rfc1800.txt

<VC++网络游戏建摸与实现>源代码

   most recent must prevail.

   Also, one should be aware of the MIL-STD publications on IP, TCP,
   Telnet, FTP, and SMTP.  These are described in Section 3.4.

3.1.  Assigned Numbers

   The "Assigned Numbers" document lists the assigned values of the
   parameters used in the various protocols.  For example, IP protocol
   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 Internet community specifications for IP (RFC-791) and TCP (RFC-
   793) and the DoD MIL-STD specifications are intended to describe
   exactly the same protocols.  Any difference in the protocols
   specified by these sets of documents should be reported to DISA and
   to the IESG.  It is strongly advised that the two sets of documents
   be used together, along with RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.




Internet Architecture Board                                     [Page 6]

RFC 1800                   Internet Standards                  July 1995


   Note that these MIL-STD are now somewhat out of date.  The
   Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers (RFC-1812) and Host
   Requirements (RFC-1122, RFC-1123) take precedence over both earlier
   RFCs and the MIL-STDs.

          2045-13501 Internet Routing between Autonomous Systems

          2045-14502-01 Internet Transport Profile for DoD
          Communications, Part 1: Transport and Internet Services

          2045-14502-04 Internet Transport Profile for DoD
          Communications, Part 4: LAN Media-Independent Requirements

          2045-14503 Internet Transport Service Supporting OSI
          Applications

          2045-44500 Tactical Communications

          2045-17503-01 Internet Message Transfer Profile for DoD
          Communications Part 1: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol

          2045-17503-02 Internet Message Transfer Profile for DoD
          Communications Part 2: Format of Text Messages

          2045-17504 Internet File Transfer Profile for DoD
          Communications

          2045-17505 Internet Domain Name Service (DNS) Profile for DoD
          Communications

          2045-17506 Internet Remote Login (RLOGIN) Profile for DoD
          Communications

          2045-17507 Internet Network Management Profile for DoD
          Communications

          2045-38000 DoD Network Management for DoD Communications

   These documents are available from the Naval Publications and Forms
   Center.  Requests can be initiated by telephone, telegraph, or mail;
   however, it is preferred that private industry use form DD1425, if
   possible.

          Naval Publications and Forms Center, Code 3015
          5801 Tabor Ave
          Philadelphia, PA 19120
          Phone: [phone] (order tape)
                 1-215-697-4834 (conversation)



Internet Architecture Board                                     [Page 7]

RFC 1800                   Internet Standards                  July 1995


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                                     [Page 8]

RFC 1800                   Internet Standards                  July 1995


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                                     [Page 9]

RFC 1800                   Internet Standards                  July 1995


   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                                    [Page 10]

RFC 1800                   Internet Standards                  July 1995


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     |          |          |          |          |