| 1 |
wakaba |
1.1 |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-2022-jp"?>
|
| 2 |
|
|
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
|
| 3 |
|
|
<html xmlns:h="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
|
| 4 |
|
|
<head profile="http://suika.fam.cx/~wakaba/lang/rfc/translation/html-profile">
|
| 5 |
|
|
<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css"/>
|
| 6 |
|
|
<title>
|
| 7 |
|
|
RFC 1796:
|
| 8 |
|
|
$BA4$F$N(B RFC $B$,I8=`$K$OHs$:(B (Not All RFCs are Standards)
|
| 9 |
|
|
</title>
|
| 10 |
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" href="http://suika.fam.cx/~wakaba/lang/rfc/translation/rfc-ja-style.css" type="text/css"/>
|
| 11 |
|
|
</head>
|
| 12 |
|
|
<body>
|
| 13 |
|
|
<div id="rfc--table">
|
| 14 |
|
|
<ul id="rfc--table-left">
|
| 15 |
|
|
<li>Network Working Group</li>
|
| 16 |
|
|
<li>Request for Comments: 1796</li>
|
| 17 |
|
|
<li>
|
| 18 |
|
|
<span class="t-pair">
|
| 19 |
|
|
<span xml:lang="en" class="t-l-en">Category: Informational</span>
|
| 20 |
|
|
</span>
|
| 21 |
|
|
</li>
|
| 22 |
|
|
<li>
|
| 23 |
|
|
<span class="t-pair">
|
| 24 |
|
|
<span xml:lang="ja" class="t-l-ja">$BJ,N`(B: $B;29M(B</span>
|
| 25 |
|
|
</span>
|
| 26 |
|
|
</li>
|
| 27 |
|
|
</ul>
|
| 28 |
|
|
<ul id="rfc--table-right">
|
| 29 |
|
|
<li title="Christian Huitema">C. Huitema</li>
|
| 30 |
|
|
<li title="INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis">INRIA</li>
|
| 31 |
|
|
<li title="Jon Postel">J. Postel</li>
|
| 32 |
|
|
<li title="USC/Information Sciences Institute">ISI</li>
|
| 33 |
|
|
<li title="Steve Crocker">S. Crocker</li>
|
| 34 |
|
|
<li title="CyberCash, Inc.">CyberCash</li>
|
| 35 |
|
|
<li>
|
| 36 |
|
|
<span class="t-pair">
|
| 37 |
|
|
<span xml:lang="en" class="t-l-en"> April 1995</span>
|
| 38 |
|
|
</span>
|
| 39 |
|
|
</li>
|
| 40 |
|
|
<li>
|
| 41 |
|
|
<span class="t-pair">
|
| 42 |
|
|
<span xml:lang="ja" class="t-l-ja">1995$BG/(B4$B7n(B</span>
|
| 43 |
|
|
</span>
|
| 44 |
|
|
</li>
|
| 45 |
|
|
</ul>
|
| 46 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 47 |
|
|
<div class="t-pair t-heading" id="rfc-title">
|
| 48 |
|
|
<h1 class="rfc-title t-l-en" xml:lang="en">Not All RFCs are Standards</h1>
|
| 49 |
|
|
<h1 class="rfc-title t-l-ja" xml:lang="ja">$BA4$F$N(B RFC $B$,I8=`$K$OHs$:(B</h1>
|
| 50 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 51 |
|
|
<div id="rfc-status" class="rfc-section">
|
| 52 |
|
|
<div class="t-pair">
|
| 53 |
|
|
<h1 xml:lang="en" class="t-l-en">Status of this Memo</h1>
|
| 54 |
|
|
<h1 xml:lang="ja" class="t-l-ja">$B$3$N%a%b$N0LCVIU$1(B</h1>
|
| 55 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 56 |
|
|
<div class="rfc-t">
|
| 57 |
|
|
<div class="t-pair">
|
| 58 |
|
|
<p class="t-l-en" xml:lang="en">
|
| 59 |
|
|
This memo provides information for the Internet community.
|
| 60 |
|
|
It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
|
| 61 |
|
|
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
|
| 62 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 63 |
|
|
<p class="t-l-ja" xml:lang="ja">
|
| 64 |
|
|
$B$3$N%a%b$O!"(B Internet $B<R2q$K>pJs$rDs6!$7$^$9!#$$$+$J$k<oN`$N(B
|
| 65 |
|
|
Internet $BI8=`$r5,Dj$9$k$b$N$G$b$"$j$^$;$s!#$3$N%a%b$NG[I[$O@)8B$7$^$;$s!#(B
|
| 66 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 67 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 68 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 69 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 70 |
|
|
<div class="rfc-section" id="rfc.abstract">
|
| 71 |
|
|
<div class="t-pair t-heading">
|
| 72 |
|
|
<h1 xml:lang="en" class="t-l-en">Abstract</h1>
|
| 73 |
|
|
<h1 xml:lang="ja" class="t-l-ja">$B35MW(B</h1>
|
| 74 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 75 |
|
|
<div class="rfc-t">
|
| 76 |
|
|
<div class="t-pair">
|
| 77 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="en" class="t-l-en">
|
| 78 |
|
|
This document discusses the relationship of the Request for
|
| 79 |
|
|
Comments (RFCs) notes to Internet Standards.
|
| 80 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 81 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="en" class="t-l-en">
|
| 82 |
|
|
$B$3$NJ8=q$O!"(B Request for Comments (RFC) $B3P=q$H(B
|
| 83 |
|
|
Internet $BI8=`$H$N4X78$K$D$$$F07$$$^$9!#(B
|
| 84 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 85 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 86 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 87 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 88 |
|
|
|
| 89 |
|
|
<div class="rfc-section">
|
| 90 |
|
|
<div class="t-pair t-heading">
|
| 91 |
|
|
<h1 xml:lang="en" class="t-l-en">Not All RFCs Are Standards</h1>
|
| 92 |
|
|
<h1 xml:lang="ja" class="t-l-ja">$BA4$F$N(B RFC $B$,I8=`$K$OHs$:(B</h1>
|
| 93 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 94 |
|
|
|
| 95 |
|
|
<div class="rfc-t" id="rfc.section.1.p.1">
|
| 96 |
|
|
<div class="t-pair">
|
| 97 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="en" class="t-l-en">
|
| 98 |
|
|
The "Request for Comments" (RFC) document series is the official
|
| 99 |
|
|
publication channel for Internet standards documents and other
|
| 100 |
|
|
publications of the IESG, IAB, and Internet community. From time to
|
| 101 |
|
|
time, and about every six months in the last few years, someone
|
| 102 |
|
|
questions the rationality of publishing both Internet standards and
|
| 103 |
|
|
informational documents as RFCs. The argument is generally that this
|
| 104 |
|
|
introduces some confusion between "real standards" and "mere
|
| 105 |
|
|
publications".
|
| 106 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 107 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="ja" class="t-l-ja">
|
| 108 |
|
|
$B!V(BRequest for Comments$B!W(B (RFC) $BJ8=q7ONs$O!"(B Internet
|
| 109 |
|
|
$BI8=`J8=q5Z$S(B IESG, IAB, Internet $B<R2q$N$=$NB>$N=PHGJ*$N8x<0=PHG7PO)$G$9!#;~!9!"$3$32?G/$+$G$OH>G/0LKh$K!"(B
|
| 110 |
|
|
Internet $BI8=`$H;29MJ8=q$N(B RFC
|
| 111 |
|
|
$B$N=PHG$N4X78$K$D$$$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
|
| 112 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 113 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 114 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 115 |
|
|
<div class="rfc-t" id="rfc.section.1.p.2">
|
| 116 |
|
|
<div class="t-pair">
|
| 117 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="en" class="t-l-en">
|
| 118 |
|
|
It is a regrettably well spread misconception that publication as an
|
| 119 |
|
|
RFC provides some level of recognition. It does not, or at least not
|
| 120 |
|
|
any more than the publication in a regular journal. In fact, each
|
| 121 |
|
|
RFC has a status, relative to its relation with the Internet
|
| 122 |
|
|
standardization process: Informational, Experimental, or Standards
|
| 123 |
|
|
Track (Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, Internet Standard), or
|
| 124 |
|
|
Historic. This status is reproduced on the first page of the RFC
|
| 125 |
|
|
itself, and is also documented in the periodic "Internet Official
|
| 126 |
|
|
Protocols Standards" RFC (STD 1). But this status is sometimes
|
| 127 |
|
|
omitted from quotes and references, which may feed the confusion.
|
| 128 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 129 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="ja" class="t-l-ja">
|
| 130 |
|
|
$B;DG0$J$3$H$K!"(B RFC
|
| 131 |
|
|
$B$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
|
| 132 |
|
|
RFC $B$O(B Internet $BI8=`2=2aDx$H$N4X78$K$D$$$F$N0LCVIU$1(B,
|
| 133 |
|
|
Informational ($B;29M(B), Experimental ($B<B83E*(B), Standards
|
| 134 |
|
|
Track ($BI8=`2=2aDx(B) (Proposed Standard ($BDs0FI8=`(B), Draft Standard
|
| 135 |
|
|
($B860FI8=`(B), Internet Standard (Internet $BI8=`(B)), Historic ($BNr;KE*(B)
|
| 136 |
|
|
$B$rM-$7$F$$$^$9!#$3$N0LCVIU$1$O(B RFC $B<+?H$N:G=i$NJG$K=q$$$F$"$j$^$9$7!"Dj4|E*$KH/9T$5$l$k(B
|
| 137 |
|
|
$B!X(BInternet Official Protocols Standards$B!Y(B (Internet
|
| 138 |
|
|
$B8x<0%W%m%H%3%kI8=`(B) RFC (<a href="http://suika.fam.cx/uri-res/N2L?urn:ietf:std:1" title="STD 1">STD 1</a>)
|
| 139 |
|
|
$B$K$b=q$+$l$F$$$^$9!#$7$+$7$3$N0LCVIU$1$O;~!90zMQ$d;2>H$+$i>J$+$l$k$N$G!":.Mp$r>7$-7s$M$^$;$s!#(B
|
| 140 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 141 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 142 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 143 |
|
|
|
| 144 |
|
|
<div class="rfc-t" id="rfc.section.1.p.3">
|
| 145 |
|
|
<div class="t-pair">
|
| 146 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="en" class="t-l-en">
|
| 147 |
|
|
There are two important sources of information on the status of the
|
| 148 |
|
|
Internet standards: they are summarized periodically in an RFC
|
| 149 |
|
|
entitled "Internet Official Protocol Standards" and they are
|
| 150 |
|
|
documented in the "STD" subseries. When a specification has been
|
| 151 |
|
|
adopted as an Internet Standard, it is given the additional label
|
| 152 |
|
|
"STD xxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC
|
| 153 |
|
|
series.
|
| 154 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 155 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="ja" class="t-l-ja">
|
| 156 |
|
|
Internet $BI8=`$N0LCVIU$1$K$OFs$D$N=EMW$J>pJs8;$,$"$j$^$9!#!X(BInternet
|
| 157 |
|
|
Official Protocol Standards$B!Y$H$$$&Bj$N(B RFC $B$KDj4|E*$K$^$H$a$i$l$^$9$7!"(B
|
| 158 |
|
|
$B!V(BSTD$B!W0!7ONs$KF~$l$i$l$^$9!#;EMM$,(B Internet $BI8=`$K:NMQ$5$l$?;~$K$O!"DI2C$N;%(B
|
| 159 |
|
|
$B!V(BSTD <var>xxxx</var>$B!W$,IU$1$i$l$^$9!#$7$+$7(B RFC
|
| 160 |
|
|
$BHV9f$bIU$1$i$l$?$^$^$G!"(B RFC $B7ONs$KCV$+$l$?$^$^$G$b$"$j$^$9!#(B
|
| 161 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 162 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 163 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 164 |
|
|
|
| 165 |
|
|
|
| 166 |
|
|
<div class="rfc-t" id="rfc.section.1.p.4">
|
| 167 |
|
|
<div class="t-pair">
|
| 168 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="en" class="t-l-en">
|
| 169 |
|
|
It is important to note that the relationship of STD numbers to RFC
|
| 170 |
|
|
numbers is not one to one. STD numbers identify protocols, RFC
|
| 171 |
|
|
numbers identify documents. Sometimes more than one document is used
|
| 172 |
|
|
to specify a Standard protocol.
|
| 173 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 174 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="ja" class="t-l-ja">
|
| 175 |
|
|
STD $BHV9f$H(B RFC $BHV9f$O0lBP0lBP1~$7$J$$$3$H$K$h$/Cm0U$7$F2<$5$$!#(B
|
| 176 |
|
|
STD $BHV9f$O%W%m%H%3%k$r<1JL$7!"(B RFC $BHV9f$OJ8=q$r<1JL$7$^$9!#;~$?$^!"J#?t$NJ8=q$,I8=`%W%m%H%3%k$r5,Dj$7$F$$$k$3$H$,$"$j$^$9!#(B
|
| 177 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 178 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 179 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 180 |
|
|
|
| 181 |
|
|
|
| 182 |
|
|
<div class="rfc-t" id="rfc.section.1.p.5">
|
| 183 |
|
|
<div class="t-pair">
|
| 184 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="en" class="t-l-en">
|
| 185 |
|
|
In order to further increase the publicity of the standardization
|
| 186 |
|
|
status, the IAB proposes the following actions:
|
| 187 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 188 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="ja" class="t-l-ja">
|
| 189 |
|
|
$BI8=`2=2aDx$N9-Js$r?J$a$k$?$a!"(B IAB $B$O<!$N$3$H$rDs0F$7$^$9!#(B
|
| 190 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 191 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 192 |
|
|
|
| 193 |
|
|
<ul class="rfc-list-empty">
|
| 194 |
|
|
<li>
|
| 195 |
|
|
<div class="t-pair">
|
| 196 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="en" class="t-l-en">
|
| 197 |
|
|
Use the STD number, rather than just the RFC numbers, in the cross
|
| 198 |
|
|
references between standard tracks documents,
|
| 199 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 200 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="ja" class="t-l-ja">
|
| 201 |
|
|
$BC1$K(B RFC $BHV9f$r;H$&$h$j(B STD
|
| 202 |
|
|
$BHV9f$rI8=`2=2aDxJ8=q$N8r:5;2>H(B (cross references) $B$K;H$&!#(B
|
| 203 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 204 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 205 |
|
|
</li>
|
| 206 |
|
|
|
| 207 |
|
|
<li>
|
| 208 |
|
|
<div class="t-pair">
|
| 209 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="en" class="t-l-en">
|
| 210 |
|
|
Utilize the "web" hypertext technology to publicize the state of
|
| 211 |
|
|
the standardization process.
|
| 212 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 213 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="ja" class="t-l-ja">
|
| 214 |
|
|
$B!V(Bweb$B!WD6J8(B (hypertext) $B5;=Q$rI8=`2=2aDx$N>uBV$N9%I>$K;H$&!#(B
|
| 215 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 216 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 217 |
|
|
</li>
|
| 218 |
|
|
</ul>
|
| 219 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 220 |
|
|
|
| 221 |
|
|
<div class="rfc-t" id="rfc.section.1.p.6">
|
| 222 |
|
|
<div class="t-pair">
|
| 223 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="en" class="t-l-en">
|
| 224 |
|
|
More precisely, we propose to add to the current RFC repository an
|
| 225 |
|
|
"html" version of the "STD-1" document, i.e., the list of Internet
|
| 226 |
|
|
standards. We are considering the extension of this document to also
|
| 227 |
|
|
describes actions in progress, i.e., standards track work at the
|
| 228 |
|
|
"proposed" or "draft" stage.
|
| 229 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 230 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="ja" class="t-l-ja">
|
| 231 |
|
|
$B$h$j6qBNE*$K$O!"8=:_$N(B RFC $BCyB"8K$K!V(Bhtml$B!WHG$N!V(BSTD-1$B!WJ8=q(B,
|
| 232 |
|
|
$B$9$J$o$A(B Internet $BI8=`$NI=$rF~$l$k$3$H$rDs0F$7$^$9!#$3$NJ8=q$K?J9T>u67(B,
|
| 233 |
|
|
$B$D$^$jI8=`2=2aDx$,!V(Bproposed ($BDs0F(B)$B!W$d!V(Bdraft ($B860F(B)$B!W$NCJ3,$KMh$F$$$k$+$b@bL@$9$k$h$&$K3HD%$9$k$3$H$r9M$($F$$$^$9!#(B
|
| 234 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 235 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 236 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 237 |
|
|
|
| 238 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 239 |
|
|
|
| 240 |
|
|
<div class="rfc-section">
|
| 241 |
|
|
<div class="t-pair t-heading">
|
| 242 |
|
|
<h1 xml:lang="en" class="t-l-en">A Single Archive</h1>
|
| 243 |
|
|
<h1 xml:lang="ja" class="t-l-ja">$BC10lJ]4I8K(B</h1>
|
| 244 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 245 |
|
|
|
| 246 |
|
|
<div class="rfc-t" id="rfc.section.2.p.1">
|
| 247 |
|
|
<div class="t-pair">
|
| 248 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="en" class="t-l-en">
|
| 249 |
|
|
The IAB believes that the community benefitted significantly from
|
| 250 |
|
|
having a single archival document series. Documents are easy to find
|
| 251 |
|
|
and to retrieve, and file servers are easy to organize. This has
|
| 252 |
|
|
been very important over the long term. Experience of the past shows
|
| 253 |
|
|
that subseries, or series of limited scope, tend to vanish from the
|
| 254 |
|
|
network. And, there is no evidence that alternate document schemes
|
| 255 |
|
|
would result in less confusion.
|
| 256 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 257 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="ja" class="t-l-ja">
|
| 258 |
|
|
IAB $B$O!"C10l$NJ]4IJ8=q7ONs$,$"$k$3$H$,<R2q$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
|
| 259 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 260 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 261 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 262 |
|
|
|
| 263 |
|
|
|
| 264 |
|
|
<div class="rfc-t" id="rfc.section.2.p.2">
|
| 265 |
|
|
<div class="t-pair">
|
| 266 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="en" class="t-l-en">
|
| 267 |
|
|
Moreover, we believe that the presence of additional documents does
|
| 268 |
|
|
not actually hurt the standardization process. The solution which we
|
| 269 |
|
|
propose is to better publicize the "standard" status of certain
|
| 270 |
|
|
documents, which is made relatively easy by the advent of networked
|
| 271 |
|
|
hypertext technologies.
|
| 272 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 273 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="ja" class="t-l-ja">
|
| 274 |
|
|
$B99$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$?D6J8(B (hypertext) $B5;=Q$N=P8=$GHf3SE*MF0W$H$J$j$^$7$?!#(B
|
| 275 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 276 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 277 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 278 |
|
|
|
| 279 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 280 |
|
|
|
| 281 |
|
|
<div class="rfc-section">
|
| 282 |
|
|
<div class="t-pair t-heading">
|
| 283 |
|
|
<h1 xml:lang="en" class="t-l-en">Rather Document Than Ignore</h1>
|
| 284 |
|
|
<h1 xml:lang="ja" class="t-l-ja">$BL5;k$9$k$h$jJ8=q2=(B</h1>
|
| 285 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 286 |
|
|
|
| 287 |
|
|
<div class="rfc-t" id="rfc.section.3.p.1">
|
| 288 |
|
|
<div class="t-pair">
|
| 289 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="en" class="t-l-en">
|
| 290 |
|
|
The RFC series includes some documents which are informational by
|
| 291 |
|
|
nature and other documents which describe experiences. A problem of
|
| 292 |
|
|
perception occurs when such a document "looks like" an official
|
| 293 |
|
|
protocol specification. Misguided vendors may claim conformance to
|
| 294 |
|
|
it, and misguided clients may actually believe that they are buying
|
| 295 |
|
|
an Internet standard.
|
| 296 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 297 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="ja" class="t-l-ja">
|
| 298 |
|
|
RFC $B7ONs$O@8Mh;29M$NJ8=q$d7P83$r@bL@$9$kJ8=q$r4^$s$G$$$^$9!#$3$NMM$JJ8=q$,8x<0%W%m%H%3%k;EMM=q$N!VMM$K8+$($k!W;~$K8m2rLdBj$,5/$3$j$^$9!#H=CG$r8m$C$?@=B$<T$O$3$l$X$NE,9g@-$r<gD%$9$k$+$b$7$l$^$;$s$7!"8m2r$7$?8\5R$O(B
|
| 299 |
|
|
Internet $BI8=`$r;H$C$F$$$k$HK\Ev$K?.$8$k$+$b$7$l$^$;$s!#(B
|
| 300 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 301 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 302 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 303 |
|
|
|
| 304 |
|
|
|
| 305 |
|
|
<div class="rfc-t" id="rfc.section.3.p.2">
|
| 306 |
|
|
<div class="t-pair">
|
| 307 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="en" class="t-l-en">
|
| 308 |
|
|
The IAB believes that the proper help to misguided vendors and
|
| 309 |
|
|
clients is to provide them guidance. There is actually very little
|
| 310 |
|
|
evidence of vendors purposely attempting to present informational or
|
| 311 |
|
|
experimental RFCs as "Internet standards". If such attempts
|
| 312 |
|
|
occurred, proper response would indeed be required.
|
| 313 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 314 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="ja" class="t-l-ja">
|
| 315 |
|
|
IAB $B$O8m2r$7$?@=B$<T$d8\5R$X$NE,@Z$J=u8@$,$=$N;XF3$H$J$k$H?.$8$F$$$^$9!#<B:]$K$O@=B$<T$,8N0U$K;29M$d<B83E*$J(B
|
| 316 |
|
|
RFC $B$r!V(BInternet $BI8=`!W$H8+$;$+$1$h$&$H$7$F$$$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
|
| 317 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 318 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 319 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 320 |
|
|
|
| 321 |
|
|
|
| 322 |
|
|
<div class="rfc-t" id="rfc.section.3.p.3">
|
| 323 |
|
|
<div class="t-pair">
|
| 324 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="en" class="t-l-en">
|
| 325 |
|
|
The IAB believes that the community is best served by openly
|
| 326 |
|
|
developed specifications. The Internet standardization process
|
| 327 |
|
|
provides guarantees of openness and thorough review, and the normal
|
| 328 |
|
|
way to develop the specification of an Internet protocol is indeed
|
| 329 |
|
|
through the IETF.
|
| 330 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 331 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="ja" class="t-l-ja">
|
| 332 |
|
|
IAB $B$O<R2q$K8x3+$G3+H/$5$l$?;EMM$,Hs>o$KLrN)$C$F$$$k$H?.$8$F$$$^$9!#(B
|
| 333 |
|
|
Internet $BI8=`2=2aDx$O8x3+@-$HI>O@$r7P$k$3$H$rJ]>Z$7$F$*$j!"$^$?(B
|
| 334 |
|
|
Internet $B%W%m%H%3%k$N;EMM$N3+H/$NDL>o$NJ}K!$O(B IETF
|
| 335 |
|
|
$B$rDL$9$b$N$G$9!#(B
|
| 336 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 337 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 338 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 339 |
|
|
|
| 340 |
|
|
|
| 341 |
|
|
<div class="rfc-t" id="rfc.section.3.p.4">
|
| 342 |
|
|
<div class="t-pair">
|
| 343 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="en" class="t-l-en">
|
| 344 |
|
|
The community is also well served by having access to specifications
|
| 345 |
|
|
of which have been developed outside the IETF standards process,
|
| 346 |
|
|
either because the protocols are experimental in nature, were
|
| 347 |
|
|
developed privately, or failed to achieve the acquire the degree of
|
| 348 |
|
|
consensus required for elevation to the standards track.
|
| 349 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 350 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="ja" class="t-l-ja">
|
| 351 |
|
|
$B<R2q$O!"%W%m%H%3%k$O@8Mh<B83E*$G$"$k$+(B,
|
| 352 |
|
|
$B;dE*$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,
|
| 353 |
|
|
IETF $BI8=`2=2aDx$N30$G3+H/$5$l$F$$$k;EMM$X$N7PO)(B (access)
|
| 354 |
|
|
$B$rM-$9$k$3$H$K$h$C$F$b$H$F$bLrN)$C$F$$$^$9!#(B
|
| 355 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 356 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 357 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 358 |
|
|
|
| 359 |
|
|
<div class="rfc-t" id="rfc.section.3.p.5">
|
| 360 |
|
|
<div class="t-pair">
|
| 361 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="en" class="t-l-en">
|
| 362 |
|
|
The IAB believes that publication is better than ignorance. If a
|
| 363 |
|
|
particular specification ends up being used in products that are
|
| 364 |
|
|
deployed over the Internet, we are better off if the specification is
|
| 365 |
|
|
easy to retrieve as an RFC than if it is hidden in some private
|
| 366 |
|
|
repository.
|
| 367 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 368 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="ja" class="t-l-ja">
|
| 369 |
|
|
IAB $B$O!"=PHG$OL5;k$h$jNI$+$l$H?.$8$F$$$^$9!#$b$7$"$k;EMM$,(B
|
| 370 |
|
|
Internet $B>e$KE83+$9$k@=IJ$G;H$o$l$F$$$k$H$7$F!"$=$N;EMM$,;dE*<}B"8K$K1#$5$l$F$$$k$h$j$O!"(B
|
| 371 |
|
|
RFC $B$H$7$F4JC1$K<h$j4s$;$i$l$kJ}$,NI$$$G$7$g$&!#(B
|
| 372 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 373 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 374 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 375 |
|
|
|
| 376 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 377 |
|
|
|
| 378 |
|
|
<div class="rfc-section">
|
| 379 |
|
|
<div class="t-pair t-heading">
|
| 380 |
|
|
<h1 xml:lang="en" class="t-l-en">Security Considerations</h1>
|
| 381 |
|
|
<h1 xml:lang="ja" class="t-l-ja">$B0BA4@-$K4X$7$F(B</h1>
|
| 382 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 383 |
|
|
<p class="rfc-t" id="rfc.section.4.p.1">
|
| 384 |
|
|
<div class="t-pair">
|
| 385 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="en" class="t-l-en">Security issues are not discussed in this memo.</p>
|
| 386 |
|
|
<p xml:lang="ja" class="t-l-ja">$B0BA4@-LdBj$O$3$N%a%b$G$O<h$j07$C$F$$$^$;$s!#(B</p>
|
| 387 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 388 |
|
|
</p>
|
| 389 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 390 |
|
|
|
| 391 |
|
|
<div id="rfc-authors" class="rfc-section">
|
| 392 |
|
|
<div id="rfc.authors" class="t-pair t-heading">
|
| 393 |
|
|
<h1 xml:lang="en" class="t-l-en">Author's Addresses</h1>
|
| 394 |
|
|
<h1 xml:lang="ja" class="t-l-ja">$BCx<T$NO"Mm@h(B</h1>
|
| 395 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 396 |
|
|
<ul class="rfc-author">
|
| 397 |
|
|
<li class="rfc-author-fullname">Christian Huitema</li>
|
| 398 |
|
|
<li class="rfc-organization">INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis</li>
|
| 399 |
|
|
<li class="rfc-street">2004 Route des Lucioles</li>
|
| 400 |
|
|
<li class="rfc-street">BP 109</li>
|
| 401 |
|
|
<li class="rfc-code">F-06561</li>
|
| 402 |
|
|
<li class="rfc-city">Valbonne Cedex</li>
|
| 403 |
|
|
<li class="rfc-country">France</li>
|
| 404 |
|
|
<li class="rfc-phone">$BEEOC(B: +33 93 65 77 15</li>
|
| 405 |
|
|
<li class="rfc-email">$BEE;R%a%$%k(B: <<a href="mailto:Christian.Huitema@MIRSA.INRIA.FR">Christian.Huitema@MIRSA.INRIA.FR</a>></li>
|
| 406 |
|
|
</ul>
|
| 407 |
|
|
<ul class="rfc-author">
|
| 408 |
|
|
<li class="rfc-author-fullname">Jon Postel</li>
|
| 409 |
|
|
<li class="rfc-organization">USC/Information Sciences Institute</li>
|
| 410 |
|
|
<li class="rfc-street">4676 Admiralty Way</li>
|
| 411 |
|
|
<li class="rfc-city">Marina del Rey</li>
|
| 412 |
|
|
<li class="rfc-region">CA</li>
|
| 413 |
|
|
<li class="rfc-code">90292</li>
|
| 414 |
|
|
<li class="rfc-phone">$BEEOC(B: 1-310-822-1511</li>
|
| 415 |
|
|
<li class="rfc-email">$BEE;R%a%$%k(B: <<a href="mailto:Postel@ISI.EDU">Postel@ISI.EDU</a>></li>
|
| 416 |
|
|
</ul>
|
| 417 |
|
|
<ul class="rfc-author">
|
| 418 |
|
|
<li class="rfc-author-fullname">Steve Crocker</li>
|
| 419 |
|
|
<li class="rfc-organization">CyberCash, Inc.</li>
|
| 420 |
|
|
<li class="rfc-street">2086 Hunters Crest Way</li>
|
| 421 |
|
|
<li class="rfc-city">Vienna</li>
|
| 422 |
|
|
<li class="rfc-region">VA</li>
|
| 423 |
|
|
<li class="rfc-code">22181</li>
|
| 424 |
|
|
<li class="rfc-phone">$BEEOC(B: 1- 703-620-1222</li>
|
| 425 |
|
|
<li class="rfc-email">$BEE;R%a%$%k(B: <<a href="mailto:crocker@cybercash.com">crocker@cybercash.com</a>></li>
|
| 426 |
|
|
</ul>
|
| 427 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 428 |
|
|
<ins id="rfc-translators-note" class="t-note t-l-ja" xml:lang="ja">
|
| 429 |
|
|
<div class="rfc-section" id="t-change">
|
| 430 |
|
|
<h1>$BK]Lu$NJQ99MzNr(B</h1>
|
| 431 |
|
|
<dl>
|
| 432 |
|
|
<dt>2002-05-09 <a href="mailto:w@suika.fam.cx" title="$BEE;R%a%$%k(B: <w@suika.fam.cx>">$B$o$+$P(B</a>
|
| 433 |
|
|
</dt>
|
| 434 |
|
|
<dd>
|
| 435 |
|
|
<ul>
|
| 436 |
|
|
<li>
|
| 437 |
|
|
<a href="http://suika.fam.cx/uri-res/N2L?urn:ietf:rfc:2629" title="RFC 2629">RFC 2629</a> $B$G%^!<%/IU$1!#(B</li>
|
| 438 |
|
|
<li>$BK]Lu40N;!#(B</li>
|
| 439 |
|
|
</ul>
|
| 440 |
|
|
</dd>
|
| 441 |
|
|
</dl>
|
| 442 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 443 |
|
|
<div class="rfc-section" id="rfc-t-copyright">
|
| 444 |
|
|
<h1>$BLuJ8$K$D$$$F$NCx:n8"@<L@(B</h1>
|
| 445 |
|
|
<p>$B$3$NK]LuJ8$O!"<+M3$KJ#@=!&G[I[!&2~JQ$7$F9=$$$^$;$s!#(B
|
| 446 |
|
|
(rfc-copyright-story $B$b;2>H$7$F2<$5$$!#(B)</p>
|
| 447 |
|
|
</div>
|
| 448 |
|
|
</ins>
|
| 449 |
|
|
</body>
|
| 450 |
|
|
</html>
|
Parent Directory
| 
Revision Log