rfc2026.txt

著名的RFC文档,其中有一些文档是已经翻译成中文的的.

   modular fashion, to facilitate its incorporation by multiple ASs.

   The "Official Protocol Standards" RFC (STD1) lists a general
   requirement level for each TS, using the nomenclature defined in this
   section. This RFC is updated periodically.  In many cases, more
   detailed descriptions of the requirement levels of particular
   protocols and of individual features of the protocols will be found
   in appropriate ASs.

4.  THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK

   Specifications that are intended to become Internet Standards evolve
   through a set of maturity levels known as the "standards track".
   These maturity levels -- "Proposed Standard", "Draft Standard", and
   "Standard" -- are defined and discussed in section 4.1.  The way in
   which specifications move along the standards track is described in
   section 6.

   Even after a specification has been adopted as an Internet Standard,
   further evolution often occurs based on experience and the
   recognition of new requirements.  The nomenclature and procedures of
   Internet standardization provide for the replacement of old Internet



Bradner                  Best Current Practice                 [Page 11]

RFC 2026               Internet Standards Process           October 1996


   Standards with new ones, and the assignment of descriptive labels to
   indicate the status of "retired" Internet Standards.  A set of
   maturity levels is defined in section 4.2 to cover these and other
   specifications that are not considered to be on the standards track.

4.1  Standards Track Maturity Levels

   Internet specifications go through stages of development, testing,
   and acceptance.  Within the Internet Standards Process, these stages
   are formally labeled "maturity levels".

   This section describes the maturity levels and the expected
   characteristics of specifications at each level.

4.1.1  Proposed Standard

   The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed
   Standard".  A specific action by the IESG is required to move a
   specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard"
   level.

   A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved
   known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received
   significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community
   interest to be considered valuable.  However, further experience
   might result in a change or even retraction of the specification
   before it advances.

   Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is
   required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed
   Standard.  However, such experience is highly desirable, and will
   usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard
   designation.

   The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience
   prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that
   materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies
   behavior that may have significant operational impact on the
   Internet.

   A Proposed Standard should have no known technical omissions with
   respect to the requirements placed upon it.  However, the IESG may
   waive this requirement in order to allow a specification to advance
   to the Proposed Standard state when it is considered to be useful and
   necessary (and timely) even with known technical omissions.






Bradner                  Best Current Practice                 [Page 12]

RFC 2026               Internet Standards Process           October 1996


   Implementors should treat Proposed Standards as immature
   specifications.  It is desirable to implement them in order to gain
   experience and to validate, test, and clarify the specification.
   However, since the content of Proposed Standards may be changed if
   problems are found or better solutions are identified, deploying
   implementations of such standards into a disruption-sensitive
   environment is not recommended.

4.1.2  Draft Standard

   A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable
   implementations from different code bases have been developed, and
   for which sufficient successful operational experience has been
   obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level.  For the
   purposes of this section, "interoperable" means to be functionally
   equivalent or interchangeable components of the system or process in
   which they are used.  If patented or otherwise controlled technology
   is required for implementation, the separate implementations must
   also have resulted from separate exercise of the licensing process.
   Elevation to Draft Standard is a major advance in status, indicating
   a strong belief that the specification is mature and will be useful.

   The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable
   implementations applies to all of the options and features of the
   specification.  In cases in which one or more options or features
   have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable
   implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard
   level only if those options or features are removed.

   The Working Group chair is responsible for documenting the specific
   implementations which qualify the specification for Draft or Internet
   Standard status along with documentation about testing of the
   interoperation of these implementations.  The documentation must
   include information about the support of each of the individual
   options and features.  This documentation should be submitted to the
   Area Director with the protocol action request. (see Section 6)

   A Draft Standard must be well-understood and known to be quite
   stable, both in its semantics and as a basis for developing an
   implementation.  A Draft Standard may still require additional or
   more widespread field experience, since it is possible for
   implementations based on Draft Standard specifications to demonstrate
   unforeseen behavior when subjected to large-scale use in production
   environments.







Bradner                  Best Current Practice                 [Page 13]

RFC 2026               Internet Standards Process           October 1996


   A Draft Standard is normally considered to be a final specification,
   and changes are likely to be made only to solve specific problems
   encountered.  In most circumstances, it is reasonable for vendors to
   deploy implementations of Draft Standards into a disruption sensitive
   environment.

4.1.3  Internet Standard

   A specification for which significant implementation and successful
   operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the
   Internet Standard level.  An Internet Standard (which may simply be
   referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of
   technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified
   protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet
   community.

   A specification that reaches the status of Standard is assigned a
   number in the STD series while retaining its RFC number.

4.2  Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels

   Not every specification is on the standards track.  A specification
   may not be intended to be an Internet Standard, or it may be intended
   for eventual standardization but not yet ready to enter the standards
   track.  A specification may have been superseded by a more recent
   Internet Standard, or have otherwise fallen into disuse or disfavor.

   Specifications that are not on the standards track are labeled with
   one of three "off-track" maturity levels:  "Experimental",
   "Informational", or "Historic".  The documents bearing these labels
   are not Internet Standards in any sense.

4.2.1  Experimental

   The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification that
   is part of some research or development effort.  Such a specification
   is published for the general information of the Internet technical
   community and as an archival record of the work, subject only to
   editorial considerations and to verification that there has been
   adequate coordination with the standards process (see below).  An
   Experimental specification may be the output of an organized Internet
   research effort (e.g., a Research Group of the IRTF), an IETF Working
   Group, or it may be an individual contribution.








Bradner                  Best Current Practice                 [Page 14]

RFC 2026               Internet Standards Process           October 1996


4.2.2  Informational

   An "Informational" specification is published for the general
   information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
   Internet community consensus or recommendation.  The Informational
   designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a
   very broad range of responsible informational documents from many
   sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification
   that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process
   (see section 4.2.3).

   Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet
   community and are not incorporated into the Internet Standards
   Process by any of the provisions of section 10 may be published as
   Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner and the
   concurrence of the RFC Editor.

4.2.3  Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs

   Unless they are the result of IETF Working Group action, documents
   intended to be published with Experimental or Informational status
   should be submitted directly to the RFC Editor.  The RFC Editor will
   publish any such documents as Internet-Drafts which have not already
   been so published.  In order to differentiate these Internet-Drafts
   they will be labeled or grouped in the I-D directory so they are
   easily recognizable.  The RFC Editor will wait two weeks after this
   publication for comments before proceeding further.  The RFC Editor
   is expected to exercise his or her judgment concerning the editorial
   suitability of a document for publication with Experimental or
   Informational status, and may refuse to publish a document which, in
   the expert opinion of the RFC Editor, is unrelated to Internet
   activity or falls below the technical and/or editorial standard for
   RFCs.

   To ensure that the non-standards track Experimental and Informational
   designations are not misused to circumvent the Internet Standards
   Process, the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed that the RFC Editor
   will refer to the IESG any document submitted for Experimental or
   Informational publication which, in the opinion of the RFC Editor,
   may be related to work being done, or expected to be done, within the
   IETF community.  The IESG shall review such a referred document
   within a reasonable period of time, and recommend either that it be
   published as originally submitted or referred to the IETF as a
   contribution to the Internet Standards Process.

   If (a) the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the
   IETF and progressed within the IETF context, but the author declines
   to do so, or (b) the IESG considers that the document proposes



Bradner                  Best Current Practice                 [Page 15]

RFC 2026               Internet Standards Process           October 1996


   something that conflicts with, or is actually inimical to, an
   established IETF effort, the document may still be published as an
   Experimental or Informational RFC.  In these cases, however, the IESG
   may insert appropriate "disclaimer" text into the RFC either in or
   immediately following the "Status of this Memo" section in order to
   make the circumstances of its publication clear to readers.

   Documents proposed for Experimental and Informational RFCs by IETF
   Working Groups go through IESG review.  The review is initiated using
   the process described in section 6.1.1.

4.2.4  Historic

   A specification that has been superseded by a more recent
   specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is
   assigned to the "Historic" level.  (Purists have suggested that the
   word should be "Historical"; however, at this point the use of
   "Historic" is historical.)

   Note: Standards track specifications normally must not depend on
   other standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity
   level or on non standards track specifications other than referenced
   specifications from other standards bodies.  (See Section 7.)

5.  BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs

   The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to
   standardize practices and the results of community deliberations.  A
   BCP document is subject to the same basic set of procedures as
   standards track documents and thus is a vehicle by which the IETF
   community can define and ratify the community's best current thinking
   on a statement of principle or on what is believed to be the best way
   to perform some operations or IETF process function.

   Historically Internet standards have generally been concerned with
   the technical specifications for hardware and software required for
   computer communication across interconnected networks.  However,
   since the Internet itself is composed of networks operated by a great
   variety of organizations, with diverse goals and rules, good user
   service requires that the operators and administrators of the
   Internet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations.
   While these guidelines are generally different in scope and style