<?xml version='1.0'encoding='utf-8'?>encoding='UTF-8'?> <!DOCTYPE rfc [ <!ENTITY nbsp " "> <!ENTITY zwsp "​"> <!ENTITY nbhy "‑"> <!ENTITY wj "⁠"> ]><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?> <!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.7.29 (Ruby 3.2.3) --><rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign-05" number="9812" category="bcp" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" updates="7249" obsoletes="" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" xml:lang="en" version="3"><!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.28.1 --><front> <title abbrev="IPv6 Address Allocation Policy">Clarification of IPv6 Address Allocation Policy</title> <!--[rfced] This document has been assigned a new BCP number. However, it is unclear whether this document should be grouped with an existing BCP. Please review the list of BCPs closely and let us know if the newly assigned BCP number is correct or if it should be added to an existing BCP. See the complete list of BCPs here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcps --> <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="242"/> <seriesInfoname="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign-05"/>name="RFC" value="9812"/> <!-- [rfced] Brian, we have updated the document header as shown below to match what appears in the header of the RFCs you've authored. Please let us know if you prefer otherwise. Original: B. E. Carpenter Current: B. Carpenter --> <authorinitials="B. E."initials="B." surname="Carpenter" fullname="Brian E. Carpenter"> <organization abbrev="Univ. of Auckland">The University of Auckland</organization> <address> <postal><postalLine>School<street>School of ComputerScience</postalLine> <postalLine>PB 92019</postalLine> <postalLine>Auckland 1142</postalLine> <postalLine>New Zealand</postalLine>Science</street> <street>PB 92019</street> <city>Auckland 1142</city> <country>New Zealand</country> </postal> <email>brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com</email> </address> </author> <author initials="S." surname="Krishnan" fullname="Suresh Krishnan"> <organization abbrev="Cisco">Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization> <address> <email>suresh.krishnan@gmail.com</email> </address> </author> <author initials="D." surname="Farmer" fullname="David E. Farmer III"> <organization abbrev="Univ. of Minnesota">University of Minnesota</organization> <address> <postal><postalLine>Office<street>Office of InformationTechnology</postalLine> <postalLine>Minneapolis MN 55455</postalLine> <postalLine>UnitedTechnology</street> <city>Minneapolis</city><region>MN</region><code>55455</code> <country>United States ofAmerica</postalLine>America</country> </postal> <email>farmer@umn.edu</email> </address> </author> <date year="2025"month="May" day="12"/> <area>Internet</area>month="June"/> <area>INT</area> <workgroup>6man</workgroup><keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword><!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> <keyword>example</keyword> <abstract><?line 80?><t>This document specifies the approval process for changes to theIPv6"Internet Protocol Version 6 AddressSpaceSpace" registry. It also updates RFC 7249.</t> </abstract><note removeInRFC="true"> <name>About This Document</name> <t> Status information for this document may be found at <eref target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign/"/>. </t> <t> Discussion of this document takes place on the 6MAN Working Group mailing list (<eref target="mailto:ipv6@ietf.org"/>), which is archived at <eref target="https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/"/>. Subscribe at <eref target="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6/"/>. </t> </note></front> <middle><?line 85?><section anchor="intro"> <name>Introduction</name> <t>Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) and its address space are defined by <xref target="STD86"/> and <xref target="RFC4291"/>. The management of the IPv6 address space was delegated to IANA by <xref target="RFC1881"/>, some years before the relationship between the IETF and IANA was formalized <xref target="RFC2860"/> and registry details were clarified <xreftarget="RFC7020"/>,target="RFC7020"/> <xref target="RFC7249"/>.</t> <t>Occasionally, IPv6 address space allocations are performed outside the scope of routine allocations to Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). For example, a substantial allocation was requested by an IETF document approved by the IESG <xref target="RFC9602"/>, which moved the range 5f00::/16 from theInternet"Internet Protocol Version 6 AddressSpaceSpace" registry <xref target="IANA1"/> to theIANA"IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose AddressRegistryRegistry" <xref target="IANA3"/>.</t> <t>At the time of writing, the allocation policy in theInternet"Internet Protocol Version 6 AddressSpaceSpace" registry <xref target="IANA1"/> was shown as "IESG approval", whereasfor major allocationsa more stringent policy isappropriate.appropriate for major allocations. The present document therefore strengthens the approval level needed for non-routine address allocations, which requires an update toRFC 7249.</t><xref target="RFC7249"/>.</t> <t>This document also clarifies the status ofRFC 1881.<xref target="RFC1881"/>. This clarification is necessary becauseRFC 1881,<xref target="RFC1881"/>, a joint publication of the IAB and IESG following an IETF Last Call, was incorrectly listed in the RFC index at the time of writing as"legacy","Legacy", whereas it is part of the IETFstreamStream <xref target="RFC8729"/>.</t> </section> <section anchor="approval-level-of-ipv6-address-allocations"> <name>Approval Level of IPv6 Address Allocations</name> <t>Portions of the IPv6 address space are shown in the registry<xref target="IANA1"/>as "Reserved byIETF".IETF" <xref target="IANA1"/>. This is the address space held in reserve for future use if ever the 125-bit unicast space (2000::/3) is found inadequate or inappropriate.</t><t>RFC 1881<t><xref target="RFC1881"/> did not specify an allocation policy for this space. At some point, IANA listed "IESG approval". As defined in <xref target="BCP26"/>, this is a rather weak requirement ("Although there is no requirement that the request be documented in an RFC, the IESG has the discretion to request documents...") and is "a fall-back mechanism in the case where one of the other allowable approval mechanisms cannot be employed...".</t> <t>For something as important as the majority of the spare IPv6 address space, this process is clearly insufficient. The present document replaces the "IESG approval" process by the "IETF Review" process as defined byBCP 26. It is not considered necessary to require the<xref target="BCP26"/>. The stricter "Standards Action"policy,policy is not considered necessary, because theremightmay be cases where opening up a new range of address spacediddoes not in fact require a new protocol standard.</t> <t>It may be noted that the allocation for <xref target="RFC9602"/>, which was processed as a working group document, did indeed follow the more stringent "IETF Review" process proposed by this document. Indeed, the other two related registries <xref target="IANA2"/> <xref target="IANA3"/>docite the "IETF Review" policy,consistentlyconsistent withRFC 7249.</t><xref target="RFC7249"/>.</t> <t>This document therefore extends the first paragraph ofsection 2.3 of<xreftarget="RFC7249"/>target="RFC7249" sectionFormat="of" section="2.3"/> as follows:</t> <t>OLD:</t> <blockquote> The vast bulk of the IPv6 address space (approximately 7/8ths of the whole address space) is reserved by the IETF[RFC4291],<xref target="RFC4291"/>, with the expectation that further assignment of globally unique unicast address space will be made from this reserved space in accordance with future needs. </blockquote> <t>NEW:</t> <blockquote> The vast bulk of the IPv6 address space (approximately 7/8ths of the whole address space) is reserved by the IETF[RFC4291],<xref target="RFC4291"/>, with the expectation that further assignment of globally unique unicast address space will be made from this reserved space in accordance with future needs, through "IETF Review" as defined in[BCP26].<xref target="BCP26"/>. </blockquote> </section><section anchor="rfc-editor-considerations"> <name>RFC<!-- [rfced] Regarding the RFC EditorConsiderations</name> <t>TheConsiderations section, we would like to avoid setting precedent that stream changes need to be documented in RFCs. We intend to update the stream metadata for RFC 1881 as requested (from "Legacy" to "IETF") and remove 'RFC Editor Considerations' (Section 3) from this document, as it's not necessary to capture the metadata correction within the RFC. Please let us know if you have any strong objections. 3. RFC Editor Considerations The RFC Editor is requested to update the "Stream" information for [RFC1881] to "IETF" in place of "Legacy". --> <section anchor="rfc-editor-considerations"> <name>RFC Editor Considerations</name> <t>Per this document, the RFC Editor has updated the Stream information for <xref target="RFC1881"/> to"IETF"IETF in place of"Legacy".</t>Legacy.</t> </section> <section anchor="iana-considerations"> <name>IANA Considerations</name> <t>IANAis requested to updatehas updated the"Registration Procedure(s)" sectionregistration procedure of theInternet"Internet Protocol Version 6 AddressSpaceSpace" registry <xref target="IANA1"/> toshow the policy as"IETF Review".</t> </section> <section anchor="security-considerations"> <name>Security Considerations</name> <t>The security considerations of <xref target="RFC7249"/> apply. While having no direct security impact, carefully reviewed address allocation mechanisms are necessary to ensure operational address accountability.</t> </section><section anchor="acknowledgements"> <name>Acknowledgements</name> <t>Useful comments were received from Dale Carder, Bob Hinden, Scott Kelly, Philipp Tiesel, and others.</t> </section></middle> <back> <references anchor="sec-combined-references"> <name>References</name> <references anchor="sec-normative-references"> <name>Normative References</name><referencegroup anchor="STD86" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std86"> <reference anchor="RFC8200" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200"> <front> <title>Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification</title> <author fullname="S. Deering" initials="S." surname="Deering"/> <author fullname="R. Hinden" initials="R." surname="Hinden"/> <date month="July" year="2017"/> <abstract> <t>This document specifies version 6 of the Internet Protocol (IPv6). It obsoletes RFC 2460.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="STD" value="86"/> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8200"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8200"/> </reference> </referencegroup> <referencegroup anchor="BCP26" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp26"> <reference anchor="RFC8126" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126"> <front> <title>Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs</title> <author fullname="M. Cotton" initials="M." surname="Cotton"/> <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/> <author fullname="T. Narten" initials="T." surname="Narten"/> <date month="June" year="2017"/> <abstract> <t>Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values in these fields do not have conflicting uses and to promote interoperability, their allocations are often coordinated by a central record keeper. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).</t> <t>To make assignments in a given registry prudently, guidance describing the conditions under which new values should be assigned, as well as when and how modifications to existing values can be made, is needed. This document defines a framework for the documentation of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that the provided guidance for the IANA Considerations is clear and addresses the various issues that are likely in the operation of a registry.</t> <t>This is the third edition of this document; it obsoletes RFC 5226.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="26"/> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8126"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8126"/> </reference> </referencegroup> <reference anchor="RFC4291"> <front> <title>IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture</title> <author fullname="R. Hinden" initials="R." surname="Hinden"/> <author fullname="S. Deering" initials="S." surname="Deering"/> <date month="February" year="2006"/> <abstract> <t>This specification defines the addressing architecture of the IP Version 6 (IPv6) protocol. The document includes the IPv6 addressing model, text representations of IPv6 addresses, definition of IPv6 unicast addresses, anycast addresses, and multicast addresses, and an IPv6 node's required addresses.</t> <t>This document obsoletes RFC 3513, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture". [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4291"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4291"/> </reference><xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml9/reference.STD.0086.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml9/reference.BCP.0026.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4291.xml"/> </references> <references anchor="sec-informative-references"> <name>Informative References</name><reference anchor="RFC1881"> <front> <title>IPv6 Address Allocation Management</title> <author> <organization abbrev="IAB">Internet Architecture Board</organization> </author> <author> <organization abbrev="IESG">Internet Engineering Steering Group</organization> </author> <date month="December" year="1995"/> <abstract> <t>The IPv6 address space will be managed by the IANA for the good of the Internet community, with advice from the IAB and the IESG, by delegation to the regional registries. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="1881"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC1881"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC2860"> <front> <title>Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority</title> <author fullname="B. Carpenter" initials="B." surname="Carpenter"/> <author fullname="F. Baker" initials="F." surname="Baker"/> <author fullname="M. Roberts" initials="M." surname="Roberts"/> <date month="June" year="2000"/> <abstract> <t>This document places on record the text of the Memorandum of Understanding concerning the technical work of the IANA that was signed on March 1, 2000 between the IETF and ICANN, and ratified by the ICANN Board on March 10, 2000. This memo provides information for the Internet community.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2860"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2860"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC7020"> <front> <title>The Internet Numbers Registry System</title> <author fullname="R. Housley" initials="R." surname="Housley"/> <author fullname="J. Curran" initials="J." surname="Curran"/> <author fullname="G. Huston" initials="G." surname="Huston"/> <author fullname="D. Conrad" initials="D." surname="Conrad"/> <date month="August" year="2013"/> <abstract> <t>This document provides information about the current Internet Numbers Registry System used in the distribution of globally unique Internet Protocol (IP) address space and autonomous system (AS) numbers.</t> <t>This document also provides information about the processes for further evolution of the Internet Numbers Registry System.</t> <t>This document replaces RFC 2050.</t> <t>This document does not propose any changes to the current Internet Numbers Registry System. Rather, it documents the Internet Numbers Registry System as it works today.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7020"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7020"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC7249"> <front> <title>Internet Numbers Registries</title> <author fullname="R. Housley" initials="R." surname="Housley"/> <date month="May" year="2014"/> <abstract> <t>RFC 7020 provides information about the Internet Numbers Registry System and how it is used in the distribution of autonomous system (AS) numbers and globally unique unicast Internet Protocol (IP) address space.</t> <t>This companion document identifies the IANA registries that are part of the Internet Numbers Registry System at this time.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7249"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7249"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC9602"> <front> <title>Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) Segment Identifiers in the IPv6 Addressing Architecture</title> <author fullname="S. Krishnan" initials="S." surname="Krishnan"/> <date month="October" year="2024"/> <abstract> <t>Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) uses IPv6 as the underlying data plane. Thus, Segment Identifiers (SIDs) used by SRv6 can resemble IPv6 addresses and behave like them while exhibiting slightly different behaviors in some situations. This document explores the characteristics of SRv6 SIDs and focuses on the relationship of SRv6 SIDs to the IPv6 Addressing Architecture. This document allocates and makes a dedicated prefix available for SRv6 SIDs.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9602"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9602"/> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC8729"> <front> <title>The RFC Series and RFC Editor</title> <author fullname="R. Housley" initials="R." role="editor" surname="Housley"/> <author fullname="L. Daigle" initials="L." role="editor" surname="Daigle"/> <date month="February" year="2020"/> <abstract> <t>This document describes the framework for an RFC Series and an RFC Editor function that incorporate the principles of organized community involvement and accountability that has become necessary as the Internet technical community has grown, thereby enabling the RFC Series to continue to fulfill its mandate. This document obsoletes RFC 4844.</t> </abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8729"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8729"/> </reference><xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.1881.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2860.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7020.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7249.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9602.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8729.xml"/> <reference anchor="IANA1" target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space"> <front> <title>Internet Protocol Version 6 Address Space</title> <author><organization/><organization>IANA</organization> </author><date>n.d.</date></front> </reference> <reference anchor="IANA2" target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments"> <front> <title>IPv6 Global Unicast Address Assignments</title> <author><organization/><organization>IANA</organization> </author><date>n.d.</date></front> </reference> <reference anchor="IANA3" target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry"> <front> <title>IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry</title> <author><organization/><organization>IANA</organization> </author><date>n.d.</date></front> </reference> </references> </references> <?line 190?> <!-- # IPv6 Registry Title Inconsistencies The authors would like to draw attention to inconsistencies in the titles for two of the IPv6 Address Registries: the "Internet Protocol Version 6 Address Space" registry {{IANA1}} and the "IPv6 Global Unicast Address Assignments" registry {{IANA2}}. These two titles are inconsistent with the titles for the "IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry" {{IANA3}} and the similar IPv4 registries, the "IANA IPv4 Address Space Registry" and the "IANA IPv4 Special-Purpose Address Registry." While these are mostly editorial issues, likely within IANA's control, confusion caused by these different titles could have easily contributed to not updating the Registry Procedures for the "Internet Protocol Version 6 Address Space" registry at the time of RFC 7249. The "IANA IPv6 Address Space Registry" and the "IANA IPv6 Global Unicast Address Space Registry" are possibly more consistent titles for these registries. --><section anchor="change-log-rfc-editor-please-remove"> <name>Change Log [RFC Editor: please remove]</name> <section anchor="draft-carpenter-6man-addr-assign-00"> <name>draft-carpenter-6man-addr-assign-00</name> <ul spacing="normal"> <li> <t>Original version</t> </li> </ul> </section> <section anchor="draft-01"> <name>Draft-01</name> <ul spacing="normal"> <li> <t>Added author</t> </li> <li> <t>Added citations</t> </li> <li> <t>Small update to RFC 7249</t> </li> <li> <t>Added appendix on registry names</t> </li> </ul> </section> <section anchor="draft-02"> <name>Draft-02</name> <ul spacing="normal"> <li> <t>Clarified some details</t> </li> </ul> </section> <section anchor="draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign-00"> <name>draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign-00</name> <ul spacing="normal"> <li> <t>Adopted by WG</t> </li> </ul> </section> <section anchor="draft-01-1"> <name>Draft-01</name> <ul spacing="normal"> <li> <t>Changed stream for RFC 1881 to IETF</t> </li> <li> <t>Editorial improvements</t> </li> </ul> </section> <section anchor="draft-02-1"> <name>Draft-02</name> <ul spacing="normal"> <li> <t>Further editorial improvements</t> </li> </ul> </section> <section anchor="draft-03"> <name>Draft-03</name> <ul spacing="normal"> <li> <t>At IESG's request, removed the appendix about registry names, which will be handled by<!-- Registry titles as of 6/10: [IANA1] Internet Protocol Version 6 Address Space https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space/ipv6-address-space.xhtml IPv4: IANAdirectly.</t> </li> <li> <t>Clarified discussion of RFC9602</t> </li> <li> <t>Improved security considerations</t> </li> <li> <t>Minor editorial changes</t> </li> </ul> </section> <section anchor="draft-04"> <name>Draft-04</name> <ul spacing="normal"> <li> <t>Minor editorial changes</t> </li> </ul> </section>IPv4 Address Space Registry https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml [IANA2] IPv6 Global Unicast Address Assignments https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments.xhtml [IANA3] IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml IPv4: IANA IPv4 Special-Purpose Address Registry https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml --> <sectionanchor="draft-05"> <name>Draft-05</name> <ul spacing="normal"> <li> <t>Corrected title to "Allocation" instead of "Assignment"</t> </li> <li> <t>Minor editorial changes</t> </li> </ul> </section>anchor="acknowledgements"> <name>Acknowledgements</name> <t>Useful comments were received from <contact fullname="Dale Carder"/>, <contact fullname="Bob Hinden"/>, <contact fullname="Scott Kelly"/>, <contact fullname="Philipp Tiesel"/>, and others.</t> </section></back><!--##markdown-source: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+1Z224bORJ9F6B/4CoPkwCSbCu2kwiDxTjOZYzJxYg8G2Bn Bguqm5I47m72NNlWtIb/fU8VSXW3pVwmz+sXS91Fsi6nTlVRo9Go33PaZWoq zjNZ6YVOpNOmEGYhLi5vTsVZmlbKWnGWZSa8ujSZTjb9npzPK3Uz/apcapJC 5jghreTCjbRyi9FpLouRxJqRtFYvi9HhSb/X71kni/Q/MjMFxF1VK3qoy4q/ WDc5PHx2OMHJlZI4t3CqKpTr99bLqaAd+73rdfN89ILO6/egzlTMkxLb1/Nc 4zxTXG1KnHDx8upVv1eXqXTKTsWTyfEzOrDU035PCGeSqdgoS5+tqVylFhAS 4oFI1ULWmbMQ2Qpscv+ev0PF2q1MxfvQ3yh+EEIXkHo+Fi/H4lxWpSJtm7fe U88rLYvPSJgK1l6tlPi10DeqstptKFpndXKdwXuNYIwPyY33i5QGHs+mzYOR mCUrYzISPzd5WeNoPNKqSFRb6vK5eDY5PHrWfha3F0dHx5PmRWLqwlWbqXin 1uLfSnY1ULnUGcJDBo/VOIn2/rSkF+PE5OTN/U6cjcUvlbargiLfdeCsBhpX e16z9861TYyYbaxTuR0CMMl4120stKOo5Y3H12Hjb1HzxVi8klW+G+UX8kan FGX/WlxcXNxTtBvit7oolDVOfiHGe2T2BPn9AomuOMmLhalyn7BXKlkVJjPL TVuWd5QlktmKt+/Eycnxycme6EIDp1Ixc5RLjDaYBDbZ8eCCjf2pzhHvtCa3 FV6DG8U6zq5ePD3lT8/PLyf+04dX58eTZ0dTpoOocZDHu6OnT4/i58nT08P4 +cnhpPmM5I6fn50eTuLnp08m/vnF2buzo+AlJ6ulAmusnCvt9OBgvV6PAVA5 RlQOPGPlgKk90OXNKfMYuG9kSxmzJHBqpCJxWRnQCfLqXxRO+LphzFlcRQpM vkuBuoCjrdsq0hLoqkNM/Tozc5lRvGhNQ9zdNaTM47+tDB6OWCNbqkTLbFSp pbbAR1cN7O11mQWxy7oCStVWmQ/bZf3ejSpqH+llZepyKganb8/eDZihmcUH H011rYuleE3v+YVH2oBU+YnqDWnKL2SVrPAiWkJy9AhYGke5A3pwMK/M2ip2 78GA1BiNRsg2KCUTR9+vVsgHlLaaTBds70ID+Q7MLMuyMjdwMv4lZA8QK5KV LJaKawZk+r1O2WQQiOitsbhwQmbWiFCbCKhcnsZRlVynacbl8QGhrDJpnXAS h7/bB5qe3pHEl1D4kNR4JIi2NQpaQJBgKMNbOAHFThfI7PlG3N5yct7dsfzt bUjLu7sx+UPB7YVcKnYICIA8wUZ2N11L+E1laimJL+ANgkO/x9uHXL67G6Li 5grFVFZWzBX8p3i/SmXMVXalUc/nyq2VKvxJqOWsFqOLDmGayPR/VVCVmOEO DiGh6Glo4oABK9YKJyS+BYoLiD5IFf8F3mdD+733CTIHSsgs2wz3mSi3TZAl H4pSVaQM9jW1szqFV0ll1JeSSRi4dfBxZx0cQ1lApzQ0EvKCcPbww8UH+wj6 vAK21CeZl5kaCokCNacuyiGtWvuxQyr1V62s87Gkosg+22LYo9a/9R6dvfa2 E1+SI9YrnaxEzkIcDUJ0v3eyODycTg+OTsWiMrlf+63EJxqGuL1lCqYQ+Rz5 G0Qh/OLHIUJnjtc7nbN/15WGf5dDn5yNU0ruUFGlOzr3e19n66p7LpRmD9uV WRcCHwbsvMgDA3IdAOZB2e/l8k8ErYMSeBVAodjCpQhGVM36TUr0R06FNCuh CclsI+do80XYQBVLfC/uMVGmblSGUqtUiuARHxWmGG2BF6xrqRSjTaDReMmA 8XTE2GwTUpcLmbhiKnk1gEhXc1dA6yjFx2FV0pk68KBQxJgSrp2rRNaIdVxC 6P7TgNbQodfzrDWpeKw89+lPjl8YGLKmmoA2mlH+hmrdOewbYlxAHHSRmKpS ics2Ap0NJUWAAR2ni1R9EnIvikAgiC/xV7JpBVY70r6UVcN9dC4FROY+jajV CAB9IM5iZN5QZL4wb/E4cYn5g4HyeV4lovH4C4bsYtSr/gHoqUKek46DseBQ 6ACZzq4rlbFnKr+o3yPoLGqHNlhQcPRCQP+KVx5NTkZz+CG0I2GHh5jaiB4e P0LvRglQU60pZApgEZiwH751QN7vxZiLFB1yYWKBJdrak8CkkyMT+MSxQPpT +QBOCC5DzyMhyvcyE8JUjnyJg523t9x1gu2Io71XJIiOUgxFQl7HhGCoPxyc ZZjz6uXK5yAD2BA9NDJuFXAU6Be43uaKPxM2wd5hQ7oraX2FSDGDVIpNRc7F DeJqOx6PB6F2I64SrXWWjeYyuQbFKOo3tM0jGhAR5cEqMF1HHBm2izy6lvOs 4YvWBshRWVAIoLdClTEbldLBHCcqPuRquIqSDe7KS0BVEg14ODHXhQGGqaAk oLbxi7mcwjb0IYwtE3MDyn9G/GxrGlgwhbqx2MuAlSoz7BHcdi/G2z1DYRtw Zn5QN1qtm5eywQHkgAIxOeVGjGPqRL+XIAFRvCtINCwV4qJDg0IMntDQPJjR XYasUuQyd2YDgiPBdbhlNo+ZXC9X7F0KkY0xwhhMLq1LwK/A5BxqLbzYTdCY IAjzAq3pVhm/qoyVzAZtOGowKpdEsLSSa3mAaCu1KKd2i78nz+AyrJSUHevQ f3N/vo3JkFUjJuWCQxDzgDDUVTaVbn80iA6Mjc1Iq7wgJLzl0HfRHsBubXxr qLatHZUeT3zQvmkPsI9ItFO7QGjCw3EGWRRUHNbarb5U7Zraqz5hSepRv9AV EhVQl8tKlisCv1W+QZ+MH3MYW12l4MaAPGR5xH3/5gX+/zhHMK7/qhGif/L8 RMi/IWKd19n1FyrBQ0b+J40hWcGCJwdP3SpWDt5ovTLZPaJ/RDCvWpVhW8F+ C13+H0Pvi7iJ+gRKdh4sDKBFXXk22U6EdOaSx02ogaoA+orFgbe4NxjoLCNM 5igNsZNsK+WliC8T1O5Uxisp1iqUJOpvLKL040HHee9efvy/Q7/foZRrFVe5 brLKTun8jSvnH7vep3aHMuhlqh1Y5TzQaNPdXIW2Kwjo9qji4hDsM3bG/dRA 6ObeyvckreGR1rCiJCa4MJDjBm98zxYaMG4KdnXhx1/SIIwc4Y6b6CqFox7a R4OY4pze3zcFie4QRP0c7xQaHT9ZNBEIpsxUUnON3e9aG18nndfiPgmVZbYZ i48rDSyv5A1RemHA4tQmN5ugwqPOgCVRxxc1AbFiZaga7IwRotVGSIZTq25i SKl9qfMa0cQad0j4YlHOdYYzxyL0zMl1YdaZSv0lAxv4qyUtYFrOj/wgD42V JogT6vu9FxIWnaP6qQpt3XMzFz9TXSrwZZYY58QvikZ5tNmwXZeluEL1UDQq UG/FJcZub158fwWQ/wNfHni62I6hV3TDRRfKsYSgadnGwf8mABVNjaY609c8 SaWVXGPUoHIT+jzdXR47OL4983dJVO/adHVvHNb0a4YvcN+KwMEeCHJn6bf5 tovDnU1Qerlho14HKgcLCAgtG92WBjsm8rnffAEwaJX4qLbVOV3v0QbHrbZg 2N37+F4qNjs25m9Fv6bGmO8KfQo5tpuMzY2lVkIxvdHFjLa2JkUIA6HHQJDp mB8sZamrTMZ9yKLmYHG7GKuIpaZvsQDOqf3wHksYUkhatCHS6mzjd9HzOjAY tYjMYpTVPObGSG0prO3374DNvWl52zKJCP9WNL/Z459F3c5KumYzgOIctvNd SgtfXVhZ1QLDWIxGoUSd8wWteGOW4vffmnI0RQVRkhfRzdfvf7D0g/Br5vYH qz0/aR4yZYj3lV5qIrcb78Ownn+dHB0eeSHYRQTKDNF8R6caqXwkZjl4Vexe wbSWl9Al1Z8w4TVxod+abPfMiT/zfHvdyZet4Sq0Y95nfqw9jEqbMlwnfny9 1yzv0zReg1AEtqM9Xf3yD7Cj4GnOjJwvIbf0vqP0q9AUqW9Y8jio6Xis/mFb 1Ichlmm8I/Nek3NTu3uOi9dgsZeCPWkW7k4Io746om7edymN7jX/1hyygeYo L3SRh4vWzxRmL/VWF6ZtZvj9oGvh8d+QPQkq+nsvMp6LFTVLzW0TtUxIGply x9Rw++CrB/V7/wNX7Uo7TiAAAA==[rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best practice. --> </back> </rfc>