<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ASCII"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="rfc2629.css" type="text/css"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">

<!--<?rfc symrefs='yes'?>-->
<!--<?rfc sortrefs='yes'?>-->
<?rfc rfcedstyle="yes" ?>
<?rfc toc="yes" ?>

<!-- updates="2244,3028" -->
<rfc number="4790" category="std" xml:lang="en">
<front>
<title abbrev="Collation Registry">Internet Application Protocol
Collation Registry</title>
<author initials="C." surname="Newman" fullname="Chris Newman">
<organization>Sun Microsystems</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>1050 Lakes Drive</street>
<city>West Covina</city>
<region>CA</region>
<code>91790</code>
<country>USA</country>
</postal>
<email>chris.newman@sun.com</email>
</address>
</author>

<author initials="M." surname="Duerst" fullname='Martin Duerst'>
   <organization abbrev="AGU">Aoyama Gakuin University</organization>
   <address>
   <postal>
   <street>5-10-1 Fuchinobe</street>
   <city>Sagamihara</city>
   <region>Kanagawa</region>
   <code>229-8558</code>
   <country>Japan</country>
   </postal>
   <phone>+81 42 759 6329</phone>
   <facsimile>+81 42 759 6495</facsimile>
   <email>duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp</email>
   <uri>http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp/D%C3%BCrst/</uri>
   </address>
</author>

<!-- RFC Editor: Please insert the following sentence after Martin
Duerst's address in the final RFC: "(Note: Please write "Duerst" with
u-umlaut wherever possible, for example as "D&#252;rst" in XML and
HTML.)"  [sg] will insert into nroff/txt file before publication -->

<author initials="A." surname="Gulbrandsen" fullname='Arnt Gulbrandsen'>
   <organization abbrev="Oryx">Oryx Mail Systems GmbH</organization>
   <address>
   <postal>
   <street>Schweppermannstr. 8</street>
   <city>Munich</city>
   <code>81671</code>
   <country>Germany</country>
   </postal>
   <facsimile>+49 89 4502 9758</facsimile>
   <email>arnt@oryx.com</email>
   <uri>http://www.oryx.com/arnt/</uri>
   </address>
</author>

<date month="February" year="2007"/>
<area>Applications</area>
<keyword>Collation</keyword>
<keyword>Sorting</keyword>
<abstract><t>
Many Internet application protocols include string-based lookup,
searching, or sorting operations.  However, the problem space for
searching and sorting international strings is large, not fully
explored, and is outside the area of expertise for the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF).  Rather than attempt to solve such a
large problem, this specification creates an abstraction framework so
that application protocols can precisely identify a comparison function,
and the repertoire of comparison functions can be extended in the
future.
</t></abstract>
</front>
<middle>

<section title="Introduction">
<t>
The Application Configuration Access Protocol <xref target="RFC2244">ACAP</xref> specification introduced the
concept of a comparator (which we call collation in this document), but
failed to create an IANA registry.  With the introduction of
<xref target="RFC3454">stringprep</xref> and the
<xref target="unicode-tr10v14">Unicode Collation Algorithm</xref>, it is now
time to create that registry and populate it with some initial values
appropriate for an international community.  This specification replaces
and generalizes the definition of a comparator in ACAP, and creates a
collation registry.</t>

<section title="Conventions Used in This Document">
<t>

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and "MAY" in
this document are to be interpreted as defined in
<xref target="RFC2119">"Key words for use
in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"</xref>.</t>

<t>
The attribute syntax specifications use the
<xref target="RFC4234">Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF)</xref> notation,
including the core rules defined in Appendix A.  The ABNF production
"Language-tag" is imported from
<xref target="RFC4646">Language Tags</xref>
and "reg-name" from
<xref target="RFC3986">URI: Generic Syntax</xref>.
<!-- RFC Editor Comment 1: RFC 2396 has been obsoleted by RFC 3986, but
it seems as though hostname is actually defined in 2396.  Therefore,
we have left this reference to RFC 2396.  Please verify that this is
correct. (Answer: It was a mistake, first found by an IESG member. Not
sure why you weren't told, but I cannot find anything in my archives
that says to keep 'hostname', and two authors think 'reg-name' is
better. [sg] there was confusion in the note to the rfc-editor in the
protocol action; we will go with author preference --></t>
</section>
</section>

<section title="Collation Definition and Purpose">

<section title="Definition">
<t>A collation is a named function which
takes two arbitrary length strings as input and can be
used to perform one or more of three basic comparison operations:
equality test, substring match, and ordering test.</t>

</section>

<section title="Purpose">
<t>Collations are an abstraction for comparison functions so that these
comparison functions can be used in multiple protocols. The details of
a particular comparison operation can be specified by someone with
appropriate expertise, independent of the application protocols that
use that collation.
This is similar to the way a <xref target="RFC2978">charset</xref>
separates the details of octet to character mapping from a protocol
specification, such as <xref target="RFC2045">MIME</xref>, or the way
<xref target="RFC4422">SASL</xref> <!-- RFC Editor Comment 2: RFC 2222
has been obsoleted by RFCs 4422 and 4752.  We believe this should
reference RFC 4422.  Please let us know if this is correct, or update
the reference accordingly. (Answer: 4422.) [sg] ok. --> separates the
details of an authentication mechanism from a protocol specification, such as
<xref target="RFC2244">ACAP</xref>.</t>

<?rfc needLines="15"?>
<figure><preamble>Here is a small diagram to help illustrate the value of this abstraction:</preamble>
<artwork type="diagram">
+-------------------+                         +-----------------+
| IMAP i18n SEARCH  |--+                      | Basic           |
+-------------------+  |                   +--| Collation Spec  |
                       |                   |  +-----------------+
+-------------------+  |  +-------------+  |  +-----------------+
| ACAP i18n SEARCH  |--+--| Collation   |--+--| A stringprep    |
+-------------------+  |  | Registry    |  |  | Collation Spec  |
                       |  +-------------+  |  +-----------------+
+-------------------+  |                   |  +-----------------+
| ...other protocol |--+                   |  | locale-specific |
+-------------------+                      +--| Collation Spec  |
                                              +-----------------+
</artwork>
<postamble>Thus IMAP, ACAP, and future application protocols with
international search capability simply specify how to interface to the
collation registry instead of each protocol specification having to
specify all the collations it supports.
</postamble></figure></section>

<section title="Some Other Terms Used in this Document">
<t>
The terms client, server, and protocol are used in somewhat unusual
senses.
</t>

<t>Client means a user, or a program acting directly on behalf of a
user. This may be a mail <!-- RFC Editor Comment 3: an email reader?
(Answer: Whatever is used more in RFCs. The abbreviation most used is
MUA, so I lean slightly towards mail, but really, follow your
preference. You're the RFC editor and can keep the series consistent.)
[sg] We have left the text to read "mail".-->
reader acting as an IMAP client, or it may be an interactive
shell, where the user can type protocol commands/requests directly, or
it may be a script or program written by the user.</t>

<t>Server means a program that performs services requested by the
client. This may be a traditional server such as an HTTP server, or it
may be a <xref target="RFC3028">Sieve</xref>
interpreter running a Sieve script written by a user. A
server needs to use the operations provided by collations in order to
fulfill the client's requests.</t>

<t>The protocol describes how the client tells the server what it
wants done, and (if applicable) how the server tells the client about
the results. IMAP is a protocol by this definition, and so is the
Sieve language.</t>

</section>

<section title="Sort Keys"><t>

<t>One component of a collation is a transformation, which turns
a string into a sort key, which is then used while sorting.</t>

<t>The transformation can range from an identity
mapping (e.g., the i;octet collation <xref target="octet"></xref>) to
a mapping that makes the string unreadable to a human.</t>

<t>This is an implementation detail of collations or servers. A
protocol SHOULD NOT expose it to clients, since some collations leave the sort
key's format up to the implementation, and current conformant
implementations are known to use different formats.</t>

</t> </section></section>

<section title="Collation Identifier Syntax" anchor="syntax">
<section title="Basic Syntax"><t>
The collation identifier itself is a single US-ASCII string.  The
identifier MUST NOT be longer than 254 characters, and obeys the
following grammar: </t>

<figure>
<artwork type="abnf">
  collation-char  = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / ";" / "=" / "."

  collation-id    = collation-prefix ";" collation-core-name
                    *collation-arg

  collation-scope = Language-tag / "vnd-" reg-name

  collation-core-name = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" )

  collation-arg   = ";" ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT ) "="
                    1*( ALPHA / DIGIT / "." )

</artwork></figure>

<t>Note: the ABNF production "Language-tag" is imported from Language
Tags <xref target="RFC4646" /> and "reg-name" from URI: Generic Syntax
xref target="RFC3986" /></t>

<t>There is a special identifier called "default". For protocols that
have a default collation, "default" refers to that collation. For
other protocols, the identifier "default" MUST match no collations,
and servers SHOULD treat it in the same way as they treat nonexistent
collations.</t>

</section>

<section title="Wildcards">
<t>The string a client uses to select a collation MAY contain one or
more wildcard ("*") characters that match zero or more
collation-chars.  Wildcard characters MUST NOT be adjacent.  If the
wildcard string matches multiple collations, the server SHOULD
attempt to select a widely useful collation in preference to a
narrowly useful one.
</t>
<figure>
<artwork type="abnf">
  collation-wild  =  ("*" / (ALPHA ["*"])) *(collation-char ["*"])
                      ; MUST NOT exceed 254 characters total
</artwork></figure></section>

<section title="Ordering Direction"><t>
When used as a protocol element for ordering, the
collation identifier MAY be prefixed by either "+" or "-" to explicitly
specify an ordering direction.  "+" has no
effect on the ordering operation, while "-" inverts the result of the
ordering operation.  In general, collation-order is used when a
client requests a collation, and collation-selected is used when the
server informs the client of the selected collation.</t>
<figure>
<artwork type="abnf">
  collation-selected =  ["+" / "-"] collation-id

  collation-order =  ["+" / "-"] collation-wild
</artwork></figure></section>

<section title="URIs">
<t>Some protocols are designed to use <xref target="RFC3986">URIs</xref> to
refer to collations rather than simple tokens.  A special section of
the IANA URL space is reserved for such usage.  The "collation-uri"
form is used to refer to a specific named collation (the collation
registration may not actually be
present).  The "collation-auri" form is an
abstract name for an ordering, a collation pattern or a vendor
private collator.</t>
<figure>
<artwork type="abnf">
  collation-uri   =  "http://www.iana.org/assignments/collation/"
                     collation-id ".xml"

  collation-auri  =  ( "http://www.iana.org/assignments/collation/"
                     collation-order ".xml" ) / other-uri

  other-uri       =  &lt;absoluteURI&gt;
                  ;  excluding the IANA collation namespace.
</artwork></figure></section>

<section title="Naming Guidelines"><t>While this specification makes
no absolute requirements on the structure of collation identifiers, naming
consistency is important, so the following initial guidelines are
provided.</t>

<t>Collation identifiers with an international audience typically begin with
"i;".  Collation identifiers intended for a particular language or locale
typically begin with a <xref target="RFC4646">language tag</xref>
followed by a ";".  After the first ";" is normally the name of the
general collation algorithm, followed by a series of algorithm
modifications separated by the ";" delimiter.  Parameterized
modifications will use &quot;=&quot; to delimit the parameter from the
value.  The version numbers of any lookup tables used by the algorithm
SHOULD be present as parameterized modifications.</t>

<t>Collation identifiers of the form *;vnd-hostname;* are reserved for
vendor-specific collations created by the owner of the hostname
following the "vnd-" prefix (e.g., vnd-example.com for the vendor
example.com).  Registration of such collations (or the name space as a
whole), with intended use of the "Vendor", is encouraged when a public
specification or open-source implementation is available, but is not
required.</t>

</section>
</section>

<section title="Collation Specification Requirements" anchor="compreq">

<section title="Collation/Server Interface">

<t>The collation itself defines what it operates on. Most collations
are expected to operate on character strings. The
<xref target="octet">i;octet</xref>
collation operates on octet strings. The
<xref target="numeric">i;ascii-numeric</xref>
operation operates on numbers.</t>

<t>This specification defines the collation interface in terms of
octet strings. However, implementations may choose to use character
strings instead. Such implementations may not be able to implement
e.g., i;octet. Since i;octet is not currently mandatory to implement
for any protocol, this should not be a problem.</t>
</section>

<section title="Operations Supported">
<t>A collation specification
MUST state which of the three basic operations are supported (equality,
substring, ordering) and how to perform each of the supported
operations on any two input character strings, including empty strings.
Collations must be deterministic, i.e., given a collation
with a specific identifier, and any two fixed input strings, the result MUST
be the same for the same operation.</t>

<t>In general, collation operations should behave as their names
suggest. While a collation may be new, the operations are not, so the
new collation's operations should be similar to those of older
collations. For example, a date/time collation should
not provide a "substring" operation that would morph IMAP substring
SEARCH into e.g., a date-range search.</t>

<t>A non-obvious consequence of the rules for each collation operation is
that, for any single collation, either none or all of the operations can
return "undefined". For example, it is not possible to have an equality
operation that never returns "undefined", and a substring operation that
occasionally does.</t>

<section title="Validity">

<t>The validity test takes one string as argument. It returns valid if its
input string is a valid input to the collation's other operations, and
invalid if not. (In other words, a string is valid if it is equal to
itself according to the collation's equality operation.)</t>
<!-- RFC Editor: You inserted a comma before "according". Since that
seemed to change the meaning, I deleted it again. Do you agree? [sg]
Agreed; our apologies for this error. -->

<t>The validity test is provided by all collations. It MUST NOT be
listed separately in the collation registration. </t>

</section>

<section title="Equality"><t>The equality test always returns "match"
or "no-match" when it is supplied valid input, and MAY return "undefined" if
one or both input strings are not valid.</t>

<t>The equality test MUST be reflexive and symmetric. For valid input,
it MUST be transitive.</t>

<t>If a collation provides either a substring or an ordering test,
it MUST also provide an equality test. The substring and/or
ordering tests MUST be consistent with the equality test.</t>

<t>The return values of the equality test
are called "match", "no-match" and "undefined" in this document.</t>

</section>

<section title="Substring">

<t>The substring matching operation determines if the first string is a
substring of the second string, i.e., if one or more substrings of the
second string is equal to the first, as defined by the collation's
equality operation.</t>

<t>A collation that supports substring matching will automatically
support two special cases of substring matching: prefix and suffix
matching, if those special cases are supported by the application
protocol.  It returns "match" or "no-match" when it is supplied valid input
and returns "undefined" when supplied invalid input.</t>

<t>Application protocols MAY return position information for substring
matches.  If this is done, the position information SHOULD include
both the starting offset and the ending offset for each match. This is
important because more sophisticated collations can match strings of
unequal length (for example, a pre-composed accented character can
match a decomposed accented character).

In general, overlapping matches SHOULD be reported (as when "ana"
occurs twice within "banana"), although there are cases where a
collation may decide not to. For example, in a collation which treats
all whitespace sequences as identical, the substring operation could
be defined such that "&nbsp;1&nbsp;" (SP "1" SP) is reported just once
within "&nbsp;&nbsp;1&nbsp;&nbsp;" (SP SP "1" SP SP), not four times
(SP SP "1" SP, SP "1" SP, SP "1" SP SP and SP SP "1" SP SP), since the four
matches are, in a sense, the same match.</t>

<t>A string is a substring of itself. The empty string is a substring
of all strings.</t>

<t>Note that the substring operation of some collations can match
strings of unequal length. For example, a pre-composed accented
character can match a decomposed accented character.
The <xref target="unicode-tr10v14">Unicode Collation Algorithm</xref>
discusses this in more detail.</t>

<t>The return values of the substring operation
are called "match", "no-match", and "undefined" in this document.</t>

</section>

<section title="Ordering">

<t>The ordering operation determines how two strings are ordered. It
MUST be reflexive.  For valid input, it MUST be transitive and
trichotomous.</t>

<t>Ordering returns "less" if the first string is listed before the
second string, according to the collation; "greater", if the second
string is listed before the first string; and "equal", if the two
strings are equal, as defined by the collation's equality operation. If
one or both strings are invalid, the result of ordering is
"undefined".</t>

<t>When the collation is used with a "+" prefix, the behavior is the
same as when used with no prefix.  When the collation is used with a
"-" prefix, the result of the ordering operation of the collation MUST
be reversed.</t>

<t>The return values of the ordering operation
are called "less", "equal", "greater", and "undefined" in this document.</t>

</section>
</section>

<section title="Sort Keys">

<t>A collation specification SHOULD describe the internal transformation
algorithm to generate sort keys.  This algorithm can be applied to
individual strings, and the result can be stored to potentially optimize
future comparison operations.  A collation MAY specify that the sort key
is generated by the identity function.  The sort key may have no meaning
to a human. The sort key may not be valid input to the collation.</t>

</section>

<section title="Use of Lookup Tables">

<t>Some collations use customizable lookup tables, e.g., because the tables
depend on locale, and may be modified after shipping the software.
Collations that use more than one customizable lookup table in a
documented format MUST assign numbers to the tables they use.  This
permits an application protocol command to access the tables used by a
server collation, so that clients and servers use the same tables.</t>

</section>

</section>

<section title="Application Protocol Requirements" anchor="appreq">

<t>This section describes the requirements and issues that an
application protocol needs to consider if it offers searching,
substring matching and/or sorting, and permits the use of characters
outside the US-ASCII charset.</t>

<section title="Character Encoding">

<t>The protocol specification has
to make sure that it is clear on which characters (rather than just
octets) the collations are used. This can be done by specifying the
protocol itself in terms of characters (e.g., in the case of a query
language), by specifying a single character encoding for the protocol
(e.g., UTF-8 <xref target="RFC3629"></xref>), or by carefully
describing the relevant issues of character encoding labeling and
conversion.  In the later case, details to consider include how to
handle unknown charsets, any charsets that are
mandatory-to-implement, any issues with byte-order that might apply,
and any transfer encodings that need to be supported.</t></section>

<section title="Operations">

<t>The protocol must specify which of the
operations defined in this specification (equality matching, substring
matching, and ordering) can be invoked in the protocol, and how they
are invoked. There may be more than one way to invoke an
operation.</t>

<t>The protocol MUST provide a mechanism for the client to select the
collation to use with equality matching, substring matching, and
ordering.</t>

<t>If a protocol needs a total ordering and the collation chosen does
not provide it because the ordering operation returns "undefined" at
least once, the recommended fallback is to sort all invalid strings
after the valid ones, and use i;octet to order the invalid strings.</t>

<?rfc needLines="5" ?>

<t>Although the collation's substring function provides a list of
matches, a protocol need not provide all that to the client. It may
provide only the first matching substring, or even just the
information that the substring search matched. In this way, collations
can be used with protocols that are defined such that "x is a
substring of y" returns true-false.</t>

<t>If the protocol provides positional information for the results of
a substring match, that positional information SHOULD fully specify the
substring(s) in the result that matches, independent of the length of the
search string.  For example, returning both the starting and ending
offset of the match would suffice, as would the starting offset and a
length.  Returning just the starting offset is not acceptable.  This
rule is necessary because advanced collations can treat strings of
different lengths as equal (for example, pre-composed and decomposed
accented characters).</t></section>

<section title="Wildcards">

<t>The protocol MUST specify whether it
allows the use of wildcards in collation identifiers. If the
protocol allows wildcards, then:<list>

<t>The protocol MUST specify how comparisons behave in the absence of
explicit collation negotiation, or when a collation of "default" is
requested.  The protocol MAY specify that the default collation used
in such circumstances is sensitive to server configuration.</t>
<vspace blankLines="1" />
<t>The protocol SHOULD provide a way to list available collations
matching a given wildcard pattern, or patterns.</t>

</list></t>

</section>

<section title="String Comparison">

<t>If a protocol compares strings in any nontrivial way, using a collation
may be appropriate. As an example, many protocols use case-independent
strings. In many cases, a simple ASCII mapping to upper/lower case
works well. In other cases, it may be better to use a specifiable
collation; for example, so that a server can treat "i" and "I" as
equivalent in Italy, and different in Turkey (Turkish also has a dotted
upper-case" I" and a dotless lower-case "i").</t>
<!-- RFC Editor: I changed 'differently' back to 'different' since the
collation doesn't treat them differently, it treats them as though
they are different. You may prefer to insert 'as' before
'different'. To my mind that reads inelegantly, but I'll bow to
you. [sg] We have not altered the text; "different" is okay. -->

<t>Protocol designers should consider, in each case, whether to use a
specifiable collation. Keywords often have other needs than user
variables, and search arguments may be different again.</t>

</section>

<section title="Disconnected Clients">

<t>If the protocol supports disconnected clients, and a collation is
used that can use configurable tables (e.g., to support
locale-
<?rfc needLines="3" ?>
specific extensions), then the client may not be able to
reproduce the server's collation operations while offline.</t>

<t>A mechanism to download such tables has been discussed. Such a
mechanism is not included in the present specification, since the
problem is not yet well understood.</t>

</section>

<section title="Error Codes"><t>
The protocol specification should consider assigning protocol error
codes for the following circumstances:
<?rfc compact="no" ?>
<list style="symbols">
<vspace blankLines="1" />
<t>The client requests the use of a collation by identifier or pattern, but
no implemented collation matches that pattern.</t>
<vspace blankLines="1" />
<t>The client attempts to use a collation for an operation that is not
supported by that collation -- for example, attempting to use the
"i;ascii-numeric" collation for substring matching.</t>
<vspace blankLines="1" />
<t>The client uses an equality or substring matching collation, and the
result is an error.  It may be appropriate to distinguish between the
two input strings, particularly when one is supplied by the client and
the other is stored by the server.  It might also be appropriate to
distinguish the specific case of an invalid UTF-8 string.</t>

</list></t></section>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<section title="Octet Collation">
<t>The <xref target="octet">i;octet</xref> collation is only usable
with protocols based on octet-strings. Clients and servers MUST NOT
use i;octet with other protocols.</t>

<t>If the protocol permits the use of collations with data structures
other than strings, the protocol MUST describe the default behavior
for a collation with those data structures.</t></section>
</section>



<section title="Use by Existing Protocols">

<t>This section is informative.</t>

<t>Both <xref target="RFC2244">ACAP</xref> and
<xref target="RFC3028">Sieve</xref>
are standards track specifications that
used collations prior to the creation of this specification and registry.
Those standards do not meet all the application protocol requirements
described in <xref target="appreq"/>.</t>

<t>These protocols allow the use of the
<xref target="octet">i;octet</xref>
collation working directly on UTF-8 data, as used in these protocols.
</t>
<?rfc needLines="5" ?>
<t>In Sieve, all matches are either true or false. Accordingly, Sieve
servers must treat "undefined" and "no-match" results of the equality
and substring operations as false, and only "match" as true.</t>
<?rfc needLines="5" ?>
<t>In ACAP and Sieve, there are no invalid strings. In this document's
terms, invalid strings sort after valid strings.</t>

<t><xref target="RFC3501">IMAP</xref>
also collates, although that is explicit only when the
<xref target="IMAPI18N">COMPARATOR</xref>
extension is used. The built-in IMAP substring operation and
the ordering provided by the
<xref target="IMAPSORT">SORT</xref> extension may not
meet the requirements made in this document.</t>

<t>Other protocols may be in a similar position.</t>

<t>In IMAP, the default collation is i;ascii-casemap, because its
operations are understood to match IMAP's built-in operations.</t>

</section>

<section title="Collation Registration" anchor="registry">

<section title="Collation Registration Procedure">

<t>The IETF will create a mailing list, collation@ietf.org, which can
be used for public discussion of collation proposals prior to
registration.  Use of the mailing list is strongly encouraged.
The IESG will appoint a designated expert who will monitor the
collation@ietf.org mailing list and review registrations.</t>

<t>The registration procedure begins when a completed
registration template is sent to iana@iana.org and collation@ietf.org.
The designated
expert is expected to tell IANA and the submitter of the registration
within two weeks whether the registration is approved, approved with
minor changes, or rejected with cause.  When a registration is
rejected with cause, it can be re-submitted if the concerns listed in
the cause are addressed.  Decisions made by the designated expert can
be appealed to the IESG Applications Area Director, then to the IESG. They
follow the normal appeals procedure for IESG decisions.</t>

<t>Collation registrations in a standards track, BCP, or IESG-approved
experimental RFC are owned by the IETF, and changes to the
registration follow normal procedures for updating such documents.
Collation registrations in other RFCs are owned by the RFC author(s).
Other collation registrations are owned by the individual(s) listed in
the contact field of the registration, and IANA will preserve this
information.</t>

<t>If the registration is a change of an existing collation, it MUST
be approved by the owner.  In the event the owner cannot be contacted
for a period of one month, and the designated expert deems the change
necessary, the IESG MAY re-assign ownership to an appropriate
party.</t>

</section>

<section title="Collation Registration Format">
<t>Registration of a collation is done by sending a well-formed XML
document to collation@ietf.org and iana@iana.org.</t>

<section title="Registration Template"><figure>
<preamble>Here is a template for the registration:</preamble>
<artwork type="xml"><![CDATA[
<?xml version='1.0'?>
<!DOCTYPE collation SYSTEM 'collationreg.dtd'>
<collation rfc="YYYY" scope="global" intendedUse="common">
  <identifier>collation identifier</identifier>
  <title>technical title for collation</title>
  <operations>equality order substring</operations>
  <specification>specification reference</specification>
  <owner>email address of owner or IETF</owner>
  <submitter>email address of submitter</submitter>
  <version>1</version>
</collation>
]]></artwork></figure></section>

<section title="The Collation Element"><t>
The root of the registration document MUST be a &lt;collation&gt;
element. The collation element contains the other elements in the
registration, which are described in the following sub-subsections, in
the order given here.</t>

<t>The &lt;collation&gt; element MAY include an &quot;rfc=&quot;
attribute if the specification is in an RFC. The &quot;rfc=&quot;
attribute gives only the number of the RFC, without any prefix, such
as &quot;RFC&quot;, or suffix, such as &quot;.txt&quot;.</t>

<t>The &lt;collation&gt; element MUST include a &quot;scope=&quot;
attribute, which MUST have one of the values "global",
"local", or "other".</t>

<t>The &lt;collation&gt; element MUST include an
&quot;intendedUse=&quot; attribute, which must have one of the values
"common", "limited", "vendor", or "deprecated". Collation
specifications intended for "common" use are expected to reference
standards from standards bodies with significant experience dealing
with the details of international character sets.</t>

<t>Be aware that future revisions of this specification may add
additional function types, as well as additional XML attributes,
values, and elements.
Any system that automatically parses these XML documents
MUST take this into account to preserve future compatibility.</t></section>

<section title="The Identifier Element"><t>
The &lt;identifier&gt; element gives the precise
identifier of the
collation, e.g., i;ascii-casemap.
The &lt;identifier&gt; element is mandatory.</t></section>

<section title="The Title Element"><t>
The &lt;title&gt; element gives the title of the
collation. The &lt;title&gt; element is mandatory.</t></section>

<section title="The Operations Element"><t>The &lt;operations&gt;
element lists which of the three operations ("equality", "order" or
"substring") the collation provides, separated by single spaces.
The &lt;operations&gt; element is mandatory.</t></section>

<section title="The Specification Element"><t>The
&lt;specification&gt; element describes where to find the
specification. The &lt;specification&gt; element is mandatory. It MAY
have a URI attribute. There may be more than one &lt;specification&gt;
element, in which case, they together form the specification.
</t>

<t>If it is discovered that parts of a collation specification
conflict, a new revision of the collation is necessary, and the
collation@ietf.org mailing list should be notified.</t>
</section>

<section title="The Submitter Element"><t>The &lt;submitter&gt;
element provides an
<xref target="RFC2822">RFC 2822</xref> email address for the person who
submitted the registration.  It is optional if the &lt;owner&gt;
element contains an email address.</t>

<t>There may be more than one &lt;submitter&gt; element.</t></section>

<section title="The Owner Element"><t>The &lt;owner&gt; element
contains either the four letters "IETF" or an email address of the
owner of the registration. The &lt;owner&gt; element is mandatory.

There may be more than one &lt;owner&gt; element. If so, all owners
are equal. Each owner can speak for all.</t></section>
<?rfc needLines="8" ?>
<section title="The Version Element"><t>The &lt;version&gt; element
MUST be included when the registration is likely to be revised, or has been
revised in such a way that the results change for one or more input
strings. The &lt;version&gt; element is optional.</t></section>

<section title="The Variable Element"><t>The &lt;variable&gt; element
specifies an optional variable to control the collation's behaviour,
for example whether it is case sensitive.
<!-- RFC Editor Comment 4: should this read as - "The variable element
specifies an optional variable to which the collation's behaviour can
be tailored" or "The variable element specifies the use of an optional
variable to which the collation's behaviour can be tailored"? (Answer:
What a shockingly bad sentence. Rewritten.) [sg] Ok. -->
The &lt;variable&gt; element is optional. When &lt;variable&gt; is
used, it must contain &lt;name&gt; and &lt;default&gt; elements, and it
may contain one or more &lt;value&gt; elements.</t>

<section title="The Name Element"><t>The &lt;name&gt; element
specifies the name value of a variable. The &lt;name&gt; element
is mandatory.</t></section>

<section title="The Default Element"><t>The &lt;default&gt; element
specifies the default value of a variable. The &lt;default&gt; element
is mandatory.</t></section>

<section title="The Value Element"><t>The &lt;value&gt; element
specifies a legal value of a variable. The &lt;value&gt; element is
optional. If one or more &lt;value&gt; elements are present, only
those values are legal. If none are, then the variable's legal values do
not form an enumerated set, and the rules MUST be specified in an RFC
accompanying the registration.</t></section>
<!-- RFC Editor: I changed "none is" to "none are", since the pronoun
stands in for "no values". [sg] ok. -->

</section>
</section>

<section title="Structure of Collation Registry">

<t>Once the registration is approved, IANA will store each XML
registration document in a URL of the form
http://www.iana.org/assignments/collation/collation-id.xml, where
collation-id is the content of the identifier element in the
registration.  Both the submitter and the designated expert are
responsible for verifying that the XML is well-formed. The
registration document should avoid using new elements. If any are
necessary, it is important to be consistent with other
registrations.</t>

<t>IANA will also maintain a text summary of the registry under the
name http://www.iana.org/assignments/collation/collation-index.html.  This
summary is divided into four sections.  The first section is for
collations intended for common use.  This section is intended for
collation registrations published in IESG-approved RFCs, or for locally
scoped collations from the primary standards body for that locale.
The designated expert is encouraged to reject collation registrations
with an intended use of "common" if the expert believes it should be
"limited", as it is desirable to keep the number of "common"
registrations small and of high quality.  The second section is reserved
for limited-use collations.  The third section is reserved for
registered vendor-specific collations.  The final section is reserved
for deprecated collations.</t>
</section>

<section title="Example Initial Registry Summary">
<figure><preamble>The following is an example of how IANA might structure the
initial registry summary.html file:</preamble>
<artwork type="table">
  Collation                              Functions Scope Reference
  ---------                              --------- ----- ---------
Common Use Collations:
  i;ascii-casemap                        e, o, s   Local [RFC 4790]

Limited Use Collations:
  i;octet                                e, o, s   Other [RFC 4790]
  i;ascii-numeric                        e, o      Other [RFC 4790]

Vendor Collations:

Deprecated Collations:


References
----------
[RFC 4790]  Newman, C., Duerst, M., Gulbrandsen, A., "Internet
            Application Protocol Collation Registry", RFC 4790,
            Sun Microsystems, February 2007.
</artwork></figure>
</section>

</section>
<section title="Guidelines for Expert Reviewer">
<t>The expert reviewer appointed by the IESG has fairly broad latitude
for this registry.  While a number of collations are expected
(particularly customizations of the UCA for localized
use), an explosion of collations (particularly common-use collations)
is not desirable for widespread interoperability.  However, it is
important for the expert reviewer to provide cause when rejecting a
registration, and, when possible, to describe corrective action to <?rfc needLines="8" ?>
permit the registration to proceed.  The following table includes some
example reasons to reject a registration with cause:
<?rfc compact="no" ?>
<list style="symbols">
<vspace blankLines="1" />
<t>The registration is not a well-formed XML document.</t>
<vspace blankLines="1" />
<t>The registration has an intended use of "common", but there is no
evidence the collation will be widely deployed, so it should be listed
as "limited".</t>
<vspace blankLines="1" />
<t>The registration has an intended use of "common", but it is
redundant with the functionality of a previously registered "common"
collation.</t>
<vspace blankLines="1" />
<t>The registration has an intended use of "common", but the
specification is not detailed enough to allow interoperable
implementations by others.</t>
<vspace blankLines="1" />
<t>The collation identifier fails to precisely identify the version numbers
of relevant tables to use.</t>
<vspace blankLines="1" />
<t>The registration fails to meet one of the "MUST" requirements in
<xref target="compreq"/>.</t>
<vspace blankLines="1" />
<t>The collation identifier fails to meet the syntax in <xref
target="syntax"/>.</t>
<vspace blankLines="1" />
<t>The collation specification referenced in the registration is
vague or has optional features without a clear behavior specified.</t>
<vspace blankLines="1" />
<t>The referenced specification does not adequately address security
considerations specific to that collation.</t>
<vspace blankLines="1" />
<t>The registration's operations are needlessly different from those of
traditional operations.</t>
<vspace blankLines="1" />
<t>The registration's XML is needlessly different from that of already
registered collations.</t>

</list></t>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
</section><section title="Initial Collations" anchor="initial">

<t>This section registers the three collations that were originally
defined in <xref target="RFC2244"/>, and are implemented in most <xref target="RFC3028"/> engines.

Some of the behavior of these collations is perhaps not ideal, such as
i;ascii-casemap accepting non-ASCII input.

Compatibility with widely deployed code was judged more important than
fixing the collations.  Some of the aspects of
these collations are necessary to maintain compatibility with
widely deployed code. <!-- RFC Editor Comment 5: this is not a complete
sentence.  Does this mean "Some of the aspects of these collations are
necessary to maintain compatibility with widely deployed code"?
(Answer: OK. The real answer would involve swearing at the author of
2244, but it's better not to do so, don't you think?) [sg] Yes, better
not to swear at the authors or the EDITORS ;) who let this
one get by. --></t>

<?rfc needLines="3" ?>
<section title="ASCII Numeric Collation" anchor="numeric">
<section title="ASCII Numeric Collation Description">

<t>The "i;ascii-numeric" collation is a simple collation intended for
use with arbitrarily-sized, unsigned decimal integer numbers stored as
octet strings. US-ASCII digits (0x30 to 0x39) represent digits of the
numbers. Before converting from string to integer, the input string is
truncated at the first non-digit character. All input is valid;
strings that do not start with a digit represent positive
infinity.</t>

<t>The collation supports equality and ordering, but does not support
the substring operation.</t>

<t>The equality operation returns "match" if the two strings represent
the same number (i.e., leading zeroes and trailing non-digits are
disregarded), and "no-match" if the two strings represent different
numbers.</t>

<t>The ordering operation returns "less" if the first string represents a
smaller number than the second, "equal" if they represent the same number,
and "greater" if the first string represents a larger number than the second.</t>

<t>Some examples: "0" is less than "1", and "1" is less than
"4294967298". "4294967298", "04294967298", and "4294967298b" are all
equal. "04294967298" is less than "". "", "x", and "y" are equal.</t>

</section><section title="ASCII Numeric Collation Registration">
<figure><artwork type="xml"><![CDATA[
<?xml version='1.0'?>
<!DOCTYPE collation SYSTEM 'collationreg.dtd'>
<collation rfc="]]>4790<![CDATA[" scope="other" intendedUse="limited">
  <identifier>i;ascii-numeric</identifier>
  <title>ASCII Numeric</title>
  <operations>equality order</operations>
  <specification>RFC ]]>4790<![CDATA[</specification>
  <owner>IETF</owner>
  <submitter>chris.newman@sun.com<submitter>
</collation>
]]></artwork></figure>
</section></section>
<?rfc needLines="10" ?>
<section title="ASCII Casemap Collation" anchor="casemap">
<section title="ASCII Casemap Collation Description">

<t>The "i;ascii-casemap" collation is a simple collation that
operates on octet strings and treats US-ASCII letters
case-insensitively.  It provides equality, substring, and ordering
operations. All input is valid. Note that letters outside ASCII are
not treated case-insensitively.</t>

<t>Its equality, ordering, and substring operations are as for i;octet,
except that at first, the lower-case letters (octet values 97-122) in
each input string are changed to upper case (octet values 65-90).</t>

<t>Care should be taken when using OS-supplied functions to implement
this collation, as it is not locale sensitive. Functions, such as
strcasecmp and toupper, are sometimes locale sensitive, and may
inappropriately map lower-case letters other than a-z to upper
case.</t>

<t>The i;ascii-casemap collation is well-suited for use with many
Internet protocols and computer languages. Use with natural language
is often inappropriate; even though the collation apparently supports
languages such as Swahili and English, in real-world use, it tends to
mis-sort a number of types of string:
<?rfc compact="no" ?>
<list style="symbols">
<vspace blankLines="1" />
<t>people and  place names containing non-ASCII,</t>
<vspace blankLines="1" />
<t>words such as "naive" (if spelled with an accent, the accented
character could push the word to the wrong spot in a sorted list),</t>
<vspace blankLines="1" />
<t>names such as "Lloyd" (which, in Welsh, sorts after "Lyon", unlike in
English),</t>
<vspace blankLines="1" />
<t>strings containing euro and pound sterling symbols, quotation
marks other than '"', dashes/hyphens, etc.</t>
</list>
</t>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>

</section>



<?rfc needLines="20" ?>
<section title="ASCII Casemap Collation Registration">
<figure><artwork type="xml"><![CDATA[
<?xml version='1.0'?>
<!DOCTYPE collation SYSTEM 'collationreg.dtd'>
<collation rfc="]]>4790<![CDATA[" scope="local" intendedUse="common">
  <identifier>i;ascii-casemap</identifier>
  <title>ASCII Casemap</title>
  <operations>equality order substring</operations>
  <specification>RFC ]]>4790<![CDATA[</specification>
  <owner>IETF</owner>
  <submitter>chris.newman@sun.com<submitter>
</collation>
]]></artwork></figure>
</section></section>

<?rfc needLines="8" ?>

<section title="Octet Collation" anchor="octet">
<section title="Octet Collation Description">

<t>The "i;octet" collation is a simple and fast collation intended for
use on binary octet strings rather than on character data.  Protocols
that want to make this collation available have to do so by explicitly
allowing it. If not explicitly allowed, it MUST NOT be used. It never
returns an "undefined" result.  It provides equality, substring, and
ordering operations.</t>

<t>The ordering algorithm is as follows:
<?rfc compact="no" ?>
<list style="numbers">
<vspace blankLines="1" />
<t>If both strings are the empty string, return the result "equal".</t>
<vspace blankLines="1" />
<t>If the first string is empty and the second is not, return the
result "less".</t>
<vspace blankLines="1" />
<t>If the second string is empty and the first is not, return the
result "greater".</t>
<vspace blankLines="1" />
<t>If both strings begin with the same octet value, remove the first
octet from both strings and repeat this algorithm from step 1.</t>
<vspace blankLines="1" />
<t>If the unsigned value (0 to 255) of the first octet of the first
string is less than the unsigned value of the first octet of the
second string, then return "less".</t>
<vspace blankLines="1" />
<t>If this step is reached, return "greater".</t>

</list></t>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<t>This algorithm is roughly equivalent to the C library function
memcmp, with appropriate length checks added.</t>
<?rfc needLines="5" ?>
<t>The matching operation returns "match" if the sorting algorithm
would return "equal".  Otherwise, the matching operation returns
"no-match".</t>

<t>The substring operation returns "match" if the first string is the
empty string, or if there exists a substring of the second string of
length equal to the length of the first string, which would result in a
"match" result from the equality function.  Otherwise, the substring
operation returns "no-match".</t>

</section>

<section title="Octet Collation Registration">
<figure>
<preamble>This collation is defined with intendedUse="limited" because
it can only be used by protocols that explicitly allow it.</preamble>
<artwork type="xml"><![CDATA[
<?xml version='1.0'?>
<!DOCTYPE collation SYSTEM 'collationreg.dtd'>
<collation rfc="]]>4790<![CDATA[" scope="global" intendedUse="limited">
  <identifier>i;octet</identifier>
  <title>Octet</title>
  <operations>equality order substring</operations>
  <specification>RFC ]]>4790<![CDATA[</specification>
  <owner>IETF</owner>
  <submitter>chris.newman@sun.com<submitter>
</collation>
]]></artwork></figure>
</section></section>



</section>


<section title="IANA Considerations"><t>
<xref target="registry"></xref> defines how to register collations
with IANA.

<xref target="initial"></xref> defines a list of predefined
collations that have been registered with IANA.</t>

</section>

<section title="Security Considerations">

<t>Collations will normally be used with UTF-8 strings.  Thus, the
security considerations for <xref target="RFC3629">UTF-8</xref>,
<xref target="RFC3454">stringprep</xref>, and
<xref target="UTR36">Unicode TR-36</xref>
also apply, and are normative to this specification.</t>

</section>

<section title="Acknowledgements">
<t>The authors want to thank all who have contributed to this
document, including
Brian Carpenter,
John Cowan,
Dave Cridland,
Mark Davis,
Spencer Dawkins,
Lisa Dusseault,
Lars Eggert,
Frank Ellermann,
Philip Guenther,
Tony Hansen,
Ted Hardie,
Sam Hartman,
Kjetil Torgrim Homme,
Michael Kay,
John Klensin,
Alexey Melnikov,
Jim Melton,
and
Abhijit Menon-Sen.
</t>


</section>

</middle>
<back>
<?rfc needLines="15" ?>
<references title="Normative References">
<reference anchor="RFC2119">
<front>
<title abbrev="RFC Key Words">Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
<author initials="S." surname="Bradner" fullname="Scott Bradner"><organization/></author>
<date month="March" year="1997"/>
<area>General</area>
<keyword>keyword</keyword>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
</reference>

<reference anchor="RFC4234">
<front>
<title abbrev="ABNF for Syntax Specifications">Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF</title>
<author initials="D.H." surname="Crocker" fullname="David H. Crocker"><organization/></author>
<author initials="P." surname="Overell" fullname="Paul Overell"><organization/></author>
<date month="October" year="2005"/></front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4234"/>
</reference>

<reference anchor="RFC3629">
<front>
<title abbrev="UTF-8">UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646</title>
<author initials="F." surname="Yergeau" fullname="Francois Yergeau"><organization/></author>
<date month="November" year="2003"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="STD" value="63"/>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3629"/>
</reference>

<reference anchor="RFC3986">
<front>
<title abbrev="URI Generic Syntax">Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax</title>
<author initials="T." surname="Berners-Lee" fullname="Tim Berners-Lee"><organization/></author>
<author initials="R.T." surname="Fielding" fullname="Roy T. Fielding"><organization/></author>
<author initials="L." surname="Masinter" fullname="Larry Masinter"><organization/></author>
<date month="January" year="2005"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3986"/>
</reference>


<reference anchor="RFC4646">
<front>
<title>Tags for Identifying Languages</title>
<author initials="A." surname="Phillips" fullname="A. Phillips">
<organization/></author>
<author initials="M." surname="Davis" fullname="M. Davis">
<organization/></author>
<date year="2006" month="September"/></front>
<seriesInfo name="BCP" value="47"/>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4646"/>
</reference>

<reference anchor="RFC3454">
<front>
<title>Preparation of Internationalized Strings ("stringprep")</title>
<author initials="P." surname="Hoffman" fullname="Paul Hoffman"><organization/></author>
<author initials="M." surname="Blanchet" fullname="Marc Blanchet"><organization/></author>
<date year="2002" month="December"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3454"/>
</reference>

<reference anchor="unicode-tr10v14" target="http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/tr10-14.html">
 <front>
   <title>Unicode Collation Algorithm version 14</title>
   <author initials="M." surname="Davis" fullname="Mark Davis">
     <organization>International Business Machines</organization>
     <address>
       <email>mark.davis@us.ibm.com</email>
     </address>
   </author>
   <author initials="K." surname="Whistler" fullname="Ken Whistler">
     <organization>Unicode Consortium</organization>
     <address>
       <email>ken@unicode.org</email>
     </address>
   </author>
   <date month="May" year="2005"/>
 </front>
</reference>

<reference anchor="UTR36" target="http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr36/">
 <front>
   <title>Unicode Security Considerations</title>
   <author initials="M." surname="Davis" fullname="Mark Davis">
     <organization>International Business Machines</organization>
     <address>
       <email>mark.davis@us.ibm.com</email>
     </address>
   </author>
   <author initials="M." surname="Suignard" fullname="Michel Suignard">
     <organization>Microsoft</organization>
     <address>
       <email>michelsu@windows.microsoft.com</email>
     </address>
   </author>
   <date month="February" year="2006"/>
 </front>
</reference>

</references>

<references title="Informative References">

<reference anchor="RFC2045">
<front>
<title abbrev="Internet Message Bodies">Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies</title>
<author initials="N." surname="Freed" fullname="Ned Freed">
<organization>Innosoft International, Inc.</organization></author>
<author initials="N.S." surname="Borenstein" fullname="Nathaniel S. Borenstein">
<organization>First Virtual Holdings</organization>
</author>
<date year="1996" month="November"/></front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2045"/>
</reference>

<reference anchor="RFC4422">
<front>
<title abbrev="SASL">Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)</title>
<author initials="A." surname="Melnikov" fullname="Alexey Melnikov">
<organization>Isode Limited</organization>
</author>
<date year="2006" month="June"/>
<area>Security</area>
<keyword>authentication</keyword>
<keyword>security</keyword></front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4422"/>
</reference>

<reference anchor="RFC2244">
<front>
<title abbrev="ACAP">ACAP -- Application Configuration Access Protocol</title>
<author initials="C." surname="Newman" fullname="Chris Newman">
<organization>Innosoft International, Inc.</organization>
</author>
<author initials="J.G." surname="Myers" fullname="John Gardiner Myers">
<organization>Netscape Communications</organization>
</author>
<date year="1997" month="November"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2244"/>
</reference>
<?rfc needLines="10" ?>
<reference anchor="RFC2822">
<front>
<title>Internet Message Format</title>
<author initials="P." surname="Resnick" fullname="P. Resnick">
<organization/></author>
<date year="2001" month="April"/></front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2822"/>
<format type="TXT" octets="110695" target="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2822.txt"/>
</reference>

<reference anchor="RFC2978">
<front>
<title>IANA Charset Registration Procedures</title>
<author initials="N." surname="Freed" fullname="N. Freed">
<organization/></author>
<author initials="J." surname="Postel" fullname="J. Postel">
<organization/></author>
<date year="2000" month="October"/></front>
<seriesInfo name="BCP" value="19"/>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2978"/>
</reference>

<reference anchor="RFC3028">
<front>
<title>Sieve: A Mail Filtering Language</title>
<author initials="T." surname="Showalter" fullname="T. Showalter">
<organization/></author>
<date year="2001" month="January"/></front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3028"/>
</reference>

<reference anchor="RFC3501">
<front>
<title>Internet Message Access Protocol - Version 4rev1</title>
<author initials="M." surname="Crispin" fullname="M. Crispin">
<organization/></author>
<date year="2003" month="March"/></front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3501"/>
</reference>

<reference anchor="IMAPSORT">
<front>
<title>Internet Message Access Protocol - Sort and Thread Extensions</title>
<author initials="M." surname="Crispin" fullname="M. Crispin">
<organization/></author>
<author initials="K." surname="Murchison" fullname="K. Murchison">
<organization/></author>
<date year="2004" month="May"/></front>
<seriesInfo name="Work" value="in Progress"/>
</reference>

<reference anchor="IMAPI18N">
<front>
<title>Internet Message Access Protocol Internationalization</title>
<author initials="C." surname="Newman" fullname="C. Newman">
<organization/></author>
<author initials="A." surname="Gulbrandsen" fullname="A. Gulbrandsen">
<organization/></author>
<date year="2006" month="January"/></front>
<seriesInfo name="Work" value="in Progress"/>
</reference>

</references>

</back>
</rfc>
