<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- This template is for creating an Internet Draft using xml2rfc,
  which is available here: http://xml.resource.org. -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!-- One method to get references from the online citation libraries.
  There has to be one entity for each item to be referenced.
  An alternate method (rfc include) is described in the references. --> 
<!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2818 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2818.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5280 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5280.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC7230 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7230.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3444 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3444.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3466 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3466.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5246 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5246.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC6844 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6844.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5424 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5424.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3568 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3568.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC6770 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6770.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC6707 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6707.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2629 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2629.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC6698 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6698.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC7336 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7336.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC7337 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7337.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC7540 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7540.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC7937 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7937.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8006 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8006.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8007 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8007.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.fieau-cdni-https-delegation SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.fieau-cdni-https-delegation.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.thomson-http-scd SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.thomson-http-scd">
<!ENTITY I-D.thomson-http-bc SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.thomson-http-bc">
<!ENTITY I-D.reschke-http-oob-encoding SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.reschke-http-oob-encoding">
<!ENTITY I-D.thomson-http-mice SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.thomson-http-mice">
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding">
<!ENTITY I-D.rescorla-tls-subcerts SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.rescorla-tls-subcerts">
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-acme-star SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-acme-star">
<!ENTITY I-D.cairns-tls-session-key-interface SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.cairns-tls-session-key-interface">
<!ENTITY I-D.mglt-lurk-tls SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.mglt-lurk-tls">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<!-- used by XSLT processors -->
<!-- For a complete list and description of processing instructions (PIs),
  please see http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html. -->
<!-- Below are generally applicable Processing Instructions (PIs) that most I-Ds might want to use.
  (Here they are set differently than their defaults in xml2rfc v1.32) -->
<?rfc strict="no" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<!-- Display comments -->
<?rfc comments="no"?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. default: 3 -->
<!-- control references -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically -->
<!-- control vertical white space
  (using these PIs as follows is recommended by the RFC Editor) -->
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<!-- do not start each main section on a new page -->
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<!-- keep one hblank line between list items -->
<!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions -->
<rfc category="std"
     docName="draft-fieau-cdni-interfaces-https-delegation-01">
	<!-- category values: std, bCSP, info, exp, and historic
  ipr values: full3667, noModification3667, noDerivatives3667
  you can add the attributes updates="NNNN" and obsoletes="NNNN"
  they will automatically be output with "(if approved)" -->

	<!-- ***** FRONT MATTER ***** -->
	<front>
		<!-- The abbreviated title is used in the page header - it is only necessary if the
  full title is longer than 39 characters -->

		<title abbrev="CDNI update for HTTPS delegation">CDNI interfaces update for HTTPS delegation</title>

		<!-- add 'role="editor"' below for the editors if appropriate -->

		<!-- Another author who claims to be an editor -->

		<author fullname="Frederic Fieau"
		        initials="F.F"
		        surname="Fieau"
				role="editor">
			<organization>Orange</organization>

			<address>
				<postal>
					<street>40-48, avenue de la Republique</street>

					<!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->

					<city>Chatillon</city>

					<region/>

					<code>92320</code>

					<country>France</country>
										
				</postal>


				<email>frederic.fieau@orange.com</email> 

				<!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
			</address>
		</author>

		<author fullname="Emile Stephan"
		        initials="E.S"
		        surname="Stephan"
				>
			<organization>Orange</organization>

			<address>
				<postal>
					<street>2, avenue Pierre Marzin</street>

					<!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->

					<city>Lannion</city>

					<region/>

					<code>22300</code>

					<country>France</country>
										
				</postal>


				<email>emile.stephan@orange.com</email> 

				<!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
			</address>
		</author>
		
		<author fullname="Sanjay Mishra"
		        initials="S.M"
		        surname="Mishra"
				>
			<organization>Verizon</organization>

			<address>
				<postal>
					<street>13100 Columbia Pike</street>

					<!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->

					<city>Silver Spring</city>

					<region/>
									
					<code>MD 20904</code>

					<country>USA</country>
										
				</postal>


				<email>sanjay.mishra@verizon.com</email> 

				<!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
			</address>
		</author>		

		<date day="03"
		      month="July"
		      year="2017" />

		<!-- If the month and year are both specified and are the current ones, xml2rfc will fill
  in the current day for you. If only the current year is specified, xml2rfc will fill
  in the current day and month for you. If the year is not the current one, it is
  necessary to specify at least a month (xml2rfc assumes day="1" if not specified for the
      purpose of calculating the expiry date).  With drafts it is normally sufficient to
  specify just the year. -->

		<!-- Meta-data Declarations -->

		<area>ART</area>

		<workgroup>Network Working Group</workgroup>

		<!-- WG name at the upperleft corner of the doc,
  IETF is fine for individual submissions.
  If this element is not present, the default is "Network Working Group",
  which is used by the RFC Editor as a nod to the history of the IETF. -->

		<keyword>CDNI, CDN, CSP, UA, Interconnection, HTTPS, API, TLS, delegation, LURK, private, key, certificate, OOB, SLC, SubCert, Credential, delegated, metadata, interface, control, triggers</keyword>

		<!-- Keywords will be incorporated into HTML output
  files in a meta tag but they have no effect on text or nroff
  output. If you submit your draft to the RFC Editor, the
  keywords will be used for the search engine. -->

		<abstract>
			<t>
			The delivery of content over HTTPS involving multiple CDNs raises credential management issues. This document recalls the methods under study at the IETF. Then it specifies the updates needed in CDNI Control and Metadata interfaces to setup HTTPS delegation between an uCDN and dCDN.
			</t>
		</abstract>

	</front>

	<middle>
		<section title="Introduction">
		<t>When content is delivered over HTTPS using one or more CDNs along the path, credential management is required. This is specifically required when an entity delegates delivery of encrypted content to another trusted entity. This document presents updates needed in CDNI Control and Metadata interfaces to setup HTTPS delegation between an uCDN and dCDN.</t>
		<t>Several delegation methods are currently proposed within several IETF working groups (refer to <xref target="I-D.fieau-cdni-https-delegation"/> for an overview of delegation works ongoing at the IETF). They specify separately the provisioning of their credentials.</t>
		<t>This document specifies an update to the CDNI control / Triggers and Metadata interfaces to support these methods. Furthermore, it includes a proposal of registry to enable the adding of new methods in the future.</t>
		
		<t>Section 2 is about terminology used in this document. Section 3 presents delegation methods specified at the IETF. Section 4 introduces a secured delegation object for CDNI. Section 5 addresses the delegation methods objects. Section 6 describes simple data types. Section 7 is about an IANA registry for delegation methods. Section 8 raises the security issues. Section 9 opens the discussion.</t>
		</section>
		
		<section title="Terminology">
		<t>
			This document uses terminology from CDNI framework documents such as CDNi framework document <xref target="RFC7336"/>, CDNI requirements <xref target="RFC7337"/> and CDNI interface specifications documents: CDNI Metadata interface <xref target="RFC8006"/>, CDNI Control interface / Triggers <xref target="RFC8007"/> and Logging interface <xref target="RFC7937"/>.
		</t>
		</section>
	
	
		<section title="Known delegation methods">
			<t>A few methods are currently being proposed at the IETF to handle delegation of HTTPS delivery between entities respecting those constraints (refer to <xref target="I-D.fieau-cdni-https-delegation"/>). Note that many of these methods are still an ongoing work at the IETF within specific WGs. </t>
			<t>
			We however anticipate the need to handle delegation in interconnected CDNs and a need to address within the CDNI WG. Despite the types of delegation methods, we need a common framework in CDNI that would provide new requirements on the CDNI interfaces.
			</t>
			<t>This document considers the following methods supporting HTTPS delegation and may be used between two or more CDNs with applicable interface support following the CDNI framework, such as the CI/Triggers and Metadata Interface:</t>
			<t>- Sub-certificates <xref target="I-D.rescorla-tls-subcerts"/> likely to be a TLS WG draft.</t>
			<t>- Short-term certificates in ACME using STAR API <xref target="I-D.ietf-acme-star"/> </t>
		</section>
		
		<section title="SecuredDelegation object definition">
		<t>As expressed in <xref target="I-D.rescorla-tls-subcerts"/>, when HTTPS origin delivery is requested for a specific domain, the delegate, i.e. a dCDN, presents the Origin, or uCDN certificate or even, "delegated_credential" instead of its own certificate at the TLS handshake to the end.</t>
		<t>When HTTPS delegation has been set for a specific domain, the dCDN should present the Origin or uCDN certificate or "delegated_credential" instead of its own certificate when content delivery is requested.</t>		
				
		<t>
		The SecuredDelegation object metadata aims at describing a secured delegation between an uCDN and dCDN by indicating the delegated domain, the start and end of a delegation, and the delegation method used.
		</t>

		<t>property: delegateddomain</t>
		<t><list><t>
		type: HostMatch
		</t>
		<t>
		Description: It describes the delegated hostname, restricted to Hostname. HostMatch is defined in RFC8006 section 4.3.3. This value should match the SAN value in certificates.
		</t>
		</list></t>
		
		<t>
		property: pathpattern
		</t>
		<t><list><t>
			type: PathPattern
			</t>
			<t>
			Description: a PathPattern object contains a PathPattern object with a path to match against a resource's URI path in order to trigger the delegation. It is described in RFC8006, 4.1.4.
		</t>
		</list></t>
				
		<t>
		 property: timewindow
		</t>
		<t><list>
		<t>
			type: TimeWindow
		</t>
		   <t>
		   Description: Describes delegation start and end times. Timewindow is defined in RFC8006 section 4.2.
		</t>		
		</list></t>
		
		<t>
		Property: delegationmethod
		</t>
		<t><list>
			<t>type: DelegationMethod</t>
			<t>Description: the delegation method(s) used between a uCDN and a dCDN (ex. Subcerts, short term cert, etc.), as defined in the next section. </t>
		</list>
		</t>		
		   
		<t>As an example: a SecuredDelegation object (which contains a TimeWindow object, DelegationMethod and a HostMatch) that only allows the dCDN to deliver content to clients between 09:00 01/01/2000 UTC and 17:00 01/01/2000 UTC:		</t>
<figure><artwork type="drawing">
<![CDATA[
SecuredDelegation object:
{
        "generic-metadata-type": "MI.SecuredDelegation",
        "generic-metadata-value":
        {
            “timewindow”: {start: 946717200, end: 946746000},
            “delegationMethod”: AcmeStarDelegationMethod, 
            “pathpattern”: {
                "pattern": "/movies/*",
                "case-sensitive": true
            },
            ”delegatedDomain": “www.origin.com”, 
        }
}
]]>
</artwork>
</figure>		
<t>Such as object shall be conveyed over the CDNI metadata interface. </t>

		</section>

		<section title="Delegation methods">
		<t>This section defines the delegation methods objects metadata used by a securedDelegation. Each method consists of 4 phases:
		</t>
		<t><list style="symbols">
		<t>Bootstrapping: bootstrapping a secured delegation consists in providing the dCDN with enough parameters to set it up, e.g. ACME servers, Key Servers, etc..
		</t>
		<t>Credential renewal: In case of certificates based approaches, <xref target="I-D.rescorla-tls-subcerts"/> and <xref target="I-D.ietf-acme-star"/>, there is a need in CDNI to periodically provision and update credentials (certificates or private keys) on the dCDNs for a given delegated domain. 
		</t>
		<t>Expiration/Revocation: expiration of delegation can occur for multiple reasons: changes in delegation rights, delegation validity is over.
In <xref target="I-D.rescorla-tls-subcerts"/> or <xref target="I-D.ietf-acme-star"/> approaches, the uCDN may implicitly enforce revocation and will prevent any dCDN to renew certificates, or access credentials, when delegation is expired. 
		</t>
		<t>Logging: Regarding logging aspects, we consider to log usages and errors related to a delegated domain.
As an example, CDNI logs include: supported delegation method(s), credentials renewal requests, credential revocation notice, mutual agreement for selected credential method to use, credentials download status for a specific domain, as well as errors, related to credentials transfer, or crypto aspects such as bad cypher suite supports, revoked delegations, etc.
		</t>
		</list></t>
		
	
		<section title="AcmeStarDelegationMethod object">
		<t>This section defines the AcmeStarDelegationMethod object which describes metadata related to the use of Acme Star API  presented in <xref target="I-D.ietf-acme-star"/>
		</t>
		<t>
		Property: starproxy
		</t>
		<t><list><t>
		Type: Endpoint
		</t>
		<t>Description: Used to advertise the STAR Proxy to the dCDN. Endpoint type defined in RFC8006, section 4.3.3
		</t>
		</list></t>

		<t>Property: acmeserver</t><t><list>
		<t>Type: Endpoint</t>
		<t>Description: used to advertise the ACME server to the dCDN. Endpoint type is defined in RFC8006, section 4.3.3</t>
		</list></t>
		
		<t>Property: credentialslocationuri</t><t><list>
		<t>Type: Link</t>
		<t>Description: expresses the location of the credentials to be fetched by the dCDN. Link type is as defined in RFC8006, section 4.3.1</t>
		</list></t>

		<t>Property: periodicity</t><t><list>
		<t>Type: Periodicity</t>
		<t>description: expresses the credentials renewal periodicity. See next section on simple meta data type.</t>
		</list></t>
		
		<t>As an example, AcmeStarDelegationMethod object could express the Acme-Star-delegation as the following:</t>
		
		
		<figure><artwork type="drawing">
<![CDATA[
AcmeStarDelegationMethod: {
    "generic-metadata-type": "MI.AcmeStarDelegationMethod",
    "generic-metadata-value": {
        “starproxy”: “10.2.2.2”,
        “acmeserver”: “10.2.3.3”,
        "credentialslocationuri": “www.ucdn.com/credentials”,
        "periodicity": 36000  
    }
}
]]>
</artwork>
</figure>	
		</section>		
		
		<section title="SubcertsDelegationMethod object">
		<t>TBD</t>
		</section>

	</section>
	
	<section title="Metadata Simple Data Type Descriptions">
	<t>This section describes the simple data types that are used for properties for objects in this document.</t>
	<section title="Periodicity">
		<t>A time value expressed in seconds.</t>

		<t>Type: Integer</t>   

	</section>
	</section>

		<section title="IANA considerations">
		<t>This document requests the registration of the following entries under the "CDNI Payload Types" registry hosted by IANA regarding “CDNI delegation”:
		</t>
		
		<figure><artwork type="drawing">
<![CDATA[	
+----------------------------+---------------+
| Payload Type               | Specification |
+----------------------------+---------------+
| MI.AcmeStarDelegationMethod| TBD           |
| MI.SubCertDelegationMethod | TBD           |
| ...                        |               |
+----------------------------+---------------+
]]>
		</artwork>
		</figure>			
		
		<section title=" CDNI MI AcmeStarDelegationMethod Payload Type">
		<t>
		Purpose: The purpose of this Payload Type is to distinguish AcmeStarDelegationMethod  MI objects (and any associated capability advertisement)
		</t>
		<t>
			Interface: MI/FCI
		</t>
		<t>
			Encoding: see Section 5.1
		</t>
		</section>
		
		<section title="CDNI MI SubCertsDelegationMethod Payload Type">
		<t>
			Purpose: The purpose of this Payload Type is to distinguish SubcertsDelegationMethod  MI objects (and any associated capability advertisement)
		</t>
		<t>
			Interface: MI/FCI
		</t>
		<t>
			Encoding: see Section 5.2
		</t>
		</section>
		
		</section>

		<section title="Security considerations">
		<t>The CI/T interface and Metadata interface need only to specify mechanisms for delegation between uCDN and dCDN without the use of actual transfer of encrypting keys within the interface messages. The uCDN actions must be limited to in specifying its support for methods it prefers for delegation, actual delegation and revocation of any delegation. The dCDN similarly, must indicate delegation methods it supports. Any subsequent communications enabling delegation must be limited to the agreed delegation method. Additionally, the HTTPS delegation framework must comply with security considerations as specified within RFC 8007 [CDNI Control Interfaces]. </t>	
		</section>
		
		<section title="Discussion">
		<t>
		More prospective works include:
		</t>
		<t>
		- Keyless SSL / LURK <xref target="I-D.mglt-lurk-tls"/>: No WG is currently addressing Lurk.
		</t>
		<t>
		- Out-of-Band encoding redirection <xref target="I-D.reschke-http-oob-encoding"/>
		</t>
		<t>
		Should they be considered as delegation methods for CDNI?
		</t>
		</section>


	</middle>
	<!--  *****BACK MATTER ***** -->

	<back>
		<!-- References split into informative and normative -->

		<!-- There are 2 ways to insert reference entries from the citation libraries:
     1. define an ENTITY at the top, and use "ampersand character"RFC2629; here (as shown)
     2. simply use a PI "less than character"?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119.xml"?> here
        (for I-Ds: include="reference.I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis.xml")

     Both are cited textually in the same manner: by using xref elements.
     If you use the PI option, xml2rfc will, by default, try to find included files in the same
     directory as the including file. You can also define the XML_LIBRARY environment variable
     with a value containing a set of directories to search.  These can be either in the local
     filing system or remote ones accessed by http (http://domain/dir/... ).-->



		<references title="Normative References">
			<!--?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"?-->
			<!--&RFC2119;
	     
		  &RFC2629;-->
			<!--&RFC3568;-->
			<!-- &RFC6698; DANE-->			
			<!--&RFC2818; -->
			&RFC5246;
			&RFC5280;
			<!--&RFC6770;-->
			<!--&RFC6844;-->
			<!--&RFC7230;-->
			&RFC7336;
			&RFC7337;	
			&RFC7937;
			&RFC8006;
			&RFC8007;
			<!--&RFC7540;-->
		</references>

		<references title="Informative References">
			<!-- Here we use entities that we defined at the beginning. -->			
				
			<!--&I-D.thomson-http-scd;-->
			<!--&I-D.ietf-acme-caa;-->
			<!--<?rfc include="reference.I-D.thomson-http-bc"?>-->
			<?rfc include="reference.I-D.reschke-http-oob-encoding"?>
			<!--<?rfc include="reference.I-D.thomson-http-mice"?>-->
			<!--<?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding"?>-->
			<?rfc include="reference.I-D.rescorla-tls-subcerts"?>
			<?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-acme-star"?>
			
			<!--<?rfc include="reference.I-D.cairns-tls-session-key-interface"?>-->

						
			<!--<?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-cdni-redirection.xml"?>-->
			<?rfc include="reference.I-D.fieau-cdni-https-delegation"?>
			
			<?rfc include="reference.I-D.mglt-lurk-tls.xml"?>



			<!-- references to add		
				   [HTTPS-CDN] J. Liang, J. Jiang, H. Duan, K. Li, T. Wan, and J. Wu,
		   "When HTTPS Meets CDN: A Case of Authentication in Delegated
		   Service," in 2014 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), 2014,
		   pp. 67-82.

		   [SSL-Challenges] J. Clark and P. C. van Oorschot, "SoK: SSL and
		   HTTPS: Revisiting Past Challenges and Evaluating Certificate Trust
		   Model Enhancements," in 2013 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy
		   (SP), 2013, pp. 511-525.
		   
	



			<reference anchor="LURK_Mailing_List"
			           target="https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=lurk">
				<front>
					<title>LURK Mailing List</title>

					<author fullname="">
						<organization/>
					</author>

					<date year=""/>
				</front>
			</reference>
	   -->
	   

		</references>
		
		
		

		<!-- Change Log

v00 2006-03-15  EBD   Initial version

v01 2006-04-03  EBD   Moved PI location back to position 1 -
                      v3.1 of XMLmind is better with them at this location.
v02 2007-03-07  AH    removed extraneous nested_list attribute,
                      other minor corrections
v03 2007-03-09  EBD   Added comments on null IANA sections and fixed heading capitalization.
                      Modified comments around figure to reflect non-implementation of
                      figure indent control.  Put in reference using anchor="DOMINATION".
                      Fixed up the date specification comments to reflect current truth.
v04 2007-03-09 AH     Major changes: shortened discussion of PIs,
                      added discussion of rfc include.
v05 2007-03-10 EBD    Added preamble to C program example to tell about ABNF and alternative 
                      images. Removed meta-characters from comments (causes
                      problems).
    2015-04-17 AR     updated ipr attribute.  -->
	</back>


</rfc>