欢迎来到虫虫下载站 | 资源下载 资源专辑 关于我们
虫虫下载站

rfc1880.txt

著名的RFC文档,其中有一些文档是已经翻译成中文的的.
TXT
第 1 页 / 共 5 页
字号:
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track                    [Page 11]RFC 1880                   Internet Standards              November 1995      (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 12]RFC 1880                   Internet Standards              November 1995         |         +<----------------------------------------------+         |                                               ^         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 13]RFC 1880                   Internet Standards              November 19956.  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 Changes6.1.1.  New RFCs:      1880 - Internet Official Protocol Standards             This memo.      1871 - Addendum to RFC 1602 -- Variance Procedure             This is a Best Current Practices document and does not             specify any level of standard.      1870 - SMTP Service Extension for Message Size Declaration             A Standard protocol.      1869 - SMTP Service Extensions             A Standard protocol.      1868 - ARP Extension - UNARP             An Experimental protocol.      1867 - Form-based File Upload in HTML             An Experimental protocol.      1866 - Hypertext Markup Language - 2.0             A Proposed Standard protocol.      1865 - not yet issued.      1864 - The Content-MD5 Header Field             A Draft Standard protocol.      1863 - A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh routing             An Experimental protocol.Internet Architecture Board Standards Track                    [Page 14]RFC 1880                   Internet Standards              November 1995      1862 - Report of the IAB Workshop on Internet Information             Infrastructure, October 12-14, 1994             This is an information document and does not specify any             level of standard.      1861 - Simple Network Paging Protocol - Version 3 - Two-Way             Enhanced             This is an information document and does not specify any             level of standard.      1860 - Variable Length Subnet Table For IPv4             This is an information document and does not specify any             level of standard.      1859 - ISO Transport Class 2 Non-use of Explicit Flow Control over             TCP RFC1006 extension             This is an information document and does not specify any             level of standard.      1858 - Security Considerations for IP Fragment Filtering             This is an information document and does not specify any             level of standard.      1857 - A Model for Common Operational Statistics             This is an information document and does not specify any             level of standard.      1856 - The Opstat Client-Server Model for Statistics Retrieval             This is an information document and does not specify any             level of standard.      1855 - Netiquette Guidelines             This is an information document and does not specify any             level of standard.      1854 - SMTP Service Extension for Command Pipelining             A Proposed Standard protocol.Internet Architecture Board Standards Track                    [Page 15]RFC 1880                   Internet Standards              November 1995      1853 - IP in IP Tunneling             This is an information document and does not specify any             level of standard.      1852 - IP Authentication using Keyed SHA             An Experimental protocol.      1851 - The ESP Triple DES Transform             An Experimental protocol.      1850 - OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base             A Draft Standard protocol.      1849 - not yet issued.      1848 - MIME Object Security Services             A Proposed Standard protocol.      1847 - Security Multiparts for MIME: Multipart/Signed and             Multipart/Encrypted             A Proposed Standard protocol.      1846 - SMTP 521 Reply Code             An Experimental protocol.      1845 - SMTP Service Extension for Checkpoint/Restart             An Experimental protocol.      1844 - Multimedia E-mail (MIME) User Agent Checklist             This is an information document and does not specify any             level of standard.      1843 - ASCII Printable Characters-Based Chinese Character Encoding             for Internet Messages             This is an information document and does not specify any             level of standard.Internet Architecture Board Standards Track                    [Page 16]RFC 1880                   Internet Standards              November 1995      1842 - ASCII Printable Characters-Based Chinese Character Encoding             for Internet Messages             This is an information document and does not specify any             level of standard.      1841 - PPP Network Control Protocol for LAN Extension             This is an information document and does not specify any             level of standard.      1840 - not yet issued.      1839 - not yet issued.      1838 - Use of the X.500 Directory to support mapping between X.400             and RFC 822 Addresses             An Experimental protocol.      1837 - Representing Tables and Subtrees in the X.500 Directory

⌨️ 快捷键说明

复制代码 Ctrl + C
搜索代码 Ctrl + F
全屏模式 F11
切换主题 Ctrl + Shift + D
显示快捷键 ?
增大字号 Ctrl + =
减小字号 Ctrl + -