RFC 4452

The "info" URI Scheme for Information Assets with Identifiers in Public Namespaces

📅 published April 2006, from ietf

RFC 4452 🎀 (Part 1 of 4)

Okay bestie, let's get into RFC 4452 💅 It's called The "info" URI Scheme for Information Assets with Identifiers in Public Namespaces, and it's Informational, so it's giving "here's some good info," not a binding standard 🦋 It came out of the Network Working Group in April 2006 and was written by H. Van de Sompel (LANL), T. Hammond (NPG), E. Neylon (Manifest Solutions), and S. Weibel (OCLC). The header doesn't list any RFCs it obsoletes or updates, so no drama there 🫶

Status of This Memo

This memo gives information to the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind, and distribution of it is unlimited 💜

Copyright Notice

Abstract

This doc defines the "info" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) scheme for information assets with identifiers in public namespaces. Namespaces that join the "info" URI scheme are regulated by an "info" Registry mechanism ✨

   1. Introduction ....................................................3
      1.1. Terminology ................................................3
      1.2. Information Assets .........................................3
   2. Application of the "info" URI Scheme ............................4
   3. The "info" Registry .............................................5
      3.1. Management Characteristics of the "info" Registry ..........5
      3.2. Functional Characteristics of the "info" Registry ..........5
      3.3. Maintenance of the "info" Registry .........................6
   4. The "info" URI Scheme ...........................................6
      4.1. Definition of "info" URI Syntax ............................6
      4.2. Allowed Characters Under the "info" URI Scheme .............8
      4.3. Examples of "info" URIs ....................................9
   5. Normalization and Comparison of "info" URIs ....................10
   6. Rationale ......................................................12
      6.1. Why Create a New URI Scheme for Identifiers from Public
           Namespaces? ...............................................12
      6.2. Why Not Use an Existing URI Scheme for Identifiers
           from Public Namespaces? ...................................12
      6.3. Why Not Create a New URN Namespace ID for
           Identifiers from Public Namespaces? .......................12
   7. Security Considerations ........................................13
   8. IANA Considerations ............................................14
   9. Acknowledgements ...............................................14
   10. References ....................................................14
      10.1. Normative References .....................................14
      10.2. Informative References ...................................15

1. Introduction 🌈

This doc defines the "info" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) scheme for information assets that have identifiers in public namespaces but are not part of the URI allocation. When this doc says "information asset," it means any information construct that has identity within a public namespace 🧚

1.1. Terminology

In this doc, the keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "MAY", "MAY NOT", and "RECOMMENDED" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119] and indicate requirement levels for compliant implementations 📝

1.2. Information Assets

There are so many information assets with identifiers in public namespaces that can't be referenced by URI schemes, and it's kind of a mess 🙈 Examples of such namespaces include Dewey Decimal Classifications [DEWEY], Library of Congress Control Numbers [LCCN], NISO Serial Item and Contribution Identifiers [SICI], NASA Astrophysics Data System Bibcodes [BIBCODE], and National Library of Medicine PubMed identifiers [PMID]. Other candidate namespaces include Online Computer Library Center OCLC Numbers [OCLCNUM] and NISO OpenURL Framework identifiers [OFI].

The "info" URI scheme is the fix. It helps you reference information assets with identifiers in those public namespaces by using URIs 🦋 When an asset is referenced by its "info" URI, the asset SHALL be considered a "resource" as defined in RFC 3986 [RFC3986], and it SHALL enjoy the same common syntactic, semantic, and shared language benefits that the URI presentation gives. So the "info" URI scheme lets public namespaces that aren't part of the URI allocation be represented within the allocation. It's a bridge, bestie, and it's iconic 👑

Namespaces declared under the "info" URI scheme are regulated by an "info" Registry mechanism. The "info" Registry lets the organization that manages a public namespace (the Namespace Authority) declare it through a registration process. It's built so that URIs for information assets are easy to construct, without putting the burden of independent URI registration and maintenance of resource representations on the Namespace Authority 💅 Information assets identified within a registered namespace SHALL be added or deleted according to the business processes of the Namespace Authority, and yet they MAY be referenced within network applications via the "info" URI in an open, standardized way without any additional action on the part of the Namespace Authority ✨

The "info" URI scheme exists primarily for identification purposes, so be careful here 🙈 Implementations MUST NOT assume that an "info" URI can be dereferenced to a representation of the resource it identifies, although Namespace Authorities MAY disclose in the registration record references to service mechanisms pertaining to identifiers from the registered namespace. Applications of the "info" URI scheme are restricted to identifying information assets and declaring normalization rules for comparing identifiers of those assets, whether or not any services related to them are reachable over the Internet. References to such services MAY be disclosed within an "info" registration record, but these services SHALL NOT be regarded as authoritative. The "info" URI scheme does not support global resolution methods 💀

2. Application of the "info" URI Scheme 🌸

Public namespaces that are used to identify information assets and that are not part of the URI allocation MAY be registered as namespaces within the "info" Registry. Namespace Authorities MAY register these namespaces in the "info" Registry, which makes them available to applications that need to reference information assets by means of a URI. Registrations of public namespaces that are not part of the URI allocation by parties other than the Namespace Authority SHALL NOT be permitted. This keeps things safe from hostile usurpation, and from inappropriate usage of registered service marks or other people's public namespaces 🫶

Registering a public namespace under the "info" Registry implies no particular functionality for its identifiers beyond identifying information assets. No resolution mechanisms can be assumed for the "info" URI scheme, though for any particular namespace there MAY exist mechanisms for resolving identifiers to network services. Defining those services is outside the scope of the "info" URI scheme. Registration doesn't define namespace-specific semantics for identifiers within a registered namespace. Still, allowable character sets and normalization rules are specified in Sections 4 and 5, so that URIs created from those identifiers stay compliant with applications that use URIs ✨

The registration of a public namespace in the "info" Registry SHALL NOT preclude further development of services associated with that namespace, which MAY qualify the namespace for additional publication elsewhere within the URI allocation 🌈

3. The "info" Registry 🧚

The "info" Registry provides a mechanism for registering public namespaces that are used to identify information assets and that are not part of the URI allocation 💖

NISO [NISO], the National Information Standards Organization, will act as the Maintenance Agency for the "info" Registry. It will delegate the day-to-day operation of the Registry to a Registry Operator. As the Maintenance Agency, NISO will make sure the Registry Operator runs the "info" Registry according to a publicly articulated policy document, established under NISO governance and made available on the "info" website, <http://info-uri.info/>. The "info" Registry policy defines a review process for candidate namespaces and provides measures of quality control and suitability for entry of namespaces 👑

3.1. Management Characteristics of the "info" Registry

The "info" Registry will be managed according to policies established under the auspices of NISO. All such policies, as well as the namespace declarations in the "info" Registry, will be public 🍓

3.2. Functional Characteristics of the "info" Registry

The "info" Registry will be publicly accessible and will support discovery (by both humans and machines) of:

string literals identifying the namespaces for which the Registry provides a guarantee of uniqueness and persistence
names and contact information of Namespace Authorities
syntax requirements for identifiers maintained in such namespaces
normalization methodologies for identifiers maintained in such namespaces
network references to a description of service mechanisms (if any) for identifiers maintained in such namespaces
ancillary documentation

Registry entries refer to the corresponding "namespace" and "identifier" components, which are defined in the ABNF given in Section 4.1 of this document. Those components are what makes all of this click, so keep them in your back pocket for the next part 🦋

3.3. Maintenance of the "info" Registry 🎀

okay so the public namespaces that MAY be registered in the "info" Registry 💖 are the ones that matter to the communities NISO serves. That's why NISO is committed to acting as Maintenance Authority for the "info" Registry and to assigning a Registry Operator to run it. ✨

NISO is a non-profit association accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 🌸. It identifies, develops, maintains, and publishes technical standards for managing information in the digital environment. NISO standards apply technologies to the full range of information needs, including retrieval, re-purposing, storage, metadata, and preservation. Literally everything in the info world 💅

NISO was founded in 1939 and became an incorporated not-for-profit education association in 1983. It took its current name the following year 🦋 It's supported by the communities it serves: the leaders of over 70 organizations in publishing, libraries, IT, and media are its voting members. Hundreds of experts and practitioners also serve on NISO committees and as officers of the association. Community-powered, iconic 🫶

NISO has been designated by ANSI to represent US interests to the International Organization for Standardization's (ISO) Technical Committee 46 on Information and Documentation 🌈

The NISO headquarters office is at 4733 Bethesda Ave., Bethesda, MD 20814, USA. (For further information, see the NISO website, <http://www.niso.org/>.) 🧚

4. The "info" URI Scheme ✨

4.1. Definition of "info" URI Syntax 🦋

The "info" URI syntax in this document is conformant with the generic URI syntax defined in RFC 3986 [RFC3986]. This specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) notation of RFC 4234 [RFC4234] to define the URI. The following core ABNF productions are used by this specification as defined by Appendix B.1 of RFC 4234: ALPHA, DIGIT, HEXDIG. 💜

The "info" URI syntax is presented in two parts. Part A holds the productions specific to the "info" URI scheme, and Part B holds the generic productions from RFC 3986 [RFC3986], which are repeated here for completeness and for reference. Part A is the set below 🎀

; Part A:
; productions specific to the "info" URI scheme

info-URI        = info-scheme ":" info-identifier [ "#" fragment ]

info-scheme     = "info"

info-identifier = namespace "/" identifier

namespace       = scheme

identifier      = *( pchar / "/" )

; Note that "info" URIs containing dot-segments (i.e., segments
; whose full content consists of "." or "..") MAY NOT be suitable
; for use with applications that perform dot-segment normalization

Next up is Part B, the generic productions reproduced from RFC 3986 [RFC3986] 🌸

; Part B:
; generic productions from RFC 3986 [RFC3986]

scheme          = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "-" / "." )

pchar           = unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims / ":" / "@"

fragment        = *( pchar / "/" / "?" )

unreserved      = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~"

pct-encoded     = "%" HEXDIG HEXDIG

sub-delims      = "!" / "$" / "&" / "'" / "(" / ")"
                        / "*" / "+" / "," / ";" / "="

An "info" URI has an "info-identifier" as its scheme-specific part, and it MAY take an optional "fragment" component 💖 An "info-identifier" is built by appending an "identifier" component to a "namespace" component, with a slash "/" character in between. The "info" scheme is supportive of hierarchical processing, which is why the slash "/" character shows up, but the slash "/" character SHOULD NOT be interpreted as a strict hierarchy delimiter. Not a strict hierarchy, bestie 🙈

Values for the "namespace" component are name tokens made of URI scheme characters only (see the "scheme" production) 🧚 They identify the public namespace where the (unescaped) value for the "identifier" component comes from. They're registered in the "info" Registry, which guarantees their uniqueness and persistence. The "namespace" component is case-insensitive, but the canonical form is lowercase, and documents that specify values for the "namespace" component SHOULD use lowercase letters. For robustness, an implementation SHOULD accept uppercase letters as equivalent to lowercase in "namespace" names, but for consistency it SHOULD only generate lowercase "namespace" names. Be consistent, be iconic ✨

Values for the "identifier" component MAY be viewed as hierarchical strings made of path segments, built from path segment characters (see the "pchar" production) and separated by slash "/" characters. Still, any semantic reading of the "/" character as a hierarchy delimiter MUST NOT be assumed 🌈 In their originating public namespace, the (unescaped) values for the "identifier" component identify information assets. The values for the "identifier" component MUST be %-escaped per this syntax 🔥 The "identifier" component SHOULD be treated as case-sensitive, although the "info" Registry MAY record the case-sensitivity of identifiers from particular registered public namespaces. The "info" Registry MAY also disclose additional normalization rules about how punctuation characters and the like get treated 🦋

Values for the "fragment" component are strings made of path segment characters (see the "pchar" production), plus the slash "/" character and the question mark "?" character. The slash "/" and the question mark "?" have no semantic role inside the "fragment" component 💅 The (unescaped) values for the "fragment" component identify secondary information assets with respect to the primary information asset referenced by the "info-identifier". The values for the "fragment" component MUST be %-escaped per this syntax, and the "fragment" component MUST be treated as case-sensitive 🎀

4.2. Allowed Characters Under the "info" URI Scheme 🌸

The "info" URI syntax uses the same set of allowed US-ASCII characters as RFC 3986 [RFC3986] specifies for a generic URI 💜 An "info" URI string SHOULD be represented as a Unicode [UNICODE] string and encoded in UTF-8 [RFC3629] form. Reserved characters, excluded US-ASCII characters, and non-US-ASCII characters MUST be %-escaped before the URI is formed. For the details of the %-escape encoding, check RFC 3986 [RFC3986], Section 2.4. 🫶

4.3. Examples of "info" URIs ✨

Here are some examples of syntactically valid "info" URIs 🧚

info:ddc/22/eng//004.678

In this one, "ddc" is the "namespace" component for a Dewey Decimal Classification [DEWEY] namespace, and "22/eng//004.678" is the "identifier" component for an information asset within that namespace. The information asset identified by "22/eng//004.678" in the namespace for (22nd Ed.) English-language Dewey Decimal Classifications is the classification

"Internet"

info:lccn/2002022641

Here, "lccn" is the "namespace" component for a Library of Congress Control Number [LCCN] namespace, and "2002022641" is the "identifier" component for an information asset within it. The information asset identified by "2002022641" in the namespace for Library of Congress Control Numbers is the metadata record

"Newcomer, Eric. Understanding Web services: XML, WSDL, SOAP, and UDDI. Boston: Addison-Wesley, 2002."

info:sici/0363-0277(19950315)120:5%3C%3E1.0.TX;2-V

This one's "sici" as the "namespace" component for a Serial Item and Contribution Identifier [SICI] namespace. The "identifier" component, "0363-0277(19950315)120:5%3C%3E1.0.TX;2-V", identifies an information asset in that namespace in %-escaped form, and in unescaped form it's 0363-0277(19950315)120:5<>1.0.TX;2-V. The information asset identified by 0363-0277(19950315)120:5<>1.0.TX;2-V in the namespace for Serial Item and Contribution Identifiers is the journal issue

"Library Journal, Vol. 120, no. 5. March 15, 1995."

<rdf:Description about="info:bibcode/2003Icar..163..263Z"/>

Where "bibcode" is the "namespace" component for a NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) Bibcode [BIBCODE] namespace, and "2003Icar..163..263Z" is the "identifier" component for an information asset in it. This example also shows an "info" URI being used as the subject of a Resource Description Framework (RDF) statement 🌈 The information asset identified by "2003Icar..163..263Z" in the namespace for NASA ADS Bibcodes is the metadata record in the ADS system describing the journal article

"K. Zahnle, P. Schenk, H. Levison and L. Dones, Cratering rates in the outer Solar System, Icarus, 163 (2003) pp. 263-289."

info:pmid/12376099

Lastly, "pmid" is the "namespace" component for a PubMed Identifier [PMID] namespace, and "12376099" is the "identifier" component for an information asset in that namespace. The information asset identified by "12376099" in the namespace for PubMed Identifiers is the metadata record in the PubMed database describing the journal article

"Wijesuriya SD, Bristow J, Miller WL. Localization and analysis of the principal promoter for human tenascin-X. Genomics. 2002 Oct;80(4):443-52."

5. Normalization and Comparison of "info" URIs ✨

Okay bestie, time to make two "info" URIs look the same so we can compare them 💅. First, a sequence of normalization steps SHOULD be applied, as detailed below 💖. After you've normalized the URI strings, the comparison itself happens character by character, the way RFC 3986 [RFC3986], Section 6.2.1 says 🦋.

Even if you skip the fancy stuff, applications processing "info" URIs SHOULD anyway apply these generic steps 🎀:

a) Lowercase the "scheme" component 🍓
b) Lowercase the "namespace" component 🍓
c) Unescape any unreserved %-escaped characters in the "namespace" and "identifier" components 🌸
d) Uppercase any %-escaped characters in the "namespace" and "identifier" components 💜

Applications MAY apply further normalization steps based on rules recorded in the "info" Registry for a registered public namespace. Those steps are outside the scope of the "info" URI definition, though, so don't go assuming they're universal 🙈.

Since the "info" URI SHOULD be treated as being case-sensitive, you MAY only get to a canonical form by checking the "info" Registry for case-sensitivity info on identifiers from a registered public namespace, plus any case normalization step to apply 🔍. The "info" Registry MAY also disclose additional normalization rules about punctuation characters and the like ✨.

Sometimes there's no single canonical form of the "identifier" component, and that's okay 🫶. It is nevertheless RECOMMENDED that a Namespace Authority nominate a preferred form, which SHOULD be used wherever possible within an "info" URI, so that applications MAY have an increased chance of successful comparison of two "info" URIs 👑.

Heads up 💀: "info" URIs containing dot-segments (segments whose full content is "." or "..") MAY NOT be suitable for applications that perform dot-segment normalization.

Here's the glow-up. These unnormalized forms of an "info" URI:

U1. INFO:PII/S0888-7543(02)96852-7
U2. info:PII/S0888754302968527
U3. info:pii/S0888%2D7543%2802%2996852%2D7
U4. info:pii/s0888-7543(02)96852-7

get normalized to these respective forms:

N1. info:pii/S0888-7543(02)96852-7
N2. info:pii/S0888754302968527
N3. info:pii/S0888-7543(02)96852-7
N4. info:pii/s0888-7543(02)96852-7

The "info" URI definition doesn't prescribe any further normalization steps, although applications MAY apply additional normalization steps according to any rules recorded in the "info" Registry for a registered public namespace 🌈.

6. Rationale 🎀

6.1. Why Create a New URI Scheme for Identifiers from Public Namespaces?

Okay so, RFC 4395, "Guidelines and Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes" [RFC4395], says in Section 2.1 "Demonstrable, New, Long-Lived Utility" that "New URI schemes SHOULD have clear utility to the broad Internet community, beyond that available with already registered URI schemes". This is the whole reason "info" exists 💅.

The "info" URI scheme lets identifiers within public namespaces, the ones used to identify information assets, be referred to within the URI allocation ✨. Once a namespace is registered in the "info" Registry, the "info" URI scheme lets an information asset with an identifier in that namespace be referenced by means of a URI 🦋. As a result, the information asset SHALL be considered a resource as defined in RFC 3986 [RFC3986], and SHALL enjoy the same common syntactic, semantic, and shared language benefits that the URI presentation confers 👑.

6.2. Why Not Use an Existing URI Scheme for Identifiers from Public Namespaces?

Existing URI schemes aren't suitable, because the "info" URI scheme admits of no global dereference mechanism 😭. Examples of resource identifiers minted under other URI schemes MAY not always be dereferenceable, but there's still a common expectation that such URIs can be dereferenced by various resolution mechanisms, whether they be location-dependent or location-independent resource identifiers 🧚.

The "info" URI scheme applies to a class of resource identifiers whose Namespace Authorities MAY or MAY NOT choose to disclose service mechanisms. Still, Namespace Authorities are encouraged to disclose references to any such service mechanisms in the "info" registration record, because that gives network applications more utility 💜.

6.3. Why Not Create a New URN Namespace ID for Identifiers from Public Namespaces?

RFC 2141 [RFC2141] states that "Uniform Resource Names (URNs) are intended to serve as persistent, location-independent, resource identifiers". The "info" URI scheme, on the other hand, does not assert the persistence of the identifiers created under this scheme, but rather of the public namespaces grandfathered under this scheme 🌸. It exists primarily to disclose the identity of information assets, and to facilitate a lightweight registration mechanism for public namespaces of identifiers managed according to the policies and business models of the Namespace Authorities. The "info" URI scheme is neutral with respect to identifier persistence.

Moreover, for "info" to operate as a URN Network Identifier (NID), "info" would have to be constituted as a delegated naming authority. It is not clear that a URN NID would be an appropriate choice for naming authority delegation 🤔.

Further, the "info" URI scheme is not globally dereferenceable, in contrast to the specific recommendation given in RFC 1737, "Functional Requirements for Uniform Resource Names" [RFC1737], that "It is strongly recommended that there be a mapping between the names generated by each naming authority and URLs". Individual Namespace Authorities registered in the "info" Registry MAY, however, disclose references to service mechanisms, and are encouraged to do so ✨.

An extra consideration is that the "urn" URI syntax explicitly excludes generic URI hierarchy by reserving the slash "/" character. An "info" URI, on the other hand, admits of hierarchical processing while remaining neutral with respect to supporting actual hierarchy. It thus allows the slash "/" character, as well as more liberally allowing the ampersand "&" and tilde "~" characters 🦋. That makes it a lower barrier to entry for Namespace Authorities, which fits its job of bridging public namespaces into the URI allocation. In sum, an "info" URI is more widely supportive of "human transcribability" as discussed in RFC 3986 [RFC3986] than a "urn" URI is 💅.

Additionally, the "urn" URI syntax does not support "fragment" components, whereas the "info" URI syntax does, for indirect identification of secondary resources 🧚.

7. Security Considerations ⚠

Okay, this section is serious business, so read it carefully 💀.

The "info" URI scheme syntax is subject to the same security considerations as the generic URI syntax described in RFC 3986 [RFC3986].

While some "info" Namespace Authorities MAY choose to disclose service mechanisms, any security considerations resulting from the execution of such services fall outside the scope of this document. It is strongly recommended that the registration record of an "info" namespace include any such considerations 🔥.

8. IANA Considerations 🌈

The IANA registry for URI schemes <http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html> SHOULD be updated to include an entry for the "info" URI scheme when the "info" URI scheme is accepted for publication as an RFC. This entry SHOULD contain the following values:

Scheme Name: info

Description: Information Assets with Identifiers in Public
                Namespaces

Reference: RFC 4452

9. Acknowledgements 🫶

Big thank-yous to Michael Mealling (Verisign) and Patrick Hochstenbach (Ghent University) for their contributions 💖.

10. References 📚

10.1. Normative References

[RFC1737]  Sollins, K. and L. Masinter, "Functional Requirements for
           Uniform Resource Names", RFC 1737, December 1994.

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

[RFC2141]  Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, May 1997.

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

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

[RFC4234]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
           Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.

[RFC4395]  Hansen, T., Hardie, T., and L. Masinter, "Guidelines and
           Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes", BCP 115, RFC
           4395, February 2006.

[UNICODE]  The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version
           4.0.0, defined by: The Unicode Standard, Version 4.0".
           (Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 2003).  ISBN 0-321-18578-1.

10.2. Informative References

[BIBCODE]  "NASA Astrophysics Data System Bibliographic Code",
           <http://adsdoc.harvard.edu/abs_doc/help_pages/data.html>.

[DEWEY]    "Dewey Decimal Classification",
           <http://www.oclc.org/dewey/>.

[LCCN]     "Library of Congress Control Number",
           <http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/lccn_structure.html>.

[NISO]     "National Information Standards Organization",
           <http://www.niso.org/>.

[OCLCNUM]  "Online Computer Library Center OCLC Control Number",
           <http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/fixedfield/oclc.shtm>.

[OFI]      "ANSI/NISO Z39.88-2004, "The OpenURL Framework for
           Context-Sensitive Services", ISBN 1-880124-61-0",
           <http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/Z39_88_2004.pdf>.

[PMID]     "PubMed Overview", <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/
           query/static/overview.html>.

[SICI]     "ANSI/NISO Z39.56-1996 (R2002), "Serial Item and
           Contribution Identifier (SICI)", ISBN 1-880124-28-9",
           <http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/Z39-56.pdf>.

Authors' Addresses 🌷

Herbert Van de Sompel
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Research Library, MS-P362
PO Box 1663
Los Alamos, NM  87545-1362
USA

EMail: herbertv@lanl.gov


Tony Hammond
Nature Publishing Group
Macmillan House
4 Crinan Street
London  N1 9XW
UK

EMail: t.hammond@nature.com


Eamonn Neylon
Manifest Solutions
Bicester, Oxfordshire  OX26 2HX
UK

EMail: eneylon@manifestsolutions.com


Stuart L. Weibel
OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
6565 Frantz Road
Dublin, OH  43017-3395
USA

EMail: weibel@oclc.org

Full Copyright Statement 🩷

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property 💅

okay so the IETF is NOT taking a side on whether any intellectual property rights (IPR) someone might claim over the tech in this doc are valid or how far they reach 🙈 It also doesn't know if any license for that tech is actually available, and it hasn't done its own digging to find out about any such rights either. If you want the rules for rights in RFC documents, check out BCP 78 and BCP 79 📚

Copies of IPR disclosures sent to the IETF Secretariat are a thing, and so are any assurances of licenses that will be made available. You can also find out whether someone tried to get a general license or permission for implementers or users to use those proprietary rights. All of that lives in the IETF online IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr 🦋

The IETF literally invites anyone to speak up if they know about copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other proprietary rights that might cover technology needed to implement this standard ✨ Send that info to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org 💌

Acknowledgement 🫶

Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). 💜

📦 where this page comes from

ietf: rfc4452 2006-04
💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on 2026-10-16: a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms