Network Working Group L. McIntyre Request for Comments: 2880 Xerox Corporation Category: Informational G. Klyne Content Technologies August 2000
Internet Fax T.30 Feature Mapping
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 (2000). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document describes how to map Group 3 fax capability identification bits, described in ITU T.30 [6], into the Internet fax feature schema described in "Content feature schema for Internet fax" [4].
This is a companion to the fax feature schema document [4], which itself defines a profile of the media feature registration mechanisms [1,2,3], for use in performing capability identification between extended Internet fax systems [5].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .............................................3 1.1 Organization of this document ........................3 1.2 Terminology and document conventions .................3 1.3 Discussion of this document ..........................4 2. Combining feature tags ...................................4 2.1 Relationship to Group 3 fax ..........................5 2.2 Feature set descriptions .............................5 2.3 Examples .............................................5 2.3.1 Data resource example ............................6 2.3.2 Recipient capabilities example ...................6 3. Survey of media-related T.30 capability bits .............6 3.1 DIS/DTC bit 15 (resolution) ..........................6 3.2 DIS/DTC bit 16 (MR coding) ...........................7 3.3 DIS/DTC bits 17,18 (width) ...........................7 3.4 DIS/DTC bits 19,20 (length) ..........................7
McIntyre & Klyne Informational [Page 1]
RFC 2880 Internet Fax T.30 Feature Mapping August 2000
3.5 DIS/DTC bit 31 (MMR coding) ..........................7 3.6 DIS/DTC bit 36 (JBIG multi-level coding) .............8 3.7 DIS/DTC bit 37 (plane interleave) ....................8 3.8 DIS/DTC bits 41,42,43 (resolution) ...................8 3.9 DIS/DTC bits 44,45 (preferred units) .................9 3.10 DIS/DTC bit 68 (JPEG) ...............................9 3.11 DIS/DTC bit 69 (colour) .............................9 3.12 DIS/DTC bit 71 (bits/sample) .......................10 3.13 DIS/DTC bit 73 (no subsampling) ....................10 3.14 DIS/DTC bit 74 (custom illuminant) .................10 3.15 DIS/DTC bit 75 (custom gamut) ......................10 3.16 DIS/DTC bits 76,77 (paper size) ....................11 3.17 DIS/DTC bit 78 (JBIG bi-level coding) ..............11 3.18 DIS/DTC bit 79 (JBIG stripe size) ..................11 3.19 DIS/DTC bit 92,93,94 (MRC maximum functional mode) .11 3.20 DIS/DTC bit 95 (MRC stripe size) ...................12 3.21 DIS/DTC bit 97 (resolution) ........................12 3.22 DIS/DTC bit 98 (resolution) ........................12 4. Summary of T.30 capability dependencies .................12 4.1 Image coding ........................................13 4.1.1 Bi-level coding .................................13 4.1.2 Multi-level coding ..............................14 4.1.3 MRC format ......................................14 4.2 Resolution and units ................................15 4.3 Colour capabilities .................................17 4.4 Document size .......................................18 5. Mapping T.30 capabilities to fax feature schema .........18 5.1 Image coding ........................................20 5.1.1 Bi-level coding .................................20 5.1.2 Multi-level coding ..............................21 5.1.3 MRC format ......................................23 5.2 Resolution and units ................................23 5.3 Colour capabilities .................................24 5.4 Document size .......................................26 6. Examples ................................................26 6.1 Common black-and-white fax machine ..................27 6.1.1 Corresponding Internet fax capabilities .........29 6.2 Full-featured color fax machine .....................30 7. Security Considerations .................................34 8. Acknowledgements ........................................34 9. References ..............................................34 10. Authors' Addresses .....................................36 Full Copyright Statement ...................................37
McIntyre & Klyne Informational [Page 2]
RFC 2880 Internet Fax T.30 Feature Mapping August 2000
This document describes how to map Group 3 fax capability identification bits, described in ITU T.30 [6], into the Internet fax feature schema described in "Content feature schema for Internet fax" [4].
This is a companion to the fax feature schema document [4], which itself defines a profile of the media feature registration mechanisms [1,2,3], for use in performing capability identification between extended Internet fax systems [5].
Section 2 introduces the mechanisms that combine feature tag constraints to describe complex recipient capabilities.
Section 3 surveys Group 3 fax (T.30) capability bits that relate to media handling capabilities.
Section 4 describes the dependencies between Group 3 fax (T.30) capability bits. These are presented in a decision table format [16] with descriptive text in place of the action bodies.
Section 5 describes a formal mechanism for converting Group 3 fax (T.30) capability masks to fax feature schema statements. The conversion process is driven by the decision tables introduced previously, using fax feature schema statements and combining rules in the action bodies.
Section 6 presents an example of a Group 3 fax (T.30) capability mask, and uses the formal mechanism described previously to convert that into a corresponding fax feature schema statement.
eifax system is used to describe any software, device or combination of these that conforms to the specification "Extended Facsimile Using Internet Mail" [5].
Feature is used as defined in [15]. (See also section 2 of this memo.)
Feature tag is used as defined in [15]. (See also section 2.)
McIntyre & Klyne Informational [Page 3]
RFC 2880 Internet Fax T.30 Feature Mapping August 2000
Feature collection is used as defined in [2]. (See also section 2.)
Feature set is used as defined in [2]. (See also section 2.)
Discussion of this document should take place on the Internet fax mailing list hosted by the Internet Mail Consortium (IMC). Please send comments regarding this document to:
ietf-fax@imc.org
To subscribe to this list, send a message with the body 'subscribe' to "ietf-fax-request@imc.org".
To see what has gone on before you subscribed, please see the mailing list archive at:
A fax document can be described by media features. Any single media feature value can be thought of as just one component of a feature collection that describes some instance of a document (e.g. a printed fax, a displayed image, etc.). Such a feature collection consists of a number of media feature tags (each per [1]) and associated feature values.
A feature set contains a number of feature collections. Thus, a feature set can describe a number of different fax document instances. These can correspond to different treatments of a single document (e.g. different resolutions used for printing a given fax), a number of different documents subjected to a common treatment (e.g. the range of different images that can be rendered on a given display), or some combination of these (see examples below).
Thus, a description of a feature set can describe the rendering requirements of a fax document or the capabilities of a receiving eifax system.
McIntyre & Klyne Informational [Page 4]
RFC 2880 Internet Fax T.30 Feature Mapping August 2000
A "feature tag" can be compared with a single bit in a T.30 DCS frame, describing a specific attribute of a specific fax document.
A "feature collection" corresponds to a complete T.30 DCS frame, describing a range of attributes of a specific fax document.
A "feature set" corresponds to a DIS or DTC frame, describing the range of document attributes that can be accepted by a given fax machine.
Within T.30 DIS/DTC frames, dependencies between the various capabilities are implicit in the definitions of the capabilities. E.g. multi-level coding (DIS/DTC bit 68) requires support for 200*200dpi resolution (DIS/DTC bit 15). In the feature set description framework used by eifax systems [1,2,3,4] such dependencies between different features are expressed explicitly. Later sections of this memo describe how the implicit dependencies of T.30 are expressed using the media feature set notation.
The general approach to describing feature sets, described more fully in [2], is to use functions ("predicates") that, when applied to a feature collection value, yield a Boolean value that is TRUE if the feature collection describes an acceptable fax document instance, otherwise FALSE.
P(F) P(F) = TRUE <- : -> P(F) = FALSE : +----------:----------+ This box represents some | : | universe of fax documents (F) | Included : Excluded | from which some acceptable subset | : | is selected by the predicate P. +----------:----------+ :
The following expression uses the syntax of [2] to describe a data resource that can be displayed either: (a) as a 750x500 pixel image using 15 colours, or (b) at 150dpi on an A4 page.
The following expression describes a receiving system that has: (a) a screen capable of displaying 640*480 pixels and 16 million colours (24 bits per pixel), 800*600 pixels and 64 thousand colours (16 bits per pixel) or 1024*768 pixels and 256 colours (8 bits per pixel), or (b) a printer capable of rendering 300dpi on A4 paper.
The following sections refer to T.30 DIS/DTC bits identified and described in Table 2/T.30 and accompanying notes [6]. Bit numbers that are not referenced below are considered to be not related to media features, hence not relevant to the Internet fax feature schema.
NOTE: some of the DIS/DTC bits identified below are documented in revisions of the T.30 specification that may be not yet publicly available from the ITU.
All Group 3 fax systems are required to support a basic resolution of 200*100dpi (dots per inch) or 8*3.85dpmm (dots per millimetre).
Setting this bit indicates additional support for 200*200dpi or 8*7.7dpmm.
McIntyre & Klyne Informational [Page 6]
RFC 2880 Internet Fax T.30 Feature Mapping August 2000
For multi-level images, 200*200dpi is the basic resolution, and this bit must be set. The other basic resolution options apply to bi- level images only.
All Group 3 fax systems are required to support Modified Huffman (MH) 1-dimensional coding for bi-level images. (A bi-level image is one with just two pixel states such as black and white, as opposed to a grey-scale or colour image.)
Setting this bit indicates additional support for Modified Read (MR) 2-dimensional coding for bi-level images.
Both MH and MR coding are described in ITU T.4 [7].
All Group 3 fax systems are required to support 215mm paper width. These bits can be set to indicate additional support for 255mm and 303mm paper widths.
All Group 3 fax systems are required to support 297mm paper length. These bits can be set to indicate additional support for 364mm and unlimited paper lengths.
Setting this bit indicates support for Modified Modified Read (MMR) 2-dimensional coding for bi-level images, in addition to the required support for MH coding.
MMR coding is described in ITU T.6 [8].
See also: bits 16,78,79.
McIntyre & Klyne Informational [Page 7]
RFC 2880 Internet Fax T.30 Feature Mapping August 2000
If multi-level images are to be handled, support for JPEG coding is required (i.e. bit 68 must be set). Setting bit 36 indicates additional support for JBIG lossless coding of multi-level images.
JBIG coding for multi-level images is described in ITU T.43 [10] and T.4 Annex G [7].
Setting this bit indicates support for plane interleave for JBIG- coded multi-level images in addition to stripe interleave, which is standard for JBIG multi-level images.
JBIG coding for multi-level images is described in ITU T.43 [10] and T.4 Annex G [7].
Setting these bits indicates support for resolutions in addition to 200*100dpi and 200*200dpi, or 8*3.85dpmm and 8*7.7dpmm. (Or in addition to the basic 200*200dpi resolution when using a multi-level image mode.)
Bit 41 indicates support for 8*15.4dpmm bi-level images (independently of the settings of bits 44 and 45).
Bit 42 indicates support for 300*300dpi bi-level images (independently of the settings of bits 44 and 45). Also applies to multi-level images or MRC mask if bit 97 is set.
Bit 43 indicates support for 400*400dpi and/or 16*15.4dpmm bi-level images, depending upon the settings of bits 44 and 45. Also applies to multi-level images or MRC mask if bit 97 is set.
See also: bits 15,44,45,97.
McIntyre & Klyne Informational [Page 8]
RFC 2880 Internet Fax T.30 Feature Mapping August 2000
These bits are used to indicate the preferred resolution units for received images. Because the exact resolution and x/y pixel density measures in dpi or dpmm are slightly different, some image size and aspect ratio distortion may occur if the sender and receiver use different units.
Even when sender and recipient have different preferred units, image transfer must be accomplished. For most fax uses, the dpi and dpmm measurements are sufficiently close to each other that the difference is not noticed.
The preferred units setting affects the detailed interpretation of the following resolutions:
dpi dpmm (dpi equivalent) --- ---- Base 200*100 8*3.85 204*98 Bit 15 200*200 8*7.7 204*196 Bit 43 400*400 16*15.4 408*391
But terminals are required to accept the inch- and metric-based measures given above as equivalent, distorting the image if necessary to accommodate the differences.
Standard support for multi-level images uses 8 bits per sample. Setting this bit indicates additional support for 12 bits per sample.
For a grey-scale multi-level image, there is just one sample per pixel, giving 256 or 4096 possible pixel values. For a full colour multi-level image there are three samples per pixel, giving 256^3 (16777216) or 4096^3 (6871946736) possible values.
When related to a mapped colour image, bit 71 also affects the maximum number of entries in the mapping table: when it is reset, up to 4096 different pixel values can be used; when set, up to 65536 different values can be used.
Standard support for JPEG-coded multi-level images uses 4:1:1 chrominance subsampling. That is, for each 4 luminance samples in the image data there is a single chrominance sample.
Setting this bit indicates that JPEG-coded colour images without subsampling can also be supported. This is not applicable to JBIG coding (bit 36).
Standard support for multi-level images requires use of D50 illuminant. Setting this bit indicates that a custom illuminant also can be supported for multi-level images (both grey-scale and colour). Details of the custom illuminant are contained in the image data.
Use of a custom illuminant with multi-level images is described in ITU T.4 Annex E [7].
Standard support for a default colour gamut is required for multi- level images. Setting this bit indicates that a custom gamut also can be supported for multi-level images (both grey-scale and colour). Details of the custom gamut are contained in the image data.
McIntyre & Klyne Informational [Page 10]
RFC 2880 Internet Fax T.30 Feature Mapping August 2000
The default gamut (L*=[0,100], a*=[-85, 85], b* = [-75, 125]), and use of a custom gamut with multi-level images is described in ITU T.42 [9] and T.4 Annex E [7].
All Group 3 faxes are required to support A4 paper size. These bits can be set to indicate additional support for North American letter and legal paper sizes.
Setting bit 79 (along with bit 78) indicates support for the 'LO' option with JBIG coded bi-level images. Basic bi-level JBIG coding uses 128 lines per stripe; the 'LO' option allows other stripe sizes to be used.
The stripe size is used for all stripes except the last, which may have fewer lines than the indicated value.
JBIG coding of bi-level images is described in ITU T.85 [14].
See also: bits 16,31,78.
3.19 DIS/DTC bit 92,93,94 (MRC maximum functional mode)
If these bits are all zero, then Mixed Raster Content (MRC) coding is not supported. Otherwise, they represent a number in the range 1-7 that indicates an MRC maximum functional mode.
MRC coding of images is described in ITU T.44 [11] and T.4 Annex H [17].
See also: bits 68,95.
McIntyre & Klyne Informational [Page 11]
RFC 2880 Internet Fax T.30 Feature Mapping August 2000
Setting this bit indicates that the additional resolutions indicated by bits 42 and 43 may be used for multi-level images and any MRC mask layer.
When this bit is set, bit 42 implies 300dpi and bit 43 implies 400dpi for multi-level or MRC mask layer images (irrespective of the preferred units indicated by bits 44 and 45).
This section contains a number of decision tables that indicate the allowable combinations of T.30 DIS/DTC mask bits.
Within the decision table bodies, the following symbols are use to indicate values of T.30 DIS/DTC bits:
0 = bit set to '0' 1 = bit set to '1' x = don't care bit value: may be '0' or '1' *0 = bit must be '0' ('1' is invalid in given combination) *1 = bit must be '1' ('0' is invalid in given combination) # = bits in row combined to form a numeric value
McIntyre & Klyne Informational [Page 12]
RFC 2880 Internet Fax T.30 Feature Mapping August 2000
Note: When 37, 69, 73, 79 and 95 are set to "1", the feature represented by "0" is also available. Example: If plane interleave is available then stripe interleave is also available.
Multi-level coders, as indicated above, are used for foreground and background images within an MRC-format document. Bi-level codes are used for the mask layer.
Support for bi-level coding at least one of 200*100dpi or 8*3.85dpmm is required in all cases for Group 3 fax conformance. For multi- level coders (colour/grey) and MRC mask layers the base resolution is 200*200dpi (i.e. bit 15 must be set).
When multi-level coders (JPEG or T.43) or MRC are used, only inch- based square resolutions are available. However, the base non-square resolution (i.e. 200x100dpi or 8x3.85dpmm) must still be available as a capability for use with the mandatory bi-level coder (MH). Hence, any references to metric and non-square resolutions in the table below apply only to bi-level coders.
When describing MRC capabilities, the complete set of usable resolutions is listed. However, there are some restrictions on their use: (a) 100dpi resolution can be used only with multi-level images, and (b) any multi-level image resolution is required to be an integral sub-multiple of the applicable mask resolution.
In the following table: dpi = dots per inch dpmm = dots per millimetre
Preferred resolutions are indicated here, even though inch- or mm- based units must be accepted, according to the T.30 protocol [6].
McIntyre & Klyne Informational [Page 15]
RFC 2880 Internet Fax T.30 Feature Mapping August 2000
5. Mapping T.30 capabilities to fax feature schema
This section follows the structure of the previous section, except that the decision tables are restated with feature set expression mappings in the action stub. The feature set expressions use media feature tags presented in "Content feature schema for Internet fax" [4].
To construct a feature set expression corresponding to a collection of DIS frame bits:
o Compare the DIS bits with each decision table in the following sections (5.1 to 5.4). Some decision tables consist of a number of sub-tables separated by horizontal lines.
o The DIS bits will match exactly one row from each table or sub- table: collect the corresponding feature set expression from the action stub (the right hand column of the table).
McIntyre & Klyne Informational [Page 18]
RFC 2880 Internet Fax T.30 Feature Mapping August 2000
o In the case of the table in section 5.2, which consists of several sub-tables, combine the feature set expressions from each sub-table with a logical-OR: (| s1 s2 ... sn ), where 's1', 's2' etc. are the feature set expressions selected from each sub- table. In this way, a single feature set expression is obtained for the table.
o In the case of the tables in sections 5.3 and 5.4, combine the sub-table expressions with a logical-AND: (& s1 s2 ... sn ).
o Combine the feature set expressions for each table as follows:
(& (| T511 T512 ) T513 T52 T53 T54 )
where:
- T511 is the feature set expression obtained from the table in section 5.1.1
The resulting expression is the feature set expression corresponding to the DIS bits given. Remember that there may be other capabilities not expressed by the DIS bits that should be incorporated into the final feature expression (e.g. TIFF image file structure).
To do the reverse transformation, match the feature set to each row of each decision table using the matching algorithm in RFC 2533 [2], and OR together the DIS bit masks for each row whose feature set expression is completely contained by (i.e. is a subset of) that given (where the bit value in a table is 'x', use '0').
A feature set A is completely contained by B if the feature set match of A and B (obtained by applying the feature set matching algorithm in [2]) is equal to A.
McIntyre & Klyne Informational [Page 19]
RFC 2880 Internet Fax T.30 Feature Mapping August 2000
Note: all numbers in media feature expressions are integer or rational values; hence the rational number format (n/m) used here.
Also note: the preferred unit bits (44,45) are not tested here, as a Group 3 fax machine must accept and process either form of units for binary images. All resolutions are expressed in dpi; here are the metric unit equivalents:
204 ~= (1728/215)*25.4 ~= 8.04dpmm expressed in dpi 408 ~= (3456/215)*25.4 ~= 16.08dpmm expressed in dpi 98 ~= 3.85*25.4 ~= 3.85dpmm expressed in dpi 196 ~= 7.70*25.4 ~= 7.70dpmm expressed in dpi 391 ~= 15.40*25.4 ~= 15.40dpmm expressed in dpi
NOTE: the above table assumes the registration of a feature tag for color illuminant, values of which are tokens that are the same as those described by ITU T.4 [7], Annex E, section E.6.7.
McIntyre & Klyne Informational [Page 25]
RFC 2880 Internet Fax T.30 Feature Mapping August 2000
NOTE: Although motivated by the requirements of eifax [5], this document is concerned with describing capabilities of Group 3 fax systems [6]. As such, the algorithms do not of themselves create equivalent Internet fax capability statements but, rather, they construct capability expressions that might be incorporated into those for eifax systems.
This point is illustrated at the end of the first example below where subsection 6.1.1 has been added, which combines T.30 capabilities with an appropriate TIFF file format capability to yield an expression that might be used to describe an Internet fax system.
McIntyre & Klyne Informational [Page 26]
RFC 2880 Internet Fax T.30 Feature Mapping August 2000
RFC 2880 Internet Fax T.30 Feature Mapping August 2000
Combining these as indicated in section 5, we get the following. (The initial expression is constructed verbatim per the rules in the first part of section 5, even though it contains some redundancy.)
In the case of an Internet fax device, additional capabilities not described by the T.30 DIS frame should be included; e.g. the supported TIFF file structure:
Security considerations are discussed in the fax feature schema description [4]. This memo is not believed to introduce any additional security concerns.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the following persons who made comments on earlier versions of this memo: Mr. Hiroshi Tamura and and Dr. Robert Buckley.
[1] Holtman, K., Mutz, A. and T. Hardie, "Media Feature Tag Registration Procedure", RFC 2506, March 1999.
[2] Graham, K., "A syntax for describing media feature sets" RFC 2533, March 1999.
[3] Masinter, L., Holtman, K., Mutz, A. and D. Wing, "Media Features for Display, Print, and Fax", RFC 2534, March 1999.
[4] Klyne, G. and L. McIntyre, "Content Feature Schema for Internet Fax (V2)", RFC 2879, July 2000.
McIntyre & Klyne Informational [Page 34]
RFC 2880 Internet Fax T.30 Feature Mapping August 2000
[5] Masinter, L. and D. Wing, "Extended Facsimile Using Internet Mail", RFC 2532, March 1999.
[6] "Procedures for document facsimile transmission in the general switched telephone network" ITU-T Recommendation T.30 (1996), including Amendment 1 (1997), Amendment 2 (1997), Amendment 3 (1998) and Amendment 4 (1999) International Telecommunications Union
[7] "Standardization of Group 3 facsimile terminals for document transmission" ITU-T Recommendation T.4 (1996), including Amendment 1 (1997), Amendment 2 (1997) and Amendment 3 (1999) International Telecommunications Union (Covers basic fax coding formats: MH, MR; Annex E deals with some color image related matters, including codes for optional custom illuminants. Annex G deals with some aspects of JBIG encoding of multi-level images.)
[8] "Facsimile coding schemes and coding control functions for Group 4 facsimile apparatus" ITU Recommendation T.6 International Telecommunications Union (Commonly referred to as the MMR standard; covers extended 2-D fax coding format)
[9] "Continuous-tone colour representation method for facsimile" ITU-T Recommendation T.42 (1996) International Telecommunications Union (Covers custom illuminant, gamut)
[10] "Colour and gray-scale image representation using lossless coding scheme for facsimile" ITU-T Recommendation T.43 (1997) International Telecommunications Union (Covers JBIG for colour/grey images)
[11] "Mixed Raster Content (MRC)" ITU-T Recommendation T.44 (1999) International Telecommunications Union
[12] "Information technology - Digital compression and coding of continuous-tone still image - Requirements and guidelines" ITU-T Recommendation T.81 (1992) | ISO/IEC 10918-1:1993 International Telecommunications Union (Commonly referred to as JPEG standard)
[13] "Information technology - Coded representation of picture and audio information - Progressive bi-level image compression" ITU-T Recommendation T.82 (1993) | ISO/IEC 11544:1993 International Telecommunications Union (Commonly referred to as JBIG1 standard)
McIntyre & Klyne Informational [Page 35]
RFC 2880 Internet Fax T.30 Feature Mapping August 2000
[14] "Application profile for Recommendation T.82 - Progressive bi- level image compression (JBIG1 coding scheme for facsimile apparatus)" ITU-T Recommendation T.85 (1995), including Amendment 1 (1996), Amendment 2 (1997) and Corrigendum 1 (1997) International Telecommunications Union (Covers bi-level JBIG)
[16] "Programs from Decision Tables" E. Humbey Macdonald/American Elsevier computer monographs (19), 1973 ISBN 0-444-19569-6/0- 356-04126-3 (This is an old title, and may not be still in print. It contains a number of references to decision table articles published in Communications of the ACM: August 1967, September 1970, January 1966, November 1966, October 1968, January 1965, February 1964, June 1970, November 1965, June 1965, February 1971.)
[17] "Mixed Raster Content (MRC) mode for G3 facsimile" ITU-T Recommendation T.4, Annex H (1999) International Telecommunications Union (Covers stripe size)
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.