rfc1800.txt

中、英文RFC文档大全打包下载完全版 .

      |              |          |          |          |          |
      +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      | 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                                    [Page 11]

RFC 1800                   Internet Standards                  July 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                                    [Page 12]

RFC 1800                   Internet Standards                  July 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                                    [Page 13]

RFC 1800                   Internet Standards                  July 1995


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:

      1814 - Unique Addresses are Good

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

      1813 - NFS Version 3 Protocol Specification

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

      1812 - Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1811 - U.S. Government Internet Domain Names

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

      1810 - Report on MD5 Performance

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

      1809 - Using the Flow Label Field in IPv6

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

      1808 - Relative Uniform Resource Locators

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1807 - A Format for Bibliographic Records

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





Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 14]

RFC 1800                   Internet Standards                  July 1995


      1806 - Communicating Presentation Information in Internet
             Messages: The Content-Disposition Header

             An Experimental protocol.

      1805 - Location-Independent Data/Software Integrity Protocol

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

      1804 - Schema Publishing in X.500 Directory

             An Experimental protocol.

      1803 - Recommendations for an X.500 Production Directory Service

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

      1802 - Introducing Project Long Bud: Internet Pilot Project for
             the Deployment of X.500 Directory Information in Support of
             X.400 Routing

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

      1801 - X.400-MHS use of the X.500 Directory to support X.400-MHS
             Routing

             An Experimental protocol.

      1800 - Internet Official Protocol Standards

             This memo.

      1799 - Not yet issued.

      1798 - Connection-less Lightweight Directory Access Protocol

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1797 - Class A Subnet Experiment

             An Experimental protocol.







Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 15]

RFC 1800                   Internet Standards                  July 1995


      1796 - Not All RFCs are Standards

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

      1795 - Data Link Switching: Switch-to-Switch Protocol AIW DLSw
             RIG: DLSw Closed Pages, DLSw Standard Version 1

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

      1794 - DNS Support for Load Balancing

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

      1793 - Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1792 - TCP/IPX Connection Mib Specification

             An Experimental protocol.

      1791 - TCP And UDP Over IPX Networks With Fixed Path MTU

             An Experimental protocol.

      1790 - An Agreement between the Internet Society and Sun
             Microsystems, Inc. in the Matter of ONC RPC and XDR
             Protocols

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

      1789 - INETPhone: Telephone Services and Servers on Internet

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

      1788 - ICMP Domain Name Messages

             An Experimental protocol.

      1787 - Routing in a Multi-provider Internet

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



Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 16]

RFC 1800                   Internet Standards                  July 1995