rfc1800.txt
字号:
| Proposed | (3) | (1) | (3) | (3) |
| Standard | | | | |
| | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| | Notify | Publish | Notify | Notify |
| Experimental | (4) | (1) | (4) | (4) |
| Protocol | | | | |
| | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| Information | Publish | Publish |Discretion|Discretion|
| or Opinion | (1) | (1) | (5) | (5) |
| Paper | | | | |
| | | | | |
+==========================================================+
(1) Publish.
(2) Bogus. Inform the source of the rules. RFCs specifying
Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IESG, only.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 11]
RFC 1800 Internet Standards July 1995
(3) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG. Expect to see
the document again only after approval by the IESG.
(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 [Page 12]
RFC 1800 Internet Standards July 1995
|
+<----------------------------------------------+
| ^
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 [Page 13]
RFC 1800 Internet Standards July 1995
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:
1814 - Unique Addresses are Good
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1813 - NFS Version 3 Protocol Specification
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1812 - Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1811 - U.S. Government Internet Domain Names
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1810 - Report on MD5 Performance
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1809 - Using the Flow Label Field in IPv6
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1808 - Relative Uniform Resource Locators
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1807 - A Format for Bibliographic Records
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 14]
RFC 1800 Internet Standards July 1995
1806 - Communicating Presentation Information in Internet
Messages: The Content-Disposition Header
An Experimental protocol.
1805 - Location-Independent Data/Software Integrity Protocol
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1804 - Schema Publishing in X.500 Directory
An Experimental protocol.
1803 - Recommendations for an X.500 Production Directory Service
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1802 - Introducing Project Long Bud: Internet Pilot Project for
the Deployment of X.500 Directory Information in Support of
X.400 Routing
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1801 - X.400-MHS use of the X.500 Directory to support X.400-MHS
Routing
An Experimental protocol.
1800 - Internet Official Protocol Standards
This memo.
1799 - Not yet issued.
1798 - Connection-less Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1797 - Class A Subnet Experiment
An Experimental protocol.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 15]
RFC 1800 Internet Standards July 1995
1796 - Not All RFCs are Standards
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1795 - Data Link Switching: Switch-to-Switch Protocol AIW DLSw
RIG: DLSw Closed Pages, DLSw Standard Version 1
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1794 - DNS Support for Load Balancing
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1793 - Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1792 - TCP/IPX Connection Mib Specification
An Experimental protocol.
1791 - TCP And UDP Over IPX Networks With Fixed Path MTU
An Experimental protocol.
1790 - An Agreement between the Internet Society and Sun
Microsystems, Inc. in the Matter of ONC RPC and XDR
Protocols
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1789 - INETPhone: Telephone Services and Servers on Internet
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1788 - ICMP Domain Name Messages
⌨️ 快捷键说明
复制代码
Ctrl + C
搜索代码
Ctrl + F
全屏模式
F11
切换主题
Ctrl + Shift + D
显示快捷键
?
增大字号
Ctrl + =
减小字号
Ctrl + -