| |
| BCP 3 | Variance for The PPP Compression Control Protocol and The PPP Encryption Control Protocol |
| |
| Authors: | F. Kastenholz. |
| Date: | February 1996 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 1915 |
|
|
|
| |
| BCP 4 | An Appeal to the Internet Community to Return Unused IP Networks (Prefixes) to the IANA |
| |
| Authors: | P. Nesser II. |
| Date: | February 1996 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 1917 |
|
This document is an appeal to the Internet community to return unused address space, i.e. any block of consecutive IP prefixes, to theInternet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) or any of the delegated registries, for reapportionment. Similarly an appeal is issued to providers to return unused prefixes which fall outside their customary address blocks to the IANA for reapportionment. |
|
| |
| BCP 5 | Address Allocation for Private Internets |
| |
|
| |
| BCP 6 | Guidelines for creation, selection, and registration of an Autonomous System (AS) |
| |
|
|
This memo discusses when it is appropriate to register and utilize anAutonomous System (AS), and lists criteria for such. ASes are the unit of routing policy in the modern world of exterior routing, and are specifically applicable to protocols like EGP (Exterior GatewayProtocol, now at historical status; see [EGP]), BGP (Border GatewayProtocol, the current de facto standard for inter-AS routing; see[BGP-4]), and IDRP (The OSI Inter-Domain Routing Protocol, which theInternet is expected to adopt when BGP becomes obsolete; see [IDRP]).It should be noted that the IDRP equivalent of an AS is the RDI, orRouting Domain Identifier. |
|
| |
| BCP 7 | Implications of Various Address Allocation Policies for Internet Routing |
| |
| Authors: | Y. Rekhter, T. Li. |
| Date: | October 1996 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 2008 |
|
|
|
| |
| BCP 8 | IRTF Research Group Guidelines and Procedures |
| |
| Authors: | A. Weinrib, J. Postel. |
| Date: | October 1996 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 2014 |
|
The Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) has responsibility for organizing groups to investigate research topics related to theInternet protocols, applications, and technology. IRTF activities are organized into Research Groups. This document describes the guidelines and procedures for formation and operation of IRTFResearch Groups. It describes the relationship between IRTF participants, Research Groups, the Internet Research Steering Group(IRSG) and the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). The basic duties of IRTF participants, including the IRTF Chair, Research Group Chairs and IRSG members are defined. |
|
| |
| BCP 9 | The Internet Standards Process |
| |
| Authors: | S. Bradner, L. Dusseault, R. Sparks, R. Housley, D. Crocker, E. Burger, P. Resnick, O. Kolkman, S. Turner, S. Dawkins, J. Halpern, Ed., E. Rescorla, Ed., B. Rosen. |
| Date: | September 2009 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 2026, RFC 5657, RFC 6410, RFC 7100, RFC 7127, RFC 7475, RFC 8789, RFC 9282 |
|
This memo documents the process used by the Internet community for the standardization of protocols and procedures. It defines the stages in the standardization process, the requirements for moving a document between stages and the types of documents used during this process. It also addresses the intellectual property rights and copyright issues associated with the standards process. |
|
| |
| BCP 10 | IAB, IESG, IETF Trust, and IETF LLC Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the IETF Nominating and Recall Committees |
| |
| Authors: | M. Kucherawy, Ed., R. Hinden, Ed., J. Livingood, Ed., M. Duke. |
| Date: | February 2020 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 8713, RFC 9389 |
|
The process by which the members of the IAB and IESG are selected, confirmed, and recalled is specified. This document is a self- consistent, organized compilation of the process as it was known at the time of publication. |
|
| |
| BCP 11 | Entities Involved in the IETF Standards Process |
| |
|
|
This document describes the individuals and organizations involved in the IETF. This includes descriptions of the IESG, the IETF WorkingGroups and the relationship between the IETF and the InternetSociety. |
|
| |
| BCP 13 | Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration Procedures |
| |
|
|
STD 11, RFC 822, defines a message representation protocol specifying considerable detail about US-ASCII message headers, and leaves the message content, or message body, as flat US-ASCII text. This set of documents, collectively called the Multipurpose Internet MailExtensions, or MIME, redefines the format of messages to allow for
(1) textual message bodies in character sets other thanUS-ASCII,
(2) an extensible set of different formats for non-textual message bodies,
(3) multi-part message bodies, and
(4) textual header information in character sets other thanUS-ASCII.
These documents are based on earlier work documented in RFC 934, STD11, and RFC 1049, but extends and revises them. Because RFC 822 said so little about message bodies, these documents are largely orthogonal to (rather than a revision of) RFC 822.
This fourth document, RFC 2048, specifies various IANA registration procedures for the following MIME facilities:
(1) media types,
(2) external body access types,
(3) content-transfer-encodings.
Registration of character sets for use in MIME is covered elsewhere and is no longer addressed by this document.
These documents are revisions of RFCs 1521 and 1522, which themselves were revisions of RFCs 1341 and 1342. An appendix in RFC 2049 describes differences and changes from previous versions. |
|
| |
| BCP 14 | Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels |
| |
|
|
In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. Authors who follow these guidelines should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document: |
|
| |
| BCP 15 | Deployment of the Internet White Pages Service |
| |
| Authors: | H. Alvestrand, P. Jurg. |
| Date: | September 1997 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 2148 |
|
|
|
| |
| BCP 16 | Selection and Operation of Secondary DNS Servers |
| |
| Authors: | R. Elz, R. Bush, S. Bradner, M. Patton. |
| Date: | July 1997 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 2182 |
|
The Domain Name System requires that multiple servers exist for every delegated domain (zone). This document discusses the selection of secondary servers for DNS zones. Both the physical and topological location of each server are material considerations when selecting secondary servers. The number of servers appropriate for a zone is also discussed, and some general secondary server maintenance issues considered. |
|
| |
| BCP 17 | Use of DNS Aliases for Network Services |
| |
| Authors: | M. Hamilton, R. Wright. |
| Date: | October 1997 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 2219 |
|
It has become a common practice to use symbolic names (usuallyCNAMEs) in the Domain Name Service (DNS - [RFC-1034, RFC-1035]) to refer to network services such as anonymous FTP [RFC-959] servers,Gopher [RFC-1436] servers, and most notably World-Wide Web HTTP[RFC-1945] servers. This is desirable for a number of reasons. It provides a way of moving services from one machine to another transparently, and a mechanism by which people or agents may programmatically discover that an organization runs, say, a World-Wide Web server.
Although this approach has been almost universally adopted, there is no standards document or similar specification for these commonly used names. This document seeks to rectify this situation by gathering together the extant 'folklore' on naming conventions, and proposes a mechanism for accommodating new protocols.
It is important to note that these naming conventions do not provide a complete long term solution to the problem of finding a particular network service for a site. There are efforts in other IETF working groups to address the long term solution to this problem, such as theServer Location Resource Records (DNS SRV) [RFC-2052] work. |
|
| |
| BCP 18 | IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages |
| |
| Authors: | H. Alvestrand. |
| Date: | January 1998 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 2277 |
|
|
|
| |
| BCP 19 | IANA Charset Registration Procedures |
| |
|
|
Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) (RFC-2045, RFC-2046,RFC-2047, RFC-2184) and various other Internet protocols are capable of using many different charsets. This in turn means that the ability to label different charsets is essential.
Note: The charset registration procedure exists solely to associate a specific name or names with a given charset and to give an indication of whether or not a given charset can be used in MIME text objects.In particular, the general applicability and appropriateness of a given registered charset to a particular application is a protocol issue, not a registration issue, and is not dealt with by this registration procedure. |
|
| |
| BCP 20 | Classless IN-ADDR.ARPA delegation |
| |
| Authors: | H. Eidnes, G. de Groot, P. Vixie. |
| Date: | March 1998 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 2317 |
|
|
|
| |
| BCP 21 | Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response |
| |
| Authors: | N. Brownlee, E. Guttman. |
| Date: | June 1998 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 2350 |
|
The purpose of this document is to express the general Internet community's expectations of Computer Security Incident Response Teams(CSIRTs). It is not possible to define a set of requirements that would be appropriate for all teams, but it is possible and helpful to list and describe the general set of topics and issues which are of concern and interest to constituent communities.
CSIRT constituents have a legitimate need and right to fully understand the policies and procedures of 'their' Computer SecurityIncident Response Team. One way to support this understanding is to supply detailed information which users may consider, in the form of a formal template completed by the CSIRT. An outline of such a template and a filled in example are provided. |
|
| |
| BCP 22 | Guide for Internet Standards Writers |
| |
| Authors: | G. Scott. |
| Date: | June 1998 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 2360 |
|
This document is a guide for Internet standard writers. It defines those characteristics that make standards coherent, unambiguous, and easy to interpret. In addition, it singles out usage believed to have led to unclear specifications, resulting in non-interoperable interpretations in the past. These guidelines are to be used withRFC 2223, "Instructions to RFC Authors". |
|
| |
| BCP 23 | Administratively Scoped IP Multicast |
| |
| Authors: | D. Meyer. |
| Date: | July 1998 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 2365 |
|
|
|
| |
| BCP 24 | RSVP over ATM Implementation Guidelines |
| |
| Authors: | L. Berger. |
| Date: | August 1998 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 2379 |
|
This memo presents specific implementation guidelines for runningRSVP over ATM switched virtual circuits (SVCs). The general problem is discussed in [6]. Implementation requirements are discussed in[2]. Integrated Services to ATM service mappings are covered in [3].The full set of documents present the background and information needed to implement Integrated Services and RSVP over ATM. |
|
| |
| BCP 25 | IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures |
| |
|
|
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has responsibility for developing and reviewing specifications intended as InternetStandards. IETF activities are organized into working groups (WGs).This document describes the guidelines and procedures for formation and operation of IETF working groups. It also describes the formal relationship between IETF participants WG and the InternetEngineering Steering Group (IESG) and the basic duties of IETF participants, including WG Chairs, WG participants, and IETF AreaDirectors. |
|
| |
| BCP 26 | Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs |
| |
| Authors: | M. Cotton, B. Leiba, T. Narten. |
| Date: | June 2017 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 5226 |
| Also: | RFC 8126 |
|
Many protocols make use of identifiers consisting of constants and other well-known values. Even after a protocol has been defined and deployment has begun, new values may need to be assigned (e.g., for a new option type in DHCP, or a new encryption or authentication algorithm for IPSec). To insure that such quantities have consistent values and interpretations in different implementations, their assignment must be administered by a central authority. For IETF protocols, that role is provided by the Internet Assigned NumbersAuthority (IANA).
In order for the IANA to manage a given name space prudently, it needs guidelines describing the conditions under which new values can be assigned. If the IANA is expected to play a role in the management of a name space, the IANA must be given clear and concise instructions describing that role. This document discusses issues that should be considered in formulating a policy for assigning values to a name space and provides guidelines to document authors on the specific text that must be included in documents that place demands on the IANA. |
|
| |
| BCP 27 | Advancement of MIB specifications on the IETF Standards Track |
| |
| Authors: | M. O'Dell, H. Alvestrand, B. Wijnen, S. Bradner. |
| Date: | October 1998 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 2438 |
|
|
|
| |
| BCP 28 | Enhancing TCP Over Satellite Channels using Standard Mechanisms |
| |
| Authors: | M. Allman, D. Glover, L. Sanchez. |
| Date: | January 1999 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 2488 |
|
The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) provides reliable delivery of data across any network path, including network paths containing satellite channels. While TCP works over satellite channels there are several IETF standardized mechanisms that enable TCP to more effectively utilize the available capacity of the network path. This document outlines some of these TCP mitigations. At this time, all mitigations discussed in this document are IETF standards track mechanisms (or are compliant with IETF standards). |
|
| |
| BCP 29 | Procedure for Defining New DHCP Options |
| |
|
|
The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) provides a framework for passing configuration information to hosts on a TCP/IP network.Configuration parameters and other control information are carried in tagged data items that are stored in the 'options' field of the DHCP message. The data items themselves are also called "options."
New DHCP options may be defined after the publication of the DHCP specification to accommodate requirements for conveyance of new configuration parameters. This document describes the procedure for defining new DHCP options. |
|
| |
| BCP 30 | Anti-Spam Recommendations for SMTP MTAs |
| |
| Authors: | G. Lindberg. |
| Date: | February 1999 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 2505 |
|
This memo gives a number of implementation recommendations for SMTP,[1], MTAs (Mail Transfer Agents, e.g. sendmail, [8]) to make them more capable of reducing the impact of spam(*).
The intent is that these recommendations will help clean up the spam situation, if applied on enough SMTP MTAs on the Internet, and that they should be used as guidelines for the various MTA vendors. We are fully aware that this is not the final solution, but if these recommendations were included, and used, on all Internet SMTP MTAs, things would improve considerably and give time to design a more long term solution. The Future Work section suggests some ideas that may be part of such a long term solution. It might, though, very well be the case that the ultimate solution is social, political, or legal, rather than technical in nature.
The implementor should be aware of the increased risk of denial of service attacks that several of the proposed methods might lead to.For example, increased number of queries to DNS servers and increased size of logfiles might both lead to overloaded systems and system crashes during an attack.
A brief summary of this memo is: o Stop unauthorized mail relaying. o Spammers then have to operate in the open; deal with them. o Design a mail system that can handle spam. |
|
| |
| BCP 31 | Media Feature Tag Registration Procedure |
| |
| Authors: | K. Holtman, A. Mutz, T. Hardie. |
| Date: | March 1999 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 2506 |
|
|
|
| |
| BCP 32 | Reserved Top Level DNS Names |
| |
| Authors: | D. Eastlake 3rd, A. Panitz. |
| Date: | June 1999 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Updated by: | RFC 6761 |
| Also: | RFC 2606 |
|
To reduce the likelihood of conflict and confusion, a few top level domain names are reserved for use in private testing, as examples in documentation, and the like. In addition, a few second level domain names reserved for use as examples are documented. |
|
| |
| BCP 33 | URN Namespace Definition Mechanisms |
| |
| Authors: | L. Daigle, D. van Gulik, R. Iannella, P. Faltstrom. |
| Date: | June 1999 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Obsoleted by: | RFC 3406 |
| Also: | RFC 2611 |
|
The URN WG has defined a syntax for Uniform Resource Names (URNs)[RFC2141], as well as some proposed mechanisms for their resolution and use in Internet applications ([RFC2168, RFC2169]). The whole rests on the concept of individual "namespaces" within the URN structure. Apart from proof-of-concept namespaces, the use of existing identifiers in URNs has been discussed ([RFC2288]), and this document lays out general definitions of and mechanisms for establishing URN "namespaces". |
|
| |
| BCP 34 | Changing the Default for Directed Broadcasts in Routers |
| |
|
| |
| BCP 35 | Guidelines and Registration Procedures for URI Schemes |
| |
|
|
This document defines the process by which new URL scheme names are registered. |
|
| |
| BCP 36 | Guidelines for Writers of RTP Payload Format Specifications |
| |
| Authors: | M. Handley, C. Perkins. |
| Date: | December 1999 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Updated by: | RFC 8088 |
| Also: | RFC 2736 |
|
This document provides general guidelines aimed at assisting the authors of RTP Payload Format specifications in deciding on good formats. These guidelines attempt to capture some of the experience gained with RTP as it evolved during its development. |
|
| |
| BCP 37 | IANA Allocation Guidelines |
| |
|
|
This memo provides guidance for the IANA to use in assigning parameters for fields in the IPv4, IPv6, ICMP, UDP and TCP protocol headers. |
|
| |
| BCP 38 | Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing |
| |
|
|
Recent occurrences of various Denial of Service (DoS) attacks which have employed forged source addresses have proven to be a troublesome issue for Internet Service Providers and the Internet community overall. This paper discusses a simple, effective, and straightforward method for using ingress traffic filtering to prohibit DoS attacks which use forged IP addresses to be propagated from 'behind' an Internet Service Provider's (ISP) aggregation point. |
|
| |
| BCP 39 | IAB Charter |
| |
| Authors: | Internet Architecture Board, B. Carpenter, Ed.. |
| Date: | May 2000 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 2850, RFC 9283 |
|
This memo documents the composition, selection, roles, and organization of the Internet Architecture Board. It replaces RFC1601. |
|
| |
| BCP 40 | DNS Root Name Service Protocol and Deployment Requirements |
| |
| Authors: | M. Blanchet, L-J. Liman. |
| Date: | December 2015 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 2870 |
| Also: | RFC 7720 |
|
As the internet becomes increasingly critical to the world's social and economic infrastructure, attention has rightly focused on the correct, safe, reliable, and secure operation of the internet infrastructure itself. The root domain name servers are seen as a crucial part of that technical infrastructure. The primary focus of this document is to provide guidelines for operation of the root name servers. Other major zone server operators (gTLDs, ccTLDs, major zones) may also find it useful. These guidelines are intended to meet the perceived societal needs without overly prescribing technical details. |
|
| |
| BCP 41 | Congestion Control Principles |
| |
| Authors: | S. Floyd, B. Briscoe, J. Manner. |
| Date: | September 2000 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 2914, RFC 7141 |
|
The goal of this document is to explain the need for congestion control in the Internet, and to discuss what constitutes correct congestion control. One specific goal is to illustrate the dangers of neglecting to apply proper congestion control. A second goal is to discuss the role of the IETF in standardizing new congestion control protocols. |
|
| |
| BCP 42 | Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations |
| |
|
|
Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) parameter assignment considerations are given for the allocation of Domain Name System(DNS) classes, Resource Record (RR) types, operation codes, error codes, etc. |
|
| |
| BCP 43 | Procedures and IANA Guidelines for Definition of New DHCP Options and Message Types |
| |
|
|
The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) provides a framework for passing configuration information to hosts on a TransmissionControl Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) network. Configuration parameters and other control information are carried in tagged data items that are stored in the 'options' field of the DHCP message.The data items themselves are also called "options".
DHCP protocol messages are identified by the 'DHCP Message Type' option (option code 51). Each message type is defined by the data value carried in the 'DHCP Message Type' option.
New DHCP options and message types may be defined after the publication of the DHCP specification to accommodate requirements for conveyance of new configuration parameters or to accommodate new protocol semantics. This document describes the procedure for defining new DHCP options and message types. |
|
| |
| BCP 44 | Use of HTTP State Management |
| |
| Authors: | K. Moore, N. Freed. |
| Date: | October 2000 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 2964 |
|
The mechanisms described in "HTTP State Management Mechanism" (RFC-2965), and its predecessor (RFC-2109), can be used for many different purposes. However, some current and potential uses of the protocol are controversial because they have significant user privacy and security implications. This memo identifies specific uses ofHypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) State Management protocol which are either (a) not recommended by the IETF, or (b) believed to be harmful, and discouraged. This memo also details additional privacy considerations which are not covered by the HTTP State Management protocol specification. |
|
| |
| BCP 45 | IETF Discussion List Charter |
| |
|
|
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) discussion mailing list furthers the development and specification of Internet technology through discussion of technical issues, and hosts discussions of IETF direction, policy, meetings, and procedures. As this is the most general IETF mailing list, considerable latitude is allowed.Advertising, whether to solicit business or promote employment opportunities, falls well outside the range of acceptable topics, as do discussions of a personal nature. |
|
| |
| BCP 46 | Recommended Internet Service Provider Security Services and Procedures |
| |
| Authors: | T. Killalea. |
| Date: | November 2000 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3013 |
|
The purpose of this document is to express what the engineering community as represented by the IETF expects of Internet ServiceProviders (ISPs) with respect to security.
It is not the intent of this document to define a set of requirements that would be appropriate for all ISPs, but rather to raise awareness among ISPs of the community's expectations, and to provide the community with a framework for discussion of security expectations with current and prospective service providers. |
|
| |
| BCP 47 | Language Tags |
| |
|
|
This document describes a language tag for use in cases where it is desired to indicate the language used in an information object, how to register values for use in this language tag, and a construct for matching such language tags. |
|
| |
| BCP 48 | End-to-end Performance Implications of Slow Links |
| |
| Authors: | S. Dawkins, G. Montenegro, M. Kojo, V. Magret. |
| Date: | July 2001 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3150 |
|
This document makes performance-related recommendations for users of network paths that traverse "very low bit-rate" links.
"Very low bit-rate" implies "slower than we would like". This recommendation may be useful in any network where hosts can saturate available bandwidth, but the design space for this recommendation explicitly includes connections that traverse 56 Kb/second modem links or 4.8 Kb/second wireless access links - both of which are widely deployed.
This document discusses general-purpose mechanisms. Where application-specific mechanisms can outperform the relevant general- purpose mechanism, we point this out and explain why.
This document has some recommendations in common with RFC 2689,"Providing integrated services over low-bitrate links", especially in areas like header compression. This document focuses more on traditional data applications for which "best-effort delivery" is appropriate. |
|
| |
| BCP 49 | Conversations with S. Crocker (UCLA) |
| |
|
|
This document discusses the need for delegation of the IP6.ARPA DNS zone, and specifies a plan for the technical operation thereof. |
|
| |
| BCP 50 | End-to-end Performance Implications of Links with Errors |
| |
| Authors: | S. Dawkins, G. Montenegro, M. Kojo, V. Magret, N. Vaidya. |
| Date: | August 2001 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3155 |
|
This document discusses the specific TCP mechanisms that are problematic in environments with high uncorrected error rates, and discusses what can be done to mitigate the problems without introducing intermediate devices into the connection. |
|
| |
| BCP 51 | IANA Guidelines for IPv4 Multicast Address Assignments |
| |
|
|
This memo provides guidance for the Internet Assigned NumbersAuthority (IANA) in assigning IPv4 multicast addresses. |
|
| |
| BCP 52 | Management Guidelines & Operational Requirements for the Address and Routing Parameter Area Domain ("arpa") |
| |
|
|
This memo describes the management and operational requirements for the address and routing parameter area ("arpa") domain. The "arpa" domain is used to support a class of infrastructural identifier spaces, providing a distributed database that translates elements of a structured name space derived from a protocol family to service names. The efficient and reliable operation of this DNS space is essential to the integrity of operation of various services within the Internet. The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) has the responsibility, in cooperation with the Internet Corporation forAssigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), to manage the "arpa" domain.This document describes the principles used by the IAB in undertaking this role. |
|
| |
| BCP 53 | GLOP Addressing in 233/8 |
| |
| Authors: | D. Meyer, P. Lothberg. |
| Date: | September 2001 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 2770 |
| Also: | RFC 3180 |
|
This document defines the policy for the use of 233/8 for statically assigned multicast addresses. |
|
| |
| BCP 54 | IETF Guidelines for Conduct |
| |
|
|
This document provides a set of guidelines for personal interaction in the Internet Engineering Task Force. The Guidelines recognize the diversity of IETF participants, emphasize the value of mutual respect, and stress the broad applicability of our work. |
|
| |
| BCP 55 | Guidelines for Evidence Collection and Archiving |
| |
| Authors: | D. Brezinski, T. Killalea. |
| Date: | February 2002 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3227 |
|
A "security incident" as defined in the "Internet Security Glossary",RFC 2828, is a security-relevant system event in which the system's security policy is disobeyed or otherwise breached. The purpose of this document is to provide System Administrators with guidelines on the collection and archiving of evidence relevant to such a security incident.
If evidence collection is done correctly, it is much more useful in apprehending the attacker, and stands a much greater chance of being admissible in the event of a prosecution. |
|
| |
| BCP 56 | Building Protocols with HTTP |
| |
|
|
Recently there has been widespread interest in using HypertextTransfer Protocol (HTTP) as a substrate for other applications-level protocols. This document recommends technical particulars of such use, including use of default ports, URL schemes, and HTTP security mechanisms. |
|
| |
| BCP 57 | IANA Considerations for IPv4 Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) |
| |
| Authors: | B. Fenner. |
| Date: | February 2002 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3228 |
|
This memo requests that the IANA create a registry for fields in theIGMP (Internet Group Management Protocol) protocol header, and provides guidance for the IANA to use in assigning parameters for those fields. |
|
| |
| BCP 58 | Defining the IETF |
| |
| Authors: | P. Hoffman, S. Bradner. |
| Date: | February 2002 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3233 |
|
This document gives a more concrete definition of "the IETF" as it understood today. Many RFCs refer to "the IETF". Many importantIETF documents speak of the IETF as if it were an already-defined entity. However, no IETF document correctly defines what the IETF is. |
|
| |
| BCP 59 | A Transient Prefix for Identifying Profiles under Development by the Working Groups of the Internet Engineering Task Force |
| |
| Authors: | M. Rose. |
| Date: | July 2002 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3349 |
|
As a part of their deliverables, working groups of the IETF may develop BEEP profiles. During the development process, it is desirable to assign a transient identifier to each profile. If the profile is subsequently published as an RFC, then a permanent identifier is subsequently assigned by the IANA. |
|
| |
| BCP 60 | Inappropriate TCP Resets Considered Harmful |
| |
| Authors: | S. Floyd. |
| Date: | August 2002 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3360 |
|
This document is being written because there are a number of firewalls in the Internet that inappropriately reset a TCP connection upon receiving certain TCP SYN packets, in particular, packets with flags set in the Reserved field of the TCP header. In this document we argue that this practice is not conformant with TCP standards, and is an inappropriate overloading of the semantics of the TCP reset.We also consider the longer-term consequences of this and similar actions as obstacles to the evolution of the Internet infrastructure. |
|
| |
| BCP 61 | Strong Security Requirements for Internet Engineering Task Force Standard Protocols |
| |
| Authors: | J. Schiller. |
| Date: | August 2002 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3365 |
|
It is the consensus of the IETF that IETF standard protocols MUST make use of appropriate strong security mechanisms. This document describes the history and rationale for this doctrine and establishes this doctrine as a best current practice. |
|
| |
| BCP 62 | Advice to link designers on link Automatic Repeat reQuest (ARQ) |
| |
| Authors: | G. Fairhurst, L. Wood. |
| Date: | August 2002 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3366 |
|
This document provides advice to the designers of digital communication equipment and link-layer protocols employing link-layerAutomatic Repeat reQuest (ARQ) techniques. This document presumes that the designers wish to support Internet protocols, but may be unfamiliar with the architecture of the Internet and with the implications of their design choices for the performance and efficiency of Internet traffic carried over their links.
ARQ is described in a general way that includes its use over a wide range of underlying physical media, including cellular wireless, wireless LANs, RF links, and other types of channel. This document also describes issues relevant to supporting IP traffic over physical-layer channels where performance varies, and where link ARQ is likely to be used. |
|
| |
| BCP 63 | Session Initiation Protocol for Telephones (SIP-T): Context and Architectures |
| |
| Authors: | A. Vemuri, J. Peterson. |
| Date: | September 2002 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3372 |
|
The popularity of gateways that interwork between the PSTN (PublicSwitched Telephone Network) and SIP networks has motivated the publication of a set of common practices that can assure consistent behavior across implementations. This document taxonomizes the uses of PSTN-SIP gateways, provides uses cases, and identifies mechanisms necessary for interworking. The mechanisms detail how SIP provides for both 'encapsulation' (bridging the PSTN signaling across a SIP network) and 'translation' (gatewaying). |
|
| |
| BCP 64 | Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Considerations for the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) |
| |
|
|
This document provides procedures for registering extensible elements of the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP). This document also provides guidelines to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority(IANA) describing conditions under which new values can be assigned. |
|
| |
| BCP 65 | Registration Rules for URI.ARPA |
| |
|
|
This document is fifth in a series that is completely specified in"Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part One: TheComprehensive DDDS" (RFC 3401). It is very important to note that it is impossible to read and understand any document in this series without reading the others. |
|
| |
| BCP 67 | The SIP Change Process |
| |
| Authors: | J. Peterson, C. Jennings, R. Sparks, B. Campbell, Ed., A. Cooper, B. Leiba. |
| Date: | March 2010 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 5727, RFC 7957 |
|
This memo documents a process intended to apply architectural discipline to the future development of the Session InitiationProtocol (SIP). There have been concerns with regards to new SIP proposals. Specifically, that the addition of new SIP features can be damaging towards security and/or greatly increase the complexity of the protocol. The Transport Area directors, along with the SIP and Session Initiation Proposal Investigation (SIPPING) working group chairs, have provided suggestions for SIP modifications and extensions. |
|
| |
| BCP 68 | Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Considerations Update |
| |
| Authors: | W. Townsley. |
| Date: | December 2002 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3438 |
|
This document describes updates to the Internet Assigned NumbersAuthority (IANA) considerations for the Layer Two Tunneling Protocol(L2TP). |
|
| |
| BCP 69 | TCP Performance Implications of Network Path Asymmetry |
| |
| Authors: | H. Balakrishnan, V. Padmanabhan, G. Fairhurst, M. Sooriyabandara. |
| Date: | December 2002 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3449 |
|
This document describes TCP performance problems that arise because of asymmetric effects. These problems arise in several access networks, including bandwidth-asymmetric networks and packet radio subnetworks, for different underlying reasons. However, the end result on TCP performance is the same in both cases: performance often degrades significantly because of imperfection and variability in the ACK feedback from the receiver to the sender.
The document details several mitigations to these effects, which have either been proposed or evaluated in the literature, or are currently deployed in networks. These solutions use a combination of local link-layer techniques, subnetwork, and end-to-end mechanisms, consisting of: (i) techniques to manage the channel used for the upstream bottleneck link carrying the ACKs, typically using header compression or reducing the frequency of TCP ACKs, (ii) techniques to handle this reduced ACK frequency to retain the TCP sender's acknowledgment-triggered self-clocking and (iii) techniques to schedule the data and ACK packets in the reverse direction to improve performance in the presence of two-way traffic. Each technique is described, together with known issues, and recommendations for use.A summary of the recommendations is provided at the end of the document. |
|
| |
| BCP 70 | Guidelines for the Use of Extensible Markup Language (XML) within IETF Protocols |
| |
| Authors: | S. Hollenbeck, M. Rose, L. Masinter. |
| Date: | January 2003 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Updated by: | RFC 8996 |
| Also: | RFC 3470 |
|
The Extensible Markup Language (XML) is a framework for structuring data. While it evolved from Standard Generalized Markup Language(SGML) -- a markup language primarily focused on structuring documents -- XML has evolved to be a widely-used mechanism for representing structured data.
There are a wide variety of Internet protocols being developed; many have need for a representation for structured data relevant to their application. There has been much interest in the use of XML as a representation method. This document describes basic XML concepts, analyzes various alternatives in the use of XML, and provides guidelines for the use of XML within IETF standards-track protocols. |
|
| |
| BCP 71 | TCP over Second (2.5G) and Third (3G) Generation Wireless Networks |
| |
| Authors: | H. Inamura, Ed., G. Montenegro, Ed., R. Ludwig, A. Gurtov, F. Khafizov. |
| Date: | February 2003 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3481 |
|
This document describes a profile for optimizing TCP to adapt so that it handles paths including second (2.5G) and third (3G) generation wireless networks. It describes the relevant characteristics of 2.5G and 3G networks, and specific features of example deployments of such networks. It then recommends TCP algorithm choices for nodes known to be starting or ending on such paths, and it also discusses open issues. The configuration options recommended in this document are commonly found in modern TCP stacks, and are widely available standards-track mechanisms that the community considers safe for use on the general Internet. |
|
| |
| BCP 72 | Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations |
| |
| Authors: | E. Rescorla, B. Korver, F. Gont, I. Arce. |
| Date: | July 2003 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3552, RFC 9416 |
|
All RFCs are required to have a Security Considerations section.Historically, such sections have been relatively weak. This document provides guidelines to RFC authors on how to write a good SecurityConsiderations section. |
|
| |
| BCP 73 | An IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Protocol Parameters |
| |
| Authors: | M. Mealling, L. Masinter, T. Hardie, G. Klyne. |
| Date: | June 2003 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3553 |
|
This document describes a new sub-delegation for the 'ietf' URN namespace for registered protocol items. The 'ietf' URN namespace is defined in RFC 2648 as a root for persistent URIs that refer toIETF-defined resources. |
|
| |
| BCP 74 | Coexistence between Version 1, Version 2, and Version 3 of the Internet-standard Network Management Framework |
| |
| Authors: | R. Frye, D. Levi, S. Routhier, B. Wijnen. |
| Date: | August 2003 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 2576 |
| Also: | RFC 3584 |
|
The purpose of this document is to describe coexistence between version 3 of the Internet-standard Network Management Framework,(SNMPv3), version 2 of the Internet-standard Network ManagementFramework (SNMPv2), and the original Internet-standard NetworkManagement Framework (SNMPv1). This document also describes how to convert MIB modules from SMIv1 format to SMIv2 format. This document obsoletes RFC 2576. |
|
| |
| BCP 75 | Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Basic Call Flow Examples |
| |
| Authors: | A. Johnston, S. Donovan, R. Sparks, C. Cunningham, K. Summers. |
| Date: | December 2003 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3665 |
|
This document gives examples of Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) call flows. Elements in these call flows include SIP User Agents andClients, SIP Proxy and Redirect Servers. Scenarios include SIPRegistration and SIP session establishment. Call flow diagrams and message details are shown. |
|
| |
| BCP 76 | Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) Call Flows |
| |
| Authors: | A. Johnston, S. Donovan, R. Sparks, C. Cunningham, K. Summers. |
| Date: | December 2003 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3666 |
|
This document contains best current practice examples of SessionInitiation Protocol (SIP) call flows showing interworking with thePublic Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). Elements in these call flows include SIP User Agents, SIP Proxy Servers, and PSTN Gateways.Scenarios include SIP to PSTN, PSTN to SIP, and PSTN to PSTN via SIP.PSTN telephony protocols are illustrated using ISDN (IntegratedServices Digital Network), ISUP (ISDN User Part), and FGB (FeatureGroup B) circuit associated signaling. PSTN calls are illustrated using global telephone numbers from the PSTN and private extensions served on by a PBX (Private Branch Exchange). Call flow diagrams and message details are shown. |
|
| |
| BCP 77 | IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures |
| |
| Authors: | L. Daigle, Ed., Internet Architecture Board. |
| Date: | December 2003 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3677 |
|
This memo outlines the process by which the IETF makes a selection of an Internet Society (ISOC) Board of Trustees appointment. |
|
| |
| BCP 78 | Rights Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust |
| |
|
|
The IETF policies about rights in Contributions to the IETF are designed to ensure that such Contributions can be made available to the IETF and Internet communities while permitting the authors to retain as many rights as possible. This memo details the IETF policies on rights in Contributions to the IETF. It also describes the objectives that the policies are designed to meet. This memo updates RFC 2026, and, with RFC 3668, replaces Section 10 of RFC2026. |
|
| |
| BCP 79 | Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology |
| |
|
|
The IETF policies about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as patent rights, relative to technologies developed in the IETF are designed to ensure that IETF working groups and participants have as much information about any IPR constraints on a technical proposal as possible. The policies are also intended to benefit the Internet community and the public at large, while respecting the legitimate rights of IPR holders. This memo details the IETF policies concerning IPR related to technology worked on within the IETF. It also describes the objectives that the policies are designed to meet.This memo updates RFC 2026 and, with RFC 3667, replaces Section 10 ofRFC 2026. This memo also updates paragraph 4 of Section 3.2 of RFC2028, for all purposes, including reference [2] in RFC 2418. |
|
| |
| BCP 80 | Delegation of E.F.F.3.IP6.ARPA |
| |
| Authors: | R. Bush, R. Fink. |
| Date: | January 2004 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3681 |
|
This document discusses the need for delegation of theE.F.F.3.IP6.ARPA DNS zone in order to enable reverse lookups for6bone addresses, and makes specific recommendations for the process needed to accomplish this. |
|
| |
| BCP 81 | The IETF XML Registry |
| |
| Authors: | M. Mealling. |
| Date: | January 2004 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3688 |
|
This document describes an IANA maintained registry for IETF standards which use Extensible Markup Language (XML) related items such as Namespaces, Document Type Declarations (DTDs), Schemas, andResource Description Framework (RDF) Schemas. |
|
| |
| BCP 82 | Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered Useful |
| |
|
|
When experimenting with or extending protocols, it is often necessary to use some sort of protocol number or constant in order to actually test or experiment with the new function, even when testing in a closed environment. For example, to test a new DHCP option, one needs an option number to identify the new function. This document recommends that when writing IANA Considerations sections, authors should consider assigning a small range of numbers for experimentation purposes that implementers can use when testing protocol extensions or other new features. This document reserves some ranges of numbers for experimentation purposes in specific protocols where the need to support experimentation has been identified. |
|
| |
| BCP 83 | A Practice for Revoking Posting Rights to IETF Mailing Lists |
| |
|
|
All self-governing bodies have ways of managing the scope of participant interaction. The IETF uses a consensus-driven process for developing computer-communications standards in an open fashion.An important part of this consensus-driven process is the pervasive use of mailing lists for discussion. Notably, in a small number of cases, a participant has engaged in a "denial-of-service" attack to disrupt the consensus-driven process. Regrettably, as these bad faith attacks become more common, the IETF needs to establish a practice that reduces or eliminates these attacks. This memo recommends such a practice for use by the IETF. |
|
| |
| BCP 84 | Ingress Filtering for Multihomed Networks |
| |
| Authors: | F. Baker, P. Savola, K. Sriram, D. Montgomery, J. Haas. |
| Date: | March 2004 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3704, RFC 8704 |
|
BCP 38, RFC 2827, is designed to limit the impact of distributed denial of service attacks, by denying traffic with spoofed addresses access to the network, and to help ensure that traffic is traceable to its correct source network. As a side effect of protecting theInternet against such attacks, the network implementing the solution also protects itself from this and other attacks, such as spoofed management access to networking equipment. There are cases when this may create problems, e.g., with multihoming. This document describes the current ingress filtering operational mechanisms, examines generic issues related to ingress filtering, and delves into the effects on multihoming in particular. This memo updates RFC 2827. |
|
| |
| BCP 85 | Best Current Practices for Third Party Call Control (3pcc) in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) |
| |
| Authors: | J. Rosenberg, J. Peterson, H. Schulzrinne, G. Camarillo. |
| Date: | April 2004 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3725 |
|
Third party call control refers to the ability of one entity to create a call in which communication is actually between other parties. Third party call control is possible using the mechanisms specified within the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). However, there are several possible approaches, each with different benefits and drawbacks. This document discusses best current practices for the usage of SIP for third party call control. |
|
| |
| BCP 86 | Determining Strengths For Public Keys Used For Exchanging Symmetric Keys |
| |
| Authors: | H. Orman, P. Hoffman. |
| Date: | April 2004 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3766 |
|
Implementors of systems that use public key cryptography to exchange symmetric keys need to make the public keys resistant to some predetermined level of attack. That level of attack resistance is the strength of the system, and the symmetric keys that are exchanged must be at least as strong as the system strength requirements. The three quantities, system strength, symmetric key strength, and public key strength, must be consistently matched for any network protocol usage.
While it is fairly easy to express the system strength requirements in terms of a symmetric key length and to choose a cipher that has a key length equal to or exceeding that requirement, it is harder to choose a public key that has a cryptographic strength meeting a symmetric key strength requirement. This document explains how to determine the length of an asymmetric key as a function of a symmetric key strength requirement. Some rules of thumb for estimating equivalent resistance to large-scale attacks on various algorithms are given. The document also addresses how changing the sizes of the underlying large integers (moduli, group sizes, exponents, and so on) changes the time to use the algorithms for key exchange. |
|
| |
| BCP 87 | Use of Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Metric as a second MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric |
| |
| Authors: | F. Le Faucheur, R. Uppili, A. Vedrenne, P. Merckx, T. Telkamp. |
| Date: | May 2004 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3785 |
|
This document describes a common practice on how the existing metric of Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) can be used as an alternative metric to the Traffic Engineering (TE) metric for Constraint BasedRouting of MultiProtocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering tunnels. This effectively results in the ability to performConstraint Based Routing with optimization of one metric (e.g., link bandwidth) for some Traffic Engineering tunnels (e.g., Data Trunks) while optimizing another metric (e.g., propagation delay) for some other tunnels with different requirements (e.g., Voice Trunks). No protocol extensions or modifications are required. This text documents current router implementations and deployment practices. |
|
| |
| BCP 88 | IANA Considerations for the Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) |
| |
| Authors: | V. Schryver. |
| Date: | June 2004 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3818 |
|
The charter of the Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Extensions working group (pppext) includes the responsibility to "actively advance PPP's most useful extensions to full standard, while defending against further enhancements of questionable value." In support of that charter, the allocation of PPP protocol and other assigned numbers will no longer be "first come first served." |
|
| |
| BCP 89 | Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers |
| |
| Authors: | P. Karn, Ed., C. Bormann, G. Fairhurst, D. Grossman, R. Ludwig, J. Mahdavi, G. Montenegro, J. Touch, L. Wood, B. Briscoe, J. Kaippallimalil. |
| Date: | July 2004 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3819, RFC 9599 |
|
This document provides advice to the designers of digital communication equipment, link-layer protocols, and packet-switched local networks (collectively referred to as subnetworks), who wish to support the Internet protocols but may be unfamiliar with theInternet architecture and the implications of their design choices on the performance and efficiency of the Internet. |
|
| |
| BCP 90 | Registration Procedures for Message Header Fields |
| |
| Authors: | G. Klyne, M. Nottingham, J. Mogul. |
| Date: | September 2004 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Updated by: | RFC 9110 |
| Also: | RFC 3864 |
|
This specification defines registration procedures for the message header fields used by Internet mail, HTTP, Netnews and other applications. |
|
| |
| BCP 91 | DNS IPv6 Transport Operational Guidelines |
| |
| Authors: | A. Durand, J. Ihren. |
| Date: | September 2004 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3901 |
|
This memo provides guidelines and Best Current Practice for operatingDNS in a world where queries and responses are carried in a mixed environment of IPv4 and IPv6 networks. |
|
| |
| BCP 92 | IESG Procedures for Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions |
| |
|
|
This document describes the IESG's procedures for handling documents submitted for RFC publication via the RFC Editor, subsequent to the changes proposed by the IESG at the Seoul IETF, March 2004.
This document updates procedures described in RFC 2026 and RFC 3710. |
|
| |
| BCP 93 | A Model for IETF Process Experiments |
| |
| Authors: | J. Klensin, S. Dawkins. |
| Date: | November 2004 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3933 |
|
The IETF has designed process changes over the last ten years in one of two ways: announcement by the IESG, sometimes based on informal agreements with limited community involvement and awareness, and formal use of the same mechanism used for protocol specification.The first mechanism has often proven to be too lightweight, the second too heavyweight.
This document specifies a middle-ground approach to the system of making changes to IETF process, one that relies heavily on a "propose and carry out an experiment, evaluate the experiment, and then establish permanent procedures based on operational experience" model rather than those previously attempted. |
|
| |
| BCP 95 | A Mission Statement for the IETF |
| |
| Authors: | H. Alvestrand. |
| Date: | October 2004 |
| Formats: | txt |
| Also: | RFC 3935 |
|
This memo gives a mission statement for the IETF, tries to define the terms used in the statement sufficiently to make the mission statement understandable and useful, argues why the IETF needs a mission statement, and tries to capture some of the debate that led to this point. |
|
| |
| BCP 96 | Procedures for Modifying the Resource reSerVation Protocol (RSVP) |
| |
|
|
This memo specifies procedures for modifying the Resource reSerVationProtocol (RSVP). This memo also lays out new assignment guidelines for number spaces for RSVP messages, object classes, class-types, and sub-objects. |
|
| |
| BCP 97 | Handling Normative References to Standards-Track Documents |
| |
|
|
IETF procedures generally require that a standards track RFC may not have a normative reference to another standards track document at a lower maturity level or to a non standards track specification (other than specifications from other standards bodies). For example, a standards track document may not have a normative reference to an informational RFC. Exceptions to this rule are sometimes needed as the IETF uses informational RFCs to describe non-IETF standards orIETF-specific modes of use of such standards. This document clarifies and updates the procedure used in these circumstances. |
|
| |
| BCP 98 | The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) Header Field Parameter Registry for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) |
| |
|
|
This document creates an Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) registry for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) header field parameters and parameter values. It also lists the already existing parameters and parameter values to be used as the initial entries for this registry. |
|
| |
| BCP 99 | The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Parameter Registry for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) |
| |
|
|
This document creates an Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) registry for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and SIPS UniformResource Identifier (URI) parameters, and their values. It also lists the already existing parameters to be used as initial values for that registry. |
|
