mirror of
https://github.com/samba-team/samba.git
synced 2025-01-11 05:18:09 +03:00
7055827b8f
This makes it clearer that we always want to do heimdal changes via the lorikeet-heimdal repository. Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> Reviewed-by: Joseph Sutton <josephsutton@catalyst.net.nz> Autobuild-User(master): Joseph Sutton <jsutton@samba.org> Autobuild-Date(master): Wed Jan 19 21:41:59 UTC 2022 on sn-devel-184
639 lines
26 KiB
Plaintext
639 lines
26 KiB
Plaintext
|
||
|
||
|
||
Kerberos Working Group Karthik
|
||
Jaganathan
|
||
Internet Draft Larry Zhu
|
||
Document: draft-ietf-krb-wg-kerberos-referrals-03.txt John Brezak
|
||
Category: Standards Track Microsoft
|
||
Mike Swift
|
||
University of
|
||
Washington
|
||
Jonathan Trostle
|
||
Cisco Systems
|
||
Expires: August
|
||
2004
|
||
|
||
|
||
Generating KDC Referrals to locate Kerberos realms
|
||
|
||
|
||
Status of this Memo
|
||
|
||
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
|
||
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [1].
|
||
|
||
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
|
||
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
|
||
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
|
||
Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of
|
||
six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
|
||
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts
|
||
as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
|
||
progress."
|
||
|
||
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
|
||
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
|
||
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
|
||
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
|
||
|
||
1. Abstract
|
||
|
||
The draft documents a new method for a Kerberos Key Distribution
|
||
Center (KDC) to respond to client requests for kerberos tickets when
|
||
the client does not have detailed configuration information on the
|
||
realms of users or services. The KDC will handle requests for
|
||
principals in other realms by returning either a referral error or a
|
||
cross-realm TGT to another realm on the referral path. The clients
|
||
will use this referral information to reach the realm of the target
|
||
principal and then receive the ticket.
|
||
|
||
2. Conventions used in this document
|
||
|
||
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
|
||
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
|
||
this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [2].
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Jaganathan Category - Standards Track 1
|
||
KDC Referrals August 2004
|
||
|
||
|
||
3. Introduction
|
||
|
||
Current implementations of the Kerberos AS and TGS protocols, as
|
||
defined in [3], use principal names constructed from a known user or
|
||
service name and realm. A service name is typically constructed from
|
||
a name of the service and the DNS host name of the computer that is
|
||
providing the service. Many existing deployments of Kerberos use a
|
||
single Kerberos realm where all users and services would be using
|
||
the same realm. However in an environment where there are multiple
|
||
trusted Kerberos realms, the client needs to be able to determine
|
||
what realm a particular user or service is in before making an AS or
|
||
TGS request. Traditionally this requires client configuration to
|
||
make this possible.
|
||
|
||
When having to deal with multiple trusted realms, users are forced
|
||
to know what realm they are in before they can obtain a ticket
|
||
granting ticket (TGT) with an AS request. However, in many cases the
|
||
user would like to use a more familiar name that is not directly
|
||
related to the realm of their Kerberos principal name. A good
|
||
example of this is an RFC-822 style email name. This document
|
||
describes a mechanism that would allow a user to specify a user
|
||
principal name that is an alias for the user's Kerberos principal
|
||
name. In practice this would be the name that the user specifies to
|
||
obtain a TGT from a Kerberos KDC. The user principal name no longer
|
||
has a direct relationship with the Kerberos principal or realm. Thus
|
||
the administrator is able to move the user's principal to other
|
||
realms without the user having to know that it happened.
|
||
|
||
Once a user has a TGT, they would like to be able to access services
|
||
in any trusted Kerberos realm. To do this requires that the client
|
||
be able to determine what realm the target service's host is in
|
||
before making the TGS request. Current implementations of Kerberos
|
||
typically have a table that maps DNS host names to corresponding
|
||
Kerberos realms. In order for this to work on the client, each
|
||
application canonicalizes the host name of the service by doing a
|
||
DNS lookup followed by a reverse lookup using the returned IP
|
||
address. The returned primary host name is then used in the
|
||
construction of the principal name for the target service. In order
|
||
for the correct realm to be added for the target host, the mapping
|
||
table [domain_to_realm] is consulted for the realm corresponding to
|
||
the DNS host name. The corresponding realm is then used to complete
|
||
the target service principal name.
|
||
|
||
This traditional mechanism requires that each client have very
|
||
detailed configuration information about the hosts that are
|
||
providing services and their corresponding realms. Having client
|
||
side configuration information can be very costly from an
|
||
administration point of view - especially if there are many realms
|
||
and computers in the environment.
|
||
|
||
There are also cases where specific DNS aliases (local names) have
|
||
been setup in an organization to refer to a server in another
|
||
organization (remote server). The server has different DNS names in
|
||
|
||
Jaganathan Category - Standards Track 2
|
||
KDC Referrals August 2004
|
||
|
||
|
||
each organization and each organization has a Kerberos realm that is
|
||
configured to service DNS names within that organization. Ideally
|
||
users are able to authenticate to the server in the other
|
||
organization using the local server name. This would mean that the
|
||
local realm be able to produce a ticket to the remote server under
|
||
its name. You could give that remote server an identity in the local
|
||
realm and then have that remote server maintain a separate secret
|
||
for each alias it is known as. Alternatively you could arrange to
|
||
have the local realm issue a referral to the remote realm and notify
|
||
the requesting client of the server's remote name that should be
|
||
used in order to request a ticket.
|
||
|
||
This draft proposes a solution for these problems and simplifies
|
||
administration by minimizing the configuration information needed on
|
||
each computer using Kerberos. Specifically it describes a mechanism
|
||
to allow the KDC to handle Canonicalization of names, provide for
|
||
principal aliases for users and services and provide a mechanism for
|
||
the KDC to determine the trusted realm authentication path by being
|
||
able to generate referrals to other realms in order to locate
|
||
principals.
|
||
|
||
To rectify these problems, this draft introduces three new kinds of
|
||
KDC referrals:
|
||
|
||
1. AS ticket referrals, in which the client doesn't know which realm
|
||
contains a user account.
|
||
2. TGS ticket referrals, in which the client doesn't know which
|
||
realm contains a server account.
|
||
3. Cross realm shortcut referrals, in which the KDC chooses the next
|
||
path on a referral chain
|
||
|
||
4. Realm Organization Model
|
||
|
||
This draft assumes that the world of principals is arranged on
|
||
multiple levels: the realm, the enterprise, and the world. A KDC may
|
||
issue tickets for any principal in its realm or cross-realm tickets
|
||
for realms with which it has a direct trust relationship. The KDC
|
||
also has access to a trusted name service that can resolve any name
|
||
from within its enterprise into a realm. This trusted name service
|
||
removes the need to use an untrusted DNS lookup for name resolution.
|
||
|
||
For example, consider the following configuration, where lines
|
||
indicate trust relationships:
|
||
|
||
MS.COM
|
||
/ \
|
||
/ \
|
||
OFFICE.MS.COM NT.MS.COM
|
||
|
||
In this configuration, all users in the MS.COM enterprise could have
|
||
a principal name such as alice@MS.COM, with the same realm portion.
|
||
In addition, servers at MS.COM should be able to have DNS host names
|
||
|
||
|
||
Jaganathan Category - Standards Track 3
|
||
KDC Referrals August 2004
|
||
|
||
|
||
from any DNS domain independent of what Kerberos realm their
|
||
principal resides in.
|
||
|
||
5. Client Name Canonicalization
|
||
|
||
A client account may have multiple principal names. More useful,
|
||
though, is a globally unique name that allows unification of email
|
||
and security principal names. For example, all users at MS may have
|
||
a client principal name of the form "joe@MS.COM" even though the
|
||
principals are contained in multiple realms. This global name is
|
||
again an alias for the true client principal name, which indicates
|
||
what realm contains the principal. Thus, accounts "alice" in the
|
||
realm NT.MS.COM and "bob" in OFFICE.MS.COM may logon as
|
||
"alice@MS.COM" and "bob@MS.COM".
|
||
|
||
This utilizes a new client principal name type, as the AS-REQ
|
||
message only contains a single realm field, and the realm portion of
|
||
this name doesn't correspond to any Kerberos realm. Thus, the entire
|
||
name "alice@MS.COM" is transmitted in the client name field of the
|
||
AS-REQ message, with a name type of KRB-NT-ENTERPRISE-PRINCIPAL.
|
||
|
||
KRB-NT-ENTERPRISE-PRINCIPAL 10
|
||
|
||
The KDC will recognize this name type and then transform the
|
||
requested name into the true principal name. The true principal name
|
||
can be using a name type different from the requested name type.
|
||
Typically the returned principal name will be a KRB-NT-PRINCIPAL.
|
||
The returned name will be the same in the AS response and in the
|
||
ticket. The KDC will always return a different name type than KRB-
|
||
NT-ENTERPRISE-PRINCIPAL. This is regardless of the presence of the
|
||
"canonicalize" KDC option.
|
||
|
||
If the "canonicalize" KDC option is set, then the KDC MAY change the
|
||
client principal name and type in the AS response and ticket
|
||
regardless of the name type of the client name in the request. For
|
||
example the AS request may specify a client name of "fred@MS.COM" as
|
||
an KRB-NT-PRINCIPAL with the "canonicalize" KDC option set and the
|
||
KDC will return with a client name of "104567" as a KRB-NT-UID.
|
||
|
||
6. Requesting a referral
|
||
|
||
In order to request referrals, the Kerberos client must explicitly
|
||
request the canonicalize KDC option (bit 15) in the KDC options for
|
||
the TGS-REQ. This flag indicates to the KDC that the client is
|
||
prepared to receive a reply that contains a principal name other
|
||
than the one requested. Thus, the KDCOptions types is redefined as:
|
||
|
||
KDCOptions ::= BIT STRING {
|
||
reserved(0),
|
||
forwardable(1),
|
||
forwarded(2),
|
||
proxiable(3),
|
||
proxy(4),
|
||
|
||
Jaganathan Category - Standards Track 4
|
||
KDC Referrals August 2004
|
||
|
||
|
||
allow-postdate(5),
|
||
postdated(6),
|
||
unused7(7),
|
||
renewable(8),
|
||
unused9(9),
|
||
unused10(10),
|
||
unused11(11),
|
||
canonicalize(15),
|
||
renewable-ok(27),
|
||
enc-tkt-in-skey(28),
|
||
renew(30),
|
||
validate(31)
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
The client should expect, when sending names with the "canonicalize"
|
||
KDC option, that names in the KDC's reply will be different than the
|
||
name in the request.
|
||
|
||
6.1 Client Referrals
|
||
|
||
The simplest form of ticket referral is for a user requesting a
|
||
ticket using an AS-REQ. In this case, the client machine will send
|
||
the AS request to a convenient trusted realm, either the realm of
|
||
the client machine or the realm of the client name. In the case of
|
||
the name Alice@MS.COM, the client may optimistically choose to send
|
||
the request to MS.COM. The realm in the AS request is always the
|
||
name of the realm that the request is for as specified in [3].
|
||
|
||
The client will send the string "alice@MS.COM" in the client
|
||
principal name field using the KRB-NT-ENTERPRISE-PRINCIPAL name type
|
||
with the crealm set to MS.COM. The KDC will try to lookup the name
|
||
in its local account database. If the account is present in the
|
||
realm of the request, it MUST return a KDC reply structure with the
|
||
appropriate ticket.
|
||
|
||
If the account is not present in the realm specified in the request
|
||
and the "canonicalize" KDC option is set, the KDC will try to lookup
|
||
the entire name, Alice@MS.COM, using a name service. If this lookup
|
||
is unsuccessful, it MUST return the error
|
||
KDC_ERR_C_PRINCIPAL_UNKNOWN. If the lookup is successful, it MUST
|
||
return an error KDC_ERR_WRONG_REALM (0x44) and in the error message
|
||
the crealm field will contain the the true realm of the client or
|
||
another realm that has better information about the client's true
|
||
realm. The client MUST NOT use a cname returned from a referral.
|
||
|
||
If the KDC contains the account locally and "canonicalize" KDC
|
||
option is not set, it MUST return a normal ticket. The client name
|
||
and realm portions of the ticket and KDC reply message MUST be the
|
||
client's true name in the realm, not the globally unique name.
|
||
|
||
If the client receives a KDC_ERR_WRONG_REALM error, it will issue a
|
||
new AS request with the same client principal name used to generate
|
||
the first referral to the realm specified by the realm field of the
|
||
|
||
Jaganathan Category - Standards Track 5
|
||
KDC Referrals August 2004
|
||
|
||
|
||
kerberos error message from the first request. This request MUST
|
||
produce a valid AS response with a ticket for the canonical user
|
||
name.
|
||
|
||
An implementation should limit the number of referrals that it
|
||
processes to avoid infinite referral loops. A suggested limit is 5
|
||
referrals before giving up. In Microsoft<66>s implementation the
|
||
default limit is 3 since through the use of the global catalog any
|
||
domain in one forest is reachable from any other domain in another
|
||
trusting forest with 3 or less referrals.
|
||
|
||
6.2 Service Referrals
|
||
|
||
The primary problem is that the KDC must return a referral ticket
|
||
rather than an error message as is done in AS request referrals.
|
||
There needs to be a place to include in the TGS response information
|
||
about what realm contains the service. This is done by returning
|
||
information about the service name in the pre-auth data field of the
|
||
KDC reply.
|
||
|
||
If the KDC resolves the service principal name into a principal in
|
||
the realm specified by the service realm name, it will return a
|
||
normal ticket. When using canonicalization, the client can omit the
|
||
service realm name. If it is supplied, it is used as a hint by the
|
||
KDC, but the service principal lookup is not constrained to locating
|
||
the service principal name in that specified realm. If the
|
||
"canonicalize" flag in the KDC options is not set, then the KDC MUST
|
||
only look up the name as a normal principal name in the specified
|
||
service realm.
|
||
|
||
If the "canonicalize" flag in the KDC options is set and the KDC
|
||
doesn't find the principal locally, the KDC can return a cross-realm
|
||
ticket granting ticket to the next hop on the trust path towards a
|
||
realm that may be able to resolve the principal name.
|
||
|
||
If the KDC can determine the service principal's realm, it SHOULD
|
||
return the service realm as KDC supplied pre-authentication data
|
||
element. The preauth data MUST be encrypted using the sub-session
|
||
key from the authenticator if present or the session key from the
|
||
ticket.
|
||
|
||
The data itself is an ASN.1 encoded structure containing the
|
||
server's realm, and if known, the real principal name.
|
||
|
||
PA-SERVER-REFERRAL-INFO 25
|
||
|
||
PA-SERVER-REFERRAL :: = KERB-ENCRYPTED-DATA
|
||
-- PA-SERVER-REFERRAL-DATA
|
||
|
||
PA-SERVER-REFERRAL-DATA ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
referred-server-realm[0] KERB-REALM
|
||
referred-name[1] PrincipalName OPTIONAL
|
||
...
|
||
|
||
Jaganathan Category - Standards Track 6
|
||
KDC Referrals August 2004
|
||
|
||
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
|
||
If applicable to the encryption type, the key derivation value will
|
||
for the PA-SERVER-REFERRAL is 22.
|
||
|
||
If the referred-name field is present, the client MUST use that name
|
||
in a subsequent TGS request to the service realm when following the
|
||
referral.
|
||
|
||
The client will use this information to request a chain of cross-
|
||
realm ticket granting tickets until it reaches the realm of the
|
||
service, and can then expect to receive a valid service ticket.
|
||
|
||
However an implementation should limit the number of referrals that
|
||
it processes to avoid infinite referral loops. A suggested limit is
|
||
5 referrals before giving up.
|
||
|
||
This is an example of a client requesting a service ticket for a
|
||
service in realm NT.MS.COM where the client is in OFFICE.MS.COM.
|
||
|
||
+NC = Canonicalize KDCOption set
|
||
+PA-REFERRAL = returned PA-SERVER-REFERRAL-INFO
|
||
|
||
C: TGS-REQ sname=server/foo.nt.ms.com srealm=NULL +NC to
|
||
OFFICE.MS.COM
|
||
S: TGS-REP sname=krbtgt/MS.COM@OFFICE.MS.COM +PA-REFERRAL
|
||
containing NT.MS.COM
|
||
C: TGS-REQ sname=krbtgt/NT.MS.COM@MS.COM +NC to MS.COM
|
||
S: TGS-REP sname=krbtgt/NT.MS.COM@MS.COM
|
||
C: TGS-REQ sname=server/foo.nt.ms.com srealm=NT.MS.COM +NC to
|
||
NT.MS.COM
|
||
S: TGS-REP sname=server/foo.nt.ms.com@NT.MS.COM
|
||
|
||
Notice that the client only specifies the service name in the
|
||
initial and final TGS request.
|
||
|
||
7. Cross Realm Routing
|
||
|
||
The current Kerberos protocol requires the client to explicitly
|
||
request a cross-realm TGT for each pair of realms on a referral
|
||
chain. As a result, the client need to be aware of the trust
|
||
hierarchy and of any short-cut trusts (those that aren't parent-
|
||
child trusts). Instead, the client should be able to request a TGT
|
||
to the target realm from each realm on the route. The KDC will
|
||
determine the best path for the client and return a cross-realm TGT.
|
||
The client has to be aware that a request for a cross-realm TGT may
|
||
return a TGT for a realm different from the one requested.
|
||
|
||
For compatibility, the client MUST use the "canonicalize" KDC option
|
||
if it is able to use cross-realm routing from the KDC.
|
||
|
||
8. Compatibility with earlier implementations of name canonicalization
|
||
|
||
Jaganathan Category - Standards Track 7
|
||
KDC Referrals August 2004
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The Microsoft Windows 2000 release included an earlier form of name-
|
||
canonicalization [4]. It has these differences:
|
||
|
||
1) The TGS referral data was returned inside of the KDC message as
|
||
"encrypted pre auth data".
|
||
|
||
KERB-ENCRYPTED-KDC-REPLY ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
session-key[0] KERB-ENCRYPTION-KEY,
|
||
last-request[1] PKERB-LAST-REQUEST,
|
||
nonce[2] INTEGER,
|
||
key-expiration[3] KERB-TIME OPTIONAL,
|
||
flags[4] KERB-TICKET-FLAGS,
|
||
authtime[5] KERB-TIME,
|
||
starttime[6] KERB-TIME OPTIONAL,
|
||
endtime[7] KERB-TIME,
|
||
renew-until[8] KERB-TIME OPTIONAL,
|
||
server-realm[9] KERB-REALM,
|
||
server-name[10] KERB-PRINCIPAL-NAME,
|
||
client-addresses[11] PKERB-HOST-ADDRESSES
|
||
OPTIONAL,
|
||
encrypted-pa-data[12] SEQUENCE OF KERB-PA-DATA
|
||
OPTIONAL
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
2) The preauth data type definition in the encrypted preauth data is
|
||
as follows:
|
||
|
||
PA-SVR-REFERRAL-INFO 20
|
||
|
||
PA-SVR-REFERRAL-DATA ::= SEQUENCE {
|
||
referred-server-name[1] PrincipalName OPTIONAL
|
||
referred-server-realm[0] KERB-REALM
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
|
||
9. Security Considerations
|
||
|
||
In the case of TGS requests the client may be vulnerable to a denial
|
||
of service attack by an attacker that replays replies from previous
|
||
requests. The client can verify that the request was one of its own
|
||
by checking the client-address field or authtime field, though, so
|
||
the damage is limited and detectable. Clients MUST NOT process cross
|
||
realm referral TGTs if the KDC reply does not include the encrypted
|
||
PA-SERVER-REFERRAL-INFO.
|
||
|
||
For the AS exchange case, it is important that the logon mechanism
|
||
not trust a name that has not been used to authenticate the user.
|
||
For example, the name that the user enters as part of a logon
|
||
exchange may not be the name that the user authenticates as, given
|
||
that the KDC_ERR_WRONG_REALM error may have been returned. The
|
||
relevant Kerberos naming information for logon (if any), is the
|
||
|
||
|
||
Jaganathan Category - Standards Track 8
|
||
KDC Referrals August 2004
|
||
|
||
|
||
client name and client realm in the service ticket targeted at the
|
||
workstation that was obtained using the user's initial TGT.
|
||
|
||
How the client name and client realm is mapped into a local account
|
||
for logon is a local matter, but the client logon mechanism MUST use
|
||
additional information such as the client realm and/or authorization
|
||
attributes from the service ticket presented to the workstation by
|
||
the user, when mapping the logon credentials to a local account on
|
||
the workstation.
|
||
|
||
10. Acknowledgements
|
||
The authors wish to thank Ken Raeburn for his comments and
|
||
suggestions.
|
||
|
||
11.1 Normative References
|
||
|
||
|
||
1 Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP
|
||
9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
|
||
|
||
2 Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
|
||
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997
|
||
|
||
3 Neuman, C., Kohl, J., Ts'o, T., Yu, T., Hartman, S., and K.
|
||
Raeburn, "The Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)",
|
||
draft-ietf-krb-wg-kerberos-clarifications-00.txt, February 22,
|
||
2002. Work in progress.
|
||
|
||
11.2 Informative References
|
||
|
||
|
||
4 J. Trostle, I. Kosinovsky, and M. Swift,"Implementation of
|
||
Crossrealm Referral Handling in the MIT Kerberos Client", In
|
||
Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, February 2001.
|
||
|
||
|
||
12. Author's Addresses
|
||
|
||
Karthik Jaganathan
|
||
Microsoft
|
||
One Microsoft Way
|
||
Redmond, Washington
|
||
Email: karthikj@Microsoft.com
|
||
|
||
Larry Zhu
|
||
Microsoft
|
||
One Microsoft Way
|
||
Redmond, Washington
|
||
Email: lzhu@Microsoft.com
|
||
|
||
Michael Swift
|
||
University of Washington
|
||
|
||
Jaganathan Category - Standards Track 9
|
||
KDC Referrals August 2004
|
||
|
||
|
||
Seattle, Washington
|
||
Email: mikesw@cs.washington.edu
|
||
|
||
John Brezak
|
||
Microsoft
|
||
One Microsoft Way
|
||
Redmond, Washington
|
||
Email: jbrezak@Microsoft.com
|
||
|
||
Jonathan Trostle
|
||
Cisco Systems
|
||
170 W. Tasman Dr.
|
||
San Jose, CA 95134
|
||
Email: jtrostle@cisco.com
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Jaganathan Category - Standards Track 10
|
||
KDC Referrals August 2004
|
||
|
||
|
||
Full Copyright Statement
|
||
|
||
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
|
||
|
||
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
|
||
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
|
||
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
|
||
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
|
||
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
|
||
are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
|
||
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
|
||
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
|
||
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
|
||
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
|
||
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
|
||
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
|
||
English.
|
||
|
||
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
|
||
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
|
||
|
||
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
|
||
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
|
||
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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."
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Jaganathan Category - Standards Track 11
|