rfc2200.txt

RFC 的详细文档！

      (4) Notify both the IESG and IRSG.  If no concerns are raised in
          two weeks then do Discretion (5), else RFC Editor to resolve
          the concerns or do Refer (3).

      (5) RFC Editor's discretion.  The RFC Editor decides if a review
          is needed and if so by whom.  RFC Editor decides to publish or
          not.

   Of course, in all cases the RFC Editor can request or make minor
   changes for style, format, and presentation purposes.

   The IESG has designated the IESG Secretary as its agent for
   forwarding documents with IESG approval and for registering concerns
   in response to notifications (4) to the RFC Editor.  Documents from
   Area Directors or Working Group Chairs may be considered in the same
   way as documents from "other".

5.2.  The Standards Track Diagram

   There is a part of the STATUS and STATE categorization that is called
   the standards track.  Actually, only the changes of state are
   significant to the progression along the standards track, though the
   status assignments may change as well.

   The states illustrated by single line boxes are temporary states,
   those illustrated by double line boxes are long term states.  A
   protocol will normally be expected to remain in a temporary state for
   several months (minimum six months for proposed standard, minimum
   four months for draft standard).  A protocol may be in a long term
   state for many years.

   A protocol may enter the standards track only on the recommendation
   of the IESG; and may move from one state to another along the track
   only on the recommendation of the IESG.  That is, it takes action by
   the IESG to either start a protocol on the track or to move it along.

   Generally, as the protocol enters the standards track a decision is
   made as to the eventual STATUS, requirement level or applicability
   (elective, recommended, or required) the protocol will have, although
   a somewhat less stringent current status may be assigned, and it then
   is placed in the the proposed standard STATE with that status.  So
   the initial placement of a protocol is into state 1.  At any time the
   STATUS decision may be revisited.





Internet Architecture Board Standards Track                    [Page 11]

RFC 2200                   Internet Standards                  June 1997


         |
         +<----------------------------------------------+
         |                                               ^
         V    0                                          |    4
   +-----------+                                   +===========+
   |   enter   |-->----------------+-------------->|experiment |
   +-----------+                   |               +=====+=====+
                                   |                     |
                                   V    1                |
                             +-----------+               V
                             | proposed  |-------------->+
                        +--->+-----+-----+               |
                        |          |                     |
                        |          V    2                |
                        +<---+-----+-----+               V
                             | draft std |-------------->+
                        +--->+-----+-----+               |
                        |          |                     |
                        |          V    3                |
                        +<---+=====+=====+               V
                             | standard  |-------------->+
                             +=====+=====+               |
                                                         |
                                                         V    5
                                                   +=====+=====+
                                                   | historic  |
                                                   +===========+

   The transition from proposed standard (1) to draft standard (2) can
   only be by action of the IESG and only after the protocol has been
   proposed standard (1) for at least six months.

   The transition from draft standard (2) to standard (3) can only be by
   action of the IESG and only after the protocol has been draft
   standard (2) for at least four months.

   Occasionally, the decision may be that the protocol is not ready for
   standardization and will be assigned to the experimental state (4).
   This is off the standards track, and the protocol may be resubmitted
   to enter the standards track after further work.  There are other
   paths into the experimental and historic states that do not involve
   IESG action.

   Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus becomes
   historic, or it may happen that a protocol on the standards track is
   in a sense overtaken by another protocol (or other events) and
   becomes historic (state 5).




Internet Architecture Board Standards Track                    [Page 12]

RFC 2200                   Internet Standards                  June 1997


6.  The Protocols

   Subsection 6.1 lists recent RFCs and other changes.  Subsections 6.2
   - 6.10 list the standards in groups by protocol state.

6.1.  Recent Changes

6.1.1.  New RFCs:

      2153 - PPP Vendor Extensions

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      2152 - UTF-7

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      2151 - Not yet issued.

      2150 - Not yet issued.

      2149 - Multicast Server Architectures for MARS-based ATM
             multicasting

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      2148 - Not yet issued.

      2147 - TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2146 - U.S. Government Internet Domain Names

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      2145 - Use and Interpretation of HTTP Version Numbers

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.







Internet Architecture Board Standards Track                    [Page 13]

RFC 2200                   Internet Standards                  June 1997


      2144 - The CAST-128 Encryption Algorithm

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      2143 - Encapsulating IP with the Small Computer System Interface

             An Experimental protocol.

      2142 - Mailbox Names for Common Services, Roles and Functions

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2141 - URN Syntax

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2140 - TCP Control Block Interdependence

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      2139 - RADIUS Accounting

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      2138 - Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2137 - Secure Domain Name System Dynamic Update

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2136 - Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2135 - Internet Society By-Laws

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      2134 - Articles of Incorporation of Internet Society

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.



Internet Architecture Board Standards Track                    [Page 14]

RFC 2200                   Internet Standards                  June 1997


      2133 - Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      2132 - DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor Extensions

             A Draft Standard protocol.

      2131 - Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol

             A Draft Standard protocol.

      2130 - The Report of the IAB Character Set Workshop held 29
             February - 1 March, 1996

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      2129 - Toshiba's Flow Attribute Notification Protocol (FANP)
             Specification

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      2128 - Dial Control Management Information Base using SMIv2

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2127 - ISDN Management Information Base using SMIv2

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2126 - ISO Transport Service on top of TCP (ITOT)

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2125 - The PPP Bandwidth Allocation Protocol (BAP), The PPP
             Bandwidth Allocation Control Protocol (BACP)

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2124 - Cabletron's Light-weight Flow Admission Protocol
             Specification

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.




Internet Architecture Board Standards Track                    [Page 15]

RFC 2200                   Internet Standards                  June 1997


      2123 - Traffic Flow Measurement: Experiences with NeTraMet

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      2122 - VEMMI URL Specification