





Network Working Group                                     H. Schulzrinne
Request for Comments: 4123                           Columbia University
Category: Informational                                         C. Agboh
                                                               July 2005


   Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-H.323 Interworking Requirements

Status of this Memo

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

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

IESG Note

   This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.  The
   IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for any
   purpose, and in particular notes that the decision to publish is not
   based on IETF review for such things as security, congestion control,
   or inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols.  The RFC Editor
   has chosen to publish this document at its discretion.  Readers of
   this document should exercise caution in evaluating its value for
   implementation and deployment.  See [RFC3932] for more information.

Abstract

   This document describes the requirements for the logical entity known
   as the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-H.323 Interworking Function
   (SIP-H.323 IWF) that will allow the interworking between SIP and
   H.323.
















Schulzrinne & Agboh          Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 4123                     SIP-H.323 Req.                    July 2005


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................3
   2. Definitions .....................................................3
   3. Functionality within the SIP-H.323 IWF ..........................4
   4. Pre-Call Requirements ...........................................4
      4.1. Registration with H.323 Gatekeeper .........................5
      4.2. Registration with SIP Server ...............................5
   5. General Interworking Requirements ...............................5
      5.1. Basic Call Requirements ....................................5
           5.1.1. General Requirements ................................5
           5.1.2. Address Resolution ..................................6
           5.1.3. Call with H.323 Gatekeeper ..........................6
           5.1.4. Call with SIP Registrar .............................6
           5.1.5. Capability Negotiation ..............................6
           5.1.6. Opening of Logical Channels .........................7
      5.2. IWF H.323 Features .........................................7
      5.3. Overlapped Sending .........................................7
           5.3.1. DTMF Support ........................................7
   6. Transport .......................................................8
   7. Mapping between SIP and H.323 ...................................8
      7.1. General Requirements .......................................8
      7.2. H.225.0 and SIP Call Signaling .............................8
      7.3. Call Sequence ..............................................9
      7.4. State Machine Requirements .................................9
   8. Security Considerations ........................................10
   9. Examples and Scenarios .........................................10
      9.1. Introduction ..............................................10
      9.2. IWF Configurations ........................................11
      9.3. Call Flows ................................................11
           9.3.1. Call from H.323 Terminal to SIP UA .................11
           9.3.2. Call from SIP UA to H.323 Terminal .................12
   10. Acknowledgments ...............................................12
   11. Contributors ..................................................13
   12. References ....................................................14
       12.1. Normative References ....................................14
       12.2. Informative References ..................................15














Schulzrinne & Agboh          Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 4123                     SIP-H.323 Req.                    July 2005


1.  Introduction

   The SIP-H.323 Interworking function (IWF) converts between SIP
   (Session Initiation Protocol) [RFC3261] and the ITU Recommendation
   H.323 protocol [H.323].  This document describes requirements for
   this protocol conversion.

2.  Definitions

   H.323 gatekeeper (GK): An H.323 gatekeeper is an optional component
      in an H.323 network.  If it is present, it performs address
      translation, bandwidth control, admission control, and zone
      management.

   H.323 network: In this document, we refer to the collection of all
      H.323-speaking components as the H.323 network.

   SIP network: In this document, we refer to the collection of all SIP
      servers and user agents as the SIP network.

   Interworking Function (IWF): This function performs interworking
      between H.323 and SIP.  It belongs to both the H.323 and SIP
      networks.

   SIP server: A SIP server can be a SIP proxy, redirect server, or
      registrar server.

   Endpoint: An endpoint can call and be called.  An endpoint is an
      entity from which the media such as voice, video, or fax
      originates or terminates.  An endpoint can be H.323 terminal,
      H.323 Gateway, H.323 MCU [H.323], or SIP user agent (UA)
      [RFC3261].

   Media-Switching Fabric (MSF): This is an optional logical entity
      within the IWF.  The MSF switches media such as voice, video, or
      fax from one network association to another.















Schulzrinne & Agboh          Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 4123                     SIP-H.323 Req.                    July 2005


3.  Functionality within the SIP-H.323 IWF

   This section summarizes the functional requirements of the SIP-H.323
   interworking function (IWF).

   A SIP-H.323 IWF may be integrated into an H.323 gatekeeper or SIP
   server.  Interworking should not require any optional components in
   either the SIP or H.323 network, such as H.323 gatekeepers.  IWF
   redundancy in the network is beyond the scope of this document.

   An IWF contains functions from the following list, inter alia:

   o  Mapping of the call setup and teardown sequences;

   o  Registering H.323 and SIP endpoints with SIP registrars and H.323
      gatekeepers;

   o  Resolving H.323 and SIP addresses;

   o  Maintaining the H.323 and SIP state machines;

   o  Negotiating terminal capabilities;

   o  Opening and closing media channels;

   o  Mapping media-coding algorithms for H.323 and SIP networks;

   o  Reserving and releasing call-related resources;

   o  Processing of mid-call signaling messages;

   o  Handling of services and features.

   The IWF should not process media.  We assume that the same media
   transport protocols, such as RTP, are used in both the SIP and H.323
   networks.  Thus, media packets are exchanged directly between the
   endpoints.  If a particular service requires the IWF to handle media,
   we assume that the IWF simply forwards media packets without
   modification from one network to the other, using a media-switching
   fabric (MSF).  The conversion of media from one encoding or format to
   another is out of scope for SIP-H.323 protocol translation.

4.  Pre-Call Requirements

   The IWF function may use a translation table to resolve the H.323 and
   SIP addresses to IP addresses.  This translation table can be updated
   by using an H.323 gatekeeper, a SIP proxy server, or a locally-
   maintained database.



Schulzrinne & Agboh          Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 4123                     SIP-H.323 Req.                    July 2005


4.1.  Registration with H.323 Gatekeeper

   An IWF may provide and update the H.323 gatekeeper with the addresses
   of SIP UAs.  A SIP user agent can make itself known to the H.323
   network by registering with an IWF serving as a registrar.  The IWF
   creates an H.323 alias address and registers this alias, together
   with its own network address, with the appropriate GK.

   The gatekeeper can then use this information to route calls to SIP
   UAs via the IWF, without being aware that the endpoint is not a
   "native" H.323 endpoint.

   The IWF can register SIP UAs with one or more H.323 gatekeepers.

4.2.  Registration with SIP Server

   The IWF can provide information about H.323 endpoints to a SIP
   registrar.  This allows the SIP proxy using this SIP registrar to
   direct calls to the H.323 endpoints via the IWF.

   The IWF can easily obtain information about H.323 endpoints if it
   also serves as a gatekeeper.  Other architectures require further
   study.

   If the H.323 endpoints are known through E.164 (telephone number)
   addresses, the IWF can use IGREP [TGREP] or SLP [GWLOC] to inform the
   SIP proxy server of these endpoints.

   The IWF only needs to register with multiple SIP registrars if the
   H.323 terminal is to appear under multiple, different addresses-of-
   record.

5.  General Interworking Requirements

   The IWF should use H.323 Version 2 or later and SIP according to RFC
   3261 [RFC3261].  The protocol translation function must not require
   modifications or additions to either H.323 or SIP.  However, it may
   not be possible to support certain features of each protocol across
   the IWF.

5.1.  Basic Call Requirements

5.1.1.  General Requirements

   The IWF should provide default settings for translation parameters.
   The IWF specification must identify these defaults.





Schulzrinne & Agboh          Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 4123                     SIP-H.323 Req.                    July 2005


   The IWF must release any call-related resource at the end of a call.
   SIP session timers [RFC4028] may be used on the SIP side.

5.1.2.  Address Resolution

   The IWF should support all the addressing schemes in H.323, including
   the H.323 URI [RFC3508], and the "sip", "sips", and "tel" URI schemes
   in SIP.  It should support the DNS-based SIP server location
   mechanisms described in [RFC3263] and H.323 Annex O, which details
   how H.323 uses DNS and, in particular, DNS SRV records.

   The IWF should register with the H.323 Gatekeeper and the SIP
   registrar when available.

   The IWF may use any means to translate between SIP and H.323
   addresses.  Examples include translation tables populated by the
   gatekeeper, SIP registrar or other database, LDAP, DNS or TRIP.

5.1.3.  Call with H.323 Gatekeeper

   When an H.323 GK is present in the network, the IWF should resolve
   addresses with the help of the GK.

5.1.4.  Call with SIP Registrar

   The IWF applies normal SIP call routing and does not need to be aware
   whether there is a proxy server.

5.1.5.  Capability Negotiation

   The IWF should not make any assumptions about the capabilities of
   either the SIP user agent or the H.323 terminal.  However, it may
   indicate a guaranteed-to-be-supported list of codecs of the H.323
   terminal or SIP user agent before exchanging capabilities with H.323
   (using H.245) and SIP (using SDP [RFC2327]).  H.323 defines mandatory
   capabilities, whereas SIP currently does not.  For example, the G.711
   audio codec is mandatory for higher bandwidth H.323 networks.

   The IWF should attempt to map the capability descriptors of H.323 and
   SDP in the best possible fashion.  The algorithm for finding the best
   mapping between H.245 capability descriptors and the corresponding
   SDP is left for further study.

   The IWF should be able to map the common audio, video, and
   application format names supported in H.323 to and from the
   equivalent RTP/AVP [RFC3550] names.





Schulzrinne & Agboh          Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 4123                     SIP-H.323 Req.                    July 2005


   The IWF may use the SIP OPTIONS message to derive SIP UA
   capabilities.  It may support mid-call renegotiation of media
   capabilities.

5.1.6.  Opening of Logical Channels

   The IWF should support the seamless exchange of messages for opening,
   reopening, changing, and closing of media channels during a call.
   The procedures for opening, reopening, closing, and changing the
   existing media sessions during a call are for further study.

   The IWF should open media channels between the endpoints whenever
   possible.  If this is not possible, then the channel can be opened at
   the MSF of the IWF.

   The IWF should support unidirectional, symmetric bi-directional, and
   asymmetric bi-directional opening of channels.

   The IWF may respond to the mode request and to the request for
   reopening and changing an existing logical channel and may support
   the flow control mechanism in H.323.

5.2.  IWF H.323 Features

   The IWF should support Fast Connect; i.e., H.245 tunneling in H.323
   Setup messages.  If IWF and GK are the same device, pre-granted ARQ
   should be supported.  If pre-granted ARQ is supported, the IWF may
   perform the address resolution from H.323 GK using the LRQ/LCF
   exchange.

5.3.  Overlapped Sending

   An IWF should follow the recommendations outlined in [RFC3578] when
   receiving overlapped digits from the H.323 side.  If the IWF receives
   overlapped dialed digits from the SIP network, it may use the Q.931
   Setup, Setup Ack, and Information Message in H.323.

   The IWF may support the transfer of digits during a call by using the
   appropriate SIP mechanism and UserInputIndication in H.245 (H.323).

5.3.1.  DTMF Support

   An IWF should support the mapping between DTMF and possibly other
   telephony tones carried in signaling messages.







Schulzrinne & Agboh          Informational                      [Page 7]

RFC 4123                     SIP-H.323 Req.                    July 2005


6.  Transport

   The H.323 and SIP systems do not have to be in close proximity.  The
   IP networks hosting the H.323 and SIP systems do not need to assure
   quality of service (QoS).  In particular, the IWF should not assume
   that signaling messages have priority over packets from other
   applications.  H.323 signaling over UDP (H.323 Annex E) is optional.

7.  Mapping between SIP and H.323

7.1.  General Requirements

   o  The call message sequence of both protocols must be maintained.

   o  The IWF must not set up or tear down calls on its own.

   o  Signaling messages that do not have a match for the destination
      protocol should be terminated on the IWF, with the IWF taking the
      appropriate action for them.  For example, SIP allows a SIP UA to
      discard an ACK request silently for a non-existent call leg.

   o  If the IWF is required to generate a message on its own, IWF
      should use pre-configured default values for the message
      parameters.

   o  The information elements and header fields of the respective
      messages are to be converted as follows:

      *  The contents of connection-specific information elements, such
         as Call Reference Value for H.323, are converted to similar
         information required by SIP or SDP, such as the SDP session ID
         and the SIP 'Call-ID'.

      *  The IWF generates protocol elements that are not available from
         the other side.


7.2.  H.225.0 and SIP Call Signaling

   o  The IWF must conform to the call signaling procedures recommended
      for the SIP side regardless of the behavior of the H.323 elements.

   o  The IWF must conform to the call signaling procedures recommended
      for the H.323 side regardless of the behavior of the SIP elements.







Schulzrinne & Agboh          Informational                      [Page 8]

RFC 4123                     SIP-H.323 Req.                    July 2005


   o  The IWF serves as the endpoint for the Q.931 Call Signaling
      Channel to either an H.323 endpoint or H.323 Gatekeeper (in case
      of GK routed signaling).  The IWF also acts as a SIP user agent
      client and server.

   o  The IWF also establishes a Registration, Admission, Status (RAS)
      Channel to the H.323 GK, if available.

   o  The IWF should process messages for H.323 supplementary services
      (FACILITY, NOTIFY, and the INFORMATION messages) only if the
      service itself is supported.


7.3.  Call Sequence

   The call sequence on both sides should be maintained in such a way
   that neither the H.323 terminal nor the SIP UA is aware of presence
   of the IWF.

7.4.  State Machine Requirements

   The state machine for IWF will follow the following general
   guidelines:

   o  Unexpected messages in a particular state shall be treated as
      "error" messages.

   o  All messages that do not change the state shall be treated as
      "non-triggering" or informational messages.

   o  All messages that expect a change in state shall be treated as
      "triggering" messages.

   For each state, an IWF specification must classify all possible
   protocol messages into the above three categories.  It must specify
   the actions taken on the content of the message and the resulting
   state.  Below is an example of such a table:

   State: Idle

   Possible Messages   Message Category   Action         Next state
   -------------------------------------------------------------------
   All RAS msg.        Triggering         Add Reg.Info.  WaitForSetup
   All H.245 msg.      Error              Send 4xx       Idle
   SIP OPTIONS         Non Triggering     Return cap.    Idle
   SIP INVITE          Triggering         Send SETUP     WaitForConnect





Schulzrinne & Agboh          Informational                      [Page 9]

RFC 4123                     SIP-H.323 Req.                    July 2005


8.  Security Considerations

   Because the IWF whose requirements have been described in this
   document combines both SIP and H.323 functionality, security
   considerations for both of these protocols apply.

   The eventual security solution for interworking must rely on the
   standard mechanisms in RFC3261 [RFC3261] and H.323, without extending
   them for the interworking function.  Signaling security for H.323 is
   described in H.235 [H.235].

   Because all data elements in SIP or H.323 have to terminate at the
   IWF, the resulting security cannot be expected to be end-to-end.
   Thus, the IWF terminates not only the signalling protocols but also
   the security in each domain.  Therefore, users at the SIP or H.323
   endpoint have to trust the IWF, like they would any other gateway, to
   authenticate the other side correctly.  Similarly, they have to trust
   the gateway to respect the integrity of data elements and to apply
   appropriate security mechanisms on the other side of the IWF.

   The IWF must not indicate the identity of a user on one side without
   first performing authentication.  For example, if the SIP user was
   not authenticated, it would be inappropriate to use mechanisms on the
   H.323 side, such as H.323 Annex D, to indicate that the user identity
   had been authenticated.

   An IWF must not accept 'sips' requests unless it can guarantee that
   the H.323 side uses equivalent H.235 [H.235] security mechanisms.
   Similarly, the IWF must not accept H.235 sessions unless it succeeds
   in using SIP-over-TLS (sips) on the SIP side of the IWF.

9.  Examples and Scenarios

9.1.  Introduction

   We present some examples of call scenarios that will show the
   signaling messages received and transmitted.  The following
   situations can occur:

   o  Some signaling messages can be translated one-to-one.

   o  In some cases, parameters on one side do not match those on the
      other side.

   o  Some signaling messages do not have an equivalent message on the
      other side.  In some cases, the IWF can gather further information
      and the signal on the other side.  In some cases, only an error
      indication can be provided.



Schulzrinne & Agboh          Informational                     [Page 10]

RFC 4123                     SIP-H.323 Req.                    July 2005


9.2.  IWF Configurations

   Below are some common architectures involving an IWF:

   Basic Configuration: H.323 EP  -- IWF -- SIP UA

   Calls using H.323 GK: H.323 EP -- H.323 GK -- IWF -- SIP UA

   Calls using SIP proxies: H.323 EP -- IWF -- SIP proxies -- SIP UA

   Calls using both H.323 GK and SIP proxy: H.323 EP -- H.323 GK -- IWF
      -- SIP proxies -- SIP UA

   SIP trunking between H.323 networks: H.323 EP -- IWF -- SIP network
      -- IWF -- H.323 EP

   H.323 trunking between SIP networks: SIP EP -- IWF -- H.323 network
      -- IWF -- SIP UA


9.3.  Call Flows

   Some call flow examples for two different configurations and call
   scenarios are given below.

9.3.1.  Call from H.323 Terminal to SIP UA

        H.323                        SIP
         EP    Setup   IWF           UA
          |------------>|    INVITE   |
          |             |------------>|
          |             | 180 RINGING |
          |   Alerting  |<------------|
          |<------------|   200 OK    |
          |  Connect    |<------------|
          |<------------|             |
          |   H.245     |             |
          |<----------->|    ACK      |
          |             |------------>|
          |            RTP            |
          |<.........................>|










Schulzrinne & Agboh          Informational                     [Page 11]

RFC 4123                     SIP-H.323 Req.                    July 2005


9.3.2.  Call from SIP UA to H.323 Terminal

      SIP                        H.323
       UA           IWF            EP
       |             |             |
       |   INVITE    |             |
       |------------>|   Setup     |
       |             |------------>|
       |             |  Alerting   |
       | 180 RINGING |<------------|
       |<------------|   Connect   |
       |             |<------------|
       |             |    H.245    |
       |     200 OK  |<----------->|
       |<------------|             |
       |     ACK     |             |
       |------------>|             |
       |            RTP            |
       |<.........................>|

10.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to acknowledge the many contributors who
   discussed the SIP-H.323 interworking architecture and requirements on
   the IETF, SIP, and SG16 mailing lists.  In particular, we would like
   to thank Joon Maeng, Dave Walker, and Jean-Francois Mule.
   Contributions to this document have also been made by members of the
   H.323, aHIT!, TIPHON, and SG16 forums.























Schulzrinne & Agboh          Informational                     [Page 12]

RFC 4123                     SIP-H.323 Req.                    July 2005


11.  Contributors

   In addition to the editors, the following people provided substantial
   technical and written contributions to this document.  They are
   listed alphabetically.

   Hemant Agrawal
   Telverse Communications
   1010 Stewart Drive
   Sunnyale, CA 94085
   USA

   EMail: hagrawal@telverse.com


   Alan Johnston
   MCI WorldCom
   100 South Fourth Street
   St. Louis, MO 63102
   USA

   EMail: alan.johnston@wcom.com


   Vipin Palawat
   Cisco Systems Inc.
   900 Chelmsford Street
   Lowell, MA  01851
   USA

   EMail: vpalawat@cisco.com


   Radhika R. Roy
   AT&T
   Room C1-2B03
   200 Laurel Avenue S.
   Middletown, NJ 07748
   USA

   EMail: rrroy@att.com










Schulzrinne & Agboh          Informational                     [Page 13]

RFC 4123                     SIP-H.323 Req.                    July 2005


   Kundan Singh
   Dept. of Computer Science
   Columbia University
   1214 Amsterdam Avenue, MC 0401
   New York, NY 10027
   USA

   EMail: kns10@cs.columbia.edu


   David Wang
   Nuera Communications Inc.
   10445 Pacific Center Court
   San Diego, CA 92121
   USA

   EMail: dwang@nuera.com

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [H.235]    International Telecommunication Union, "Security and
              encryption for H-Series (H.323 and other H.245-based)
              multimedia terminals", Recommendation H.235,
              February 1998.

   [H.323]    International Telecommunication Union, "Packet based
              multimedia communication systems", Recommendation H.323,
              July 2003.

   [RFC2327]  Handley, M. and V. Jacobson, "SDP: Session Description
              Protocol", RFC 2327, April 1998.

   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              June 2002.

   [RFC3263]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation
              Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263,
              June 2002.

   [RFC3508]  Levin, O., "H.323 Uniform Resource Locator (URL) Scheme
              Registration", RFC 3508, April 2003.






Schulzrinne & Agboh          Informational                     [Page 14]

RFC 4123                     SIP-H.323 Req.                    July 2005


   [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.

12.2.  Informative References

   [GWLOC]    Zhao, W. and H. Schulzrinne, "Locating IP-to-Public
              Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) Telephony Gateways via
              SLP", work in progress, February 2004.

   [RFC3578]  Camarillo, G., Roach, A., Peterson, J., and L. Ong,
              "Mapping of Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN)
              User Part (ISUP) Overlap Signalling to the Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3578, August 2003.

   [RFC3932]  Alvestrand, H., "The IESG and RFC Editor Documents:
              Procedures", BCP 92, RFC 3932, October 2004.

   [RFC4028]  Donovan, S. and J. Rosenberg, "Session Timers in the
              Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4028, April 2005.

   [TGREP]    Bangalore, M., "A Telephony Gateway REgistration Protocol
              (TGREP)", work in progress, March 2004.


Authors' Addresses

   Henning Schulzrinne
   Columbia University
   Department of Computer Science
   450 Computer Science Building
   New York, NY  10027
   US

   Phone: +1 212 939 7042
   EMail: hgs@cs.columbia.edu
   URI:   http://www.cs.columbia.edu


   Charles Agboh
   61 Bos Straat
   3540 Herk-de-Stad
   Belgium

   Phone: +32479736250
   EMail: charles.agboh@packetizer.com





Schulzrinne & Agboh          Informational                     [Page 15]

RFC 4123                     SIP-H.323 Req.                    July 2005


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78 and at www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

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

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
   ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

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







Schulzrinne & Agboh          Informational                     [Page 16]

