Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         E. Foudil
Request for Comments: 9116
Category: Informational                                  Y. Shafranovich
ISSN: 2070-1721                                 Nightwatch Cybersecurity
                                                              April 2022

A File Format to Aid in Security Vulnerability Disclosure




When security vulnerabilities are discovered by researchers, proper reporting channels are often lacking. As a result, vulnerabilities may be left unreported. This document defines a machine-parsable format ("security.txt") to help organizations describe their vulnerability disclosure practices to make it easier for researchers to report vulnerabilities.

研究者によってセキュリティの脆弱性が発見されると、適切な報告チャネルが不足していることがよくあります。その結果、脆弱性は報告されていないままになる可能性があります。このドキュメントでは、組織が脆弱性の開示慣行を説明して、研究者が脆弱性を容易に報告できるようにするために、マシンと並ぶ形式( "Security.txt")を定義します。

Status of This Memo


This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.


This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

このドキュメントは、インターネットエンジニアリングタスクフォース(IETF)の製品です。IETFコミュニティのコンセンサスを表しています。公開レビューを受けており、インターネットエンジニアリングステアリンググループ(IESG)からの出版が承認されています。IESGによって承認されたすべてのドキュメントが、インターネット標準のあらゆるレベルの候補者であるわけではありません。RFC 7841のセクション2を参照してください。

Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at


Copyright Notice


Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

著作権(c)2022 IETF Trustおよび文書著者として特定された人。全著作権所有。

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents ( in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

このドキュメントは、BCP 78およびIETFドキュメント(に関連するIETF Trustの法的規定の対象となります。この文書に関するあなたの権利と制限を説明するので、これらの文書を注意深く確認してください。このドキュメントから抽出されたコードコンポーネントには、セクション4.Eで説明されている法的規定のセクション4.Eで説明されており、修正されたBSDライセンスで説明されているように保証なしで提供される修正されたBSDライセンステキストを含める必要があります。

Table of Contents


   1.  Introduction
     1.1.  Motivation, Prior Work, and Scope
     1.2.  Terminology
   2.  The Specification
     2.2.  Line Separator
     2.3.  Digital Signature
     2.4.  Extensibility
     2.5.  Field Definitions
       2.5.1.  Acknowledgments
       2.5.2.  Canonical
       2.5.3.  Contact
       2.5.4.  Encryption
       2.5.5.  Expires
       2.5.6.  Hiring
       2.5.7.  Policy
       2.5.8.  Preferred-Languages
     2.6.  Example of an Unsigned "security.txt" File
     2.7.  Example of a Signed "security.txt" File
   3.  Location of the security.txt File
     3.1.  Scope of the File
   4.  File Format Description and ABNF Grammar
   5.  Security Considerations
     5.1.  Compromised Files and Incident Response
     5.2.  Redirects
     5.3.  Incorrect or Stale Information
     5.4.  Intentionally Malformed Files, Resources, and Reports
     5.5.  No Implied Permission for Testing
     5.6.  Multi-User Environments
     5.7.  Protecting Data in Transit
     5.8.  Spam and Spurious Reports
   6.  IANA Considerations
     6.1.  Well-Known URIs Registry
     6.2.  Registry for security.txt Fields
   7.  References
     7.1.  Normative References
     7.2.  Informative References
   Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
1. はじめに
1.1. Motivation, Prior Work, and Scope
1.1. 動機、以前の仕事、および範囲

Many security researchers encounter situations where they are unable to report security vulnerabilities to organizations because there are no reporting channels to contact the owner of a particular resource, and no information is available about the vulnerability disclosure practices of such owner.


As per Section 4 of [RFC2142], there is an existing convention of using the <SECURITY@domain> email address for communications regarding security issues. That convention provides only a single, email-based channel of communication per domain and does not provide a way for domain owners to publish information about their security disclosure practices.


There are also contact conventions prescribed for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in Section 2 of [RFC3013], for Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs) in Section 3.2 of [RFC2350], and for site operators in Section 5.2 of [RFC2196]. As per [RFC7485], there is also contact information provided by Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and domain registries for owners of IP addresses, Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs), and domain names. However, none of these tackle the issue of how security researchers can locate contact information and vulnerability disclosure practices for organizations in order to report vulnerabilities.


In this document, we define a richer, machine-parsable, and more extensible way for organizations to communicate information about their security disclosure practices and ways to contact them. Other details of vulnerability disclosure are outside the scope of this document. Readers are encouraged to consult other documents such as [ISO.29147.2018] or [CERT.CVD].


As per [CERT.CVD], "vulnerability response" refers to reports of product vulnerabilities, which is related to but distinct from reports of network intrusions and compromised websites ("incident response"). The mechanism defined in this document is intended to be used for the former ("vulnerability response"). If implementors want to utilize this mechanism for incident response, they should be aware of additional security considerations discussed in Section 5.1.


The "security.txt" file is intended to be complementary and not a substitute or replacement for other public resources maintained by organizations regarding their security disclosure practices.


1.2. Terminology
1.2. 用語

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

この文書のキーワード "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", および "OPTIONAL" はBCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174]で説明されているように、すべて大文字の場合にのみ解釈されます。

The term "researcher" corresponds to the terms "finder" and "reporter" in [ISO.29147.2018] and [CERT.CVD]. The term "organization" corresponds to the term "vendor" in [ISO.29147.2018] and [CERT.CVD].


The term "implementors" includes all parties involved in the vulnerability disclosure process.


2. The Specification
2. 仕様

This document defines a text file to be placed in a known location that provides information about vulnerability disclosure practices of a particular organization. The format of this file is machine parsable and MUST follow the ABNF grammar defined in Section 4. This file is intended to help security researchers when disclosing security vulnerabilities.


By convention, the file is named "security.txt". The location and scope are described in Section 3.


This text file contains multiple fields with different values. A field contains a "name", which is the first part of a field all the way up to the colon (for example: "Contact:") and follows the syntax defined for "field-name" in Section 3.6.8 of [RFC5322]. Field names are case insensitive (as per Section 2.3 of [RFC5234]). The "value" comes after the field name (for example: "") and follows the syntax defined for "unstructured" in Section 3.2.5 of [RFC5322]. The file MAY also contain blank lines.


A field MUST always consist of a name and a value (for example: "Contact:"). A "security.txt" file can have an unlimited number of fields. Each field MUST appear on its own line. Unless otherwise specified by the field definition, multiple values MUST NOT be chained together for a single field. Unless otherwise indicated in a definition of a particular field, a field MAY appear multiple times.

フィールドは常に名前と値で構成されている必要があります(たとえば、 "連絡先")。「security.txt」ファイルには、無制限の数のフィールドを持つことができます。各フィールドは、独自のラインに表示する必要があります。フィールド定義で特に指定されていない限り、単一のフィールドに対して複数の値を一緒にチェーンしてはなりません。特定のフィールドの定義に特に示されない限り、フィールドが複数回表示される場合があります。

Implementors should be aware that some of the fields may contain URIs using percent-encoding (as per Section 2.1 of [RFC3986]).


2.1. コメント

Any line beginning with the "#" (%x23) symbol MUST be interpreted as a comment. The content of the comment may contain any ASCII or Unicode characters in the %x21-7E and %x80-FFFFF ranges plus the tab (%x09) and space (%x20) characters.




# This is a comment.


2.2. Line Separator
2.2. ラインセパレーター

Every line MUST end with either a carriage return and line feed characters (CRLF / %x0D %x0A) or just a line feed character (LF / %x0A).

すべてのラインは、キャリッジリターンおよびラインフィード文字(CRLF /%X0D%X0A)またはラインフィード文字(LF /%X0A)のいずれかで終了する必要があります。

2.3. Digital Signature
2.3. デジタル署名

It is RECOMMENDED that a "security.txt" file be digitally signed using an OpenPGP cleartext signature as described in Section 7 of [RFC4880]. When digital signatures are used, it is also RECOMMENDED that organizations use the "Canonical" field (as per Section 2.5.2), thus allowing the digital signature to authenticate the location of the file.

[RFC4880]のセクション7で説明されているように、「security.txt」ファイルをDigitally Signest signest signest signestyでデジタル的に署名することをお勧めします。デジタル署名が使用される場合、組織は「標準的な」フィールド(セクション2.5.2に従って)を使用することをお勧めします。これにより、デジタル署名がファイルの場所を認証できるようにします。

When it comes to verifying the key used to generate the signature, it is always the security researcher's responsibility to make sure the key being used is indeed one they trust.


2.4. Extensibility
2.4. 拡張性

Like many other formats and protocols, this format may need to be changed over time to fit the ever-changing landscape of the Internet. Therefore, extensibility is provided via an IANA registry for fields as defined in Section 6.2. Any fields registered via that process MUST be considered optional. To encourage extensibility and interoperability, researchers MUST ignore any fields they do not explicitly support.


In general, implementors should "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others" (as per [RFC0793]).


2.5. Field Definitions
2.5. フィールド定義

Unless otherwise stated, all fields MUST be considered optional.


2.5.1. Acknowledgments
2.5.1. 謝辞

The "Acknowledgments" field indicates a link to a page where security researchers are recognized for their reports. The page being referenced should list security researchers that reported security vulnerabilities and collaborated to remediate them. Organizations should be careful to limit the vulnerability information being published in order to prevent future attacks.


If this field indicates a web URI, then it MUST begin with "https://" (as per Section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]).

このフィールドがWeb URIを示している場合、「https://」([RFC7230]のセクション2.7.2に従って)から始める必要があります。




Example security acknowledgments page:


We would like to thank the following researchers:


   (2017-04-15) Frank Denis - Reflected cross-site scripting
   (2017-01-02) Alice Quinn  - SQL injection
   (2016-12-24) John Buchner - Stored cross-site scripting
   (2016-06-10) Anna Richmond - A server configuration issue
2.5.2. Canonical
2.5.2. 正規

The "Canonical" field indicates the canonical URIs where the "security.txt" file is located, which is usually something like "". If this field indicates a web URI, then it MUST begin with "https://" (as per Section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]).

「標準的な」フィールドは、「security.txt」ファイルが配置されている標準的なurisを示します。これは通常、「」のようなものです。このフィールドがWeb URIを示している場合、「https://」([RFC7230]のセクション2.7.2に従って)から始める必要があります。

While this field indicates that a "security.txt" retrieved from a given URI is intended to apply to that URI, it MUST NOT be interpreted to apply to all canonical URIs listed within the file. Researchers SHOULD use an additional trust mechanism such as a digital signature (as per Section 2.3) to make the determination that a particular canonical URI is applicable.


If this field appears within a "security.txt" file and the URI used to retrieve that file is not listed within any canonical fields, then the contents of the file SHOULD NOT be trusted.


2.5.3. Contact
2.5.3. コンタクト

The "Contact" field indicates a method that researchers should use for reporting security vulnerabilities such as an email address, a phone number, and/or a web page with contact information. This field MUST always be present in a "security.txt" file. If this field indicates a web URI, then it MUST begin with "https://" (as per Section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]). Security email addresses should use the conventions defined in Section 4 of [RFC2142].

「連絡先」フィールドは、研究者が電子メールアドレス、電話番号、および/または連絡先情報を含むWebページなどのセキュリティの脆弱性を報告するために使用すべき方法を示します。このフィールドは、常に「security.txt」ファイルに存在する必要があります。このフィールドがWeb URIを示している場合、「https://」([RFC7230]のセクション2.7.2に従って)から始める必要があります。セキュリティメールアドレスは、[RFC2142]のセクション4で定義されている規則を使用する必要があります。

The value MUST follow the URI syntax described in Section 3 of [RFC3986]. This means that "mailto" and "tel" URI schemes must be used when specifying email addresses and telephone numbers, as defined in [RFC6068] and [RFC3966]. When the value of this field is an email address, it is RECOMMENDED that encryption be used (as per Section 2.5.4).


These SHOULD be listed in order of preference, with the first occurrence being the preferred method of contact, the second occurrence being the second most preferred method of contact, etc. In the example below, the first email address ("") is the preferred method of contact.

これらは好みの順にリストする必要があり、最初の出来事は好ましい連絡方法であり、2番目の発生は2番目に優先される連絡方法などです。以下の例では、最初のメールアドレス( "")は、優先される接触方法です。

   Contact: tel:+1-201-555-0123
2.5.4. Encryption
2.5.4. 暗号化

The "Encryption" field indicates an encryption key that security researchers should use for encrypted communication. Keys MUST NOT appear in this field. Instead, the value of this field MUST be a URI pointing to a location where the key can be retrieved. If this field indicates a web URI, then it MUST begin with "https://" (as per Section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]).

「暗号化」フィールドは、セキュリティ研究者が暗号化された通信に使用すべき暗号化キーを示します。このフィールドにキーが表示されてはなりません。代わりに、このフィールドの値は、キーを取得できる場所を指すURIでなければなりません。このフィールドがWeb URIを示している場合、「https://」([RFC7230]のセクション2.7.2に従って)から始める必要があります。

When it comes to verifying the authenticity of the key, it is always the security researcher's responsibility to make sure the key being specified is indeed one they trust. Researchers must not assume that this key is used to generate the digital signature referenced in Section 2.3.


Example of an OpenPGP key available from a web server:



Example of an OpenPGP key available from an OPENPGPKEY DNS record:

OpenPGPKEY DNSレコードから利用可能なOpenPGPキーの例:


Example of an OpenPGP key being referenced by its fingerprint:


   Encryption: openpgp4fpr:5f2de5521c63a801ab59ccb603d49de44b29100f
2.5.5. Expires
2.5.5. 期限切れ

The "Expires" field indicates the date and time after which the data contained in the "security.txt" file is considered stale and should not be used (as per Section 5.3). The value of this field is formatted according to the Internet profiles of [ISO.8601-1] and [ISO.8601-2] as defined in [RFC3339]. It is RECOMMENDED that the value of this field be less than a year into the future to avoid staleness.


This field MUST always be present and MUST NOT appear more than once.


   Expires: 2021-12-31T18:37:07z
2.5.6. Hiring
2.5.6. 雇用

The "Hiring" field is used for linking to the vendor's security-related job positions. If this field indicates a web URI, then it MUST begin with "https://" (as per Section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]).

「雇用」フィールドは、ベンダーのセキュリティ関連の職位にリンクするために使用されます。このフィールドがWeb URIを示している場合、「https://」([RFC7230]のセクション2.7.2に従って)から始める必要があります。

2.5.7. Policy
2.5.7. ポリシー

The "Policy" field indicates a link to where the vulnerability disclosure policy is located. This can help security researchers understand the organization's vulnerability reporting practices. If this field indicates a web URI, then it MUST begin with "https://" (as per Section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]).

「ポリシー」フィールドは、脆弱性開示ポリシーがどこにあるかへのリンクを示します。これは、セキュリティ研究者が組織の脆弱性報告慣行を理解するのに役立ちます。このフィールドがWeb URIを示している場合、「https://」([RFC7230]のセクション2.7.2に従って)から始める必要があります。



2.5.8. Preferred-Languages
2.5.8. 優先言語

The "Preferred-Languages" field can be used to indicate a set of natural languages that are preferred when submitting security reports. This set MAY list multiple values, separated by commas. If this field is included, then at least one value MUST be listed. The values within this set are language tags (as defined in [RFC5646]). If this field is absent, security researchers may assume that English is the language to be used (as per Section 4.5 of [RFC2277]).


The order in which they appear is not an indication of priority; the listed languages are intended to have equal priority.


This field MUST NOT appear more than once.


Example (English, Spanish and French):


Preferred-Languages: en, es, fr


2.6. Example of an Unsigned "security.txt" File
2.6. 署名されていない「security.txt」ファイルの例
   # Our security address
   # Our OpenPGP key
   # Our security policy
   # Our security acknowledgments page
   Expires: 2021-12-31T18:37:07z
2.7. Example of a Signed "security.txt" File
2.7. 署名された「security.txt」ファイルの例
   Hash: SHA256
   # Canonical URI
   # Our security address
   # Our OpenPGP key
   # Our security policy
   # Our security acknowledgments page
   Expires: 2021-12-31T18:37:07z
   Version: GnuPG v2.2
   -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
3. Location of the security.txt File
3. security.txtファイルの場所

For web-based services, organizations MUST place the "security.txt" file under the "/.well-known/" path, e.g., as per [RFC8615] of a domain name or IP address. For legacy compatibility, a "security.txt" file might be placed at the top-level path or redirect (as per Section 6.4 of [RFC7231]) to the "security.txt" file under the "/.well-known/" path. If a "security.txt" file is present in both locations, the one in the "/.well-known/" path MUST be used.


The file MUST be accessed via HTTP 1.0 or a higher version, and the file access MUST use the "https" scheme (as per Section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]). It MUST have a Content-Type of "text/plain" with the default charset parameter set to "utf-8" (as per Section 4.1.3 of [RFC2046]).

ファイルはHTTP 1.0または上位バージョンを介してアクセスする必要があり、ファイルアクセスは「https」スキームを使用する必要があります([RFC7230]のセクション2.7.2に従って)。デフォルトのチャーセットパラメーターが「UTF-8」に設定された「テキスト/プレーン」のコンテンツタイプが必要です([RFC2046]のセクション4.1.3に従って)。

Retrieval of "security.txt" files and resources indicated within such files may result in a redirect (as per Section 6.4 of [RFC7231]). Researchers should perform additional analysis (as per Section 5.2) to make sure these redirects are not malicious or pointing to resources controlled by an attacker.


3.1. Scope of the File
3.1. ファイルの範囲

A "security.txt" file MUST only apply to the domain or IP address in the URI used to retrieve it, not to any of its subdomains or parent domains. A "security.txt" file MAY also apply to products and services provided by the organization publishing the file.


As per Section 1.1, this specification is intended for a vulnerability response. If implementors want to use this for an incident response, they should be aware of additional security considerations discussed in Section 5.1.


Organizations SHOULD use the policy directive (as per Section 2.5.7) to provide additional details regarding the scope and details of their vulnerability disclosure process.


Some examples appear below:


   # The following only applies to
   # This only applies to
   # This security.txt file applies to IPv4 address of
   # This security.txt file applies to IPv6 address of 2001:db8:8:4::2.
4. File Format Description and ABNF Grammar
4. ファイル形式の説明とABNF文法

The file format of the "security.txt" file MUST be plain text (MIME type "text/plain") as defined in Section 4.1.3 of [RFC2046] and MUST be encoded using UTF-8 [RFC3629] in Net-Unicode form [RFC5198].

[rfc2046]のセクション4.1.3で定義されているように、「security.txt」ファイルのファイル形式はプレーンテキスト(mimeタイプ「テキスト/プレーン」)である必要があり、ネットユニコードのUTF-8 [RFC3629]を使用してエンコードする必要があります。フォーム[RFC5198]。

The format of this file MUST follow the ABNF definition below (which incorporates the core ABNF rules from [RFC5234] and uses the case-sensitive string support from [RFC7405]).


   body             =  signed / unsigned
   unsigned       =  *line (contact-field eol) ; one or more required
                     *line (expires-field eol) ; exactly one required
                     *line [lang-field eol] *line ; exactly one optional
                     ; order of fields within the file is not important
                     ; except that if contact-field appears more
                     ; than once, the order of those indicates
                     ; priority (see Section 3.5.3)

; signed is the production that should match the OpenPGP clearsigned ; document signed = cleartext-header 1*(hash-header) CRLF cleartext signature

;署名されたのは、OpenPGPクリア署名と一致する制作です。document signed = cleartext-header 1*(hash-header)crlf cleartext signature

   cleartext-header =  %s"-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----" CRLF
   hash-header      =  %s"Hash: " hash-alg *("," hash-alg) CRLF
   hash-alg         =  token
                         ; imported from RFC 2045; see RFC 4880 Section
                         ; 10.3.3 for a pointer to the registry of
                         ; valid values
   ;cleartext       =  1*( UTF8-octets [CR] LF)
                         ; dash-escaped per RFC 4880 Section 7.1
   cleartext        =  *((line-dash / line-from / line-nodash) [CR] LF)
   line-dash        =  ("- ") "-" *UTF8-char-not-cr
                          ; MUST include initial "- "
   line-from        =  ["- "] "From " *UTF8-char-not-cr
                         ; SHOULD include initial "- "
   line-nodash      =  ["- "] *UTF8-char-not-cr
                         ; MAY include initial "- "
   UTF8-char-not-dash =  UTF8-1-not-dash / UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4
   UTF8-1-not-dash  =  %x00-2C / %x2E-7F
   UTF8-char-not-cr =  UTF8-1-not-cr / UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4
   UTF8-1-not-cr    =  %x00-0C / %x0E-7F
   ; UTF8 rules from RFC 3629
   UTF8-octets      =  *( UTF8-char )
   UTF8-char        =  UTF8-1 / UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4
   UTF8-1           =  %x00-7F
   UTF8-2           =  %xC2-DF UTF8-tail
   UTF8-3           =  %xE0 %xA0-BF UTF8-tail / %xE1-EC 2( UTF8-tail ) /
                       %xED %x80-9F UTF8-tail / %xEE-EF 2( UTF8-tail )
   UTF8-4           =  %xF0 %x90-BF 2( UTF8-tail ) /
                       %xF1-F3 3( UTF8-tail ) /
                       %xF4 %x80-8F 2( UTF8-tail )
   UTF8-tail        =  %x80-BF

signature = armor-header armor-keys CRLF signature-data armor-tail

Signature = Armor-Header Armor-Keys CRLF Signature-Data Armor-Tail

   armor-header     =  %s"-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----" CRLF
   armor-keys       =  *(token ": " *( VCHAR / WSP ) CRLF)
                         ; Armor Header Keys from RFC 4880
   armor-tail       =  %s"-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----" CRLF
   signature-data   =  1*(1*(ALPHA / DIGIT / "=" / "+" / "/") CRLF)
                         ; base64; see RFC 4648
                         ; includes RFC 4880 checksum
   line             =  [ (field / comment) ] eol
   eol              =  *WSP [CR] LF

field = ; optional fields ack-field / can-field / contact-field / ; optional repeated instances encryption-field / hiring-field / policy-field / ext-field

field =;オプションのフィールドACK-FIELD / CAN-FIELD / CONTACT-FIELD /;オプションの繰り返されるインスタンス暗号化場 /雇用フィールド /ポリシーフィールド /エクストーフィールド

fs = ":"

fs = ":"

   comment          =  "#" *(WSP / VCHAR / %x80-FFFFF)

ack-field = "Acknowledgments" fs SP uri

ack-field = "謝辞" fs sp uri

can-field = "Canonical" fs SP uri

can-field = "canonical" fs sp uri

contact-field = "Contact" fs SP uri

contact-field = "contact" fs sp uri

expires-field = "Expires" fs SP date-time

expires-field = "expires" fs spの日付時間

encryption-field = "Encryption" fs SP uri

encryption-field = "暗号化" fs sp uri

hiring-field = "Hiring" fs SP uri

Hiring-field = "Hiring" fs sp uri

lang-field = "Preferred-Languages" fs SP lang-values

lang-field = "優先言語" fs sp lang-values

policy-field = "Policy" fs SP uri

ポリシーフィールド= "ポリシー" fs sp uri

   date-time        =  < imported from Section 5.6 of [RFC3339] >
   lang-tag         =  < Language-Tag from Section 2.1 of [RFC5646] >
   lang-values      =  lang-tag *(*WSP "," *WSP lang-tag)
   uri              =  < URI as per Section 3 of [RFC3986] >
   ext-field        =  field-name fs SP unstructured
   field-name       =  < imported from Section 3.6.8 of [RFC5322] >
   unstructured     =  < imported from Section 3.2.5 of [RFC5322] >
   token            =  < imported from Section 5.1 of [RFC2045] >
   ALPHA            =  %x41-5A / %x61-7A   ; A-Z / a-z
   BIT              =  "0" / "1"
   CHAR             =  %x01-7F
                         ; any 7-bit US-ASCII character,
                         ;  excluding NUL
   CR               =  %x0D
                         ; carriage return

CRLF = CR LF ; Internet standard newline

crlf = cr lf;インターネット標準のNewline

   CTL              =  %x00-1F / %x7F
                         ; controls
   DIGIT            =  %x30-39
                         ; 0-9
   DQUOTE           =  %x22
                         ; " (Double Quote)
   HEXDIG           =  DIGIT / "A" / "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F"
   HTAB             =  %x09
                         ; horizontal tab
   LF               =  %x0A
                         ; linefeed
   LWSP             =  *(WSP / CRLF WSP)
                         ; Use of this linear-white-space rule
                         ;  permits lines containing only white
                         ;  space that are no longer legal in
                         ;  mail headers and have caused
                         ;  interoperability problems in other
                         ;  contexts.
                         ; Do not use when defining mail
                         ;  headers and use with caution in
                         ;  other contexts.
   OCTET            =  %x00-FF
                         ; 8 bits of data
   SP               =  %x20
   VCHAR            =  %x21-7E
                         ; visible (printing) characters

WSP = SP / HTAB ; white space

wsp = sp / htab;空白

"ext-field" refers to extension fields, which are discussed in Section 2.4.


5. Security Considerations
5. セキュリティ上の考慮事項

Because of the use of URIs and well-known resources, security considerations of [RFC3986] and [RFC8615] apply here, in addition to the considerations outlined below.


5.1. Compromised Files and Incident Response
5.1. 侵害されたファイルとインシデント応答

An attacker that has compromised a website is able to compromise the "security.txt" file as well or set up a redirect to their own site. This can result in security reports not being received by the organization or being sent to the attacker.


To protect against this, organizations should use the "Canonical" field to indicate the locations of the file (as per Section 2.5.2), digitally sign their "security.txt" files (as per Section 2.3), and regularly monitor the file and the referenced resources to detect tampering.


Security researchers should validate the "security.txt" file, including verifying the digital signature and checking any available historical records before using the information contained in the file. If the "security.txt" file looks suspicious or compromised, it should not be used.


While it is not recommended, implementors may choose to use the information published within a "security.txt" file for an incident response. In such cases, extreme caution should be taken before trusting such information, since it may have been compromised by an attacker. Researchers should use additional methods to verify such data including out-of-band verification of the Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) signature, DNSSEC-based approaches, etc.


5.2. Redirects
5.2. リダイレクト

When retrieving the file and any resources referenced in the file, researchers should record any redirects since they can lead to a different domain or IP address controlled by an attacker. Further inspection of such redirects is recommended before using the information contained within the file.


5.3. Incorrect or Stale Information
5.3. 間違った情報または古い情報

If information and resources referenced in a "security.txt" file are incorrect or not kept up to date, this can result in security reports not being received by the organization or sent to incorrect contacts, thus exposing possible security issues to third parties. Not having a "security.txt" file may be preferable to having stale information in this file. Organizations must use the "Expires" field (see Section 2.5.5) to indicate to researchers when the data in the file is no longer valid.


Organizations should ensure that information in this file and any referenced resources such as web pages, email addresses, and telephone numbers are kept current, are accessible, are controlled by the organization, and are kept secure.


5.4. Intentionally Malformed Files, Resources, and Reports
5.4. 意図的に不正なファイル、リソース、およびレポート

It is possible for compromised or malicious sites to create files that are extraordinarily large or otherwise malformed in an attempt to discover or exploit weaknesses in the parsing code. Researchers should make sure that any such code is robust against large or malformed files and fields, and they may choose to have the code not parse files larger than 32 KBs, those with fields longer than 2,048 characters, or those containing more than 1,000 lines. The ABNF grammar (as defined in Section 4) can also be used as a way to verify these files.

侵害されたサイトまたは悪意のあるサイトでは、解析コードの弱点を発見または悪用するために、非常に大きい、または不正されたファイルを作成することができます。研究者は、そのようなコードが大型ファイルまたは不正なファイルやフィールドに対して堅牢であることを確認する必要があり、32 KBを超えるファイル、2,048文字を超えるフィールドを持つファイル、または1,000回以上のラインを含むファイルを解析するコードを選択することができます。ABNF文法(セクション4で定義)は、これらのファイルを検証する方法として使用することもできます。

The same concerns apply to any other resources referenced within "security.txt" files, as well as any security reports received as a result of publishing this file. Such resources and reports may be hostile, malformed, or malicious.


5.5. No Implied Permission for Testing
5.5. テストの暗黙の許可はありません

The presence of a "security.txt" file might be interpreted by researchers as providing permission to do security testing against the domain or IP address where it is published or against products and services provided by the organization publishing the file. This might result in increased testing against an organization by researchers. On the other hand, a decision not to publish a "security.txt" file might be interpreted by the organization operating that website to be a way to signal to researchers that permission to test that particular site or project is denied. This might result in pushback against researchers reporting security issues to that organization.


Therefore, researchers shouldn't assume that the presence or absence of a "security.txt" file grants or denies permission for security testing. Any such permission may be indicated in the company's vulnerability disclosure policy (as per Section 2.5.7) or a new field (as per Section 2.4).


5.6. Multi-User Environments
5.6. マルチユーザー環境

In multi-user / multi-tenant environments, it may be possible for a user to take over the location of the "security.txt" file. Organizations should reserve the "security.txt" namespace at the root to ensure no third party can create a page with the "security.txt" AND "/.well-known/security.txt" names.

マルチユーザー /マルチテナント環境では、ユーザーが「security.txt」ファイルの場所を引き継ぐことができる場合があります。組織は、「security.txt」と「/.well-nown/security.txt」名でサードパーティがページを作成できないようにするために、「security.txt」名前空間をルートに予約する必要があります。

5.7. Protecting Data in Transit
5.7. 輸送中のデータの保護

To protect a "security.txt" file from being tampered with in transit, implementors MUST use HTTPS (as per Section 2.7.2 of [RFC7230]) when serving the file itself and for retrieval of any web URIs referenced in it (except when otherwise noted in this specification). As part of the TLS handshake, researchers should validate the provided X.509 certificate in accordance with [RFC6125] and the following considerations:


* Matching is performed only against the DNS-ID identifiers.

* マッチングは、DNS-ID識別子に対してのみ実行されます。

* DNS domain names in server certificates MAY contain the wildcard character '*' as the complete leftmost label within the identifier.

* サーバー証明書のDNSドメイン名には、識別子内の完全な左端のラベルとしてWildCard文字 '*'が含まれる場合があります。

The certificate may also be checked for revocation via the Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) [RFC6960], certificate revocation lists (CRLs), or similar mechanisms.


In cases where the "security.txt" file cannot be served via HTTPS (such as localhost) or is being served with an invalid certificate, additional human validation is recommended since the contents may have been modified while in transit.


As an additional layer of protection, it is also recommended that organizations digitally sign their "security.txt" file with OpenPGP (as per Section 2.3). Also, to protect security reports from being tampered with or observed while in transit, organizations should specify encryption keys (as per Section 2.5.4) unless HTTPS is being used for report submission.


However, the determination of validity of such keys is out of scope for this specification. Security researchers need to establish other secure means to verify them.


5.8. Spam and Spurious Reports
5.8. スパムとスプリアスレポート

Similar to concerns in [RFC2142], denial-of-service attacks via spam reports would become easier once a "security.txt" file is published by an organization. In addition, there is an increased likelihood of reports being sent in an automated fashion and/or as a result of automated scans without human analysis. Attackers can also use this file as a way to spam unrelated third parties by listing their resources and/or contact information.


Organizations need to weigh the advantages of publishing this file versus the possible disadvantages and increased resources required to analyze security reports.


Security researchers should review all information within the "security.txt" file before submitting reports in an automated fashion or reports resulting from automated scans.


6. IANA Considerations
6. IANAの考慮事項

Implementors should be aware that any resources referenced within a "security.txt" file MUST NOT point to the Well-Known URIs namespace unless they are registered with IANA (as per [RFC8615]).


6.1. Well-Known URIs Registry
6.1. 有名なURISレジストリ

IANA has updated the "Well-Known URIs" registry with the following additional values (using the template from [RFC8615]):


URI suffix: security.txt Change controller: IETF Specification document(s): RFC 9116 Status: permanent

uri suffix:security.txt Change Controller:IETF仕様文書:RFC 9116ステータス:永続

6.2. Registry for security.txt Fields
6.2. security.txtフィールドのレジストリ

IANA has created the "security.txt Fields" registry in accordance with [RFC8126]. This registry contains fields for use in "security.txt" files, defined by this specification.


New registrations or updates MUST be published in accordance with the "Expert Review" guidelines as described in Sections 4.5 and 5 of [RFC8126]. Any new field thus registered is considered optional by this specification unless a new version of this specification is published.


Designated experts should determine whether a proposed registration or update provides value to organizations and researchers using this format and makes sense in the context of industry-accepted vulnerability disclosure processes such as [ISO.29147.2018] and [CERT.CVD].


New registrations and updates MUST contain the following information:


1. Name of the field being registered or updated

1. 登録または更新されるフィールドの名前

2. Short description of the field

2. フィールドの短い説明

3. Whether the field can appear more than once

3. フィールドが複数回表示できるかどうか

4. New or updated status, which MUST be one of the following:

4. 新規または更新されたステータス。これは次のいずれかでなければなりません。

current: The field is in current use. deprecated: The field has been in use, but new usage is discouraged. historic: The field is no longer in current use.


5. Change controller

5. コントローラーを変更します

6. The document in which the specification of the field is published (if available)

6. フィールドの仕様が公開されている文書(利用可能な場合)

Existing registrations may be marked historic or deprecated, as appropriate, by a future update to this document.


The initial registry contains these values:


Field Name: Acknowledgments Description: link to page where security researchers are recognized Multiple Appearances: yes Status: current Change controller: IETF Reference: RFC 9116

フィールド名:謝辞説明:セキュリティ研究者が認識されるページへのリンク複数の外観:はいステータス:現在の変更コントローラー:IETFリファレンス:RFC 9116

Field Name: Canonical Description: canonical URI for this file Multiple Appearances: yes Status: current Change controller: IETF Reference: RFC 9116

フィールド名:標準説明:このファイルのカノニカルURI複数の外観:はいステータス:現在の変更コントローラー:IETFリファレンス:RFC 9116

Field Name: Contact Description: contact information to use for reporting vulnerabilities Multiple Appearances: yes Status: current Change controller: IETF Reference: RFC 9116

フィールド名:連絡先説明:脆弱性を報告するために使用する連絡先情報複数の外観:はいステータス:現在の変更コントローラー:IETFリファレンス:RFC 9116

Field Name: Expires Description: date and time after which this file is considered stale Multiple Appearances: no Status: current Change controller: IETF Reference: RFC 9116

フィールド名:期限切れ説明:日付と時刻このファイルは古い複数の外観と見なされます:ステータスなし:現在の変更コントローラー:IETFリファレンス:RFC 9116

Field Name: Encryption Description: link to a key to be used for encrypted communication Multiple Appearances: yes Status: current Change controller: IETF Reference: RFC 9116

フィールド名:暗号化の説明:暗号化された通信に使用するキーへのリンク複数の外観:はいステータス:現在の変更コントローラー:IETFリファレンス:RFC 9116

Field Name: Hiring Description: link to the vendor's security-related job positions Multiple Appearances: yes Status: current Change controller: IETF Reference: RFC 9116

フィールド名:雇用説明:ベンダーのセキュリティ関連のジョブポジションへのリンク複数の外観:はいステータス:現在の変更コントローラー:IETFリファレンス:RFC 9116

Field Name: Policy Description: link to security policy page Multiple Appearances: yes Status: current Change controller: IETF Reference: RFC 9116

フィールド名:ポリシー説明:セキュリティポリシーへのリンク複数の外観:はいステータス:現在の変更コントローラー:IETFリファレンス:RFC 9116

Field Name: Preferred-Languages Description: list of preferred languages for security reports Multiple Appearances: no Status: current Change controller: IETF Reference: RFC 9116

フィールド名:優先言語説明:セキュリティレポートの優先言語のリスト複数の外観:ステータスなし:現在の変更コントローラー:IETFリファレンス:RFC 9116

7. References
7. 参考文献
7.1. Normative References
7.1. 引用文献

[RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, DOI 10.17487/RFC2046, November 1996, <>.

[RFC2046] Freed、N。and N. Borenstein、「多目的インターネットメールエクステンション(MIME)パート2:メディアタイプ」、RFC 2046、DOI 10.17487/RFC2046、1996年11月、<https://www.rfc-editor.orgg/info/rfc2046>。

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <>.

[RFC2119] Bradner、S。、「要件レベルを示すためにRFCで使用するためのキーワード」、BCP 14、RFC 2119、DOI 10.17487/RFC2119、1997年3月、<>。

[RFC2142] Crocker, D., "Mailbox Names for Common Services, Roles and Functions", RFC 2142, DOI 10.17487/RFC2142, May 1997, <>.

[RFC2142] Crocker、D。、「一般的なサービス、役割、機能のメールボックス名」、RFC 2142、DOI 10.17487/RFC2142、1997年5月、<>

[RFC2277] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, DOI 10.17487/RFC2277, January 1998, <>.

[RFC2277] Alvestrand、H。、「キャラクターセットと言語に関するIETFポリシー」、BCP 18、RFC 2277、DOI 10.17487/RFC2277、1998年1月、<>

[RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002, <>.

[RFC3339] Klyne、G。and C. Newman、「インターネット上の日時:タイムスタンプ」、RFC 3339、DOI 10.17487/RFC3339、2002年7月、<>。

[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November 2003, <>.

[RFC3629] Yergeau、F。、「UTF-8、ISO 10646の変換形式」、STD 63、RFC 3629、DOI 10.17487/RFC3629、2003年11月、<>。

[RFC3966] Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers", RFC 3966, DOI 10.17487/RFC3966, December 2004, <>.

[RFC3966] Schulzrinne、H。、「電話番号の電話」、RFC 3966、DOI 10.17487/RFC3966、2004年12月、<>

[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, <>.

[RFC3986] Berners-Lee、T.、Fielding、R。、およびL. Masinter、「Uniform Resource Identifier(URI):Generic Syntax」、Std 66、RFC 3986、DOI 10.17487/RFC3986、2005年1月、<>。

[RFC4880] Callas, J., Donnerhacke, L., Finney, H., Shaw, D., and R. Thayer, "OpenPGP Message Format", RFC 4880, DOI 10.17487/RFC4880, November 2007, <>.

[RFC4880] Callas、J.、Donnerhacke、L.、Finney、H.、Shaw、D。、およびR. Thayer、「OpenPGPメッセージ形式」、RFC 4880、DOI 10.17487/RFC4880、2007年11月、<https:///////////>。

[RFC5198] Klensin, J. and M. Padlipsky, "Unicode Format for Network Interchange", RFC 5198, DOI 10.17487/RFC5198, March 2008, <>.

[RFC5198] Klensin、J。およびM. Padlipsky、「ネットワークインターチェンジ用ユニコード形式」、RFC 5198、DOI 10.17487/RFC5198、2008年3月、<>

[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008, <>.

[RFC5234] Crocker、D.、ed。P. Overell、「構文仕様のためのBNFの増強:ABNF:STD 68、RFC 5234、DOI 10.17487/RFC5234、2008年1月、<>。

[RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322, DOI 10.17487/RFC5322, October 2008, <>.

[RFC5322] Resnick、P.、ed。、「インターネットメッセージフォーマット」、RFC 5322、DOI 10.17487/RFC5322、2008年10月、<。

[RFC5646] Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for Identifying Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, DOI 10.17487/RFC5646, September 2009, <>.

[RFC5646]フィリップス、A。、編およびM.デイビス編、「言語を識別するためのタグ」、BCP 47、RFC 5646、DOI 10.17487/RFC5646、2009年9月、<>。

[RFC6068] Duerst, M., Masinter, L., and J. Zawinski, "The 'mailto' URI Scheme", RFC 6068, DOI 10.17487/RFC6068, October 2010, <>.

[RFC6068] Duerst、M.、Masinter、L。、およびJ. Zawinski、「The Mailto 'URIスキーム」、RFC 6068、DOI 10.17487/RFC6068、2010年10月、<>。

[RFC6125] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, DOI 10.17487/RFC6125, March 2011, <>.

[RFC6125] Saint-Andre、P。およびJ. Hodges、「輸送層のセキュリティ(TLS)のコンテキストでX.509(PKIX)証明書を使用したインターネット公開キーインフラストラクチャ内のドメインベースのアプリケーションサービスIDの表現と検証」、RFC 6125、DOI 10.17487/RFC6125、2011年3月、<>。

[RFC6960] Santesson, S., Myers, M., Ankney, R., Malpani, A., Galperin, S., and C. Adams, "X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP", RFC 6960, DOI 10.17487/RFC6960, June 2013, <>.

[RFC6960] Santesson、S.、Myers、M.、Ankney、R.、Malpani、A.、Galperin、S.、およびC. Adams、 "x.509インターネット公開キーインフラオンライン証明書ステータスプロトコル-OCSP"、RFC6960、doi 10.17487/rfc6960、2013年6月、<>。

[RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014, <>.

[RFC7230] Fielding、R.、ed。and J. Reschke、ed。、「HyperText Transfer Protocol(HTTP/1.1):メッセージの構文とルーティング」、RFC 7230、DOI 10.17487/RFC7230、2014年6月、<>。

[RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014, <>.

[RFC7231] Fielding、R.、ed。and J. Reschke、ed。、「HyperText Transfer Protocol(HTTP/1.1):Semantics and Content」、RFC 7231、DOI 10.17487/RFC7231、2014年6月、<>。

[RFC7405] Kyzivat, P., "Case-Sensitive String Support in ABNF", RFC 7405, DOI 10.17487/RFC7405, December 2014, <>.

[RFC7405] Kyzivat、P。、「ABNFでのケースセンシティブストリングサポート」、RFC 7405、DOI 10.17487/RFC7405、2014年12月、<>

[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <>.

[RFC8174] Leiba、B。、「RFC 2119キーワードの大文字と小文字のあいまいさ」、BCP 14、RFC 8174、DOI 10.17487/RFC8174、2017年5月、<>。

[RFC8615] Nottingham, M., "Well-Known Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 8615, DOI 10.17487/RFC8615, May 2019, <>.

[RFC8615]ノッティンガム、M。、「よく知られているユニフォームリソース識別子(URIS)」、RFC 8615、DOI 10.17487/RFC8615、2019年5月、<>

7.2. Informative References
7.2. 参考引用

[CERT.CVD] Software Engineering Institute, "The CERT Guide to Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure", Carnegie Mellon University, CMU/SEI-2017-SR-022, August 2017.

[CERT.CVD] Software Engineering Institute、「Cortinated脆弱性開示へのCERTガイド」、カーネギーメロン大学、CMU/SEI-2017-SR-022、2017年8月。

[ISO.29147.2018] ISO, "Information technology - Security techniques - Vulnerability disclosure", ISO/IEC 29147:2018, October 2018.

[ISO.29147.2018] ISO、「情報技術 - セキュリティ技術 - 脆弱性開示」、ISO/IEC 29147:2018、2018年10月。

[ISO.8601-1] ISO, "Date and time - Representations for information interchange - Part 1: Basic rules", ISO 8601-1:2019, February 2019.

[ISO.8601-1] ISO、「日付と時刻 - 情報交換の表現 - パート1:基本ルール」、ISO 8601-1:2019、2019年2月。

[ISO.8601-2] ISO, "Date and time - Representations for information interchange - Part 2: Extensions", ISO 8601-2:2019, February 2019.

[ISO.8601-2] ISO、「日付と時刻 - 情報交換の表現 - パート2:エクステンション」、ISO 8601-2:2019、2019年2月。

[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981, <>.

[RFC0793] Postel、J。、「伝送制御プロトコル」、STD 7、RFC 793、DOI 10.17487/RFC0793、1981年9月、<>。

[RFC2196] Fraser, B., "Site Security Handbook", FYI 8, RFC 2196, DOI 10.17487/RFC2196, September 1997, <>.

[RFC2196] Fraser、B。、「サイトセキュリティハンドブック」、FYI 8、RFC 2196、DOI 10.17487/RFC2196、1997年9月、<>。

[RFC2350] Brownlee, N. and E. Guttman, "Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response", BCP 21, RFC 2350, DOI 10.17487/RFC2350, June 1998, <>.

[RFC2350] Brownlee、N。およびE. Guttman、「コンピューターセキュリティインシデント応答への期待」、BCP 21、RFC 2350、DOI 10.17487/RFC2350、1998年6月、<>。

[RFC3013] Killalea, T., "Recommended Internet Service Provider Security Services and Procedures", BCP 46, RFC 3013, DOI 10.17487/RFC3013, November 2000, <>.

[RFC3013] Killalea、T。、「推奨されるインターネットサービスプロバイダーセキュリティサービスと手順」、BCP 46、RFC 3013、DOI 10.17487/RFC3013、2000年11月、<>。

[RFC7485] Zhou, L., Kong, N., Shen, S., Sheng, S., and A. Servin, "Inventory and Analysis of WHOIS Registration Objects", RFC 7485, DOI 10.17487/RFC7485, March 2015, <>.

[RFC7485] Zhou、L.、Kong、N.、Shen、S.、Sheng、S.、およびA. Servin、「WHOIS登録オブジェクトの在庫と分析」、RFC 7485、DOI 10.17487/RFC7485、2015年3月、<>。

[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, <>.

[RFC8126] Cotton、M.、Leiba、B。、およびT. Narten、「RFCSでIANA考慮事項セクションを書くためのガイドライン」、BCP 26、RFC 8126、DOI 10.17487/RFC8126、2017年6月、<https://>。



The authors would like to acknowledge the help provided during the development of this document by Tom Hudson, Jobert Abma, Gerben Janssen van Doorn, Austin Heap, Stephane Bortzmeyer, Max Smith, Eduardo Vela, and Krzysztof Kotowicz.


The authors would also like to acknowledge the feedback provided by multiple members of the IETF's LAST CALL, SAAG, and SECDISPATCH lists.


Yakov Shafranovich would like to also thank L.T.S. (for everything).

Yakov ShafranovichはL.T.S.にも感謝したいと思います。(全てにおいて)。

Authors' Addresses


Edwin Foudil Email:

Edwin Foudil

Yakov Shafranovich Nightwatch Cybersecurity Email:

Yakov Shafranovich nightwatch Cybersecurityメール:yakov