rfc2400.txt

RFC 的详细文档！

   codes, TCP port numbers, Telnet Option Codes, ARP hardware types, and
   Terminal Type names.  Assigned Numbers was most recently issued as
   RFC-1700.

3.2.  Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers

   This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways and
   supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities.
   Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers is RFC-1812.

3.3.  Host Requirements

   This pair of documents reviews and updates the specifications that
   apply to hosts, and it supplies guidance and clarification for any
   ambiguities.  Host Requirements was issued as RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.

3.4.  The MIL-STD Documents

   The DoD MIL-STD Internet specifications are out of date and have been
   discontinued.  The DoD's Joint Technical Architecture (JTA) lists the
   current set of IETF STDs and RFCs that the DoD intends to use in all
   new and upgraded Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and
   Intelligence (C4I) acquisitions.  A copy of the JTA can be obtained



Internet Architecture Board Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 2400                   Internet Standards             September 1998


   from http://www-jta.itsi.disa.mil.

4.  Explanation of Terms

   There are two independent categorization of protocols.  The first is
   the "maturity level" or STATE of standardization, one of "standard",
   "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental",
   "informational" or "historic".  The second is the "requirement level"
   or STATUS of this protocol, one of "required", "recommended",
   "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".

   The status or requirement level is difficult to portray in a one word
   label.  These status labels should be considered only as an
   indication, and a further description, or applicability statement,
   should be consulted.

   When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard,
   it is labeled with a current status.

   At any given time a protocol occupies a cell of the following matrix.
   Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the following
   proportions (indicated by the relative number of Xs).  A new protocol
   is most likely to start in the (proposed standard, elective) cell, or
   the (experimental, limited use) cell.

                             S T A T U S
                     Req   Rec   Ele   Lim   Not
                   +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Std     |  X  | XXX | XXX |     |     |
       S           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Draft   |  X  |  X  | XXX |     |     |
       T           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Prop    |     |  X  | XXX |     |     |
       A           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Info    |     |     |     |     |     |
       T           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Expr    |     |     |     | XXX |     |
       E           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Hist    |     |     |     |     | XXX |
                   +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

   What is a "system"?

      Some protocols are particular to hosts and some to gateways; a few
      protocols are used in both.  The definitions of the terms below
      will refer to a "system" which is either a host or a gateway (or
      both).  It should be clear from the context of the particular
      protocol which types of systems are intended.



Internet Architecture Board Standards Track                     [Page 7]

RFC 2400                   Internet Standards             September 1998


4.1.  Definitions of Protocol State

   Every protocol listed in this document is assigned to a "maturity
   level" or STATE of standardization: "standard", "draft standard",
   "proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic".

   4.1.1.  Standard Protocol

      The IESG has established this as an official standard protocol for
      the Internet.  These protocols are assigned STD numbers (see RFC-
      1311).  These are separated into two groups: (1) IP protocol and
      above, protocols that apply to the whole Internet; and (2)
      network-specific protocols, generally specifications of how to do
      IP on particular types of networks.

   4.1.2.  Draft Standard Protocol

      The IESG is actively considering this protocol as a possible
      Standard Protocol.  Substantial and widespread testing and comment
      are desired.  Comments and test results should be submitted to the
      IESG.  There is a possibility that changes will be made in a Draft
      Standard Protocol before it becomes a Standard Protocol.

   4.1.3.  Proposed Standard Protocol

      These are protocol proposals that may be considered by the IESG
      for standardization in the future.  Implementation and testing by
      several groups is desirable.  Revision of the protocol
      specification is likely.

   4.1.4.  Experimental Protocol

      A system should not implement an experimental protocol unless it
      is participating in the experiment and has coordinated its use of
      the protocol with the developer of the protocol.

      Typically, experimental protocols are those that are developed as
      part of an ongoing research project not related to an operational
      service offering.  While they may be proposed as a service
      protocol at a later stage, and thus become proposed standard,
      draft standard, and then standard protocols, the designation of a
      protocol as experimental may sometimes be meant to suggest that
      the protocol, although perhaps mature, is not intended for
      operational use.







Internet Architecture Board Standards Track                     [Page 8]

RFC 2400                   Internet Standards             September 1998


   4.1.5.  Informational Protocol

      Protocols developed by other standard organizations, or vendors,
      or that are for other reasons outside the purview of the IESG, may
      be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community
      as informational protocols.

   4.1.6.  Historic Protocol

      These are protocols that are unlikely to ever become standards in
      the Internet either because they have been superseded by later
      developments or due to lack of interest.

4.2.  Definitions of Protocol Status

      This document lists a "requirement level" or STATUS for each
      protocol.  The status is one of "required", "recommended",
      "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".

   4.2.1.  Required Protocol

      A system must implement the required protocols.

   4.2.2.  Recommended Protocol

      A system should implement the recommended protocols.

   4.2.3.  Elective Protocol

      A system may or may not implement an elective protocol. The
      general notion is that if you are going to do something like this,
      you must do exactly this.  There may be several elective protocols
      in a general area, for example, there are several electronic mail
      protocols, and several routing protocols.

   4.2.4.  Limited Use Protocol

      These protocols are for use in limited circumstances.  This may be
      because of their experimental state, specialized nature, limited
      functionality, or historic state.

   4.2.5.  Not Recommended Protocol

      These protocols are not recommended for general use.  This may be
      because of their limited functionality, specialized nature, or
      experimental or historic state.





Internet Architecture Board Standards Track                     [Page 9]

RFC 2400                   Internet Standards             September 1998


5.  The Standards Track

   This section discusses in more detail the procedures used by the RFC
   Editor and the IESG in making decisions about the labeling and
   publishing of protocols as standards.

5.1.  The RFC Processing Decision Table

   Here is the current decision table for processing submissions by the
   RFC Editor.  The processing depends on who submitted it, and the
   status they want it to have.

      +==========================================================+
      |**************|               S O U R C E                 |
      +==========================================================+
      | Desired      |    IAB   |   IESG   |   IRSG   |  Other   |
      | Status       |          |          |          |          |
      +==========================================================+
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      | Standard     |  Bogus   |  Publish |  Bogus   |  Bogus   |
      | or           |   (2)    |   (1)    |   (2)    |   (2)    |
      | Draft        |          |          |          |          |
      | Standard     |          |          |          |          |
      +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      |              |  Refer   |  Publish |  Refer   |  Refer   |
      | 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 Standards Track                    [Page 10]

RFC 2400                   Internet Standards             September 1998


      (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 Standards Track                    [Page 11]

RFC 2400                   Internet Standards             September 1998