| 1 |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-2022-jp"?> |
| 2 |
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [ |
| 3 |
<!ENTITY rfc.number "1796"> |
| 4 |
<!ENTITY ja.community "$B<R2q(B"> |
| 5 |
<!ENTITY ja.cross-reference "$B8r:5;2>H(B (cross references) "> |
| 6 |
<!ENTITY ja.hypertext "$BD6J8(B (hypertext) "> |
| 7 |
<!ENTITY ja.protocol "$B%W%m%H%3%k(B"> |
| 8 |
]> |
| 9 |
<?rfc toc="yes"?> |
| 10 |
<rfc number="&rfc.number;" category="info" |
| 11 |
xmlns:myns="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de?subject=rcf2629.xslt" |
| 12 |
xmlns:ja="http://suika.fam.cx/~wakaba/lang/rfc/translation/" |
| 13 |
xmlns:h="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> |
| 14 |
<front> |
| 15 |
<title>Not All RFCs are Standards</title> |
| 16 |
<ja:title xml:lang="ja">$BA4$F$N(B RFC $B$,I8=`$K$OHs$:(B</ja:title> |
| 17 |
<author initials="C." surname="Huitema" fullname="Christian Huitema"> |
| 18 |
<organization abbrev="INRIA">INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis</organization> |
| 19 |
<address> |
| 20 |
<postal> |
| 21 |
<street>2004 Route des Lucioles</street> |
| 22 |
<street>BP 109</street> |
| 23 |
<code>F-06561</code> |
| 24 |
<city>Valbonne Cedex</city> |
| 25 |
<country ja:text="France">FR</country> |
| 26 |
</postal> |
| 27 |
<phone>+33 93 65 77 15</phone> |
| 28 |
<email>Christian.Huitema@MIRSA.INRIA.FR</email> |
| 29 |
</address> |
| 30 |
</author> |
| 31 |
<author initials="J." surname="Postel" fullname="Jon Postel"> |
| 32 |
<organization abbrev="ISI">USC/Information Sciences Institute</organization> |
| 33 |
<address> |
| 34 |
<postal> |
| 35 |
<street>4676 Admiralty Way</street> |
| 36 |
<city>Marina del Rey</city> <region>CA</region> <code>90292</code> |
| 37 |
<country ja:show="no">US</country> |
| 38 |
</postal> |
| 39 |
<phone ja:text="1-310-822-1511">+1 310 822 1511</phone> |
| 40 |
<email>Postel@ISI.EDU</email> |
| 41 |
</address> |
| 42 |
</author> |
| 43 |
<author initials="S." surname="Crocker" fullname="Steve Crocker"> |
| 44 |
<organization abbrev="CyberCash">CyberCash, Inc.</organization> |
| 45 |
<address> |
| 46 |
<postal> |
| 47 |
<street>2086 Hunters Crest Way</street> |
| 48 |
<city>Vienna</city> <region>VA</region> <code>22181</code> |
| 49 |
<country ja:show="no">US</country> |
| 50 |
</postal> |
| 51 |
<phone ja:text="1- 703-620-1222">+1 703 620 1222</phone> |
| 52 |
<email>crocker@cybercash.com</email> |
| 53 |
</address> |
| 54 |
</author> |
| 55 |
<date month="April" year="1995" /> |
| 56 |
<abstract> |
| 57 |
<t> |
| 58 |
<ja:pair> |
| 59 |
<ja:l xml:lang="en"> |
| 60 |
This document discusses the relationship of the Request for |
| 61 |
Comments (RFCs) notes to Internet Standards. |
| 62 |
</ja:l> |
| 63 |
<ja:l xml:lang="ja"> |
| 64 |
$B$3$NJ8=q$O!"(B Request for Comments (RFC) $B3P=q$H(B |
| 65 |
Internet $BI8=`$H$N4X78$K$D$$$F07$$$^$9!#(B |
| 66 |
</ja:l> |
| 67 |
</ja:pair> |
| 68 |
</t> |
| 69 |
</abstract> |
| 70 |
</front> |
| 71 |
<ja:front> |
| 72 |
<author fullname="$B$o$+$P(B" ja:id="wakaba"> |
| 73 |
<address> |
| 74 |
<email>w@suika.fam.cx</email> |
| 75 |
<uri>http://suika.fam.cx/~wakaba/</uri> |
| 76 |
</address> |
| 77 |
</author> |
| 78 |
<ja:change> |
| 79 |
<ja:item year="2002" month="05" day="09"><author ja:ref="wakaba" /> |
| 80 |
<t><ja:link type="rfc" number="2629" /> $B$G%^!<%/IU$1!#(B</t> |
| 81 |
<t>$BF|K\8l$KK]Lu!#(B</t> |
| 82 |
</ja:item> |
| 83 |
</ja:change><!-- $Date: 2002/05/09 09:52:35 $ --> |
| 84 |
</ja:front> |
| 85 |
<middle> |
| 86 |
|
| 87 |
<section title="Not All RFCs Are Standards" |
| 88 |
ja:title-ja="$BA4$F$N(B RFC $B$,I8=`$K$OHs$:(B" |
| 89 |
myns:unnumbered="yes"> |
| 90 |
|
| 91 |
<t> |
| 92 |
<ja:pair> |
| 93 |
<ja:l xml:lang="en"> |
| 94 |
The "Request for Comments" (RFC) document series is the official |
| 95 |
publication channel for Internet standards documents and other |
| 96 |
publications of the IESG, IAB, and Internet community. From time to |
| 97 |
time, and about every six months in the last few years, someone |
| 98 |
questions the rationality of publishing both Internet standards and |
| 99 |
informational documents as RFCs. The argument is generally that this |
| 100 |
introduces some confusion between "real standards" and "mere |
| 101 |
publications". |
| 102 |
</ja:l> |
| 103 |
<ja:l xml:lang="ja"> |
| 104 |
$B!V(BRequest for Comments$B!W(B (RFC) $BJ8=q7ONs$O!"(B Internet |
| 105 |
$BI8=`J8=q5Z$S(B IESG, IAB, Internet &ja.community;$B$N$=$NB>$N=PHGJ*$N8x<0=PHG7PO)$G$9!#;~!9!"$3$32?G/$+$G$OH>G/0LKh$K!"(B |
| 106 |
Internet $BI8=`$H;29MJ8=q$N(B RFC |
| 107 |
$B$N=PHG$N4X78$K$D$$$F<ALd$7$^$9!#$3$N5DO@$O35$7$F!"!VK\Ev$NI8=`!W$H!VC1$J$k=PHGJ*!W$N:.F1$r>7$-$^$9!#(B |
| 108 |
</ja:l> |
| 109 |
</ja:pair> |
| 110 |
</t> |
| 111 |
<t> |
| 112 |
<ja:pair> |
| 113 |
<ja:l xml:lang="en"> |
| 114 |
It is a regrettably well spread misconception that publication as an |
| 115 |
RFC provides some level of recognition. It does not, or at least not |
| 116 |
any more than the publication in a regular journal. In fact, each |
| 117 |
RFC has a status, relative to its relation with the Internet |
| 118 |
standardization process: Informational, Experimental, or Standards |
| 119 |
Track (Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, Internet Standard), or |
| 120 |
Historic. This status is reproduced on the first page of the RFC |
| 121 |
itself, and is also documented in the periodic "Internet Official |
| 122 |
Protocols Standards" RFC (STD 1). But this status is sometimes |
| 123 |
omitted from quotes and references, which may feed the confusion. |
| 124 |
</ja:l> |
| 125 |
<ja:l xml:lang="ja"> |
| 126 |
$B;DG0$J$3$H$K!"(B RFC |
| 127 |
$B$H$7$F=PHG$9$k$3$H$,$"$kDxEY$N>5G'$,F@$i$l$?$3$H$K$J$k$H$$$&8m2r$,NI$/9-$,$C$F$$$^$9!#$7$+$7<B:]$O$=$&$G$O$J$$!"$"$k$$$O>/$J$/$F$bDj4|4)9TJ*$GH/I=$9$k0J>e$N$b$N$G$O$"$j$^$;$s!#<B:]!"3F(B |
| 128 |
RFC $B$O(B Internet $BI8=`2=2aDx$H$N4X78$K$D$$$F$N0LCVIU$1(B, |
| 129 |
Informational ($B;29M(B), Experimental ($B<B83E*(B), Standards |
| 130 |
Track ($BI8=`2=2aDx(B) (Proposed Standard ($BDs0FI8=`(B), Draft Standard |
| 131 |
($B860FI8=`(B), Internet Standard (Internet $BI8=`(B)), Historic ($BNr;KE*(B) |
| 132 |
$B$rM-$7$F$$$^$9!#$3$N0LCVIU$1$O(B RFC $B<+?H$N:G=i$NJG$K=q$$$F$"$j$^$9$7!"Dj4|E*$KH/9T$5$l$k(B |
| 133 |
$B!X(BInternet Official Protocols Standards$B!Y(B (Internet |
| 134 |
$B8x<0(B&ja.protocol;$BI8=`(B) RFC (<ja:link type="std" number="1" />) |
| 135 |
$B$K$b=q$+$l$F$$$^$9!#$7$+$7$3$N0LCVIU$1$O;~!90zMQ$d;2>H$+$i>J$+$l$k$N$G!":.Mp$r>7$-7s$M$^$;$s!#(B |
| 136 |
</ja:l> |
| 137 |
</ja:pair> |
| 138 |
</t> |
| 139 |
|
| 140 |
<t> |
| 141 |
<ja:pair> |
| 142 |
<ja:l xml:lang="en"> |
| 143 |
There are two important sources of information on the status of the |
| 144 |
Internet standards: they are summarized periodically in an RFC |
| 145 |
entitled "Internet Official Protocol Standards" and they are |
| 146 |
documented in the "STD" subseries. When a specification has been |
| 147 |
adopted as an Internet Standard, it is given the additional label |
| 148 |
"STD xxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC |
| 149 |
series. |
| 150 |
</ja:l> |
| 151 |
<ja:l xml:lang="ja"> |
| 152 |
Internet $BI8=`$N0LCVIU$1$K$OFs$D$N=EMW$J>pJs8;$,$"$j$^$9!#!X(BInternet |
| 153 |
Official Protocol Standards$B!Y$H$$$&Bj$N(B RFC $B$KDj4|E*$K$^$H$a$i$l$^$9$7!"(B |
| 154 |
$B!V(BSTD$B!W0!7ONs$KF~$l$i$l$^$9!#;EMM$,(B Internet $BI8=`$K:NMQ$5$l$?;~$K$O!"DI2C$N;%(B |
| 155 |
$B!V(BSTD <h:var>xxxx</h:var>$B!W$,IU$1$i$l$^$9!#$7$+$7(B RFC |
| 156 |
$BHV9f$bIU$1$i$l$?$^$^$G!"(B RFC $B7ONs$KCV$+$l$?$^$^$G$b$"$j$^$9!#(B |
| 157 |
</ja:l> |
| 158 |
</ja:pair> |
| 159 |
</t> |
| 160 |
|
| 161 |
|
| 162 |
<t> |
| 163 |
<ja:pair> |
| 164 |
<ja:l xml:lang="en"> |
| 165 |
It is important to note that the relationship of STD numbers to RFC |
| 166 |
numbers is not one to one. STD numbers identify protocols, RFC |
| 167 |
numbers identify documents. Sometimes more than one document is used |
| 168 |
to specify a Standard protocol. |
| 169 |
</ja:l> |
| 170 |
<ja:l xml:lang="ja"> |
| 171 |
STD $BHV9f$H(B RFC $BHV9f$O0lBP0lBP1~$7$J$$$3$H$K$h$/Cm0U$7$F2<$5$$!#(B |
| 172 |
STD $BHV9f$O(B&ja.protocol;$B$r<1JL$7!"(B RFC $BHV9f$OJ8=q$r<1JL$7$^$9!#;~$?$^!"J#?t$NJ8=q$,I8=`(B&ja.protocol;$B$r5,Dj$7$F$$$k$3$H$,$"$j$^$9!#(B |
| 173 |
</ja:l> |
| 174 |
</ja:pair> |
| 175 |
</t> |
| 176 |
|
| 177 |
|
| 178 |
<t> |
| 179 |
<ja:pair> |
| 180 |
<ja:l xml:lang="en"> |
| 181 |
In order to further increase the publicity of the standardization |
| 182 |
status, the IAB proposes the following actions: |
| 183 |
</ja:l> |
| 184 |
<ja:l xml:lang="ja"> |
| 185 |
$BI8=`2=2aDx$N9-Js$r?J$a$k$?$a!"(B IAB $B$O<!$N$3$H$rDs0F$7$^$9!#(B |
| 186 |
</ja:l> |
| 187 |
</ja:pair> |
| 188 |
|
| 189 |
<list> |
| 190 |
<t> |
| 191 |
<ja:pair> |
| 192 |
<ja:l xml:lang="en"> |
| 193 |
Use the STD number, rather than just the RFC numbers, in the cross |
| 194 |
references between standard tracks documents, |
| 195 |
</ja:l> |
| 196 |
<ja:l xml:lang="ja"> |
| 197 |
$BC1$K(B RFC $BHV9f$r;H$&$h$j(B STD |
| 198 |
$BHV9f$rI8=`2=2aDxJ8=q$N(B&ja.cross-reference;$B$K;H$&!#(B |
| 199 |
</ja:l> |
| 200 |
</ja:pair> |
| 201 |
</t> |
| 202 |
|
| 203 |
<t> |
| 204 |
<ja:pair> |
| 205 |
<ja:l xml:lang="en"> |
| 206 |
Utilize the "web" hypertext technology to publicize the state of |
| 207 |
the standardization process. |
| 208 |
</ja:l> |
| 209 |
<ja:l xml:lang="ja"> |
| 210 |
$B!V(Bweb$B!W(B&ja.hypertext;$B5;=Q$rI8=`2=2aDx$N>uBV$N9%I>$K;H$&!#(B |
| 211 |
</ja:l> |
| 212 |
</ja:pair> |
| 213 |
</t> |
| 214 |
</list> |
| 215 |
</t> |
| 216 |
|
| 217 |
<t> |
| 218 |
<ja:pair> |
| 219 |
<ja:l xml:lang="en"> |
| 220 |
More precisely, we propose to add to the current RFC repository an |
| 221 |
"html" version of the "STD-1" document, i.e., the list of Internet |
| 222 |
standards. We are considering the extension of this document to also |
| 223 |
describes actions in progress, i.e., standards track work at the |
| 224 |
"proposed" or "draft" stage. |
| 225 |
</ja:l> |
| 226 |
<ja:l xml:lang="ja"> |
| 227 |
$B$h$j6qBNE*$K$O!"8=:_$N(B RFC $BCyB"8K$K!V(Bhtml$B!WHG$N!V(BSTD-1$B!WJ8=q(B, |
| 228 |
$B$9$J$o$A(B Internet $BI8=`$NI=$rF~$l$k$3$H$rDs0F$7$^$9!#$3$NJ8=q$K?J9T>u67(B, |
| 229 |
$B$D$^$jI8=`2=2aDx$,!V(Bproposed ($BDs0F(B)$B!W$d!V(Bdraft ($B860F(B)$B!W$NCJ3,$KMh$F$$$k$+$b@bL@$9$k$h$&$K3HD%$9$k$3$H$r9M$($F$$$^$9!#(B |
| 230 |
</ja:l> |
| 231 |
</ja:pair> |
| 232 |
</t> |
| 233 |
|
| 234 |
</section> |
| 235 |
|
| 236 |
<section title="A Single Archive" ja:title-ja="$BC10lJ]4I8K(B" |
| 237 |
myns:unnumbered="yes"> |
| 238 |
|
| 239 |
<t> |
| 240 |
<ja:pair> |
| 241 |
<ja:l xml:lang="en"> |
| 242 |
The IAB believes that the community benefitted significantly from |
| 243 |
having a single archival document series. Documents are easy to find |
| 244 |
and to retrieve, and file servers are easy to organize. This has |
| 245 |
been very important over the long term. Experience of the past shows |
| 246 |
that subseries, or series of limited scope, tend to vanish from the |
| 247 |
network. And, there is no evidence that alternate document schemes |
| 248 |
would result in less confusion. |
| 249 |
</ja:l> |
| 250 |
<ja:l xml:lang="ja"> |
| 251 |
IAB $B$O!"C10l$NJ]4IJ8=q7ONs$,$"$k$3$H$,(B&ja.community;$B$K$H$C$FHs>o$KM-1W$@$H?.$8$F$$$^$9!#J8=q$rC5$7$?$j<h$j=P$7$?$j$9$k$N$O4JC1$G!"%U%!%$%k!&%5!<%P!<$rAH?%$9$k$N$b4JC1$G$9!#$3$N$3$H$OD94|4V$KEO$C$F$H$F$b=EMW$G$9!#2a5n$N7P83$K$h$l$P!"0!7ONs$dE,MQHO0O$N8B$i$l$?7ONs$O%M%C%H%o!<%/$+$i>C$($k1?L?$K$"$j$^$9!#$^$?!"BeBXJ8=qJ}<0$K$h$j:.Mp$,>/$J$/$J$k$H$$$&>Z5r$b$"$j$^$;$s!#(B |
| 252 |
</ja:l> |
| 253 |
</ja:pair> |
| 254 |
</t> |
| 255 |
|
| 256 |
|
| 257 |
<t> |
| 258 |
<ja:pair> |
| 259 |
<ja:l xml:lang="en"> |
| 260 |
Moreover, we believe that the presence of additional documents does |
| 261 |
not actually hurt the standardization process. The solution which we |
| 262 |
propose is to better publicize the "standard" status of certain |
| 263 |
documents, which is made relatively easy by the advent of networked |
| 264 |
hypertext technologies. |
| 265 |
</ja:l> |
| 266 |
<ja:l xml:lang="ja"> |
| 267 |
$B99$K!"DI2C$NJ8=q$r=P$9$3$H$,<B:]$KI8=`2=2aDx$r=}$D$1$k$3$H$O$J$$$H?.$8$F$$$^$9!#Ds0F$7$?2r7h:v$O$"$kJ8=q$N!VI8=`!W>uBV$r$h$jNI$/9-Js$9$k$3$H$K$J$j$^$9$7!"%M%C%H%o!<%/2=$5$l$?(B&ja.hypertext;$B5;=Q$N=P8=$GHf3SE*MF0W$H$J$j$^$7$?!#(B |
| 268 |
</ja:l> |
| 269 |
</ja:pair> |
| 270 |
</t> |
| 271 |
|
| 272 |
</section> |
| 273 |
|
| 274 |
<section title="Rather Document Than Ignore" |
| 275 |
ja:title-ja="$BL5;k$9$k$h$jJ8=q2=(B" |
| 276 |
myns:unnumbered="yes"> |
| 277 |
|
| 278 |
<t> |
| 279 |
<ja:pair> |
| 280 |
<ja:l xml:lang="en"> |
| 281 |
The RFC series includes some documents which are informational by |
| 282 |
nature and other documents which describe experiences. A problem of |
| 283 |
perception occurs when such a document "looks like" an official |
| 284 |
protocol specification. Misguided vendors may claim conformance to |
| 285 |
it, and misguided clients may actually believe that they are buying |
| 286 |
an Internet standard. |
| 287 |
</ja:l> |
| 288 |
<ja:l xml:lang="ja"> |
| 289 |
RFC $B7ONs$O@8Mh;29M$NJ8=q$d7P83$r@bL@$9$kJ8=q$r4^$s$G$$$^$9!#$3$NMM$JJ8=q$,8x<0(B&ja.protocol;$B;EMM=q$N!VMM$K8+$($k!W;~$K8m2rLdBj$,5/$3$j$^$9!#H=CG$r8m$C$?@=B$<T$O$3$l$X$NE,9g@-$r<gD%$9$k$+$b$7$l$^$;$s$7!"8m2r$7$?8\5R$O(B |
| 290 |
Internet $BI8=`$r;H$C$F$$$k$HK\Ev$K?.$8$k$+$b$7$l$^$;$s!#(B |
| 291 |
</ja:l> |
| 292 |
</ja:pair> |
| 293 |
</t> |
| 294 |
|
| 295 |
|
| 296 |
<t> |
| 297 |
<ja:pair> |
| 298 |
<ja:l xml:lang="en"> |
| 299 |
The IAB believes that the proper help to misguided vendors and |
| 300 |
clients is to provide them guidance. There is actually very little |
| 301 |
evidence of vendors purposely attempting to present informational or |
| 302 |
experimental RFCs as "Internet standards". If such attempts |
| 303 |
occurred, proper response would indeed be required. |
| 304 |
</ja:l> |
| 305 |
<ja:l xml:lang="ja"> |
| 306 |
IAB $B$O8m2r$7$?@=B$<T$d8\5R$X$NE,@Z$J=u8@$,$=$N;XF3$H$J$k$H?.$8$F$$$^$9!#<B:]$K$O@=B$<T$,8N0U$K;29M$d<B83E*$J(B |
| 307 |
RFC $B$r!V(BInternet $BI8=`!W$H8+$;$+$1$h$&$H$7$F$$$k>Z5r$O$[$H$s$I$"$j$^$;$s!#$b$7$=$NMM$J4k$_$,$"$k$J$i!"E,@Z$JH?1~$,$J$k$[$II,MW$G$7$g$&!#(B |
| 308 |
</ja:l> |
| 309 |
</ja:pair> |
| 310 |
</t> |
| 311 |
|
| 312 |
|
| 313 |
<t> |
| 314 |
<ja:pair> |
| 315 |
<ja:l xml:lang="en"> |
| 316 |
The IAB believes that the community is best served by openly |
| 317 |
developed specifications. The Internet standardization process |
| 318 |
provides guarantees of openness and thorough review, and the normal |
| 319 |
way to develop the specification of an Internet protocol is indeed |
| 320 |
through the IETF. |
| 321 |
</ja:l> |
| 322 |
<ja:l xml:lang="ja"> |
| 323 |
IAB $B$O(B&ja.community;$B$K8x3+$G3+H/$5$l$?;EMM$,Hs>o$KLrN)$C$F$$$k$H?.$8$F$$$^$9!#(B |
| 324 |
Internet $BI8=`2=2aDx$O8x3+@-$HI>O@$r7P$k$3$H$rJ]>Z$7$F$*$j!"$^$?(B |
| 325 |
Internet &ja.protocol;$B$N;EMM$N3+H/$NDL>o$NJ}K!$O(B IETF |
| 326 |
$B$rDL$9$b$N$G$9!#(B |
| 327 |
</ja:l> |
| 328 |
</ja:pair> |
| 329 |
</t> |
| 330 |
|
| 331 |
|
| 332 |
<t> |
| 333 |
<ja:pair> |
| 334 |
<ja:l xml:lang="en"> |
| 335 |
The community is also well served by having access to specifications |
| 336 |
of which have been developed outside the IETF standards process, |
| 337 |
either because the protocols are experimental in nature, were |
| 338 |
developed privately, or failed to achieve the acquire the degree of |
| 339 |
consensus required for elevation to the standards track. |
| 340 |
</ja:l> |
| 341 |
<ja:l xml:lang="ja"> |
| 342 |
&ja.community;$B$O!"(B&ja.protocol;$B$O@8Mh<B83E*$G$"$k$+(B, |
| 343 |
$B;dE*$K3+H/$5$l$?$+$i$+(B, $BI8=`2=2aDx$K?J$a$k$N$KI,MW$J9g0U$rF@$k$3$H$K<:GT$7$?$+$i$+(B, |
| 344 |
IETF $BI8=`2=2aDx$N30$G3+H/$5$l$F$$$k;EMM$X$N7PO)(B (access) |
| 345 |
$B$rM-$9$k$3$H$K$h$C$F$b$H$F$bLrN)$C$F$$$^$9!#(B |
| 346 |
</ja:l> |
| 347 |
</ja:pair> |
| 348 |
</t> |
| 349 |
|
| 350 |
<t> |
| 351 |
<ja:pair> |
| 352 |
<ja:l xml:lang="en"> |
| 353 |
The IAB believes that publication is better than ignorance. If a |
| 354 |
particular specification ends up being used in products that are |
| 355 |
deployed over the Internet, we are better off if the specification is |
| 356 |
easy to retrieve as an RFC than if it is hidden in some private |
| 357 |
repository. |
| 358 |
</ja:l> |
| 359 |
<ja:l xml:lang="ja"> |
| 360 |
IAB $B$O!"=PHG$OL5;k$h$jNI$+$l$H?.$8$F$$$^$9!#$b$7$"$k;EMM$,(B |
| 361 |
Internet $B>e$KE83+$9$k@=IJ$G;H$o$l$F$$$k$H$7$F!"$=$N;EMM$,;dE*<}B"8K$K1#$5$l$F$$$k$h$j$O!"(B |
| 362 |
RFC $B$H$7$F4JC1$K<h$j4s$;$i$l$kJ}$,NI$$$G$7$g$&!#(B |
| 363 |
</ja:l> |
| 364 |
</ja:pair> |
| 365 |
</t> |
| 366 |
|
| 367 |
</section> |
| 368 |
|
| 369 |
<section title="Security Considerations" myns:unnumbered="yes"> |
| 370 |
<t>Security issues are not discussed in this memo.</t> |
| 371 |
</section> |
| 372 |
|
| 373 |
</middle> |
| 374 |
|
| 375 |
<back> |
| 376 |
|
| 377 |
</back> |
| 378 |
</rfc> |
Parent Directory
| 
Revision Log