[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RFC 3224 on Vendor Extensions for Service
- To: IETF-Announce: ;
- Subject: RFC 3224 on Vendor Extensions for Service
- From: RFC Editor <rfc-ed@ISI.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 12:05:53 -0800
- Cc: rfc-ed@ISI.EDU
- Delivery-date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 22:44:36 +0200
- Envelope-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
Title: Vendor Extensions for Service Location Protocol,
Author(s): E. Guttman
Status: Standards Track
Date: January 2002
I-D Tag: draft-guttman-svrloc-vendor-ext-07.txt
This document specifies how the features of the Service Location
Protocol, Version 2 allow for vendor extensibility safely, with
no possibility of collisions. The specification introduces a new
SLPv2 extension: The Vendor Opaque Extension. While proprietary
protocol extensions are not encouraged by IETF standards, it is
important that they not hinder interoperability of compliant
implementations when they are undertaken. This document udpates RFC
2608, "The Service Location Protocol."
This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol.
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for
the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions
for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the
"Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the
standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution
of this memo is unlimited.
This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list.
Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list
should be sent to IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG. Requests to be
added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should
be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG.
Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending
an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body
help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example:
Subject: getting rfcs
Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to
RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC
Authors, for further information.
Joyce K. Reynolds and Sandy Ginoza
USC/Information Sciences Institute
Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant Mail Reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version
of the RFCs.