rfc1543.txt

著名的RFC文档,其中有一些文档是已经翻译成中文的的.

Network Working Group                                          J. Postel
Request for Comments: 1543                                           ISI
Obsoletes: RFCs 1111, 825                                   October 1993
Category: Informational


                      Instructions to RFC Authors

Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  This memo
   does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of
   this memo is unlimited.

Table of Contents

   1.   Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
   2.   Editorial Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.   Format Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   3a.   ASCII Format Rules  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   3b.   PostScript Format Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   4.   Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   4a.   First Page Heading  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   4b.   Running Header  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   4c.   Running Footer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   5.   Status Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   6.   Introduction Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   7.   References Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   8.   Security Considerations Section  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.   Author's Address Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10.  Relation to other RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   11.  Protocol Standards Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   12.  Contact  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   13.  Distribution Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   14.  RFC Index  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   15.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   16.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   17.  Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   18.  Appendix - RFC "nroff macros"  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   This Request for Comments (RFC) provides information about the
   preparation of RFCs, and certain policies relating to the publication
   of RFCs.

   The RFC series of notes covers a broad range of interests.  The core
   topics are the Internet and the TCP/IP protocol suite.  However, any



Postel                                                          [Page 1]

RFC 1543              Instructions to RFC Authors           October 1993


   topic related to computer communication may be acceptable at the
   discretion of the RFC Editor.

   Memos proposed to be RFCs may be submitted by anyone.  One large
   source of memos that become RFCs is the Internet Engineering Task
   Force (IETF).  The IETF working groups (WGs) evolve their working
   memos (known as Internet Drafts or I-Ds) until they feel they are
   ready for publication, then the memos are reviewed by the Internet
   Engineering Steering Group (IESG), and if approved sent by the IESG
   to the RFC Editor.

   RFCs are distributed online by being stored as public access files,
   and a short message is sent to the distribution list indicating the
   availability of the memo.

   The online files are copied by the interested people and printed or
   displayed at their site on their equipment.  This means that the
   format of the online files must meet the constraints of a wide
   variety of printing and display equipment.  (RFCs may also be
   returned via e-mail in response to an e-mail query, or RFCs may be
   found using information and database searching tools such as Gopher,
   Wais, WWW, or Mosaic.)

   RFCs have been traditionally published and continue to be published
   in ASCII text.

   While the primary RFCs is always an ASCII text file, secondary or
   alternative versions of RFC may be provided in PostScript.  This
   decision is motivated by the desire to include diagrams, drawings,
   and such in RFCs.  PostScript documents (on paper only, so far) are
   visually more appealing and have better readability.

   PostScript was chosen for the fancy form of RFC publication over
   other possible systems (e.g., impress, interpress, oda) because of
   the perceived wide spread availability of PostScript capable
   printers.

   However, many RFC users read the documents online and use various
   text oriented tools (e.g., emacs, grep) to search them.  Often, brief
   excerpts from RFCs are included in e-mail.  These practices are not
   yet practical with PostScript files.

   PostScript producing systems are less standard than had been assumed
   and that several of the document production systems that claim to
   produce PostScript actually produce nonstandard results.

   In the future, it may be necessary to identify a set of document
   production systems authorized for use in production of PostScript



Postel                                                          [Page 2]

RFC 1543              Instructions to RFC Authors           October 1993


   RFCs, based on the reasonableness of the output files they generate.

2.  Editorial Policy

   Documents proposed to be RFCs are reviewed by the RFC Editor and
   possibly by other reviewers he selects.

   The result of the review may be to suggest to the author some
   improvements to the document before publication.

   Occasionally, it may become apparent that the topic of a proposed RFC
   is also the subject of an IETF Working Group, and that the author
   could coordinate with the working group to the advantage of both.
   The usual result of this is that a revised memo is produced as a
   working group Internet Draft and eventually emerges from the IETF
   process as a recommendation from the IESG to the RFC Editor.

   In some cases it may be determined that the submitted document is not
   appropriate material to be published as an RFC.

   In some cases it may be necessary to include in the document a
   statement based on the reviews about the ideas in the document.  This
   may be done in the case that the document suggests relevant but
   inappropriate or unsafe ideas, and other situations.

   The RFC Editor may make minor changes to the document, especially in
   the areas of style and format, but on some occasions also to the
   text.  Sometimes the RFC Editor will undertake to make more
   significant changes, especially when the format rules (see below) are
   not followed.  However, more often the memo will be returned to the
   author for the additional work.

   Documents intended to become RFCs specifying standards track
   protocols must be approved by the IESG before being sent to the RFC
   Editor.  The established procedure is that when the IESG completes
   work on a document that is to become a standards track RFC the
   communication will be from the Secretary of the IESG to the RFC
   Editor.  Generally, the documents in question are Internet Drafts.
   The communication usually cites the exact Internet Draft in question
   (by file name).  The RFC Editor must assume that only that file is to
   be processed to become the RFC.  If the authors have small
   corrections to the text, they should be sent to the RFC Editor
   separately (or as a "diff"), do not send a new version of the
   document.

   In some cases, authors prepare alternate secondary versions of RFCs
   in fancy format using PostScript.  Since the ASCII text version of
   the RFC is the primary version, the PostScript version must match the



Postel                                                          [Page 3]

RFC 1543              Instructions to RFC Authors           October 1993


   text version.  The RFC Editor must decide if the PostScript version
   is "the same as" the ASCII version before the PostScript version can
   be published.

   The effect of this is that the RFC Editor first processes the ASCII
   version of the memo through to publication as an RFC.  If the author
   wishes to submit a PostScript version at that point that matches the
   ASCII version (and the RFC Editor agrees that it does), then the
   PostScript version will be installed in the RFC repositories and
   announced to the community.

   Due to various time pressures on the RFC Editorial staff the time
   elapsed between submission and publication can vary greatly.  It is
   always acceptable to query (ping) the RFC Editor about the status of
   an RFC during this time (but not more than once a week).  The two
   weeks preceding an IETF meeting are generally very busy, so RFCs
   submitted shortly before an IETF meeting are most likely to be
   published after the meeting.

3.  Format Rules

   To meet the distribution constraints, the following rules are
   established for the two allowed formats for RFCs:  ASCII and
   PostScript.

   The RFC Editor attempts to ensure a consistent RFC style.  To do this
   the RFC Editor may choose to reformat the RFC submitted.  It is much
   easier to do this if the submission matches the style of the most
   recent RFCs.  Please do look at some recent RFCs and prepare yours in
   the same style.

   You must submit an editable online document to the RFC Editor.  The
   RFC Editor may require minor changes in format or style and will
   insert the actual RFC number.

   Most of the RFCs are processed by the RFC Editor with the unix
   "nroff" program using a very simple set of the formatting commands
   (or "requests") from the "ms" macro package (see the appendix).  If a
   memo submitted to be an RFC has been prepared by the author using
   nroff, it is very helpful to let the RFC Editor know that when it is
   submitted.

   3a.  ASCII Format Rules

      The character codes are ASCII.

      Each page must be limited to 58 lines followed by a form feed on a
      line by itself.



Postel                                                          [Page 4]

RFC 1543              Instructions to RFC Authors           October 1993


      Each line must be limited to 72 characters followed by carriage
      return and line feed.

      No overstriking (or underlining) is allowed.

      These "height" and "width" constraints include any headers,
      footers, page numbers, or left side indenting.

      Do not fill the text with extra spaces to provide a straight right
      margin.

      Do not do hyphenation of words at the right margin.

      Do not use footnotes.  If such notes are necessary, put them at
      the end of a section, or at the end of the document.

      Use single spaced text within a paragraph, and one blank line
      between paragraphs.

      Note that the number of pages in a document and the page numbers
      on which various sections fall will likely change with
      reformatting.  Thus cross references in the text by section number
      usually are easier to keep consistent than cross references by
      page number.

      RFCs in ASCII Format may be submitted to the RFC Editor in e-mail
      messages (or as online files) in either the finished publication
      format or in NROFF.  If you plan to submit a document in NROFF
      please consult the RFC Editor first.

   3b.  PostScript Format Rules

      Standard page size is 8 1/2 by 11 inches.

      Margin of 1 inch on all sides (top, bottom, left, and right).

      Main text should have a point size of no less than 10 points with
      a line spacing of 12 points.

      Footnotes and graph notations no smaller than 8 points with a line
      spacing of 9.6 points.

      Three fonts are acceptable: Helvetica, Times Roman, and Courier.
      Plus their bold-face and italic versions.  These are the three
      standard fonts on most PostScript printers.

      Prepare diagrams and images based on lowest common denominator
      PostScript.  Consider common PostScript printer functionality and



Postel                                                          [Page 5]

RFC 1543              Instructions to RFC Authors           October 1993


      memory requirements.

      The following PostScript commands should not be used:
      initgraphics, erasepage, copypage, grestoreall, initmatrix,
      initclip, banddevice, framedevice, nulldevice and renderbands.

      Note that the number of pages in a document and the page numbers
      on which various sections fall will likely differ in the ASCII and
      the PostScript versions.  Thus cross references in the text by
      section number usually are easier to keep consistent than cross
      references by page number.

      These PostScript rules are likely to changed and expanded as
      experience is gained.