faqs.org - Internet FAQ Archives

RFC 4290 - Suggested Practices for Registration of International


Or Display the document by number




Network Working Group                                         J. Klensin
Request for Comments: 4290                                 December 2005
Category: Informational

                Suggested Practices for Registration of
                  Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)

Status of This Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

IESG Note

   This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.  The
   IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for any
   purpose and notes that the decision to publish is not based on IETF
   review apart from IESG review for conflict with IETF work.  The RFC
   Editor has chosen to publish this document at its discretion.  See
   RFC 3932 for more information.

Abstract

   This document explores the issues in the registration of
   internationalized domain names (IDNs).  The basic IDN definition
   allows a very large number of possible characters in domain names,
   and this richness may lead to serious user confusion about similar-
   looking names.  To avoid this confusion, the IDN registration process
   must impose rules that disallow some otherwise-valid name
   combinations.  This document suggests a set of mechanisms that
   registries might use to define and implement such rules for a broad
   range of languages, including adaptation of methods developed for
   Chinese, Japanese, and Korean domain names.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................3
      1.1. Background .................................................3
      1.2. The Nature and Status of these Recommendations .............4
      1.3. Terminology ................................................5
         1.3.1. Languages and Scripts .................................5
         1.3.2. Characters, Variants, Registrations, and Other
                Issues ................................................6
         1.3.3. Confusion, Fraud, and Cybersquatting ..................9
      1.4. A Review of the JET Guidelines .............................9
         1.4.1. JET Model .............................................9
         1.4.2. Reserved Names and Label Packages ....................10
      1.5. Languages, Scripts, and Variants ..........................11
         1.5.1. Languages versus Scripts .............................11
         1.5.2. Variant Selection ....................................13
      1.6. Variants are not a Universal Remedy .......................14
      1.7. Reservations and Exclusions ...............................14
         1.7.1. Sequence Exclusions for Valid Characters .............14
         1.7.2. Character Pairing Issues .............................15
      1.8. The Registration Bundle ...................................15
         1.8.1. Definitions and Structure ............................15
         1.8.2. Application of the Registration Bundle ...............16
   2. Some Implications of This Approach .............................17
   3. Possible Modifications of the JET Model ........................18
   4. Conclusions and Recommendations About the General Approach .....18
   5. A Model Table Format ...........................................19
   6. A Model Label Registration Procedure: "CreateBundle" ...........20
      6.1. Description of the CreateBundle Mechanism .................21
      6.2. The "no-variants" Case ....................................22
      6.3. CreateBundle and Nameprep Mapping .........................22
   7. IANA Considerations ............................................23
   8. Internationalization Considerations ............................24
   9. Security Considerations ........................................24
   10. Acknowledgements ..............................................25
   11. Informative References ........................................26

1.  Introduction

1.1.  Background

   The IDNA (Internationalized Domain Names in Applications)
   specification [RFC3490] defines the basic model for encoding non-
   ASCII strings in the DNS.  Additional specifications [RFC3491]
   [RFC3492] define the mechanisms and tables needed to support IDNA.
   As work on these specifications neared completion, it became apparent
   that it would be desirable for registries to impose additional
   restrictions on the names that could actually be registered (e.g.,
   see [IESG-IDN] and [ICANN-IDN]) to reduce potential confusion among
   characters that were similar in some way.  This document explores
   these IDN (international domain name) registration issues and
   suggests a set of mechanisms that IDN registries might use.

   Registration restrictions are part of a long tradition.  For example,
   while the original DNS specifications [RFC1035] permitted any string
   of octets in a DNS label, they also recommended the use of a much
   more restricted subset.  This subset was derived from the much older
   "hostname" rules [RFC952] and defined by the "LDH" convention (for
   the three permitted types of characters: letters, digits, and the
   hyphen).  Enforcement of this restricted subset in registrations was
   the responsibility of the registry or domain administrator.  The
   definition of the subset was embedded in the DNS protocol itself,
   although some applications protocols, notably those concerned with
   electronic mail, did impose and enforce similar rules.

   If there are no constraints on registration in a zone, people can
   register characters that increase the risk of misunderstandings,
   cybersquatting, and other forms of confusion.  A similar situation
   existed even before the introduction of IDNA, as exemplified by
   domain names such as example.com and examp1e.com (note that the
   latter domain contains the digit "1" instead of the letter "l").

   For non-ASCII names (so-called "internationalized domain names" or
   "IDNs"), the problem is more complicated.  In the earlier situation
   that led to the LDH (hostname) rules, all protocols, hosts, and DNS
   zones used ASCII exclusively in practice, so the LDH restriction
   could reasonably be applied uniformly across the Internet.  Support
   for IDNs introduces a very large character repertoire, different
   geographical and political locations, and languages that require
   different collections of characters.  The optimal registration
   restrictions are no longer a global matter; they may be different in
   different areas and, hence, in different DNS zones.

   For some human writing systems, there are characters and/or strings
   that have equivalent or near-equivalent usages.  If a name can be
   registered with such a character or string, the registry might want
   to automatically associate all of the names that have the same
   meaning with the registered name.  The registry might also decide
   whether the names that are associated with, or generated by, one
   registration should, as a group or individually, go into the zone or
   should be blocked from registration by different parties.

   To date, the best-developed system for handling registration
   restrictions for IDNs is the JET Guidelines for Chinese, Japanese,
   and Korean [RFC3743], the so-called "CJK" languages.  The JET
   Guidelines are limited to the CJK languages and, in particular, to
   their common script base.  Those languages are also the best-known
   and most widely-used examples of writing systems constructed on
   "ideographic" or "pictographic" principles.  This document explores
   the principles behind the JET guidelines.  It then examines some of
   the issues that might arise in adapting them to alphabetic languages,
   i.e., to languages whose characters primarily represent sounds rather
   than meanings.

   This document describes five things:

   1.  The general background and considerations for non-ASCII scripts
       in names.

   2.  Suggested practices for describing character variants.

   3.  A method for using a zone's character variants to determine which
       names should be associated with a registration.

   4.  A format for publishing a zone's table of character variants;
       Such tables are referred to below simply as "language tables" or
       simply "tables".

   5.  A model algorithm for name registration given the presence of
       language tables.

1.2.  The Nature and Status of these Recommendations

   The document makes recommendations for consideration by registries
   and, where relevant, by those who coordinate them, and by those who
   use their services.  None of the recommendations are intended to be
   normative.  Instead, the intent of the document is to illustrate a
   framework for developing variations to meet the needs of particular
   registries and their processing of particular languages.  Of course,
   if registries make similar decisions and utilize similar tools, costs

   and confusion may be reduced -- both between registries and for users
   and registrars who have relationships with more than one domain.

   Just as the JET Guidelines contain some suggestions that may not be
   applicable to alphabetic scripts, some of the suggestions here,
   especially the more specific ones, may be applicable to some scripts
   and not others.

1.3.  Terminology

1.3.1.  Languages and Scripts

   This document uses the term "language" in what may be, to many
   readers, an odd way.  Neither this specification, nor IDNA, nor the
   DNS are directly concerned with natural language, but only with the
   characters that make up a given label.  In some respects, the term
   "script", used in the character coding community for a collection of
   characters, might be more appropriate.  However, different subsets of
   the same script may be used with different languages, and the same
   language may be written using different characters (or even
   completely different scripts) in different locations, so "script" is
   not precisely correct either.

   Long-standing confusion has also resulted from the fact that most
   scripts are, informally at least, named after one of the languages
   written in them.  "Chinese" describes both a language and a
   collection of characters that are also used in writing Japanese,
   Korean, and, at least historically, some other languages.  "Latin"
   describes a language, the characters used to write that language,
   and, often, characters used to write a number of contemporary
   languages that are derived from or similar to those used to write the
   Latin language.  The script used to write the Arabic language is
   called "Arabic", but it is also used (typically with some additions
   or deletions) to write a number of other languages.  Situations in
   which a script has a clearly-defined name that is independent of the
   name of a language are the exception, rather than the rule; examples
   include Hangul, used to write Korean, Katakana and Hiragana, used to
   write Japanese, and a few others.  Some scholars have historically
   used "Roman" or "Roman-derived" for the script in an attempt to
   distinguish between a script and the Latin language.

   The term "language" is therefore used in this document in the
   informal sense of a written language and is defined, for this
   purpose, by the characters used to write it, i.e., as a language-
   specific subset of a script.  In this context, a "language" is
   defined by the combination of a code (see Section 1.4.1) and an
   authority that has chosen to use that code and establish a
   character-listing for it.  Authorities are normally TLD (top-level

   domain) registries; see Section 7 and [IANA-language-registry].
   However, it is expected that TLD registries will find appropriate
   experts and that advice from language and script experts selected by
   international neutral bodies will also become part of the
   registration system.  In addition, as discussed below in Section 7,
   registries may conclude that the best interests of registrants,
   stakeholders, and the Internet community would be served by
   constructing "language tables" that mix scripts and characters in
   ways that conform to no known language.  Conventions should be
   developed for such registrations that do not misleadingly reflect
   specific language codes.

1.3.2.  Characters, Variants, Registrations, and Other Issues

   1.  Characters in this document are specified by their Unicode
       codepoints in U+xxxx format, by their official names, or both.

   2.  The following terms are used in this document.

       *  String

          A "string" is an sequence of one or more characters.

       *  Base Character

          This document discusses characters that may have equivalent or
          near-equivalent characters or strings.  A "base character" is
          a character that has zero or more equivalents.  In the JET
          Guidelines, base characters are referred to as "valid
          characters".  In a table with variants, as described in
          Section 5, the base characters occupy the first column.
          Normally (and always, if the recommendation of Section 6.3 is
          adopted), the base characters will be the characters that
          appear in registration requests from registrants; any other
          character will invalidate the registration attempt.

       *  Native Script

          Native script is the form in which the relevant string would
          normally be represented.  For example, it might use Lower
          Slobbovian characters and the glyphs normally used to write
          them.  It would not be punycode as a presentation form.

       *  Variant Characters/Strings

          The "variant(s)" are character(s) and/or string(s) that are
          treated as equivalent to the base character.  Note that these
          might not be exactly equivalent characters; a particular

          original character may be a base character with a mapping to a
          particular variant character, but that variant character may
          not have a mapping to the original base character.  Indeed,
          the variant character may not appear in the base character
          list, and hence may not be valid for use in a registration.
          Usually, characters or strings to be designated as variants
          are considered either equivalent or sufficiently similar (by
          some registry-specific definition) that confusion between them
          and the base character might occur.

       *  Base Registration

          The "base registration" is the single name that the registrant
          requested from the registry.  The JET Guidelines use the term
          "label string" for this concept.

       *  Registered, Activated

          A label (or "name") is described as "registered" if it is
          actually entered into a domain (i.e., into a zone file) by the
          registry, so that it can be accessed and resolved using
          standard DNS tools.  The JET Guidelines describe a
          "registered" label as "activated".  However, some domains use
          a slightly different registration logic in which a name can be
          registered with the registrar (if one is involved) and with
          the registry, but not actually entered into the zone file
          until an additional activation or delegation step occurs.
          This document does not make that distinction, but is
          compatible with it.

          As specified in the IDNA Standard, the name actually placed in
          the zone file is always the internal ("punycode") form.  There
          is no provision for actually entering any other form of an IDN
          into the DNS.  It remains controversial, with different
          registrars and registries having adopted different policies,
          as to whether the registration, as submitted by the
          registrant, is in the form of:

          o  The native-script name, either in UTF-8 or in some coding
             specified by the registrar, or

          o  the internal-form ("punycode") name, or

          o  both forms of the name together, so that the registrar and
             registry can verify the intended translation.

          If any of the approaches defined in this document is used, it
          is almost certain to be necessary that the native-script form
          of the requested string be available to the registry.

       *  Registration Bundle

          A "registration bundle" is the set of all labels that come
          from expanding the base characters for a single name into
          their variants.  The presence of a label in a registration
          bundle does not imply that it is registered.  In the JET
          Guidelines, a registration bundle is called an "IDN Package".

       *  Reserved Label

          A "reserved label" is a label in a registration bundle that is
          not actually registered.

       *  Registry"

          A "registry" is the administrative authority for a DNS zone.
          The registry is the body that enforces, and typically makes,
          policies that are used in a particular zone in the DNS.

       *  Coded Character Set

          A "Coded Character Set" (CCS) is a list of characters and the
          code positions assigned to them.  ASCII and Unicode are CCSs.

       *  Language

          A "language" is something spoken by humans, independent of how
          it is written or coded.  ISO Standard 639 and IETF BCP 47 (RFC
          3066) [RFC3066] list and define codes for identifying
          languages.

       *  Script

          A "script" is a collection of characters (glyphs, independent
          of coding) that are used together, typically to represent one
          or more languages.  Note that the script for one language may
          heavily overlap the script for another.  This does not imply
          that they have identical scripts.

       *  Charset

          "Charset" is an IETF-invented term to describe, more or less,
          the combination of a script, a CCS that encodes that script,

          and rules for serializing encoded bytes that are stored on a
          computer or transmitted over the network.

   The last four of these definitions are redundant with, but
   deliberately somewhat less precise than, the definitions in
   [RFC3536], which also provides sources.  The two sets of definitions
   are intended to be consistent.

1.3.3.  Confusion, Fraud, and Cybersquatting

   The term "confusion" is used very generically in this document to
   cover the entire range from accidental user misperception of the
   relationship between characters with some characteristic in common
   (typically appearance, sound, or meaning) to cybersquatting and
   (other) deliberately fraudulent attempts to exploit those
   relationships based on the nature of the characters.

1.4.  A Review of the JET Guidelines

1.4.1.  JET Model

   In the JET Guidelines model, a prospective registrant approaches the
   registry for a zone (perhaps through an intermediate registrar) with
   a candidate base registration -- a proposed name to be registered --
   and a list of languages in which that name is to be interpreted.  The
   languages are defined according to the fairly high-resolution coding
   of [RFC3066] or, if the registry considers it more appropriate, a
   coding based on scripts such as those in [LTRU-Registry].  In this
   way, Chinese as used on the mainland of the People's Republic of
   China ("zh-cn") can, at registry option, consist of a somewhat
   different list of characters (code points) and be represented by a
   separate table compared to Chinese as used in Taiwan ("zh-tw").

   The design of the JET Guidelines took one important constraint as a
   basis: IDNA was treated as a firm standard.  A procedure that
   modified some portion of the IDNA functions, or was a variant on
   them, was considered a violation of those standards and should not be
   encouraged (or, probably, even permitted).

   Each registry is expected to construct (or obtain) a table for each
   language it considers relevant and appropriate.  These tables list,
   for the particular zone, the characters permitted for that language.
   If a character does not appear as a base character (called a "valid
   code point" in the JET document) in that table, then a name
   containing it cannot be registered.  If multiple languages are listed
   for the registration, then the character must appear in the tables
   for each of those languages.

   The tables may also contain columns that specify alternate or variant
   forms of the valid character.  If these variants appear, they are
   used to synthesize labels that are alternatives to the original one.
   These labels are all reserved and can be registered or "activated"
   (placed into the DNS) only by the action or request of the original
   registrant; some (the "preferred variant labels") are typically
   registered automatically.  The zone is expected to establish
   appropriate policies for situations in which the variant forms of one
   label conflict with already-reserved or already-registered labels.

   Most of these concepts were introduced because of concerns about
   specific issues with CJK characters, beginning from the requirement
   that the use of Simplified Chinese by some registrants and
   Traditional Chinese by others not be permitted to create confusion or
   opportunities for fraud.  While they may be applicable to registry
   tables constructed for alphabetic scripts, the translation should be
   done with care, since many analogies are not exact.

   Some of the important issues are discussed in the sections that
   follow, especially Section 3.  The JET model may be considered as a
   variation on, and inspiration for, the model and method presented by
   the rest of this document, although the JET model has been completely
   developed only for CJK characters.  Other languages or scripts,
   especially alphabetic ones, may require other variations.

1.4.2.  Reserved Names and Label Packages

   A basic assumption of the JET model is that, if the evolution of
   specific characters or the properties of Unicode [Unicode]
   [Unicode32] or IDNA cause two strings to appear similar enough to
   cause confusion, then both should be registered by the same party or
   one of them should become unregisterable.  The definition of "appear
   similar enough" will differ for different cultures and circumstance,
   and hence DNS zones, but the principle is fairly general.  In the JET
   model, all of the variant strings are identified, some are registered
   into the DNS automatically, and others are simply reserved and can be
   registered, if at all, only by the original registrant.  Other zones
   might find other policies appropriate.  For example, a zone might
   conclude that having similar strings registered in the DNS was
   undesirable.  If so, the list of variant strings would be used only
   to build a list of names that would be reserved and prohibited from
   being registered.

1.5.  Languages, Scripts, and Variants

1.5.1.  Languages versus Scripts

   Conversations about scripts -- collections of characters associated
   with particular languages -- are common when discussing character
   sets and codes.  However, the boundaries between one script and
   another are not well-defined.  The Unicode Standard ([Unicode],
   [Unicode32]), for example, does not define script boundaries at all,
   even though it is structured in terms of usually-related blocks of
   characters.  The issue is complicated by the common origin of most
   alphabetic scripts in use in the world today (see, for example,
   [Drucker] or the more scholarly [Daniels]).

   Because of that history, certain characters (or, more precisely,
   symbols representing characters) appear in the scripts associated
   with multiple languages, sometimes with very different sounds or
   meanings.  This differs from the CJK situation in which, if a
   character appears in more than one of the relevant languages, it will
   usually have the same interpretation in each one.  For the subset of
   characters that actually are ideographs or pictographs, pronunciation
   is expected to vary widely while meaning is preserved.  At least in
   part because of that similarity of meaning, it made sense in the JET
   case to permit a registration to specify multiple languages, to
   verify that the characters in the label string (the requested "Base
   registration") were valid for each, and then to generate variant
   labels using each language in turn.  For many alphabetic languages,
   it may be more sensible to prohibit the label string submitted for
   registration from being associated with more than one language.
   Indeed, "one label, one language" has been suggested as an important
   barrier against common sources of "look-alike" confusion.  For
   example, the imposition of that rule in a zone would prevent the
   insertion of a few Greek or Cyrillic characters with shapes identical
   to the Latin ones into what was otherwise a Latin-based string.  For
   a particular table, the list of base characters may be thought of as
   the script associated with the relevant language, with the
   understanding that the table design does not prevent the same
   character from appearing in the tables for multiple languages.

   Indeed, this notion of a script that is local and specifically
   identified can be turned around: so-called "language tables" are
   associated with languages only insofar as thinking about the
   character structure and word forms associated with a given language
   helps to inform the construction of the table.  A country like
   Finland, for example, might select among:

   o  One table each for Finnish, Swedish, and English characters and
      conventions, permitting a string to be registered in one, two, or

      all three languages.  However, a three-language registration would
      necessarily prohibit any characters that did not appear in all
      three languages, since the label would make little sense
      otherwise.

   o  One table each, but with a "one label, one language" rule for the
      zone.

   o  A combined table based on the observation that all three writing
      systems were based on Roman characters and that the possibilities
      for confusion of interest to the registry would not be reduced by
      "language" differentiation.  This option raises an interesting
      issue about language labeling as described in Section 1.4.1; see
      the discussion in Section 7 below.

   Regardless of what decisions were made about those languages and
   scripts, they might have a separate table for registration of labels
   containing Cyrillic characters.  That table might contain some
   Roman-derived characters (either as base characters or as variants),
   just as some CJK tables do.  See also Section 2, below.

   Tables that present multiple languages, as described above, have
   introduced confusion and discomfort among those who have failed to
   understand these definitions.  The consequence of these definitions
   is that use of a language or script code in a registration is a
   mnemonic, rather than a normative statement about the language or
   script itself.  When that confusion is likely to occur, it is
   appropriate to simply use the registry identifier and a sequence
   number to identify the registration.

   As the JET Guidelines stress, no tables or systems of this type --
   even if identified with a language as a means of defining or
   describing the table -- can assure linguistic or even syntactic
   correctness of labels with regard to that language.  That assurance
   may not be possible without human intervention or at least dictionary
   lookups of complete proposed labels.  It may even not be desirable to
   attempt that level of correctness (see Section 2).

   Of course, if any language-based tests or constraints, including "one
   label, one language", are to be applied to limit the associated
   sources of confusion, each zone must have a table for each language
   in which it expects to accept registrations.  The notion of a single
   combined table for the zone is, in the general case, simply
   unworkable.  One could use a single table for the zone if the intent
   were to impose only minimal restrictions, e.g., to force alphabetic
   and numeric characters only, excluding symbols and punctuation.  That
   type of restriction might be useful in eliminating some problems,
   such as those of unreadable labels, but it would be unlikely to be

   very helpful with, e.g., confusion caused by similar-looking
   characters.

1.5.2.  Variant Selection

   The area of character variants is rife with difficulties (and perhaps
   opportunities).  There is no universal agreement about which base
   characters have variants, or if they do, what those variants are.
   For example, in some regions of the world and in some languages,
   LATIN SMALL LETTER O WITH DIAERESIS (U+00F6) and LATIN SMALL LETTER O
   WITH STROKE (U+00F8) are variants of each other, while in other
   regions, most people would think that LATIN SMALL LETTER O WITH
   STROKE has no variants.  In some cases, the list of variants is
   difficult to enumerate.  For example, it required several years for
   the Chinese language community to create variant tables for use with
   IDNA, and it remains, at the time of this writing, questionable how
   widely those tables will be accepted among users of Chinese from
   areas of the world other than those represented by the groups that
   created them.

   Thus, the first thing a registry should ask is whether or not any of
   the characters that they want to permit to be used have variants.  If
   not, the registry's work is much simpler.  This is not to say that a
   registry should ignore variants if they exist: adding variants after
   a registry has started to take registrations will be nearly as
   difficult administratively as removing characters from the list of
   acceptable characters.  That is, if a registry later decides that two
   characters are variants of each other, and there are actively-used
   names in the zones that differ only on the new variants, the registry
   might have to transfer ownership of one of the names to a different
   owner, using some process that is certain to be controversial.

   This situation in likely to be much easier for areas and zones that
   use characters that previously did not occur in the DNS at all than
   it will be for zones in which non-English labels have been registered
   in ASCII characters for some time, presumably because the language of
   interest uses additional "Latin" characters with some conventions
   when only ASCII is available.  In the former case, the rules and
   conventions can be established before any registrations occur.  In
   the latter, there may be conflicts or opportunities for confusion
   between existing registrations and now-permitted Roman-based
   characters that do not appear in ASCII.  For example, a domain name
   might exist today that uses the name of a city in Canada spelled as
   "Montreal".  If the zone in which it occurs changes its rules to
   permit the use of the character LATIN SMALL LETTER E WITH ACUTE
   (U+00E9), does the name of the city, spelled (correctly) using that
   character, conflict with the existing domain name registration?

   Certainly, if both are permitted, and permitted to be registered by
   separate parties, there are many opportunities for confusion.

   Of course, zone managers should inform all current registrants when
   the registration policy for the zone changes.  This includes the
   times when IDN characters are first allowed in the zone, when
   additional characters are permitted, and when any change occurs in
   the character variant tables.

   Many languages contain two variants for a character, one of which is
   strongly preferred.  A registry might restrict the base registration
   to the preferred form, or it might allow any form for the base
   registration.  If the variant tables are created carefully, the
   resulting bundles will be the same, but some registries will give
   special status to the base registration such as its appearance in
   "Whois" databases.

1.6.  Variants are not a Universal Remedy

   It is worth stressing that there are many obvious opportunities for
   confusion that variant systems, by virtue of being based on
   processing of individual characters, cannot address.  For example, if
   a language can be written with more than one script, or
   transliterations of the language into another script are common,
   variant models are insufficient to prevent conflicting registration
   of the related forms.  Avoiding those types of problems would require
   different mechanisms, perhaps based on phonetic or natural language
   processing techniques for the entire proposed base registration.

1.7.  Reservations and Exclusions

1.7.1.  Sequence Exclusions for Valid Characters

   The JET Guidelines are based on processing only single characters.
   Pairs or longer sequences of characters can, at the option of the
   registry, be handled through what the Guidelines describe as
   "additional processing".  These registry-specific string processing
   procedures are specifically permitted by the guidelines to supplement
   the per-character processing that generates the variants.

   A different zone with different needs could use a modified version of
   the table structure, or different types of additional processing, to
   prohibit particular sequences of characters by marking them as
   invalid, and to accept characters by marking them as valid.  Other
   modifications or extensions might be designed to prevent certain
   letters from appearing at the beginning or end of labels.  The use of
   regular expressions in the "valid characters" column might be one way

   to implement these types of restrictions, but there has been no
   experience so far with that approach.

   In particular, in some scripts derived from Roman characters,
   sequences that have historically been typographically represented by
   single "ligature" or "digraph" characters may also be represented by
   the separate characters (e.g., "ae" for U+00E6 or "ij" for U+0133).
   If it is desired to either prohibit these, or to treat them as
   variants, some extensions to the single-character JET model may be
   needed.  Some careful thinking about IDNA (especially nameprep) may
   also be needed, since some of these combinations are excluded there).

1.7.2.  Character Pairing Issues

   Some character pairings -- the use of a character form (glyph) in one
   language and a different form with the same properties in a related
   one -- closely approximate the issues with mapping between
   Traditional and Simplified Chinese, although the history is
   different.  For example, it might be useful to have "o" with a stroke
   (U+00F8) as a variant for "o" with diaeresis above it (U+00F6) (and
   the equivalent upper-case pair) in a Swedish table, and vice versa in
   a Norwegian one, or to prohibit one of these characters entirely in
   each table.  In a German table, U+00F8 would presumably be
   prohibited, while U+00F6 might have "oe" as a variant.  Obviously, if
   the relevant language of registration is unknown, this type of
   variant matching cannot be applied in any sensible way.

1.8.  The Registration Bundle

1.8.1.  Definitions and Structure

   As one of its critical innovations, the JET model defines an "IDN
   package", known in this document as a "registration bundle", which
   consists of the primary registered string (which is used as the name
   of the bundle), the information about the language table(s) used, the
   variant labels for that string, and indications of which of those
   labels are registered in the relevant zone file ("activated" in the
   JET terminology).  Registration bundles are also atomic -- one can
   not add or remove variant labels from one without unregistering the
   entire package.  A label exists in only one registration bundle at a
   time; if a new label is registered that would generate a variant that
   matches one that appears in an existing package, that variant simply
   is not included in the second package.  A subsequent de-registration
   of the first package does not cause the variant to be added to the
   second.  While it might be possible to change this in other models,
   the JET conclusion was that other options would be far too complex to
   implement and operate and would cause many new types of name
   conflicts.

1.8.2.  Application of the Registration Bundle

   A registry has three options for handling the case where the
   registration bundle contains more than one label.  The policy options
   are:

   o  Register and resolve all labels in the zone, making the zone
      information identical to that of the registered labels.  This
      option will allow end users to find names with variants more
      easily, but will result in larger zone files.  For some language
      tables, the zone file could become so large that it could
      negatively affect the ability of the registry to perform name
      resolution.  If the base registration contains several characters
      that have equivalents, the owner could end up having to take care
      of large numbers of zones.  For instance, if DIGIT ONE is a
      variant of LATIN SMALL LETTER L, the owner of the domain name all-
      lollypops.example.com will have to manage 32 zones.  If the intent
      is to keep the contents of those zones identical, the owner may
      then face a significant administrative problem.  If other concerns
      dictate short times to live and absolute consistency of DNS
      responses, the challenges may be nearly impossible.

   o  Block all labels other than the registered label so they cannot be
      registered in the future.  This option does not increase the size
      of the zone file and provides maximum safety against false
      positives, but it may cause end users to not be able to find names
      with variants that they would expect.  If the base registration
      contains characters that have equivalents, Internet users who do
      not know what base characters were used in the registration will
      not know what character to type in to get a DNS response.  For
      instance, if DIGIT ONE is a variant of LATIN SMALL LETTER L, and
      LATIN SMALL LETTER L is a variant of DIGIT ONE, the user who sees
      "pale.example.com" will not know whether to type a "1" or a "l"
      after the "pa" in the first label.

   o  Resolve some labels and block some other labels.  This option is
      likely to cause the most confusion with users because including
      some variants will cause a name to be found, but using other
      variants will cause the name to be not found.  For example, even
      if people understood that DIGIT ONE and LATIN SMALL LETTER L were
      variants, a typical DNS user wouldn't know which character to type
      because they wouldn't know whether this pair were used to register
      or block the labels.  However, this option can be used to balance
      the desires of the name owner (that every possible attempt to
      enter their name will work) with the desires of the zone
      administrator (to make the zone more manageable and possibly to be
      compensated for greater amounts of work needed for a single

      registration).  For many circumstances, it may be the most
      attractive option.

   In all cases, at least the registered label should appear in the
   zone.  It would be almost impossible to describe to name owners why
   the name that they asked for is not in the zone, but some other name
   that they now control is.  By implication, if the requested label is
   already registered, the entire registration request must be rejected.

2.  Some Implications of This Approach

   Historically, DNS labels were considered to be arbitrary identifier
   strings, without any inherent meaning.  Even in ASCII, there was no
   requirement that labels form words.  Labels that could not possibly
   represent words in any Romance or Germanic language (the languages
   that have been written in "Latin" scripts since medieval times or
   earlier) have actually been quite common.  In general, in those
   languages, words contain at least one vowel and do not have embedded
   numbers.  As a result, a string such as "bc345df" cannot possibly be
   a "word" in these languages.  More generally, the more one moves
   toward "language"-based registry restrictions, the less it is going
   to be possible to construct labels out of fanciful strings.  While
   fanciful strings are terrible candidates for "words", they may make
   very good identifiers.  To take a trivial example using only ASCII
   characters, "rtr32w", "rtr32x", and "rtr32z" might be very good DNS
   labels for a particular zone and application.  However, given the
   embedded digits and lack of vowels, they, like the "bc345df" example
   given above, would fail even the most superficial of tests for valid
   English (or German or French (etc.)) word forms.

   It is worth noting that several DNS experts have suggested that a
   number of problems could be solved by prohibiting meaningful names in
   labels, requiring instead that the labels be random or nonsense
   strings.  If methods similar to those discussed in this document were
   used to force identifiers to be closer to meaningful words in real
   languages, the result would be directly contradictory to those
   "random name" approaches.

   Interestingly, if one were trying to develop an "only words" system,
   a rather different -- but very restrictive -- model could be
   developed using lookups in a dictionary for the relevant language and
   a listing of valid business names for the relevant area.  If a string
   did not appear in either, it would not be permitted to be registered.
   Models that require a prior national business listing (or
   registration) that is identical to the proposed domain name label
   have historically been used to restrict registrations in some
   country-code top level domains, so this is not a new idea.  On the
   other hand, if look-alike characters are a concern, even that type of

   rule (or restriction) would still not avoid the need to consider
   character variants.

   Consequently, registries applying the principles outlined in this
   document should be careful not to apply more severe restrictions than
   are reasonable and appropriate while, at the same time, being aware
   of how difficult it usually is to add restrictions at a later time.

3.  Possible Modifications of the JET Model

   The JET model was designed for CJK characters.  The discussion above
   implies that some extensions to it may be needed to handle the
   characteristics of various alphabetic scripts and the decisions that
   might be made about them in different zones.  Those extensions might
   include facilities to process:

   o  Two-character (or more) sequences, such as ligatures and
      typographic spelling conventions, as variants.

   o  Regular expressions or some other mechanism for dealing with
      string positions of characters (e.g., characters that must, or
      must not, appear at the beginning or end of strings).

   o  Delimiter breaks to permit multiple languages to be used,
      separately, within the same label.  E.g., is it possible to define
      a label as consisting of two or more components, each in a
      different language, with some particular delimiter to define the
      boundaries of the components?

4.  Conclusions and Recommendations About the General Approach

   After examining the implications of the potential use of the full
   range of characters permitted by IDNA in DNS labels, multiple groups,
   including IESG [IESG-IDN] and ICANN [ICANN-IDN] [ICANN-IDN2], have
   concluded that some restrictions are needed to prevent many forms of
   user confusion about the actual structure of a name or the word,
   phrase, or term that it appears to spell out.  The best way to
   approach such restrictions appears to draw from the language and
   culture of the community of registrants and users in the relevant
   zone: if particular characters are likely to be surprising or
   unintelligible to both of those groups, it is probably wise to not
   permit them to be used in registrations.  Registration restrictions
   can be carried much further than restricting permitted characters to
   a selected Unicode subset.  The idea of a reserved "bundle" of
   related labels permits probably-confusing combinations or sets of
   characters to be bound together, under the control of a single
   registrant.  While that registrant might still use the package in a
   way that confused his or her own users (the approach outlined here

   will not prevent either ill-though-out ideas or stupidity), the
   possibility of turning potential confusion into a hostile attack
   would be considerably reduced.

   At the same time, excessive restrictions may make DNS identifiers
   less useful for their original purpose: identifying particular hosts
   and similar resources on the network in an orderly way.  Registries
   creating rules and policies about what can be registered in
   particular zones -- whether those are based on the JET Guidelines or
   the suggestions in this document -- should balance the need for
   restrictions against the need for flexibility in constructing
   identifiers.

   The discussion above provides many options that could be selected,
   defined, and applied in different ways in different registries
   (zones).  Registrars and registrants would almost certainly prefer
   systems in which they can predict, at least to a first order
   approximation, the implications of a particular potential
   registration.  Predictability of that sort probably requires more
   standards, and less flexibility, than the model itself might suggest.

5.  A Model Table Format

   The format of the table is meant to be machine-readable but not
   human-readable.  It is fairly trivial to convert the table into one
   that can be read by people.

   Each character in the table is given in the "U+" notation for Unicode
   characters.  The lines of the table are terminated with either a
   carriage return character (ASCII 0x0D), a linefeed character (ASCII
   0x0A), or a sequence of carriage return followed by linefeed (ASCII
   0x0D 0x0A).  The order of the lines in the table may or may not
   matter, depending on how the table is constructed.

   Comment lines in the table are preceded with a "#" character (ASCII
   0x2C).

   Each non-comment line in the table starts with the character that is
   allowed in the registry and expected to be used in registrations,
   which is also called the "base character".  If the base character has
   any variants, the base character is followed by a vertical bar
   character ("|", ASCII 0x7C) and the variant string.  If the base
   character has more than one variant, the variants are separated by a
   colon (":", ASCII 0x3A).  Strings are given with a hyphen ("-", ASCII
   0x2D) between each character.  Comments beginning with a "#" (ASCII
   0x2C), and may be preceded by spaces (" ", ASCII 0x20).

   The following is an example of how a table might look.  The entries
   in this table are purposely silly and should not be used by any
   registry as the basis for choosing variants.  For the example, assume
   that the registry:

   o  allows the FOR ALL character (U+2200) with no variants

   o  allows the COMPLEMENT character (U+2201) which has a single
      variant of LATIN CAPITAL LETTER C (U+0043)

   o  allows the PROPORTION character (U+2237) which has one variant
      which is the string COLON (U+003A) COLON (U+003A)

   o  allows the PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL character (U+2202) which has two
      variants: LATIN SMALL LETTER D (U+0064) and GREEK SMALL LETTER
      DELTA (U+03B4)

   The table contents (after any required header information, see
   [IANA-language-registry] and the discussion in Section 7 below) would
   look like:

       # An example of a table
       U+2200
       U+2201|U+0043
       U+2237|U+003A-U+003A # Note that the variant is a string
       U+2202|U+0064:U+03B4 # Two variants for the same character

   Implementers of table processors should remember that there are tens
   of thousands of characters whose codepoints are greater than 0xFFFF.
   Thus, any program that assumes that each character in the table is
   represented in exactly six octets ("U", "+", and four octets
   representing the character value) will fail with tables that use
   characters whose value is greater than 0xFFFF.

6.  A Model Label Registration Procedure: "CreateBundle"

   This procedure has three inputs:

   1.  the proposed base registration,

   2.  the language (or script, if the registration is script-based, but
       "language" is used for convenience below) for the proposed base
       registration, and

   3.  the processing table associated with that language.

   The output of the process is either failure (the base registration
   cannot be registered at all), or a registration bundle that contains

   one or more labels (always including the base registration).  As
   described earlier, the registration bundle should be stored with its
   date of creation so that issues with overlapping elements between
   bundles can later be resolved on a first-come, first-served basis.

   There are two steps to processing the registration:

   1.  Check whether the proposed base registration exists in any
       bundle.  If it does, stop immediately with a failure.

   2.  Process the base registration with the mechanism described as
       "CreateBundle" in Section 6.1, below.

   Note that the process must be executed only once.  The process must
   not be performed on any output of the process, only on the proposed
   base registration.

6.1.  Description of the CreateBundle Mechanism

   The CreateBundle mechanism determines whether a registration bundle
   can be created and, if so, populates that bundle with valid labels.

   During the processing, a "temporary bundle" contains partial labels,
   that is, labels that are being built and are not complete labels.
   The partial labels in the temporary bundle consist of strings.

   The steps are:

   1.  Split the base registration into individual characters, called
       "candidate characters".  Compare every candidate character
       against the base characters in the table.  If any candidate
       character does not exist in the set of base characters, the
       system must stop and not register any names (that is, it must not
       register either the base registration or any labels that would
       have come from character variants).

   2.  Perform the steps in IDNA's ToASCII sequence for the base
       registration.  If ToASCII fails for the base registration, the
       system must stop and not register any label (that is, it must not
       register either the base registration or labels that might have
       been created from variants of characters contained in it).  If
       ToASCII succeeds, place the base registration into the
       registration bundle.

   3.  For every candidate character in the base registration, do the
       following:

       o  Create the set of characters that consists of the candidate
          character and any variants.

       o  For each character in the set from the previous step,
          duplicate the temporary bundle that resulted from the previous
          candidate character, and add the new character to the end of
          each partial label.

   4.  The temporary bundle now contains zero or more labels that
       consist of Unicode characters.  For every label in the temporary
       bundle, do the following:

       o  Process the label with ToASCII to see if ToASCII succeeds.  If
          it does, add the label to the registration bundle.  Otherwise,
          do not process this label from the temporary bundle any
          further; it will not go into the registration bundle.

   The result of the processing outlined above is the registration
   bundle with the base registration and possibly other labels.

6.2.  The "no-variants" Case

   It is clear that, for many scripts, registries will choose to create
   tables without variants, either because variants are clearly not
   necessary or because they are determined to cause more confusion and
   overhead than is justified by the circumstances.  For those
   situations the table model of Section 5 becomes a trivial listing of
   base characters and only the first two steps of CreateBundle
   (verifying that all candidate character are in the base ("valid")
   character list and verifying that the resulting characters will
   succeed in the ToASCII operation) are applicable.  Even the second of
   those steps becomes pro forma if the advice in the next subsection is
   followed.

6.3.  CreateBundle and Nameprep Mapping

   One of the functions of Nameprep, and IDNA more generally, is to map
   a large number of Unicode characters (code points) into a smaller
   number to avoid a different but overlapping set of confusion
   problems.  For example, when a non-ASCII script makes distinctions
   between "upper case" and "lower case", nameprep maps the upper case
   characters to the lower case ones in order to simulate the DNS
   protocol's rule that ASCII characters are interpreted in a case-
   insensitive way.  Unicode also contains many code points that are
   typographic variants on each other (e.g., forms with different widths
   and code points that designate font variations for mathematical
   uses), the Unicode standard explicitly identifies them that way, and
   Nameprep maps these onto base characters.

   While having these mapping functions available during lookup may be
   quite helpful to users who type equivalent forms, registrations are
   probably best performed in terms of the IDNA base characters only,
   i.e., those characters that nameprep will not change.  This will have
   two advantages.

   o  Registrants will never find themselves in the rather confusing
      position of having submitted one string for registration and
      finding a different string in the registry database (which could
      otherwise occur even if the relevant language table does not
      contain variants).

   o  Those who are interested in what characters are permitted by a
      given registry will only need to examine the relevant tables,
      rather than simulating the IDNA algorithm to determine the result
      of processing particular characters.

7.  IANA Considerations

   Under ICANN (not IETF) direction and management, the IANA has created
   a registry for language variant tables.  The authoritative
   documentation for that registry is in [IANA-language-registry].
   Since the registry exists and is being managed under ICANN direction,
   the material that follows is a review of the theory of this registry,
   rather than new instructions for IANA.

   As described above and suggested in the JET Guidelines, the
   registration rules generally require only that:

   o  The application be submitted or endorsed by a TLD registry, to
      ensure that someone cares about the particular table.

   o  The table be identified by the following:

      *  the name -- usually the top-level domain name -- of the
         submitting or endorsing registry;

      *  one of: a language designation (consistent with [RFC3066] or
         with some other system approved by the IANA), a script
         designation, a combination of the two, or a sequence number
         acceptable to IANA for this purpose;

      *  a version number; and

      *  a date.

   o  Characters listed in the table be identified by Unicode code
      points, as discussed above.

   o  The table format may correspond to that identified in [RFC3743],
      or in Section 5 above, or may be some variation on those themes
      appropriate to the local processing model (with or without
      variants).

   This raises some issues that will need to be worked out as
   experiences accumulate.  For example, more standardization of table
   formats would be desirable to allow processing by the same computer
   tools for different registries and languages.  But standardization
   seems premature at this time due to differences in languages,
   processing, and requirements and lack of experience with them.
   Similarly, if a registry concludes that it should use a table that
   contains characters from several scripts, it is not clear how such a
   table should be designated.  Identifying it with a language code
   (either according to [RFC3066] or an independent code registered with
   IANA) is likely to just introduce more confusion, especially given
   other Internet uses of the language codes.  It appears that some
   other convention will be needed for those cases, and it should be
   developed (if it has not already been established by the time this
   document is published).

8.  Internationalization Considerations

   This document specifies a model mechanism for registering
   Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) that can be used to reduce
   confusion among similar-appearing names.  The proposal is designed to
   facilitate internationalization while permitting a balance between
   internationalization concerns and concerns about keeping the Internet
   global and domain name system references unique in the perception of
   the user as well as in practice.

9.  Security Considerations

   Registration of labels in the DNS that contain essentially
   unrestricted sequences of arbitrary Unicode characters may introduce
   opportunities for either attacks or simple confusion.  Some of these
   risks, such as confusion about which character (of several that look
   alike) is actually intended, may be associated with the presentation
   form of DNS names.  Others may be linked to databases associated with
   the DNS, e.g., with the difficulty of finding an entry in a "Whois
   file" when it is not clear how to enter or to search for the
   characters that make up a name.  This document discusses a family of
   restrictions on the names that can be registered.  Restrictions of
   the type described can be imposed by a DNS zone ("registry").  The
   document also describes some possible tools for implementing such
   restrictions.

   While the increased number and types of characters made available by
   Unicode considerably increases the scale of the potential problems,
   the problems addressed by this document are not new.  No plausible
   set of restrictions will eliminate all problems and sources of
   confusion: for example, it has often been pointed out that, even in
   ASCII, the characters digit-one ("1") and lower case L ("l") can
   easily be confused in some display fonts.  But, to the degree to
   which security may be aided by sensible risk reduction, these
   techniques may be helpful.

10.  Acknowledgements

   Discussions in the process of developing the JET Guidelines were
   vital in developing this document and all of the JET participants are
   consequently acknowledged.  Attempts to explain some of the issues
   uncovered there to, and feedback from, Vint Cerf, Wendy Rickard, and
   members of the ICANN IDN Committee were also helpful in the thinking
   leading up to this document.

   An effort by Paul Hoffman to create a generic specification for
   registration restrictions of this type helped to inspire this
   document, which takes a somewhat different, more language-oriented,
   approach than his initial draft.  While the initial version of that
   draft indicated that multiple languages (or multiple language tables)
   for a single zone were infeasible, more recent versions [Hoffman-reg]
   shifted to inclusion of language-based approaches.  The current
   version of this document incorporates considerable text, and even
   more ideas, from those drafts, with Paul Hoffman's generous
   permission.

   Feedback was provided by several registry operators (of both country
   code and generic TLDs), including Edmon Chung and Ram Mohan of
   Afilias, and by ICANN and IANA staff, notably Tina Dam and Theresa
   Swinehart.  This feedback about issues encountered in registering
   tables and designing IDN implementations resulted in the addition of
   significant clarifying text to the current version of the document.

   The opinions expressed here are the sole responsibility of the
   author.  Some of those whose ideas and comments are reflected in this
   document may disagree with the conclusions the author has drawn from
   them.  The first draft version of this document was posted in June
   2003.

11.  Informative References

   [Daniels]     P.T. Daniels and W. Bright, The World's Writing
                 Systems, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 1996.

   [Drucker]     Drucker, J., "The Alphabetic Labyrinth: The Letters in
                 History and Imagination", 1995.

   [Hoffman-reg] Hoffman, P., "A Method for Registering
                 Internationalized Domain Names", Work in Progress,
                 October 2003.

   [IESG-IDN]    Internet Engineering Steering Group, IETF, "IESG
                 Statement on IDN", IESG Statement available from
                 http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/IDNstatement.txt,
                 February 2003.

   [ICANN-IDN]   Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
                 (ICANN), "Guidelines for the Implementation of
                 Internationalized Domain Names, Version 1.0", June
                 2003.

   [ICANN-IDN2]  Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
                 (ICANN), "Guidelines for the Implementation of
                 Internationalized Domain Names, Version 2.0", September
                 2005.

   [IANA-language-registry]
                 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "IDN
                 Language Table Registry", April 2004.

   [LTRU-Registry]
                 Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for
                 Identifying Languages", Work in Progress, October 2005.

   [RFC952]      Harrenstien, K., Stahl, M., and E. Feinler, "DoD
                 Internet host table specification", RFC 952, October
                 1985.

   [RFC1035]     Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
                 specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [RFC3066]     Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of
                 Languages", BCP 47, RFC 3066, January 2001.

   [RFC3490]     Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello,
                 "Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications
                 (IDNA)", RFC 3490, March 2003.

   [RFC3491]     Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Nameprep: A Stringprep
                 Profile for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)", RFC
                 3491, March 2003.

   [RFC3492]     Costello, A., "Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of
                 Unicode for Internationalized Domain Names in
                 Applications (IDNA)", RFC 3492, March 2003.

   [RFC3536]     Hoffman, P., "Terminology Used in Internationalization
                 in the IETF", RFC 3536, May 2003.

   [RFC3743]     Konishi, K., Huang, K., Qian, H., and Y. Ko, "Joint
                 Engineering Team (JET) Guidelines for Internationalized
                 Domain Names (IDN) Registration and Administration for
                 Chinese, Japanese, and Korean", RFC 3743, April 2004.

   [Unicode]     The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard --
                 Version 3.0", January 2000.

   [Unicode32]   The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Standard Annex #28:
                 Unicode 3.2", March 2002.

Author's Address

   John C Klensin
   1770 Massachusetts Ave, #322
   Cambridge, MA  02140
   USA

   Phone: +1 617 491 5735
   EMail: john-ietf@jck.com

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78 and at www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html, 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.

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.

   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.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

 

User Contributions:

Comment about this RFC, ask questions, or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA