rfc2000.txt

著名的RFC文档,其中有一些文档是已经翻译成中文的的.

      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 Standards Track                     [Page 7]

RFC 2000                   Internet Standards              February 1997


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 Standards Track                     [Page 8]

RFC 2000                   Internet Standards              February 1997


   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 Standards Track                     [Page 9]

RFC 2000                   Internet Standards              February 1997


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     |          |          |          |          |
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      | Information  |  Publish |  Publish |Discretion|Discretion|
      | or Opinion   |   (1)    |   (1)    |   (5)    |   (5)    |
      | Paper        |          |          |          |          |
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      +==========================================================+

      (1) Publish.

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




Internet Architecture Board Standards Track                    [Page 10]

RFC 2000                   Internet Standards              February 1997


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

      (4) Notify both the IESG and IRSG.  If no concerns are raised in
          two weeks then do Discretion (5), else RFC Editor to resolve
          the concerns or do Refer (3).

      (5) RFC Editor's discretion.  The RFC Editor decides if a review
          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
   in response to notifications (4) 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 change 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 six months for proposed standard, minimum
   four 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 may move from one state to another along the track
   only on the recommendation of the IESG.  That is, it takes action by
   the IESG 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, requirement level or applicability
   (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 Architecture Board Standards Track                    [Page 11]

RFC 2000                   Internet Standards              February 1997


         |
         +<----------------------------------------------+
         |                                               ^
         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 IESG and only after the protocol has been
   proposed standard (1) for at least six months.

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

   Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus becomes
   historic, or 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 Architecture Board Standards Track                    [Page 12]

RFC 2000                   Internet Standards              February 1997


6.  The Protocols

   Subsection 6.1 lists recent RFCs and other changes.  Subsections 6.2
   - 6.10 list the standards in groups by protocol state.

6.1.  Recent Changes

6.1.1.  New RFCs:

      2109 - HTTP State Management Mechanism

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2108 - Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.3 Repeater
             Devices using SMIv2

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2107 - Ascend Tunnel Management Protocol - ATMP

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      2106 - Data Link Switching Remote Access Protocol

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      2105 - Cisco Systems' Tag Switching Architecture Overview

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      2103 - Mobility Support for Nimrod :  Challenges and Solution
             Approaches

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      2102 - Multicast Support for Nimrod :  Requirements and Solution
             Approaches

             This is an information document and does not specify any



Internet Architecture Board Standards Track                    [Page 13]

RFC 2000                   Internet Standards              February 1997


             level of standard.

      2101 - IPv4 Address Behaviour Today

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      2100 - not yet issued.

      2099 - not yet issued.

      2098 - Toshiba's Router Architecture Extensions for ATM : Overview

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      2097 - The PPP NetBIOS Frames Control Protocol (NBFCP)

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2096 - IP Forwarding Table MIB

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2095 - IMAP/POP AUTHorize Extension for Simple Challenge/Response

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2094 - not yet issued.

      2093 - not yet issued.

      2092 - Protocol Analysis for Triggered RIP