4161
INFORMATIONAL
Guidelines for Optional Services for Internet Fax Gateways
Authors: K. Mimura, K. Yokoyama, T. Satoh, K. Watanabe, C. Kanaide
Date: August 2005
Area: app
Working Group: fax
Stream: IETF
Abstract
To allow connectivity between the general switched telephone network facsimile service (GSTN fax) and the e-mail-based Internet Fax service (i-fax), an "Internet Fax Gateway" is required. This document provides guidelines for the optional functionality of Internet Fax Gateways. In this context, an "offramp gateway" provides facsimile data transmission from i-fax to GSTN fax; vice versa, an "onramp gateway" provides data transmission from GSTN fax to i-fax. The recommendations in this document apply to the integrated service including Internet Fax terminals, computers with i-fax software on the Internet, and GSTN fax terminals on the GSTN.
This document supplements the recommendation for minimal features of an Internet Fax Gateway. In particular, it covers techniques for dropping duplicated fax messages, automatic fax re-transmission, error, return notice, and log handling, and possible authorization methods by DTMF (Dual Tone Multi-Frequency) for onramp gateways. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4161
INFORMATIONAL
Network Working Group K. Mimura
Request for Comments: 4161 K. Yokoyama
Category: Informational T. Satoh
K. Watanabe
C. Kanaide
TOYO Communication Equipment
August 2005
<span class="h1">Guidelines for Optional Services for Internet Fax Gateways</span>
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).
Abstract
To allow connectivity between the general switched telephone network
facsimile service (GSTN fax) and the e-mail-based Internet Fax
service (i-fax), an "Internet Fax Gateway" is required. This
document provides guidelines for the optional functionality of
Internet Fax Gateways. In this context, an "offramp gateway"
provides facsimile data transmission from i-fax to GSTN fax; vice
versa, an "onramp gateway" provides data transmission from GSTN fax
to i-fax. The recommendations in this document apply to the
integrated service including Internet Fax terminals, computers with
i-fax software on the Internet, and GSTN fax terminals on the GSTN.
This document supplements the recommendation for minimal features of
an Internet Fax Gateway. In particular, it covers techniques for
dropping duplicated fax messages, automatic fax re-transmission,
error, return notice, and log handling, and possible authorization
methods by DTMF (Dual Tone Multi-Frequency) for onramp gateways.
<span class="grey">Mimura, et al. Informational [Page 1]</span><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4161">RFC 4161</a> Optional Services for Internet Fax Gateways August 2005</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
An Internet Fax Gateway can be classified as either an offramp
gateway or an onramp gateway. This document provides guidelines for
optional services and examples of Internet Fax Gateway operations.
In particular, it covers techniques for dropping duplicated fax
messages, automatic fax re-transmission, error, return notice, and
log handling, and possible authorization methods by DTMF (Dual Tone
Multi-Frequency) for onramp gateways.
A more detailed definition of onramps and offramps is provided in
[<a href="#ref-1" title=""Terminology and Goals for Internet Fax"">1</a>]. Recommended behaviors for Internet Fax Gateway functions are
defined in [<a href="#ref-15" title=""Internet Fax Gateway Requirements"">15</a>].
This document provides recommendations only for the specific cases
hereunder:
1) the operational mode of the Internet Fax is "store and forward",
as defined in Section 2.5 of [<a href="#ref-1" title=""Terminology and Goals for Internet Fax"">1</a>].
2) The format of image data is the data format defined by "simple
mode" in [<a href="#ref-16" title=""A Simple Mode of Facsimile Using Internet Mail"">16</a>].
This document does not apply to the gateway functions for "real-time
Internet Fax", as described and defined in [<a href="#ref-18" title=""Procedures for real-time Group 3 facsimile communication over IP networks"">18</a>].
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.1" href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Key Words</span>
The key words "MUST", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and "MAY" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [<a href="#ref-17" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">17</a>].
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Optional Services for an Offramp Gateway</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.1" href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. Drop Duplicated GSTN Fax Transmission</span>
Electronic mail transport agents (MTA) deliver an Internet Fax
message into either the recipient's mailbox or an offramp gateway
mailbox. Hence, the message is retrieved for further action, which
in the case of the offramp gateway, will result in its delivery to
the GSTN fax service.
The offramp gateway mailbox will thus receive all messages which the
gateway will process, regardless of their final, distinct GSTN
destinations. As such, addresses like
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
<span class="grey">Mimura, et al. Informational [Page 2]</span><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4161">RFC 4161</a> Optional Services for Internet Fax Gateways August 2005</span>
will all end up in the offramp gateway mailbox corresponding to the
"example.com" domain.
However, the handling of e-mail messages (including those of Internet
Faxes) that contain more than one recipient, but are directed to the
same final MTA, can be different, depending on the MTA configuration
or features. A single message with multiple recipients in the SMTP
envelope [<a href="#ref-19" title=""Simple Mail Transfer Protocol"">19</a>] is likely to be the most common case on the mail
transport system, but it may happen that multiple copies of the same
message are transmitted, one per recipient. Or it may happen that
the final MTA is set to deliver a separate copy of the message per
recipient into the final mailbox, supposing it is delivering messages
to real mailboxes of distinct endusers.
Thus, it may happen that the offramp gateway receives multiple copies
of the same Internet Fax message that is to be delivered to different
GSTN destinations, which are listed together and repeatedly in the
e-mail message headers [<a href="#ref-20" title=""Internet Message Format"">20</a>] of the Internet Fax. In such cases, the
offramp gateway SHOULD implement techniques to avoid duplicate or
multiple transmission over GSTN of the same fax message to the same
recipient.
Here are some possible, but non-exclusive, examples of these
techniques.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.1.1" href="#section-2.1.1">2.1.1</a>. SMTP Envelope Addresses Check</span>
Using the SMTP [<a href="#ref-19" title=""Simple Mail Transfer Protocol"">19</a>] envelope destination address given in the "RCPT
TO" field is usually the best technique to ensure that a received
message is delivered to that address, and to avoid duplicate
deliveries.
If the offramp gateway has the "RCPT TO" information still available
during processing, then it MUST use it to determine the recipients
over GSTN fax service.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.1.2" href="#section-2.1.2">2.1.2</a> Message-ID Check</span>
If the SMTP "RCPT TO" information is not available (for example, in
the case where the offramp gateway retrieves messages from its
mailbox using either POP [<a href="#ref-21" title=""Post Office Protocol - Version 3"">21</a>] or IMAP [<a href="#ref-22" title=""Internet Message Access Protocol - Version 4rev1"">22</a>]), the message header
"Message-ID" (see [<a href="#ref-20" title=""Internet Message Format"">20</a>]) MAY be used to check if a message has already
been processed, and hence avoid retransmission to all its GSTN
recipients handled by the offramp gateway.
<span class="grey">Mimura, et al. Informational [Page 3]</span><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4161">RFC 4161</a> Optional Services for Internet Fax Gateways August 2005</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.2" href="#section-2.2">2.2</a>. Error Handling</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.2.1" href="#section-2.2.1">2.2.1</a>. Recoverable Errors</span>
Recoverable errors that happen during GSTN transmission are those
where there is good chance that the error may not occur at the next
attempt. This category includes "busy signal", "no line/carrier
signal", etc.
For all these errors, the offramp gateway SHOULD re-queue the message
and perform a retransmission attempt later on, as specified in
<a href="#section-2.3">Section 2.3</a>.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.2.2" href="#section-2.2.2">2.2.2</a>. Non-Recoverable Errors</span>
If the error that occurs during GSTN transmission is likely non-
recoverable, the offramp gateway SHOULD NOT attempt retransmission,
and an error Message Delivery Notification (MDN) with appropriate
error codes MUST be generated for the Internet Fax message sender.
Examples of non-recoverable errors include paper-related errors (such
as a jam, an empty tray, etc.) at a remote device, no response from a
remote destination, voice response errors, data modem response
errors, and stop event errors.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.3" href="#section-2.3">2.3</a>. Automatic Re-Transmission Handling</span>
An offramp gateway SHOULD implement a function that automatically
tries to send facsimile data again if recoverable delivery failure
occurs. If this function is implemented, then:
- the retry times and retry interval MAY be specified as options by
the administrator of the offramp gateway;
- any error return notice SHOULD be sent only when the maximum number
of retries has been completed without success;
- if transmission is suspended due to an error, then the subsequent
transmission attempt SHOULD avoid retransmitting the pages already
delivered successfully, if any.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.4" href="#section-2.4">2.4</a>. Multiple Return Notice Handling</span>
An offramp gateway can receive an Internet Fax for delivery to
multiple GSTN recipients. If errors occur, which require the
Internet Fax sender to be informed about them, or if the Internet Fax
sender requested delivery notifications, then the offramp gateway has
various ways to handle these multiple return notices:
<span class="grey">Mimura, et al. Informational [Page 4]</span><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4161">RFC 4161</a> Optional Services for Internet Fax Gateways August 2005</span>
1) An offramp gateway sends a return notice as soon as an error or a
successful delivery occurs, per single GSTN recipient.
2) An offramp gateway gathers all information about the message, but
sends a return notice only after all or a number of GSTN
recipients have been handled (successfully or not).
If Case 2 is implemented, then the offramp gateway MAY also choose to
send separate success and failure notices, or to limit the number of
GSTN recipients handled per single return note (for example, no more
than 10 recipients per return note).
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.5" href="#section-2.5">2.5</a>. Handling Transmission Errors for a Return Notice</span>
When an offramp gateway fails in the transmission of a return notice,
the Internet Fax Gateway SHOULD process the notice in either of the
following ways:
1) The return notices SHOULD be re-queued, and delivery retried
later. The number of retry attempts and the time interval between
them MAY be a feature configured by the offramp gateway
administrator. This is the preferred method to implement;
however, if all the retransmission attempts fail, processing
SHOULD continue as in Case 2.
2) If the gateway does not have enough capabilities to handle notice
re-queuing, but has a log information preservation function, the
error information SHOULD be recorded to a log, and processing
SHOULD end. At this time, the administrator of the gateway system
SHOULD be notified of these errors using a specific method (for
example, by an e-mail message).
3) If the gateway does not even have a log information preservation
function, the administrator SHOULD be notified about the failure
(for example, via an e-mail message), and processing SHOULD end.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.6" href="#section-2.6">2.6</a>. Offramp Gateway Log</span>
An offramp gateway SHOULD have a function that keeps information
listed as a log, either specific to the fax gateway or in a log file
that exists locally on the gateway or remotely. If the fax gateway
or the remote system are equipped with recording media, the log
information SHOULD be saved as a log file. As a last resort, if no
recording media are available, the log MAY be printed.
<span class="grey">Mimura, et al. Informational [Page 5]</span><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4161">RFC 4161</a> Optional Services for Internet Fax Gateways August 2005</span>
The information listed in the log MAY be the following:
- Date and time when the Internet Fax is received
- Sender address
- Recipient address(es)
- Start date and time of transmission over GSTN
- End date and time of transmission over GSTN
- Number of actually transmitted pages
- Number of actually transmitted bytes
- Fax resolution used
- Error codes/text that occurred during transmission
- Number of transmission attempts (retries)
- Date and time of transmission of the (eventual) delivery notice
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Optional Services for an Onramp Gateway</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1" href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. Examples of User Authorization</span>
An onramp gateway MAY have a user authorization function to confirm
that the user is authorized to transmit a facsimile into the Internet
fax service. For example, user authorization may be accomplished by
getting a user ID and password received by DTMF, or via a local
authorization table based on the GSTN caller-ID. The following
subsections give some possible examples, but other methods are also
possible.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1.1" href="#section-3.1.1">3.1.1</a>. Authorization via GSTN Caller-ID</span>
The most simple method to authenticate and authorize a GSTN fax
service user is to use the GSTN caller-ID. If available, in fact,
the caller-ID is generated by the GSTN network service itself, and it
is quite difficult to produce fake caller-IDs. In other words, the
security related to this authentication method relies on the
confidence that the GSTN caller-ID service is secure by itself.
The GSTN sender MAY be authorized via a lookup into a table managed
by the onramp gateway administrator, via complete or partial
(wildcard) matches.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1.2" href="#section-3.1.2">3.1.2</a>. Authorization via GSTN Fax "Station ID"</span>
During the initial GSTN fax service negotiation, the sender fax can
send various information to the onramp gateway, including the
"station ID" alphanumeric string. This string MAY be used to
transmit authentication and authorization information for subsequent
lookup by the onramp gateway. Thus, user ID and an eventual password
MAY be sent inside this string.
<span class="grey">Mimura, et al. Informational [Page 6]</span><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4161">RFC 4161</a> Optional Services for Internet Fax Gateways August 2005</span>
However, if used as the only authentication, this method is much less
secure than the caller-ID one because the user of the calling GSTN
station can decide which string to send, and the string travels in
clear form over the GSTN. Given this security warning, this method
allows more flexibility to the GSTN user: in fact, it is not tied to
a single GSTN fax terminal, and authorization can be obtained from
anywhere, provided the sender has the possibility to configure the
"station ID" on the device being used.
A combination of caller-ID and station ID checks MAY, on the other
hand, result in a greatly improved level of security.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1.3" href="#section-3.1.3">3.1.3</a>. Authorization via DTMF</span>
An onramp gateway MAY implement the Authorization function by
requesting that a user ID and password information are sent over GSTN
via DTMF. For example, this function MAY be accomplished by
requesting that the DTMF information is sent immediately after the
connection over GSTN is established, before starting the GSTN fax
negotiation; but other methods are also possible.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2" href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. Onramp Gateway Log</span>
An onramp gateway SHOULD have a function that keeps information
listed as a log, either specific to the fax gateway or in a log file
that exists locally on the gateway or remotely. If the fax gateway
or the remote system are equipped with recording media, the log
information SHOULD be saved as a log file. As a last resort, if no
recording media are available, the log MAY be printed.
The information listed in the log MAY be the following:
- Start date and time of transmission from GSTN
- End date and time of transmission from GSTN
- Number of actually received pages
- Number of actually received bytes
- Fax resolution used
- Sender address (if available)
- Recipient address(es)
- Date and time when the Internet Fax is sent
- Error codes/text that occurred during Internet Fax transmission
- Number of transmission attempts (retries)
- Date and time of transmission of the (eventual) delivery notice
<span class="grey">Mimura, et al. Informational [Page 7]</span><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4161">RFC 4161</a> Optional Services for Internet Fax Gateways August 2005</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Security Considerations</span>
Refer to <a href="#section-3.1">Section 3.1</a> ("User Authorization") for authentication for an
onramp gateway. In particular, sending user IDs and passwords in
clear, as described in <a href="#section-3.1.2">Section 3.1.2</a>, can pose high security risks,
and thus is NOT RECOMMENDED.
S/MIME [<a href="#ref-2" title=""Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)"">2</a>][11][<a href="#ref-12" title=""Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.1 Certificate Handling"">12</a>][13][<a href="#ref-14" title=""Enhanced Security Services for S/MIME"">14</a>] and OpenPGP [<a href="#ref-3" title=""OpenPGP Message Format"">3</a>][10] can also be used to
encrypt an Internet Fax message. A signed or encrypted message is
protected while transported along the network; however, when a
message reaches an Internet Fax Gateway, either onramp or offramp,
this kind of protection cannot be applied anymore. In this
situation, security must rely on trusted operations of the gateway
itself. A gateway might have its own certificate/key to improve
security operations when sending Internet Faxes, but, as with any
gateway, it breaks the end-to-end security pattern of both S/MIME and
OpenPGP.
Other security mechanisms, like IPsec [<a href="#ref-4" title=""Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol"">4</a>][5][<a href="#ref-6" title=""The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP"">6</a>][7][<a href="#ref-8" title=""IP Security Document Roadmap"">8</a>] or TLS [<a href="#ref-9" title=""Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions"">9</a>] also
do not ensure a secure gateway operation.
Denial-of-service attacks are beyond the scope of this document.
Host compromise caused by flaws in the implementation is beyond the
scope of this document.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Acknowledgments</span>
Thanks to Claudio Allocchio (Consortium GARR, Italy) for its final
review of this document, and for contributing the authorization and
security sections of this document.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1" href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-1">1</a>] Masinter, L., "Terminology and Goals for Internet Fax", <a href="./rfc2542">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc2542">2542</a>, March 1999.
[<a id="ref-2">2</a>] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", <a href="./rfc3852">RFC 3852</a>,
July 2004.
[<a id="ref-3">3</a>] Callas, J., Donnerhacke, L., Finney, H., and R. Thayer, "OpenPGP
Message Format", <a href="./rfc2440">RFC 2440</a>, November 1998.
[<a id="ref-4">4</a>] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", <a href="./rfc2401">RFC 2401</a>, November 1998.
<span class="grey">Mimura, et al. Informational [Page 8]</span><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4161">RFC 4161</a> Optional Services for Internet Fax Gateways August 2005</span>
[<a id="ref-5">5</a>] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Authentication Header", <a href="./rfc2402">RFC 2402</a>,
November 1998.
[<a id="ref-6">6</a>] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition of
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", <a href="./rfc3168">RFC 3168</a>,
September 2001.
[<a id="ref-7">7</a>] Piper, D., "The Internet IP Security Domain of Interpretation
for ISAKMP", <a href="./rfc2407">RFC 2407</a>, November 1998.
[<a id="ref-8">8</a>] Thayer, R., Doraswamy, N., and R. Glenn, "IP Security Document
Roadmap", <a href="./rfc2411">RFC 2411</a>, November 1998.
[<a id="ref-9">9</a>] Blake-Wilson, S., Nystrom, M., Hopwood, D., Mikkelsen, J., and
T. Wright, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions", <a href="./rfc3546">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc3546">3546</a>, June 2003.
[<a id="ref-10">10</a>] Elkins, M., Del Torto, D., Levien, R., and T. Roessler, "MIME
Security with OpenPGP", <a href="./rfc3156">RFC 3156</a>, August 2001.
[<a id="ref-11">11</a>] Rescorla, E., "Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method", <a href="./rfc2631">RFC 2631</a>,
June 1999.
[<a id="ref-12">12</a>] Ramsdell, B., "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
(S/MIME) Version 3.1 Certificate Handling", <a href="./rfc3850">RFC 3850</a>, July 2004.
[<a id="ref-13">13</a>] Ramsdell, B., "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
(S/MIME) Version 3.1 Message Specification", <a href="./rfc3851">RFC 3851</a>, July
2004.
[<a id="ref-14">14</a>] Hoffman, P., "Enhanced Security Services for S/MIME", <a href="./rfc2634">RFC 2634</a>,
June 1999.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2" href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-15">15</a>] Mimura, K., Yokoyama, K., Satoh, T., Kanaide, C., and C.
Allocchio, "Internet Fax Gateway Requirements", <a href="./rfc4160">RFC 4160</a>, August
2005.
[<a id="ref-16">16</a>] Toyoda, K., Ohno, H., Murai, J., and D. Wing, "A Simple Mode of
Facsimile Using Internet Mail", <a href="./rfc3965">RFC 3965</a>, December 2004.
[<a id="ref-17">17</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>, March 1997.
[<a id="ref-18">18</a>] "Procedures for real-time Group 3 facsimile communication over
IP networks", ITU-T Recommendation T.38, June 1998.
<span class="grey">Mimura, et al. Informational [Page 9]</span><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4161">RFC 4161</a> Optional Services for Internet Fax Gateways August 2005</span>
[<a id="ref-19">19</a>] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", <a href="./rfc2821">RFC 2821</a>, April
2001.
[<a id="ref-20">20</a>] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", <a href="./rfc2822">RFC 2822</a>, April 2001.
[<a id="ref-21">21</a>] Myers, J. and M. Rose, "Post Office Protocol - Version 3", STD
53, <a href="./rfc1939">RFC 1939</a>, May 1996.
[<a id="ref-22">22</a>] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version 4rev1",
<a href="./rfc3501">RFC 3501</a>, March 2003.
<span class="grey">Mimura, et al. Informational [Page 10]</span><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4161">RFC 4161</a> Optional Services for Internet Fax Gateways August 2005</span>
Authors' Addresses
Katsuhiko Mimura
TOYO Communication Equipment CO., LTD.
2-1-1 Koyato, Samukawa-machi, Koza-gun
Kanagawa-pref., Japan
Fax: +81 467 74 5743
EMail: [email protected]
Keiichi Yokoyama
TOYO Communication Equipment CO., LTD.
2-1-1 Koyato, Samukawa-machi, Koza-gun
Kanagawa-pref., Japan
Fax: +81 467 74 5743
EMail: [email protected]
Takahisa Satoh
TOYO Communication Equipment CO., LTD.
2-1-1 Koyato, Samukawa-machi, Koza-gun
Kanagawa-pref., Japan
Fax: +81 467 74 5743
EMail: [email protected]
Ken Watanabe
TOYO Communication Equipment CO., LTD.
2-1-1 Koyato, Samukawa-machi, Koza-gun
Kanagawa-pref., Japan
Fax: +81 467 74 5743
EMail: [email protected]
Chie Kanaide
TOYO Communication Equipment CO., LTD.
2-1-1 Koyato, Samukawa-machi, Koza-gun
Kanagawa-pref., Japan
Fax: +81 467 74 5743
EMail: [email protected]
<span class="grey">Mimura, et al. Informational [Page 11]</span><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4161">RFC 4161</a> Optional Services for Internet Fax Gateways August 2005</span>
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a>, 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 <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp79">BCP 79</a>.
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
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/ipr">http://www.ietf.org/ipr</a>.
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-
[email protected].
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Mimura, et al. Informational [Page 12]
Annotations
Select text to annotate