rfc1280.txt

著名的RFC文档,其中有一些文档是已经翻译成中文的的.

3.2.  Gateway Requirements

   This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways and
   supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities.  Gateway
   Requirements is RFC-1009.  A working group of the IETF is actively
   preparing a revision.

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



Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 6]

RFC 1280                     IAB Standards                    March 1992


   specified by these sets of documents should be reported to DCA and to
   the IAB.  The RFCs and the MIL-STDs for IP and TCP differ in style
   and level of detail.  It is strongly advised that the two sets of
   documents be used together, along with RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.

   The IAB and the DoD MIL-STD specifications for the FTP, SMTP, and
   Telnet protocols are essentially the same documents (RFCs 765, 821,
   854).  The MIL-STD versions have been edited slightly.  Note that the
   current Internet specification for FTP is RFC-959 (as modified by
   RFC-1123).

   Note that these MIL-STD are now somewhat out of date.  The Gateway
   Requirements (RFC-1009) and Host Requirements (RFC-1122, RFC-1123)
   take precedence over both earlier RFCs and the MIL-STDs.

          Internet Protocol (IP)                      MIL-STD-1777
          Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)         MIL-STD-1778
          File Transfer Protocol (FTP)                MIL-STD-1780
          Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)        MIL-STD-1781
          Telnet Protocol and Options (TELNET)        MIL-STD-1782

   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.  These five documents are included in the 1985 DDN Protocol
   Handbook (available from the SRI Network Information Systems Center,
   see Section 7.6).

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

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.




Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 7]

RFC 1280                     IAB Standards                    March 1992


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

   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, not recommended) 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    |     |  X  | XXX |  XX |  X  |
       T           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Expr    |     |     |  X  | XXX |  XX |
       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

   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 IAB 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



Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 8]

RFC 1280                     IAB Standards                    March 1992


      IP on particular types of networks.

   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.  Informational Protocol

      Protocols developed by other standard organizations, or vendors,
      or that are for other reasons outside the purview of the IAB, may
      be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community
      as informational protocols.  Such protocols may in some cases also
      be recommended for use in the Internet by the IAB.

   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.






Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 9]

RFC 1280                     IAB Standards                    March 1992


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.

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 the
   RFC Editor.  The processing depends on who submitted it, and the
   status they want it to have.






Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 10]

RFC 1280                     IAB Standards                    March 1992


      +==========================================================+
      |**************|               S O U R C E                 |
      +==========================================================+
      | Desired      |    IAB   |   IESG   |   IRSG   |  Other   |
      | Status       |          |          |  or RG   |          |
      +==========================================================+
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      | Standard     |  Publish |  Vote    |  Bogus   |  Bogus   |
      | or           |   (1)    |   (3)    |   (2)    |   (2)    |
      | Draft        |          |          |          |          |
      | 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 concerns are raised in
          two weeks then do Discretion (6), else RFC Editor to resolve
          the concerns or do Refer (4).

      (6) RFC Editor's discretion.  The RFC Editor decides if a review



Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 11]

RFC 1280                     IAB Standards                    March 1992


          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