分享
 
 
 

RFC1796 - Not All RFCs are Standards

王朝other·作者佚名  2008-05-31
窄屏简体版  字體: |||超大  

Network Working Group C. Huitema

Request for Comments: 1796 INRIA

Category: Informational J. Postel

ISI

S. Crocker

CyberCash

April 1995

Not All RFCs are Standards

Status of this Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo

does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of

this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

This document discusses the relationship of the Request for Comments

(RFCs) notes to Internet Standards.

Not All RFCs Are Standards

The "Request for Comments" (RFC) document series is the official

publication channel for Internet standards documents and other

publications of the IESG, IAB, and Internet community. From time to

time, and about every six months in the last few years, someone

questions the rationality of publishing both Internet standards and

informational documents as RFCs. The argument is generally that this

introdUCes some confusion between "real standards" and "mere

publications".

It is a regrettably well spread misconception that publication as an

RFCprovides some level of recognition. It does not, or at least not

any more than the publication in a regular journal. In fact, each

RFChas a status, relative to its relation with the Internet

standardization process: Informational, EXPerimental, or Standards

Track (Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, Internet Standard), or

Historic. This status is reproduced on the first page of the RFC

itself, and is also documented in the periodic "Internet Official

Protocols Standards" RFC(STD 1). But this status is sometimes

omitted from quotes and references, which may feed the confusion.

There are two important sources of information on the status of the

Internet standards: they are summarized periodically in an RFC

entitled "Internet Official Protocol Standards" and they are

documented in the "STD" subseries. When a specification has been

adopted as an Internet Standard, it is given the additional label

"STD xxxx", but it keeps its RFCnumber and its place in the RFC

series.

It is important to note that the relationship of STD numbers to RFC

numbers is not one to one. STD numbers identify protocols, RFC

numbers identify documents. Sometimes more than one document is used

to specify a Standard protocol.

In order to further increase the publicity of the standardization

status, the IAB proposes the following actions:

Use the STD number, rather than just the RFCnumbers, in the cross

references between standard tracks documents,

Utilize the "web" hypertext technology to publicize the state of

the standardization process.

More precisely, we propose to add to the current RFCrepository an

"Html" version of the "STD-1" document, i.e., the list of Internet

standards. We are considering the extension of this document to also

describes actions in progress, i.e., standards track work at the

"proposed" or "draft" stage.

A Single Archive

The IAB believes that the community benefitted significantly from

having a single archival document series. Documents are easy to find

and to retrieve, and file servers are easy to organize. This has

been very important over the long term. Experience of the past shows

that subseries, or series of limited scope, tend to vanish from the

network. And, there is no evidence that alternate document schemes

would result in less confusion.

Moreover, we believe that the presence of additional documents does

not actually hurt the standardization process. The solution which we

propose is to better publicize the "standard" status of certain

documents, which is made relatively easy by the advent of networked

hypertext technologies.

Rather Document Than Ignore

The RFCseries includes some documents which are informational by

nature and other documents which describe experiences. A problem of

perception occurs when such a document "looks like" an official

protocol specification. Misguided vendors may claim conformance to

it, and misguided clients may actually believe that they are buying

an Internet standard.

The IAB believes that the proper help to misguided vendors and

clients is to provide them guidance. There is actually very little

evidence of vendors purposely attempting to present informational or

experimental RFCs as "Internet standards". If such attempts

occurred, proper response would indeed be required.

The IAB believes that the community is best served by openly

developed specifications. The Internet standardization process

provides guarantees of openness and thorough review, and the normal

way to develop the specification of an Internet protocol is indeed

through the IETF.

The community is also well served by having Access to specifications

of which have been developed outside the IETF standards process,

either because the protocols are experimental in nature, were

developed privately, or failed to achieve the acquire the degree of

consensus required for elevation to the standards track.

The IAB believes that publication is better than ignorance. If a

particular specification ends up being used in products that are

deployed over the Internet, we are better off if the specification is

easy to retrieve as an RFCthan if it is hidden in some private

repository.

Security Considerations

Security issues are not discussed in this memo.

Authors' Addresses

Christian Huitema

INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis

2004 Route des Lucioles

BP 109

F-06561 Valbonne Cedex

France

Phone: +33 93 65 77 15

EMail: Christian.Huitema@MIRSA.INRIA.FR

Jon Postel

USC/Information Sciences Institute

4676 Admiralty Way

Marina del Rey, CA 90292

Phone: 1-310-822-1511

EMail: Postel@ISI.EDU

Steve Crocker

CyberCash, Inc.

2086 Hunters Crest Way

Vienna, VA 22181

Phone: 1- 703-620-1222

 
 
 
免责声明:本文为网络用户发布,其观点仅代表作者个人观点,与本站无关,本站仅提供信息存储服务。文中陈述内容未经本站证实,其真实性、完整性、及时性本站不作任何保证或承诺,请读者仅作参考,并请自行核实相关内容。
2023年上半年GDP全球前十五强
 百态   2023-10-24
美众议院议长启动对拜登的弹劾调查
 百态   2023-09-13
上海、济南、武汉等多地出现不明坠落物
 探索   2023-09-06
印度或要将国名改为“巴拉特”
 百态   2023-09-06
男子为女友送行,买票不登机被捕
 百态   2023-08-20
手机地震预警功能怎么开?
 干货   2023-08-06
女子4年卖2套房花700多万做美容:不但没变美脸,面部还出现变形
 百态   2023-08-04
住户一楼被水淹 还冲来8头猪
 百态   2023-07-31
女子体内爬出大量瓜子状活虫
 百态   2023-07-25
地球连续35年收到神秘规律性信号,网友:不要回答!
 探索   2023-07-21
全球镓价格本周大涨27%
 探索   2023-07-09
钱都流向了那些不缺钱的人,苦都留给了能吃苦的人
 探索   2023-07-02
倩女手游刀客魅者强控制(强混乱强眩晕强睡眠)和对应控制抗性的关系
 百态   2020-08-20
美国5月9日最新疫情:美国确诊人数突破131万
 百态   2020-05-09
荷兰政府宣布将集体辞职
 干货   2020-04-30
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案逍遥观:鹏程万里
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案神机营:射石饮羽
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案昆仑山:拔刀相助
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案天工阁:鬼斧神工
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案丝路古道:单枪匹马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:与虎谋皮
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:李代桃僵
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:指鹿为马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:小鸟依人
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:千金买邻
 干货   2019-11-12
 
推荐阅读
 
 
 
>>返回首頁<<
 
靜靜地坐在廢墟上,四周的荒凉一望無際,忽然覺得,淒涼也很美
© 2005- 王朝網路 版權所有