFC2821] Klensin、J.、 "簡易メール転送プロトコル"、RFC 2821、2001年4月。

[RFC4409] Gellens, R. and J. Klensin, "Message Submission for Mail", RFC 4409, April 2006.

[RFC4409] Gellens、R.とJ. Klensin、 "メールのメッセージの提出"、RFC 4409、2006年4月。

7.2. Informative References
7.2. 参考文献

[RFC0821] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC 821, August 1982.

[RFC0821]ポステル、J.、 "簡易メール転送プロトコル"、STD 10、RFC 821、1982年8月。

[RFC3207] Hoffman, P., "SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over Transport Layer Security", RFC 3207, February 2002.

[RFC3207]ホフマン、P.、 "トランスポート層セキュリティの安全なSMTPのためのSMTPサービス拡張子"、RFC 3207、2002年2月。

[RFC3848] Newman, C., "ESMTP and LMTP Transmission Types Registration", RFC 3848, July 2005.

[RFC3848]ニューマン、C.、 "ESMTPとLMTP伝送タイプの登録"、RFC 3848、2005年7月。

[RFC4954] Siemborski, R., Ed. and A. Melnikov, Ed., "SMTP Service Extension for Authentication", RFC 4954, July 2007.

[RFC4954] Siemborski、R.、エド。そして、A.メルニコフ、エド。、 "認証のためのSMTPサービス拡張子"、RFC 4954、2007年7月。

Appendix A. Acknowledgments


These recommendations were first formulated during informal discussions among members of Anti-Spam Technical Alliance (ASTA) and some participants from the Internet Research Task Force's Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG).


Later reviews and suggestions were provided by: M. Allman, L.H. Aestrand, N. Borenstein, S. Bortzmeyer, K. Chon, R. Clayton, B. Cole, W. Dnes, V. Duchovni, E. Edelstein, F. Ellermann, M. Elvey, J.D. Falk, N. Freed, J. Glube, A. Herzberg, J. Klensin, J. Levine, S. Moonesamy, K. Moore, R. Nelson, C. Newman, C. O'Malley, S. Ramasubramanian, R. Rognlie, J. St. Sauver, W. Schlitt, B. Shein, B. Sullivan.

M.オールマン、LH Aestrand、N. Borenstein、S. Bortzmeyer、K.チョン、R.クレイトン、B.コール、W. DNES、V. Duchovni、E.エデルスタイン、F. Ellermann:後でレビューと提案を提供されました、M. Elvey、JDフォーク、N.フリード、J. Glube、A.ヘルツベルク、J. Klensin、J.レヴァイン、S. Moonesamy、K.ムーア、R.ネルソン、C.ニューマン、C.オマリー、 S. Ramasubramanian、R. Rognlie、J.セントSauver、W. Schlitt、B. Shein、B.サリバン。

Authors' Addresses


Carl Hutzler 2512 Freetown Drive Reston, VA 20191

カールHutzler 2512フリータウンドライブレストン、バージニア州20191

Phone: 703-915-6862 EMail: URI:

電話:703-915-6862 Eメール URI:

Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking 675 Spruce Dr. Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA

デイブ・クロッカーブランデンブルクインターネットワーキング675スプルース博士はカリフォルニア州サニーベール94086 USA

Phone: +1.408.246.8253 EMail: URI:

電話:+1.408.246.8253電子メール URI:

Peter Resnick QUALCOMM Incorporated 5775 Morehouse Drive San Diego, CA 92121-1714 USA

ピーター・レズニックQUALCOMM Incorporatedの5775モアハウスドライブサンディエゴ、CA 92121から1714 USA

Phone: +1 858 651 4478 EMail: URI:

電話:+1 858 651 4478 Eメール URI:

Eric Allman Sendmail, Inc. 6745 Christie Ave., Suite 350 Emeryville, CA USA

エリック・オールマンのSendmail社6745クリスティアベニュー、スイート350エメリービル、CA USA

Phone: +1 510 594 5501 EMail:

電話:+1 510 594 5501 Eメール

Tony Finch University of Cambridge Computing Service New Museums Site Pembroke Street Cambridge CB2 3QH ENGLAND

ケンブリッジ・コンピューティング・サービスの新博物館サイトペンブロークストリートケンブリッジCB2 3QH ENGLANDのトニー・フィンチ大学

Phone: +44 797 040 1426 EMail: URI:

電話:+44 797 040 1426 Eメール:URI

Full Copyright Statement


Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).


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.

この文書では、BCP 78に含まれる権利と許可と制限の適用を受けており、その中の記載を除いて、作者は彼らのすべての権利を保有します。


この文書とここに含まれている情報は、基礎とCONTRIBUTOR「そのまま」、ORGANIZATION HE / SHEが表すまたはインターネットSOCIETY、(もしあれば)を後援し、IETF TRUST ANDインターネットエンジニアリングタスクフォース放棄ALLに設けられています。保証は、明示または黙示、この情報の利用および特定目的に対する権利または商品性または適合性の黙示の保証を侵害しない任意の保証がこれらに限定されません。

Intellectual Property


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は、本書またはそのような権限下で、ライセンスがたりないかもしれない程度に記載された技術の実装や使用に関係すると主張される可能性があります任意の知的財産権やその他の権利の有効性または範囲に関していかなる位置を取りません利用可能です。またそれは、それがどのような権利を確認する独自の取り組みを行ったことを示すものでもありません。 RFC文書の権利に関する手続きの情報は、BCP 78およびBCP 79に記載されています。

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


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は、その注意にこの標準を実装するために必要とされる技術をカバーすることができる任意の著作権、特許または特許出願、またはその他の所有権を持ってすべての利害関係者を招待します。 ietf-ipr@ietf.orgのIETFに情報を記述してください。