<?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-carpenter-6man-addr-assign-02" category="bcp" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" updates="7249" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.22.0 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="IPv6 Address Assignment Policy">Clarification of IPv6 Address Assignment Policy</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-carpenter-6man-addr-assign-02"/>
    <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="08"/>
    <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-carpenter-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-00">
        <name>Draft-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>
  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source:
H4sIAAAAAAAAA+1Z748TORL9Hin/gxU+HEhJz0yAAaLViWGAXXQsjMjsIR2L
Tk63k3inu91ruxNyo/nf71XZ/SOTgeX4fKy0dLrtcrnq1atnM5lMhgOvfa5m
4jyXVi91Kr02pTBL8eZicyrOsswq58SZc3pVFqr04sLkOt0NB3KxsGoz+8tx
mUlLWWCFzMqln6TSVvis7OS0kOVEYuJE8qzJ8XQ4GA6cl2X2b5mbEnO8rRW9
1JXlH85Pj4+f0UBplcTiZKlUfjjYrmaCLA4HV9vu/eQlLTocYFszsUgrmK8X
hcZ6przcVVjhzavL18NBXWXSKzcTT6aPntGClZ4NB0J4k87ETjl6dsZ6q5YY
JMQ9kamlrHPvMKQdsCvCd/4NF2u/Npbt0J9J8yCELjHqRSJeJeK8iUf3NYTr
hdWy/MoIY7Hby7USv5V6o6zTfkcpO6vTqxzR6wY2SaJxyd1DKoOI57PuxUTM
07UxOQ0/N0VVY2m80qpMVX/UxQvxbHp88qz/rjEvTk4eTbsPqalLb3cz8U5t
xb+U3PdAFVLnSA9tOFFJi5DnK/qQpKagaN4dxHki/mG1W5eU+f0AzmtAcn3H
Z47euXapEfOd86pwYwAmTQ7DxoMOHHVsOLmKhr/HzZeJeC1tcTvL9EVudHbw
kV3cT+6vuiyVM15+I7t3jLkjve+XqHPFNV4ujS1CyV+qdF2a3Kx2/bFsUVao
ZSd+fSceP370+PEdeYUHXmVi7qmKGGfYDsjkIHZL3ujzukCms5oCVgYPNop9
nF++fHrKTy/OL6bh6cPr80fTZyczJoLG4zge306ePj1pnqdPT4+b5yfH0+4Z
Zc3PbyYvE638MrCP05kLr8/enZ3EIHlpVwp0sfa+crOjo+12mwCZMkFSjmRL
cO5IV5tTJjAw38RVsimPyKh7xDinz8KqlXYIWLPk9IeWrEtE1vl26d6AQwd+
zs1C5pQgmnMHUbvGmYf/szN4OWGPXKVSLfNJf3+dG7AdfJnHYRe1BSxV68yH
dtpwsFFlHVK7sqauZmJ0+uvZuxGTMRP26KOxV7pciZ/pO38I0BqRK88pueQp
f5A2XeNDsxMaR68AnqQZd0QvjhbWbJ3i8B6NyI3JZILyglMy9fT7co0CQCur
ubfxfpcaUPcgYVlV1mwQZPyV0n4AUZGuZblS3B4wZjj4BhoS8cYLmTsjYhsi
xHInShpXCp1lOXfCe9TbrMnqlKs2/rm+p+ntDY1oep+4sAb9C0T+T2IRDD4V
98mNB4IYWqN3RQQJBi+ihRXS2lpsMd9Rh9MlinqxE9fXXJc3Nzzz+jpW5M1N
QpFRSEApV4pDg9qnmPB2981vJSKocrWSRBWICwFjOGDzsYxvbsZos4VCB5XW
iYVCJBXbi24hZjnTlVtrNPOF8lulyrAiGjm7x3ijxZgpcv0fFV0mcrhBiGhQ
E3t45IEKJ7YKK6VBBDUTiEHIpfAD+eANDwfvU9QSnJB5vhvftVV8MEFJOYqq
qJQlZ2DX1B6kgziTy2guFfMwkOwR6715CBA5Sau01qPXAB78eA2UqS+yqHI1
xpc0ZE2iPS1IQ3lNE1uDHBGr/qwVOl7GYYe84KC1sA5ADikPIZ3/jM0fcmaM
A6W+gmM0tzXSxDDUBjzxNXcEwjTlmHPEJdHWTa42KhelUhnWpuIpTTlpYxL3
3otN0lZkuqda8aJUVIESiV2oVNYgmWbdMULzh0GZQNzVi7yndHmrZy8CeLDl
MRnSZWoAuZRiiuZHkNVlSBtZ1GWmvgjpebLXBadxa7UnZkKkR4TzdDcai+0a
yJJgWU3oBQUhtxHNiTijqmcO6RJVsXDGCtExKpJvsAcliLoXihNuu7XZluwA
J68J8WgMhRwc4QAX8g/8fw+moqBaI3SBt5DHKup3GGUrFeSZV0ngoLMmdW85
dQfHhc4wjb+AcuZFvk4OVCXB97jvrpXQZj4AZDYikzA7SgTnX0cG3rO1Vjkl
S9gwaTigHS9rD9kmCBF6KeC13eOVk+njyQIZir01WrqP08bxbHb08AHHYQm5
Q5ZlhjpCMCDT6Net6LRAzyDsStN0C663wzSTbx5bARY8cx/gSSgdBx6L0LuV
zW73DUlju9fXLJmY4SifVmKDFsQmr7jwtQ0MfX90luNgUq/WFAHEhMoGKrc/
xq8jtCNjoJraCg+rYTPY6LjjiTVhnH5lEM1W8R6Zw4KBZrZLkmQUOhAlVkIR
5vlkIdOr4aBQ1DW1KxoQIBUqFJDAcbCBj+F9USi3cpF3/bdnACUmS4o9/FZg
SLNTGS3MCSLipEgj7KFYdVEBoZIYMOCJyyPqbmaxivDZhy0OkoSQMedOMBOh
ZeVUtq4mfa25vu9kSKuqHHM5XJgZyXbEXPxBbbTajlopIV2/DyPBYnrKeoGT
5gUaNgoLHcViREd+MfA6dk+q6pSOcaM5na6lzVCjLCBGBDcC4rglzACKQq/W
HD7KgWuSgIMZxayugK8SZzlLImc4QJj2S7CBPvK4hIJqnQmzqkaYuOgNpwWb
KiTxNs0khdBhMOXu1NUOFc3dfYn4VqdrsB0iF4OoGGpSbKNwZGHZpmPMzhKf
c/MhVAUMGJJDHR/enR8qfeOaltnTiEgSmxyHXhcw67cmKBiV9Xp5ZPApGDw8
PcRTZkSKM9UhNLqEceZBD9z3t9qv93XjvmTlrLKcUl8wJQtAX2qL2gS65crK
ak14dyooy2nykBPbEz+CuwdFyPFh7P3bl/j7pwXycvVnjaT9nYU/gX5DJLqo
86tvcP59LtwvGsc5hR08OXrq102PYEPbtclvkfsDAr7tdYNW+n2KovTzOMSi
MaK+gH59wA1DalnbQCDdXRXWXPE5CW6gA4CxmkbAJm7pWJ3nhNICbUAsrSlC
4lunwiiiyBQSIpPNtQl7FdsQaR2SMT8d7QXv3auP/w/ojweUas1yY9svVrnX
Jz9xm/x8GH0SNlRBrzLtQTDnkVg7HXMZxV8coHuCmhg3nN5Cxc49tFYxErq7
YQk6pHfWoTkjCE8aJbglUNxGb4NyjEqLVcChK/z6Ww7EM3VI0wWxVYY43XcP
Rk2Fc3Vztr9xYPyK5sRipNZCw49KJojOLuxxA3MFjUW99HAT5+iqy5owYnkK
EfWB2he9pi45002To3DKkv8uRNeCICaIkF1ct1Gs6VVptrnKwjmV1//N0fLg
0YJfhTMgdRtNsGMkDgcvzEL8Qu2hhIa+WOtcV5W4BG2rfBzOksztrj2rBy3D
uaMSbS43MMfnFOyWtqERWliFu2K4YGqI11xfKYpxZuUWhwyi+Cin9P70Rijx
VUuQ9tRj+hRx65JF06VjaCrfm/bRXWeNeIqDme+7ZTowgnbH+ogUB1yOO6AM
9/boW+rZ2yKv+93XSqNeW23cdrqguyAy8KjXisf7th/dwn9nsdt+O/Sv3Ej4
YukjEMQl6sKhpzCO2rdiSqEju3auJkcIA7GvI8m0zN8ctXxvTc69f1lzsli0
NcztSHotl4rPNDFiKUNqLTdo/dJp2GQrelFH2iChxtRB4ogPuE2mWt7ox/0H
YHPrnNzKFNHAv5fN7474V1F3MJNuYAyguMDe+ZTbw9c+rJzq37GIUMbnfJUn
3pqV+P1Tx/8zcLaSPKMwG/X7Zx59T/A/OU2Oj5kPxHurV5rucDYhSvuDTsIg
eE7cxxzQ/Yb+a7hyIuYFKLFleNPGsDe9gjrP9BcclbrI878y7K85DWuet3dd
fOMW78HoW/jvv6alSx0dHAAA

-->

</rfc>
