rfc1140.txt

著名的RFC文档,其中有一些文档是已经翻译成中文的的.

   the STATE of standardization which is one of "standard", "draft
   standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic".  The
   second is the STATUS of this protocol which is one of "required",
   "recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".

   The IAB notes that 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 should be
   consulted.

   When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard,



Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 7]

RFC 1140                     IAB Standards                      May 1990


   it is labeled with a current status and when possible, the IAB also
   notes the status that that protocol is expected to have when it
   reaches the standard state.

   At any given time a protocol is 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, not recommended) cell.

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

4.1.  Definitions of Protocol State

   There are two independent categorizations of protocols.  The first is
   the STATE of standardization, which is one of "standard", "draft
   standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic".

   4.1.1.  Standard Protocol

      The IAB has established this as an official standard protocol for
      the Internet.  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.





Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 8]

RFC 1140                     IAB Standards                      May 1990


   4.1.2.  Draft Standard Protocol

      The IAB 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
      IAB.  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 IAB 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.

   4.1.5.  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

      There are two independent categorizations of protocols.  The
      second is the STATUS of this protocol which is one of "required",
      "recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".

   4.2.1.  Required Protocol

      A system must implement the required protocols.






Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 9]

RFC 1140                     IAB Standards                      May 1990


   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.

5.  The Standards Track

   This section discusses in more detail the procedures used by the RFC
   Editor and the IAB 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 RFC
   Editor.  The processing depends on who submitted it, and the status
   they want it to have.
















Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 10]

RFC 1140                     IAB Standards                      May 1990


      +==========================================================+
      |++++++++++++++|               S O U R C E                 |
      +==========================================================+
      | Desired      |    IAB   |   IESG   |   IRSG   |  Other   |
      | Status       |          |          |  or RG   |          |
      +==========================================================+
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      | Full or      |  Publish |  Vote    |  Bogus   |  Bogus   |
      | Draft        |   (1)    |   (3)    |   (2)    |   (2)    |
      | Standard     |          |          |          |          |
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      |              |  Publish |  Vote    |  Refer   |  Refer   |
      | Proposed     |   (1)    |   (3)    |   (4)    |   (4)    |
      | Standard     |          |          |          |          |
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      |              |  Publish |  Notify  |  Notify  |  Notify  |
      | Experimental |   (1)    |   (5)    |   (5)    |   (5)    |
      | Protocol     |          |          |          |          |
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      | Information  |  Publish |Discretion|Discretion|Discretion|
      | or Opinion   |   (1)    |   (6)    |   (6)    |   (6)    |
      | Paper        |          |          |          |          |
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      +==========================================================+

      (1) Publish.

      (2) Bogus.  Inform the source of the rules.  RFCs specifying
          Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IAB, only.

      (3) Vote by the IAB.  If approved then do Publish (1), else do
          Refer (4).

      (4) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG.  Expect to see
          the document again only after approval by the IESG and the
          IAB.

      (5) Notify both the IESG and IRSG.  If no protest in 1 week then
          do Discretion (6), else do undefined.

      (6) RFC Editor's discretion.  The RFC Editor decides if a review
          is needed and if so by whom.  RFC Editor decides to publish or



Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 11]

RFC 1140                     IAB Standards                      May 1990


          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 Greg Vaudreuil as its agent for forwarding
   documents with IESG approval and for registering protest in response
   to notifications (5) 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 be changed 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 four months for proposed standard, minimum
   six 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 by action of the IAB; and may move from one state to
   another along the track only on the recommendation of the IESG and by
   action of the IAB.  That is, it takes both the IESG and the IAB 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 (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 Activities Board                                      [Page 12]

RFC 1140                     IAB Standards                      May 1990


         |
         +<----------------------------------------------+
         |                                               ^
         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 IAB on the recommendation of the IESG and
   only after the protocol has been proposed standard (1) for at least
   four months.

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

   Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus becomes
   historic, 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 Activities Board                                      [Page 13]

RFC 1140                     IAB Standards                      May 1990


6.  The Protocols

   This section lists the standards in groups by protocol state.

6.1.  Recent Changes

6.1.1.  New RFCs:

      1157 - Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)

             Advanced to Recommended Standard protocol.  Replaces 1098.

      1156 - Management Information Base (MIB)

             Advanced to Recommended Standard protocol.  Replaces 1066.

      1155 - Structure of Management Information (SMI)

             Advanced to Recommended Standard protocol.  Replaces 1065.

      1154 - Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages

             This is a new Elective Experimental protocol.