<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc strict='yes'?>
<?rfc iprnotified='no'?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-templin-6man-mla-15" ipr="trust200902"
updates="rfc3879, rfc4007, rfc4291, rfc5889, rfc6724">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="IPv6 MLAs">IPv6 Addresses for Ad Hoc Networks</title>

    <author fullname="Fred L. Templin" initials="F. L." role="editor"
            surname="Templin">
      <organization>Boeing Research &amp; Technology</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>P.O. Box 3707</street>

          <city>Seattle</city>

          <region>WA</region>

          <code>98124</code>

          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>

        <email>fltemplin@acm.org</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date day="22" month="July" year="2024"/>

    <keyword>I-D</keyword>

    <keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>

    <abstract>
      <t>Ad Hoc networks often present an interesting environment
      for IPv6 addressing due to the indeterminant neighborhood
      properties of their interfaces. IPv6 nodes must assign IPv6
      addresses to their interface connections to Ad Hoc networks that
      are locally unique but must not be propagated to other networks.
      IPv6 nodes must therefore be able to assign self-generated
      addresses to their interfaces when there are no IPv6
      Internetworking routers present that can coordinate
      topology-relative IPv6 addresses or prefixes. This document
      specifies IPv6 address types that can be assigned to Ad Hoc
      network interfaces.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
      <t>When two or more IPv6 <xref target="RFC8200"/> nodes come
      together within an Ad Hoc network operating region (e.g., such
      as in a Mobile Ad-hoc NETwork (MANET)), they must be able to
      assign unique addresses, discover multihop routes and exchange
      IPv6 packets with peers even if there is no Internetworking
      infrastructure present.</t>

      <t>Ad Hoc networks often include IPv6 nodes that configure
      interface connections to links with undetermined connectivity
      properties such that multihop traversal may be necessary to
      span the network. These same principles may apply for both
      wireless and wired-line communications. The transitive property
      of connectivity for conventional shared media links is therefore
      not assured, while IPv6 nodes must still be able to assign and
      use IPv6 addresses that are unique within the local Ad Hoc
      network. This is true even for nodes that configure multiple
      interface connections to the same Ad Hoc network as a
      localized multihop forwarding domain with multiple links.</t>

      <t>By its nature, the term "Ad Hoc network" implies logical
      groupings whereas the historical term "site" suggested physical
      boundaries such as a building or a campus. In particular, Ad
      Hoc networks can self-organize amorphously even if they overlap
      with other (logical) networks, split apart to form multiple
      smaller networks or join together to form larger networks.
      Clustering has been suggested as a means to organize these
      logical groupings, but Ad Hoc network ecosystems are often
      in a constant state of flux and likely to change over time.
      An address type that can be used by nodes that float freely
      between logical Ad Hoc network boundaries is therefore necessary.</t>

      <t>The term "Ad Hoc" used throughout this document extends
      to include isolated localized IPv6 networks where peer to
      peer communications may require multihop traversal of multiple
      links whether or not the peers are particularly mobile
      or ad hoc. For any isolated Ad Hoc network (i.e., one for
      which IPv6 Internetworking routers are either absent or
      only intermittently available), a localized IPv6 addressing
      scheme that allows Ad Hoc nodes to communicate internally is
      necessary. Therefore, all IPv6 nodes that connect to Ad Hoc
      networks should be prepared to operate according to the
      Ad Hoc network multilink addressing model when necessary.
      The Ad Hoc network multihop addressing and forwarding
      service appears at an architectural sublayer termed the
      "adaptation layer" below the IPv6 Internetworking layer
      but above the true link layer. Multihop forwarding in
      Ad Hoc networks is therefore considered an adaptation
      layer service.</t>
        
      <t>Section 6 of the "IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks"
      <xref target="RFC5889"/> states that: "an IP address configured
      on this (Ad Hoc) interface should be unique, at least within the
      routing domain" and: "no on-link subnet prefix is configured
      on this (Ad Hoc) interface". The section then continues to explain
      why IPv6 Link-Local Addresses (LLAs) are of limited utility on
      links with undetermined connectivity, to the point that they
      cannot be used exclusively within Ad Hoc network domains.</t>

      <t><xref target="RFC5889"/> suggests that Global Unicast <xref target=
      "RFC4291"/> (aka "GUA") and Unique-Local <xref target="RFC4193"/>
      (aka "ULA") addresses are Ad Hoc network addressing candidates.
      However, provisioning of unique GUAs and ULAs must be coordinated
      either through administrative actions or through an automated
      address delegation service coordinated by IPv6 Internetworking
      routers that connect the Ad Hoc network to other networks. Since
      such routers may not always be available, this document asserts
      that new forms of self-generated and unique Ad Hoc network local
      IPv6 addresses are needed.</t>

      <t>The key feature of these Ad Hoc network adaptation layer IPv6
      addresses is that they must be assured unique so that there is no
      chance of conflicting with an address assigned by another node. There
      is no requirement that the addresses include topologically-oriented
      prefixes, since the (newly-formed) Ad Hoc networks may not (yet)
      connect to any other Internetworking topologies.</t>

      <t>Ad Hoc network nodes must be able to use adaptation layer
      IPv6 addresses for continuous local communications and/or to
      coordinate topologically-oriented addresses for assignment on
      other interfaces. A new "Multilink Local" scope for the IPv6
      scoped addressing architecture <xref target="RFC4007"/> with
      scope greater than link-local but lesser than GUA/ULA is
      therefore necessary.</t>

      <t>This document defines a new unique local unicast address
      variant known as "Multilink Local Addresses (MLAs)". "Type-1"
      MLAs use the formerly-deprecated IPv6 site-local prefix fec0::10
      according to the address generation procedures specified herein.
      "Type-2" MLAs utilize the IPv6 prefix reserved for Overlay Routable
      Cryptographic Hash Identifiers Version 2 (ORCHIDv2) <xref target=
      "RFC7343"/>, and "Type-3" MLAs utilize the IPv6 prefix reserved
      for the Hierarchical Host Identity Tag / DRIP Entity Tag (HHIT/DET)
      <xref target="RFC9374"/>.</t>

      <t>The term "multilink interface" refers to a node's IPv6 interface
      connection to an Ad Hoc network with undetermined connectivity
      properties where multiple point-to-point neighbor relationship
      "links" may be present and multiple adaptation layer forwarding
      hops between peers may be necessary.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="ipv6" title="IPv6 Ad Hoc Network Local Addressing">
      <t>The IPv6 addressing architecture specified in <xref target=
      "RFC4007"/>, <xref target="RFC4193"/> and <xref target="RFC4291"/>
      defines the supported IPv6 unicast/multicast/anycast address
      forms with various scopes including link- and site-local.
      ULAs and GUAs are typically obtained through Stateless Address
      AutoConfiguration (SLAAC) <xref target="RFC4862"/> and/or the
      Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) <xref
      target= "RFC8415"/>, but these services require the presence
      of IPv6 network infrastructure which may not be immediately
      available in spontaneously-formed Ad Hoc networks.</t>

      <t>ORCHIDv2 <xref target="RFC7343"/> provides an IPv6 address
      type that an Ad Hoc network node can use for adaptation layer
      address self-generation instead of or in addition to other
      MLA types. A related IPv6 address type termed the Hierarchical
      Host Identity Tag or DRIP Entity Tag (HHIT/DET)) <xref target=
      "RFC9374"/> also provides a well-structured address format with
      exceptional uniqueness properties. A portion of the HHIT/DET
      includes a 64-bit hash of the node's ORCHIDv2 while the remainder
      of the address includes a well-formed IPv6 prefix plus bits
      corresponding to an attestation service that supports address
      proof-of-ownership. Verification of the attestation aspect of
      the address requires access to network infrastructure, but
      this may not always be available. Hence, a fully self-generated
      MLA type may be necessary in environments where an HHIT/DET
      cannot be used.</t>

      <t>Multilink interface connections to Ad Hoc networks have the
      interesting property that a multihop router R will often need
      to forward packets between nodes A and B even though R uses
      the same interface in the inbound and outbound directions.
      Since nodes A and B may not be able to communicate directly
      even though both can communicate directly with R, the link
      connectivity property is intransitive and the IPv6 Neighbor
      Discovery (ND) Redirect service cannot be used. Conversely,
      R may need to forward packets between nodes A and B via
      different multilink interfaces within a single Ad Hoc network
      that includes multiple distinct links/regions. Due to these
      indeterminant multilink properties, exclusive use of
      IPv6 Link Local Addresses (LLAs) is also out of scope.</t>

      <t>This document therefore introduces MLA Type-1 as a fully
      self-generated IPv6 unicast address type that can be used
      either instead of or in addition to other IPv6 unicast address
      types. MLA Type-1 uses the formerly-deprecated Site-Local
      IPv6 Address prefix fec0::10 according to the modified
      format shown in <xref target="mla-fmt"/>:

      <figure anchor="mla-fmt"
              title="IPv6 MLA Type-1 Format">
          <artwork><![CDATA[   | 10 bits  |1|       53 bits         |         64 bits            |
   +----------+-+-----------------------+----------------------------+
   |1111111011|L|      subnet ID        |       interface ID         |
   +----------+-+-----------------------+----------------------------+
   ]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>The node sets the first 10 bits of the Type-1 MLA to the
      constant string '1111111011' then sets the 11th bit (i.e., the
      "(L)ocal" bit) to 1. The node next sets subnet ID to a 53 bit
      random value calculated the same as specified in Section 3.2.1
      of <xref target="RFC4193"/> for the Unique Local Address
      Global ID.</t>

      <t>The node finally generates and assigns a semantically opaque
      interface ID based on this self-generated prefix as specified in
      <xref target="RFC7217"/>; the resulting 128-bit Type-1 MLA then
      has the proper format of an IPv6 address with a 64-bit "prefix"
      followed by a 64-bit interface identifier per the IPv6 addressing
      architecture. For example:</t>

      <t><list style="empty">
        <t>fee7:6c29:de12:4b74:884e:9d2a:73fc:2d94</t>
      </list></t>

      <t>After a node creates a Type-1 MLA, it can use the address
      within the context of spontaneously-organized Ad Hoc networks
      in which two or more nodes come together in the absence of
      stable supporting infrastructure and can still exchange IPv6
      packets with little or no chance of address collisions. The
      use could be limited to bootstrapping the assignment of
      topologically correct IPv6 addresses through other means
      mentioned earlier, or it could extend to longer term usage
      patterns such as sustained communications with single-hop
      neighbors on a local link or even between multihop peers
      within an Ad Hoc network.</t>
      
      <t>Note: the above address generation procedures apply when
      the L bit is set to 1; generation procedures for L=0 may be
      specified by future documents.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="interface" title="Assigning an MLA to an Interface">
      <t>IPv6 Type-1, Type-2 and Type-3 MLAs have no topological
      orientation and can therefore be assigned to any of a node's
      IPv6 multilink interfaces with a /128 prefix length (i.e., as
      a singleton address). The node can then begin to use these
      MLAs as the source/destination addresses of IPv6 packets that
      are forwarded over the interface within an Ad Hoc network multihop
      forwarding region. The node can assign the same MLA to multiple
      multilink interfaces all members of the same Ad Hoc network, but
      must assign a different address to the interfaces of each
      interface set connected to other Ad Hoc networks.</t>

      <t>MLAs may then serve as a basis for multihop forwarding over
      an IPv6 interface and/or for local neighborhood discovery over
      other IPv6 interface types. Due to their uniqueness properties,
      the node can assign these address types to a multilink interface
      as optimistic addresses per <xref target="RFC4429"/>, however it
      should deprecate an MLA if it detects in-service duplication.</t>

     <t>Note: a node can also assign an MLA to the OMNI interface as
     discussed in <xref target="I-D.templin-6man-omni3"/>.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="site-loc" title="Reclaiming fec0::/10">
      <t>Returning to a debate from more than 20 years ago, this
      document now proposes to reclaim the deprecated prefix
      "fec0::/10" for use as the Type-1 MLA top-level prefix.
      <xref target="RFC3879"/> documents the deprecation rationale
      including the assertion that "Site is an Ill-Defined Concept".
      However, the concept of an Ad Hoc network is a coherent
      logical one based on time-varying (multihop) connectivity
      and not necessarily one constrained by physical boundaries.
      Especially in Ad Hoc networks that employ a proactive
      local routing protocol the list of available adaptation
      layer addresses in each network is continuously updated
      for temporal consistency.</t>

      <t>For example, an IPv6 node may connect to multiple distinct
      Ad Hoc networks with a first set of multilink interfaces
      connected to network "A", a second set of interfaces
      connected to network "B", etc. According to the scoped
      IPv6 addressing architecture, the node would assign a
      separate MLA for each multilink interface set A, B, etc.
      and maintain separate Ad Hoc network multihop routing protocol
      instances for each set. MLAs A, B, etc. then become the router
      IDs for the separate routing protocol instances, but the IPv6
      node may elect to redistribute discovered adaptation layer
      routes between the instances. The uniqueness properties of
      MLAs therefore transcends logical Ad Hoc network boundaries
      but without "leaking" into external networks.</t>

      <t>A means for entering Ad Hoc network local IPv6 Zone
      Identifiers in user interfaces is necessary according
      to <xref target="I-D.ietf-6man-zone-ui"/>. Examples of
      an Ad Hoc network local unicast address qualified by a
      zone identifier are:</t>

      <t><list style="empty">
        <t>fee7:6c29:de12:4b74:884e:9d2a:73fc:2d94%netA (Type-1)</t>

        <t>2001:20:280:1405:a3ad:1952:ad0:a69e%netB (Type-2)</t>

        <t>2001:30:5efe:2018:c63d:9724:fca:1237%netC (Type-3)</t>
      </list></t>

      <t>The MLA Type-1 prefix (formerly known as "Site-Local") has
      the distinct advantage that it is reserved and available for
      reclamation by a future standards track publication, for which
      this document qualifies. Upon publication as a standards track
      RFC, the RFC Editor is instructed to update <xref target=
      "RFC3879"/>, <xref target="RFC4007"/>, <xref target="RFC4291"/>
      and <xref target="RFC5889"/> to reflect this new use for
      "fec0::/10".</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="ula-gua" title="Obtaining and Assigning IPv6 GUAs/ULAs">
      <t>IPv6 nodes assign MLAs to their IPv6 multilink interfaces for
      use only within the scope of locally connected Ad Hoc networks.
      These MLAs can appear in Ad Hoc network multihop routing protocol
      control messages and can also appear as the source and destination
      addresses for IPv6 packets forwarded within the locally connected
      Ad Hoc networks. MLAs cannot appear in the source or destination
      for IPv6 packets forwarded beyond the locally connected Ad Hoc
      networks, however, where an IPv6 GUA and possibly also a companion
      ULA address is necessary.</t>

      <t>In order to support communications beyond the Ad Hoc
      local scope, each IPv6 node is required to obtain an IPv6
      GUA/ULA pair through an IPv6 Internetworking border router
      or proxy that connects the Ad Hoc network to other networks.
      Since the border router/proxy may be multiple adaptation layer
      hops away, however, the IPv6 node configures and engages
      an Overlay Multilink Network (OMNI) Interface as specified
      in <xref target= "I-D.templin-6man-omni3"/>. The IPv6 node
      assigns the GUA/ULA to the OMNI interface which forwards
      original packets by inserting an adaptation layer IPv6
      encapsulation header that uses MLAs as source/destination
      addresses while the original packet uses GUAs/ULAs.</t>

      <t>The IPv6 Internetworking border router/proxy may be
      configured as an IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation
      (NPTv6) gateway that maintains a 1:1 relationship between
      the ULA on the "inside" and a GUA on the "outside" as
      discussed in <xref target= "I-D.bctb-6man-rfc6296-bis"/>.
      The NPTv6 gateway will then statelessly translate each
      ULA into its corresponding GUA (and vice versa) for
      IPv6 packets that transit between the inside and
      outside domains.</t>

      <t>The gateway provides service per the "ULA-Only" or
      "ULA+PA" <xref target="I-D.ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-considerations"/>
      connected network models. The IPv6 node can then use the
      ULA for local-scoped communications with internal peers
      and the GUA for global-scoped communications with external
      peers via the gateway as either a "NPTv6 translator" or
      "NPTv6 pass-through". IPv6 nodes can then select address
      pair combinations according to IPv6 default address
      selection rules <xref target="I-D.ietf-6man-rfc6724-update"/>.</t>

      <t>After receiving a ULA+PA GUA delegation, IPv6 nodes
      that require Provider-Independent (PI) GUAs can use the OMNI
      interface in conjunction with the Automatic Extended Route
      Optimization (AERO) global distributed mobility management
      service <xref target="I-D.templin-6man-aero3"/> to request
      and maintain IPv6 and/or IPv4 PI prefixes from the mobility
      service. The IPv6 node can then sub-delegate GUAs from
      the PI prefixes to its attached downstream local networks
      which may in turn engage an arbitrarily large IPv6 and/or
      IPv4 "Internet of Things".</t>
    </section>

   <section anchor="addrsel" title="Address Selection">
      <t>"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
      (IPv6)" <xref target="RFC6724"/> provides a policy table that
      specifies precedence values and preferred source prefixes for
      destination prefixes. "Preference for IPv6 ULAs over IPv4
      addresses in RFC6724" <xref target="I-D.ietf-6man-rfc6724-update"/>
      updates the policy table entries for ULAs, IPv4 addresses and
      the 6to4 prefix (2002::/16).</t>

      <t>This document proposes a further update to the policy table
      for IPv6 Type-1 (prefix fec0::/10), Type-2 (prefix 2001:20::/28)
      and Type-3 (prefix 2001:30::/28) MLAs. The proposed updates
      appear in the table below:

      <figure anchor="rfc6724update"
              title="Policy Table Update for Multilink Local Addresses">
          <artwork><![CDATA[
 draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update                           Updated
Prefix        Precedence Label        Prefix        Precedence Label
::1/128               50     0        ::1/128               50     0
::/0                  40     1        ::/0                  40     1
::ffff:0:0/96         20     4        ::ffff:0:0/96         20     4
2002::/16              5     2        2002::/16              5     2
2001::/32              5     5        2001::/32              5     5
fc00::/7              30    13        fc00::/7              30    13
::/96                  1     3        ::/96                  1     3
fec0::/10              1    11        fec0::/10              2    11 (*)
3ffe::/16              1    12        3ffe::/16              1    12
                                      2001:30::/28           4    14 (*)
                                      2001:20::/28           3    14 (*)
(*) value(s) changed in update
]]></artwork></figure>
      With the proposed updates, these new MLA types appear as a
      lesser precedence than IPv6 GUAs, IPv6 ULAs and IPv4 addresses.
      Within this hierarchy, Type-3 MLAs appear as a greater precedence
      than Type-2's which appear as a greater precedence than Type-1's.
      Type-1 MLAs now appear as a greater precedence than deprecated
      IPv6 prefixes but a lesser precedence than all other address types.</t>
   </section>

   <section anchor="reqs" title="Requirements">
      <t>IPv6 nodes MAY assign MLAs to their multilink interface
      connections to Ad Hoc networks. If the node becomes aware
      that the address is already in use by another node, it
      instead generates and assigns a new MLA.</t>

      <t>IPv6 multihop routers MAY forward IPv6 packets with
      MLA source or destination addresses over multiple hops
      within the same Ad Hoc network as an adaptation layer
      function.</t>

      <t>IPv6 Internetworking routers MUST NOT forward packets
      with MLA source or destination addresses to a link outside
      the packet's Ad Hoc network of origin.</t>

      <t>IPv6 Internetworking routers MUST NOT advertise
      MLA prefixes in routing protocol exchanges with
      correspondents outside the Ad Hoc network.</t>

      <t>The default behavior of exterior routing protocol sessions
      between administrative routing regions must be to ignore receipt
      of and not advertise prefixes in the fee0::/11 block.</t>

      <t>At the present time, AAAA and PTR records for MLAs in the
      fee0::/11 block are not recommended to be installed in the
      global DNS.</t>
   </section>

    <section anchor="implement" title="Implementation Status">
      <t>In progress.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="iana" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t><xref target="RFC3879"/> instructed IANA to mark the
      fec0::/10 prefix as "deprecated", and as such it does not
      appear in the IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry.</t>

      <t>Upon publication, IANA is instructed to add the prefix
      fec0::/10 to the 'iana-ipv6-special-registry' registry
      with the name "Multilink Local Unicast - Type-1" and with
      RFC set to "[RFCXXXX]" (i.e., this document).</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="secure" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>IPv6 MLAs include very large uniquely-assigned bit strings
      in both the prefix and interface identifier components which
      together provide strong uniqueness properties.</t>

      <t>With the random generation procedures specified in for
      the various MLA types, the only apparent opportunity for
      MLA duplication would be through either intentional or
      unintentional misconfiguration.</t>

      <t>An IPv6 node that generates an MLA and assigns it to
      an interface should therefore be prepared to deprecate the
      MLA and generate/assign a new one if it detects a legitimate
      duplicate.</t>

     <t>Additional security considerations for MLA Type-2 are
     documented in <xref target="RFC7343"/> and for MLA Type-3
     appear in <xref target="RFC9374"/>.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="ack" title="Acknowledgements">
      <t>This work was inspired by continued investigations into
      5G MANET operations in cooperation with the Virginia Tech
      National Security Institute (VTNSI).</t>

      <t>Emerging discussions on the IPv6 maintenance (6man) mailing
      list continue to shape updated versions of this document. The
      author acknowledges all those whose useful comments have helped
      further the understanding of this proposal.</t>

      <t>Honoring life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8200"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.7217"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4193"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4291"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4007"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5889"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.6724"?>
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.7343"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.7401"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9374"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4862"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8415"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.3879"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4429"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.templin-6man-aero3"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.templin-6man-omni3"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.bctb-6man-rfc6296-bis"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-6man-rfc6724-update"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-6man-zone-ui"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-considerations"?>
    </references>

    <section title="ORCHIDv2 Addresses for Ad Hoc Networks">
      <t>The Host Identity Protocol Version 2 (HIPv2) <xref target=
      "RFC7401"/> specifies constant values for the ORCHIDv2 generation
      algorithm to produce Host Identity Tags (HITs) for use by the HIP
      protocol. For further study is whether these same constant values
      can be used for generation of ORCHIDv2s intended for assignment to
      Ad Hoc network interfaces or whether an alternate set of constant
      values is necessary.</t>  
    </section>

    <section title="Change Log">
      <t>&lt;&lt; RFC Editor - remove prior to publication &gt;&gt;</t>

      <t>Differences from earlier versions:<list style="symbols">
          <t>First draft publication.</t>
        </list></t>
    </section>
  </back>
</rfc>
