国产探花免费观看_亚洲丰满少妇自慰呻吟_97日韩有码在线_资源在线日韩欧美_一区二区精品毛片,辰东完美世界有声小说,欢乐颂第一季,yy玄幻小说排行榜完本

首頁 > 學院 > 網絡通信 > 正文

RFC1818 - Best Current Practices

2019-11-04 10:36:26
字體:
來源:轉載
供稿:網友

  Network Working Group J. Postel
Request for Comments: 1818 ISI
BCP: 1 T. Li
Category: Best Current PRactice cisco Systems
Y. Rekhter
cisco Systems
August 1995

Best Current Practices

Status of this Memo

This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

This document describes a new series of documents which describe best
current practices for the Internet community. Documents in this
series carry the endorsement of the Internet Engineering Steering
Group (IESG).

Discussion

The current IETF process has two types of RFCs: standards track
documents and other RFCs (e.g., informational, eXPerimental, FYIs)
[1]. The intent of the standards track documents is clear, and
culminates in an official Internet Standard [2,3]. Informational
RFCs can be published on a less formal basis, subject to the
reasonable constraints of the RFCeditor. Informational RFCs are not
subject to peer review and carry no significance whatsoever within
the IETF process [4].

The IETF currently has no other mechanism or means of publishing
relevant technical information which it endorses. This document
creates a new subseries of RFCs, entitled Best Current Practices
BCPs).

The BCP process is similar to that for proposed standards. The BCP
is submitted to the IESG for review, and the existing review process
applies, including a "last call" on the IETF announcement mailing
list. However, once the IESG has approved the document, the process
ends and the document is published. The resulting document is viewed
as having the technical approval of the IETF, but it is not, and
cannot become an official Internet Standard.

Possible examples of technical information to which BCPs could be
applied are "OSI NSAP Allocation" [5], and "OSPF Applicability
Statement" [6].

References

[1] IAB, and IESG, "Internet Standards Process -- Revision 2", RFC
1602, IAB and IESG, March 1994.

[2] Postel, J., Editor, "Internet Official Protocol Standards", STD
1, RFC1800, IAB, July 1995.

[3] Hinden, R., "Internet Engineering Task Force Internet Routing
Protocol Standardization Criteria", RFC1264, BBN, October 1991.

[4] Waitzman, D., "Standard for the Transmission of ip Datagrams on
Avian Carriers", RFC1149, BBN, April 1990.

[5] Collela, R., Callon, R., Gardner, E., and Y. Rekhter, "Guidelines
for OSI NSAP Allocation in the Internet", RFC1629, NIST,
Wellfleet, Mitre, IBM, May 1994.

[6] Chapin, L., "Applicability Statement for OSPF", RFC1370, IAB,
October 1992.

Security Considerations

Security issues are not discussed in this memo.

Authors' Addresses

Jon Postel
USC - ISI, Suite 1001
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695

Phone: 310-822-1511
EMail: postel@isi.edu

Yakov Rekhter
cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134

Phone: 914-528-0090
EMail: yakov@cisco.com

Tony Li
cisco Systems, Inc.
1525 O'Brien Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025


發表評論 共有條評論
用戶名: 密碼:
驗證碼: 匿名發表
主站蜘蛛池模板: 瑞丽市| 佛教| 天气| 东辽县| 哈尔滨市| 财经| 文成县| 水城县| 调兵山市| 筠连县| 湖南省| 福贡县| 武冈市| 宁国市| 黔西| 会同县| 启东市| 城市| 益阳市| 曲麻莱县| 外汇| 苏州市| 湘阴县| 井陉县| 昂仁县| 兖州市| 台东县| 绍兴市| 阿勒泰市| 水城县| 田阳县| 富平县| 崇礼县| 赞皇县| 榆中县| 小金县| 磴口县| 江永县| 井陉县| 镇江市| 石棉县|