<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.7.18 (Ruby 3.0.2) -->
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign-00" category="bcp" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" updates="7249" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.23.0 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="IPv6 Address Assignment Policy">Clarification of IPv6 Address Assignment Policy</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign-00"/>
    <author initials="B. E." surname="Carpenter" fullname="Brian E. Carpenter">
      <organization abbrev="Univ. of Auckland">The University of Auckland</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <postalLine>School of Computer Science</postalLine>
          <postalLine>PB 92019</postalLine>
          <postalLine>Auckland 1142</postalLine>
          <postalLine>New Zealand</postalLine>
        </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">
      <organization abbrev="Univ. of Minnesota">University of Minnesota</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <postalLine>Office of Information Technology</postalLine>
          <postalLine>Minneapolis MN 55455</postalLine>
          <postalLine>United States of America</postalLine>
        </postal>
        <email>farmer@umn.edu</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2024" month="August" day="26"/>
    <area>Internet</area>
    <workgroup>6man</workgroup>
    <keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <?line 79?>

<t>This document specifies the approval process for changes to the
IPv6 Address Space 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 84?>

<section anchor="intro">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) and its address space are
currently 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 current relationship
between the IETF and IANA was formalized <xref target="RFC2860"/>
and registry details were clarified <xref target="RFC7020"/>, <xref target="RFC7249"/>.</t>
      <t>Occasionally, IPv6 address space allocations are performed outside
the scope of routine allocations to regional address registries.
For example, recently a substantial allocation was requested
by an IETF document approved by the IESG <xref target="I-D.ietf-6man-sids"/>.</t>
      <t>The present document clarifies the status of RFC 1881 and the
approval level needed for non-routine address allocations.</t>
      <t>This clarification is necessary because RFC 1881, a joint
publication of the IAB and IESG, is incorrectly listed in
the RFC index at the time of writing as "legacy", whereas
it remains current. Also the allocation policy in the IANA
IPv6 Address Space registry <xref target="IANA1"/> is shown as "IESG approval",
whereas for major allocations a more stringent policy
is appropriate.</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
as "Reserved by IETF". This is the address space held in reserve
for future use if ever the current 125-bit unicast space (2000::/3)
is found inadequate or inappropriate.</t>
      <t>RFC 1881 did not specify an allocation policy for this. At some
point, IANA listed "IESG approval". This is defined in <xref target="BCP26"/>
as 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 as "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 is clearly insufficient. The present document replaces
this by the "IETF Review" process as defined by BCP 26. It is not 
considered necessary to require the stricter "Standards Action"
policy, because there might be cases where opening up a new range
of address space did not in fact require a new protocol standard.</t>
      <t>It may be noted that the recent allocation for <xref target="I-D.ietf-6man-sids"/>, 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"/> do cite the "IETF Review"
policy, consistently with RFC 7249.</t>
      <t>This document therefore extends the first paragraph of section 2.3
of <xref target="RFC7249"/> 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], 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], 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].
</blockquote>
    </section>
    <section anchor="rfc-editor-considerations">
      <name>RFC Editor Considerations</name>
      <t>The RFC Editor is requested to update the "Stream" information
for <xref target="RFC1881"/> to "IAB" in place of "Legacy".</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>IANA is requested to update the "Registration Procedure(s)" section
of the Internet Protocol Version 6 Address Space registry to show
the policy as "IETF Review".</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security-considerations">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>Carefully reviewed address allocation mechanisms are necessary for any form of address-based security.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="acknowledgements">
      <name>Acknowledgements</name>
      <t>Useful comments were received from 
Bob Hinden,
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>
      </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="I-D.ietf-6man-sids">
          <front>
            <title>SRv6 Segment Identifiers in the IPv6 Addressing Architecture</title>
            <author fullname="Suresh Krishnan" initials="S." surname="Krishnan">
              <organization>Cisco</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="15" month="February" year="2024"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>   The data plane for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) is built using
   IPv6 as the underlying forwarding plane.  Due to this underlying use
   of IPv6, 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="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-6man-sids-06"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="IANA1" target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space">
          <front>
            <title>IPv6 Address Space registry</title>
            <author>
              <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/>
            </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/>
            </author>
            <date>n.d.</date>
          </front>
        </reference>
      </references>
    </references>
    <?line 181?>

<section anchor="ipv6-registry-title-inconsistencies">
      <name>IPv6 Registry Title Inconsistencies</name>
      <t>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 <xref target="IANA1"/> and the "IPv6 Global Unicast Address Assignments" registry <xref target="IANA2"/>. These two titles are inconsistent with the titles for the "IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry" <xref target="IANA3"/> and the similar IPv4 registries, the "IANA IPv4 Address Space Registry" and the "IANA IPv4 Special-Purpose Address Registry."</t>
      <t>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.</t>
      <t>The "IANA IPv6 Address Space Registry" and the "IANA IPv6 Global Unicast Address Space Registry" are possibly more consistent titles for these registries.</t>
    </section>
    <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>
  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source:
H4sIAAAAAAAAA+1Za28bNxb9LkD/gVA+bAJIY1tJ3EQoFnWcR4NNEyNyN8C2
wYKaoSTWM8MpyZGiNfzf99xLzkOW42bzeVOglmb4uI9zzz2kJpPJcOC1z9VM
nOfS6qVOpdemFGYp3l5sTsVZllnlnDhzTq/KQpVeXJhcp7vhQC4WVm1mfzku
M2kpC+yQWbn0E638cnJayHIiMWciecLk+Hg4GA6cl2X2b5mbEsO9rRU91JXl
L85Pj4+fH0+xs1US+5Ze2VL54WC7mglacTi42nbPJy9pv+EAHs3EIq2wfL0o
NPYz5eWuwg5vX12+Hg7qKpNeuZn4YfrkOW1Y6dlwIIQ36UzslKPPzlhv1RKD
hHggMrWUde4dhrQDdkV4z99hYu3XxvI69G/SfBBClxj1IhGvEnEubaXI2u5t
iNQLq2X5lRHGwtvLtRK/lnqjrNN+R9k6q9OrHNHrBjb5oXHJ3UMqg4jns+7B
RMzTtTE5DT83RVVjazzSqkxVf9TFC/F8enzyvP+sWV6cnDyZdi9SU5fe7mbi
vdqKfym5b4EqpM6RHnI4UUna+PvTil4kqSkomncHcZ6If1jt1iVlfj+A8xpo
XN/xmqN3rl1qxHznvCrcGIBJk8Ow8aADQx0vnFzFhb/FzJeJeC1tcTvL9EZu
dHbwkk3cT+4vuiyVM17ek907xtyR3g9LlLji8i6Xxhah2i9Vui5Nbla7/lhe
UVYoYyd+eS+ePn3y9OkdeYUFXmVi7qmKGGdwBzxyELslO/pTXSDTWU0BK4MF
G8U2zi9fPjvlTy/OL6bh08fX50+mz09mTASNxXE83p08e3bSfJ4+Oz1uPv9w
PO0+o6z589vJy6RjH6czFx6fvT87iUHy0q4U6GLtfeVmR0fb7TYBMmWCpBzJ
ltvcka42p0xgIL2Jq2RTHpFM9zhxTq+FVSvtELBmy+l3bVmXiKzz7da9AYcG
vMnNQuaUIJpzB0e7xpjH/7MxeDhhi1ylUi3zSd+/zgysHWyZx2EXtQUsVWvM
x3bacLBRZR1Su7KmrmZidPrL2fsRkzET9uiTsVe6XIk39J5fBGiNyJSfKLlk
Kb+QNl3jReMJjaNHAE/SjDuiB0cLa7ZOcXiPRmTGZDJBecEomXr6frlGAaCL
1dzW2N+lBtQ9SFhWlTUbBBl/UvIHEBXpWpYrxe0BY4aDe9CQiLdeyNwZEdsQ
IZY7UdKYUugsy7kTPqDeZk1Wp1y18d/1A01Pb2hE0/vEhTXoXyDyfxKLYPCp
eEhmPBLE0Bq9KyJIMHgRLeyQ1tbCxXxHHU6XKOrFTlxfc13e3PDM6+tYkTc3
CUVGIQGlXCkODWqfYsLu7i+/lYigytVKElUgLgSM4YCXj2V8czNGmy0UOqi0
TiwUIql4vWgWYpYzXbm1RjNfKL9Vqgw7opGzeYw32oyZItf/UdFkIocbhIgG
NbGHRR6ocGKrsFMa9E8zgRiETApfkA92eDj4kKKWYITM8934LlfxwgQR5Siq
olKWjMG6pvYgHcSZTEZzqZiHgWSPWO/NQ4DISNqlXT1aDeDBjtdAmfoiiypX
Y7xJQ9Yk2tOCNJTXNLFdkCNi1Z+1QsfLOOyQFxy0FtYByCHlIaTzN3D+kDNj
HCj1FQyjue0iTQxDbcASX3NHIExTjjlHXBJt3eRqo3JRKpVhbyqe0pSTNibR
915skrYi0z3BigelogqUSOxCpbIGyTT7jhGaPwzKBOKuXuQ9kcuunr0I4IHL
Y1pIl6kB5FKKKZofQVaXIW20oi4z9UVIz5O9LjiNW6s9MRMiPSKcp7vRWGzX
QJYEy2pCLygIuY1oTsQZVT1zSJeoijUzdoiGUZHcwx6UIOpeKE6Y7dZmW7IB
nLwmxKMxFHIwhANcyD/w/z2YioJqjdAF3kIeqyjdsSivUkGeeZUEDjprUveO
U3dwUugWpvEXUM68ydfJgaok2B797loJOfMRILMRmYTZUSI4/zoy8N5aa5VT
soQNk4YD8nhZe8g2QYjQSwGr7R6vnEyfThbIUOytcaWHOG0cz2ZHjx9xHJaQ
O7SyzFBHCAZkGn27FZ0W6BmEXWmabsH1dphmss3DFWDBM/cBnoTSceCxCL1b
2ey8b0ga7l5fs2RihqN8WgkHLYhNXnHhaxsY+uHoLMfBpF6tKQKICZUNVG5/
jF9HaEfGQDW1FR52gzNwdNzxxJowTt8yiGar2EfmsLBAM9slSTIKHYgSK6EI
83yykOnVcFAo6praFQ0IkAoVCkjgONjAx7BfFMqtXORd/+0tgBKTJcUedisw
pNmpjDbmBBFxUqQR9lCsuqiAUEkMGPDE5RF1N7NYRfjswxYHSULImHMnmInQ
snIqW1eTvtZc33cypFVVjrkcLsyMZDtiLv6oNlptR62UkK7fh5FgMT1lvcBJ
8wING4WFjmIxoiO/GHgduydVdUrHuNGcTtfSZqhRFhAjghsBcdwSZgBFoVdr
Dh/lwDVJwMGMYlZXwFeJs5wlkTMcIEz7JdhAH3lcQkG1xoRZVSNMXLSG0wKn
Ckm8TTNJIXQYTLk7dbVDRXN3XyK+1ekabIfIxSAqhpoU2ygcWVi26RizscTn
3HwIVQEDhuRQx4d354dK37imZfY0IpLES45DrwuY9VsTFIzKer08MvgUDB4+
PcanzIgUZ6pDaHQJ48yDHrjvb7Vf7+vGfcnKWWU5pb5gShaAvtQWtQl0y5WV
1Zrw7lRQltPkMSe2J34Edw+KkOPD2Id3L/H3xwXycvVnjaT9nYU/gX5DJLqo
86t7OP8hF+4XjeOcggc/HD3z66ZH8ELbtclvkfsjAr7tdYNW+v0WRenncYhF
s4j6Avr1ATcMqWVtA4F011TYc8XnJJiBDgDGahoBL3FLx+o8J5QWaANiaU0R
Et8aFUYRRaaQEJlsrk3YqtiGSOuQjPnxaC947199+n9Avz+gVGuWG9t+scq9
Pvkbt8nPh9EnYUMV9CrTHgRzHom10zGXUfzFAbonqIlxw+ktVOzcQ2sVI6G7
G5agQ3pnHZozgvCkUYJbAsVt9C4ox6i0WAUcmsKP7zMgnqlDmi6IrTLE6aF7
NGoqnKubs33PgfErmhObkVoLDT8qmSA6u7BHB+YKGot66aET5+iqy5owYnkK
EfWB2he9pi45002To3DKkv8WomtBEBNEyC7u2yjW9Ko021xl4ZzK+//qaHvw
aMGPwhmQuo0m2DESh4MXZiF+pvZQQkNfrHWuq0pcgrZVPg5nSeZ2157Vg5bh
3FGJNpcbmONzCnZL29AILazCXTFMMDXEa66vFMU4s3KLQwZRfJRTen96I5T4
qiVIe+oxfYq4dcmi6dIxNJVvTfvorrNGPMVhmW+7ZTpYBO2O9REpDpgcPaAM
93z0LfXsucj7fvO10qjXVhuznS7oLogWeNJrxeP9tZ/cwn+3Yud+O/SvzEj4
YukTEMQl6sKhpzCO2rdiSqEju3auJkMIA7GvI8m0zd8ctXxvTc69f1lzsli0
NcztSHotl4rPNDFiKUNqLTdo/dJprMmr6EUdaYOEGlMHiSM+4DaZanmjH/fv
gM2tc3IrU0QD/142vzniX0XdwUy6gTGA4gK+8ym3h699WDnVv2MRoYzP+SpP
vDMr8ftvHf/PwNlK8ozCbNTvn3n0g/gTV/srxtd+55qID1avNF3vbEIA43z+
yWpyfBIGwSmiRaaH7jukYUOjEzEvwJYt+Zs2vL3pFWzJ9Becorqk8A8Q+3tO
w57n7TUYX8bFK7I99+77BY92NZUPoPz0hh6F//4L952IamscAAA=

-->

</rfc>
