Network Working Group RFC Editor, et al.
Request for Comments: 2555 USC/ISI
Category: Informational 7 April 1999
Network Working Group RFC Editor, et al.
Request for Comments: 2555 USC/ISI
Category: Informational 7 April 1999
30 Years of RFCs
30年的RFC
Status of this Memo
本备忘录的状况
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
本备忘录为互联网社区提供信息。它没有规定任何类型的互联网标准。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（1999年）。版权所有。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction.................................................. 2
2. Reflections................................................... 2
3. The First Pebble: Publication of RFC 1........................ 3
4. RFCs - The Great Conversation................................. 5
5. Reflecting on 30 years of RFCs................................ 9
6. Favorite RFCs -- The First 30 Years...........................14
7. Security Considerations.......................................15
8. Acknowledgments...............................................15
9. Authors' Addresses............................................15
10. APPENDIX - RFC 1..............................................17
11. Full Copyright Statement......................................18
1. Introduction.................................................. 2
2. Reflections................................................... 2
3. The First Pebble: Publication of RFC 1........................ 3
4. RFCs - The Great Conversation................................. 5
5. Reflecting on 30 years of RFCs................................ 9
6. Favorite RFCs -- The First 30 Years...........................14
7. Security Considerations.......................................15
8. Acknowledgments...............................................15
9. Authors' Addresses............................................15
10. APPENDIX - RFC 1..............................................17
11. Full Copyright Statement......................................18
Thirty years ago today, the first Request for Comments document, RFC 1, was published at UCLA (ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1.txt). This was the first of a series that currently contains more than 2500 documents on computer networking, collected, archived, and edited by Jon Postel for 28 years. Jon has left us, but this 30th anniversary tribute to the RFC series is assembled in grateful admiration for his massive contribution.
30年前的今天，加州大学洛杉矶分校发布了第一份征求意见文件RFC1(ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1.txt). 这是Jon Postel 28年来收集、归档和编辑的2500多份计算机网络文档系列中的第一份。乔恩已经离开了我们，但是这次对RFC系列的30周年纪念是为了感谢他对我们的巨大贡献。
The rest of this document contains a brief recollection from the present RFC Editor Joyce K. Reynolds, followed by recollections from three pioneers: Steve Crocker who wrote RFC 1, Vint Cerf whose long-range vision continues to guide us, and Jake Feinler who played a key role in the middle years of the RFC series.
这份文件的其余部分包含了一个简短的回忆从目前的RFC编辑Joyce K. Reynolds，然后回忆从三个先驱：Steve Crocker谁写了RFC 1，温顿·瑟夫的长远视野继续指导我们，Jake Feinler谁发挥了关键作用，在中间的RFC系列。
A very long time ago when I was dabbling in IP network number and protocol parameter assignments with Jon Postel, gateways were still "dumb", the Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP) was in its infancy and TOPS-20 was in its heyday. I was aware of the Request for Comments (RFCs) document series, with Jon as the RFC Editor. I really didn't know much of the innerworkings of what the task entailed. It was Jon's job and he quietly went about publishing documents for the ARPANET community.
很久以前，当我与Jon Postel一起涉猎IP网络编号和协议参数分配时，网关仍然是“哑的”，外部网关协议（EGP）处于初级阶段，TOPS-20处于全盛时期。我知道征求意见（RFC）文档系列，Jon是RFC的编辑。我真的不太了解这项任务的内部运作。这是Jon的工作，他悄悄地为ARPANET社区发布文档。
Meanwhile, Jon and I would have meetings in his office to go over our specific tasks of the day. One day, I began to notice that a pile of folders sitting to one side of his desk seemed to be growing. A few weeks later the pile had turned into two stacks of folders. I asked him what they were. Apparently, they contained documents for RFC publication. Jon was trying to keep up with the increasing quantity of submissions for RFC publication.
与此同时，乔恩和我会在他的办公室开会，讨论我们当天的具体任务。有一天，我开始注意到他办公桌一侧的一堆文件夹似乎越来越多。几周后，这堆文件变成了两堆文件夹。我问他那是什么。显然，它们包含RFC出版物的文件。Jon试图跟上RFC出版物提交数量的增长。
I mentioned to him one day that he should learn to let go of some of his work load and task it on to other people. He listened intently, but didn't comment. The very next day, Jon wheeled a computer stand into my office which was stacked with those documents from his desk intended for RFC publication. He had a big Cheshire cat grin on his face and stated, "I'm letting go!", and walked away.
有一天我对他说，他应该学会放下一些工作量，把它交给别人。他聚精会神地听着，但没有发表评论。第二天，乔恩把一个电脑支架推到我的办公室里，里面堆满了他办公桌上准备出版RFC的文件。他脸上露出一个大大的柴郡猫的笑容，说：“我要放手了！”然后走开了。
At the top of the stack was a big red three ring notebook. Inside contained the "NLS Textbook", which was prepared at ISI by Jon, Lynne Sims and Linda Sato for use on ISI's TENEX and TOPS-20 systems. Upon reading its contents, I learned that the NLS system was designed to help people work with information on a computer. It included a wide range of tools, from a simple set of commands for writing, reading
在书堆的顶部是一个红色的大三环笔记本。里面有“NLS教科书”，由Jon、Lynne Sims和Linda Sato在ISI编写，用于ISI的TENEX和TOPS-20系统。在阅读了它的内容后，我了解到NLS系统是为了帮助人们在计算机上处理信息而设计的。它包括一系列的工具，从一组简单的书写、阅读命令
and printing documents to sophisticated methods for retrieving and communication information. NLS was the system Jon used to write, edit and create the RFCs. Thus began my indoctrination to the RFC publication series.
以及使用复杂的方法打印文档以检索和交流信息。NLS是Jon用来编写、编辑和创建RFC的系统。因此，我开始向RFC出版物系列进行灌输。
Operating systems and computers have changed over the years, but Jon's perseverance about the consistency of the RFC style and quality of the documents remained true. Unfortunately, Jon did not live to see the 30th Anniversary of this series that he unfailingly nurtured. Yet, the spirit of the RFC publication series continues as we approach the new millennium. Jon would be proud.
多年来，操作系统和计算机都发生了变化，但Jon对RFC风格的一致性和文档质量的坚持仍然是正确的。不幸的是，乔恩没有活到他一直在培育的这部电视剧的30周年纪念日。然而，随着新千年的到来，RFC出版物系列的精神仍在继续。乔恩会感到骄傲的。
RFC 1, "Host Software", issued thirty years ago on April 7, 1969 outlined some thoughts and initial experiments. It was a modest and entirely forgettable memo, but it has significance because it was part of a broad initiative whose impact is still with us today.
三十年前1969年4月7日发布的RFC1《主机软件》概述了一些想法和初步实验。这是一份温和且完全被遗忘的备忘录，但它具有重要意义，因为它是一项广泛倡议的一部分，其影响至今仍在我们的脑海中。
At the time RFC 1 was written, the ARPANET was still under design. Bolt, Beranek and Newman had won the all-important contract to build and operate the Interface Message Processors or "IMPs", the forerunners of the modern routers. They were each the size of a refrigerator and cost about $100,000 in 1969 dollars.
在RFC1编写时，ARPANET仍在设计中。博尔特、贝拉内克和纽曼赢得了建造和运营接口信息处理器或“IMP”（现代路由器的先驱）的重要合同。它们每个都有冰箱那么大，1969年的价格约为10万美元。
The network was scheduled to be deployed among the research sites supported by ARPA's Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO). The first four nodes were to be at UCLA, SRI, University of California, Santa Barbara and University of Utah. The first installation, at UCLA, was set for September 1, 1969.
该网络计划部署在ARPA信息处理技术办公室（IPTO）支持的研究站点之间。前四个节点在加州大学洛杉矶分校，SRI，加利福尼亚大学，圣塔巴巴拉和犹他大学。第一次安装在加州大学洛杉矶分校，定于1969年9月1日进行。
Although there had been considerable planning of the topology, leased lines, modems and IMPs, there was little organization or planning regarding network applications. It was assumed the research sites would figure it out. This turned out to be a brilliant management decision at ARPA.
尽管对拓扑、租用线路、调制解调器和IMP进行了大量规划，但对网络应用的组织或规划却很少。据推测，研究地点会找到答案。事实证明，这是ARPA的一项卓越管理决策。
Previously, in the summer of 1968, a handful of graduate students and staff members from the four sites were called together to discuss the forthcoming network. There was only a basic outline. BBN had not yet won the contract, and there was no technical specification for the network's operation. At the first meeting, we scheduled future meetings at each of the other laboratories, thus setting the stage for today's thrice yearly movable feast. Over the next couple of years, the group grew substantially and we found ourselves with overflow crowds of fifty to a hundred people at Network Working Group meetings. Compared to modern IETF meetings all over the world with attendance in excess of 1,000 people and several dozen active working
此前，在1968年夏天，来自四个网站的少数研究生和工作人员被召集在一起讨论即将建立的网络。只有一个基本的大纲。BBN尚未赢得合同，也没有网络运营的技术规范。在第一次会议上，我们安排了未来在其他每个实验室举行的会议，从而为今天每年三次的活动盛宴奠定了基础。在接下来的几年里，这个团队有了长足的发展，在网络工作组会议上，我们发现自己有50到100人的人潮。与世界各地的现代IETF会议相比，出席人数超过1000人，有几十人在积极工作
groups, the early Network Working Groups were small and tame, but they seemed large and only barely manageable at the time. One tradition that doesn't seem to have changed at all is the spirit of unrestrained participation in working group meetings.
早期的网络工作组规模较小，但规模较大，当时几乎无法管理。一个似乎根本没有改变的传统是不受限制地参加工作组会议的精神。
Our initial group met a handful of times in the summer and fall of 1968 and winter 1969. Our earliest meetings were unhampered by knowledge of what the network would look like or how it would interact with the hosts. Depending on your point of view, this either allowed us or forced us to think about broader and grander topics. We recognized we would eventually have to get around to dealing with message formats and other specific details of low-level protocols, but our first thoughts focused on what applications the network might support. In our view, the 50 kilobit per second communication lines being used for the ARPANET seemed slow, and we worried that it might be hard to provide high-quality interactive service across the network. I wish we had not been so accurate!
我们最初的小组在1968年夏秋和1969年冬季举行了几次会议。我们最早的会议并没有因为知道网络会是什么样子或者它将如何与主机交互而受到阻碍。根据你的观点，这要么允许我们，要么迫使我们思考更广泛、更宏大的话题。我们认识到，我们最终将不得不着手处理消息格式和其他低级协议的具体细节，但我们最初的想法集中在网络可能支持的应用程序上。在我们看来，用于ARPANET的每秒50千比特的通信线路似乎很慢，我们担心很难通过网络提供高质量的交互服务。我希望我们没有这么准确！
When BBN issued its Host-IMP specification in spring 1969, our freedom to wander over broad and grand topics ended. Before then, however, we tried to consider the most general designs and the most exciting applications. One thought that captured our imagination was the idea of downloading a small interpretative program at the beginning of a session. The downloaded program could then control the interactions and make efficient use of the narrow bandwidth between the user's local machine and the back-end system the user was interacting with. Jeff Rulifson at SRI was the prime mover of this line of thinking, and he took a crack at designing a Decode-Encode Language (DEL) [RFC 5]. Michel Elie, visiting at UCLA from France, worked on this idea further and published Proposal for a Network Interchange Language (NIL) [RFC 51]. The emergence of Java and ActiveX in the last few years finally brings those early ideas to fruition, and we're not done yet. I think we will continue to see striking advances in combining communication and computing.
1969年春天，当BBN发布其主机IMP规范时，我们在广泛而宏大的主题上漫游的自由结束了。然而，在此之前，我们试图考虑最一般的设计和最令人兴奋的应用。一个吸引我们想象力的想法是在会议开始时下载一个小型解释程序。然后，下载的程序可以控制交互，并有效利用用户的本地计算机和用户正在交互的后端系统之间的窄带。SRI的杰夫·鲁利夫森（Jeff Rulifson）是这一思路的主要推动者，他在设计解码编码语言（DEL）[RFC 5]时尝试过。从法国访问加州大学洛杉矶分校的米歇尔·埃利（Michel Elie）进一步研究了这一想法，并发表了网络交换语言（NIL）的提案[RFC 51]。Java和ActiveX在过去几年中的出现最终使这些早期的想法得以实现，而我们还没有完成。我认为，我们将继续看到通信和计算相结合的惊人进步。
I have already suggested that the early RFCs and the associated Network Working Group laid the foundation for the Internet Engineering Task Force. Two all-important aspects of the early work deserve mention, although they're completely evident to anyone who participates in the process today. First, the technical direction we chose from the beginning was an open architecture based on multiple layers of protocol. We were frankly too scared to imagine that we could define an all-inclusive set of protocols that would serve indefinitely. We envisioned a continual process of evolution and addition, and obviously this is what's happened.
我已经建议早期的RFC和相关的网络工作组为互联网工程任务组奠定了基础。早期工作的两个非常重要的方面值得一提，尽管它们对于今天参与这一过程的任何人来说都是显而易见的。首先，我们从一开始选择的技术方向是基于多层协议的开放式体系结构。坦率地说，我们太害怕了，不敢想象我们可以定义一套包罗万象的协议，无限期地提供服务。我们设想了一个不断进化和增加的过程，显然这就是所发生的事情。
The RFCs themselves also represented a certain sense of fear. After several months of meetings, we felt obliged to write down our thoughts. We parceled out the work and wrote the initial batch of memos. In addition to participating in the technical design, I took on the administrative function of setting up a simple scheme for numbering and distributing the notes. Mindful that our group was informal, junior and unchartered, I wanted to emphasize these notes were the beginning of a dialog and not an assertion of control.
RFC本身也表现出某种恐惧感。经过几个月的会议，我们觉得有必要写下我们的想法。我们把工作分门别类，写了第一批备忘录。除了参与技术设计外，我还承担了建立一个简单的编号和分发方案的管理职能。考虑到我们的团队是非正式的、初级的、未经授权的，我想强调的是，这些笔记是对话的开始，而不是控制的主张。
It's now been thirty years since the first RFCs were issued. At the time, I believed the notes were temporary and the entire series would die off in a year or so once the network was running. Thanks to the spectacular efforts of the entire community and the perseverance and dedication of Jon Postel, Joyce Reynolds and their crew, the humble series of Requests for Comments evolved and thrived. It became the mainstay for sharing technical designs in the Internet community and the archetype for other communities as well. Like the Sorcerer's Apprentice, we succeeded beyond our wildest dreams and our worst fears.
第一批RFC发布至今已经三十年了。当时，我认为这些笔记是暂时的，一旦网络运行，整个系列将在一年左右的时间内消失。多亏了整个社区的巨大努力，以及乔恩·波斯特尔、乔伊斯·雷诺兹和他们的团队的坚持不懈和奉献精神，谦逊的一系列评论请求得以发展和繁荣。它成为互联网社区共享技术设计的支柱，也是其他社区的原型。就像巫师的徒弟一样，我们的成功超越了我们最疯狂的梦想和最可怕的恐惧。
A long time ago, in a network far, far away...
很久以前，在一个遥远的网络里。。。
Considering the movement of planet Earth around the Sun and the Sun around the Milky Way galaxy, that first network IS far away in the relativistic sense. It takes 200 million years for the Sun to make its way around the galaxy, so thirty years is only an eyeblink on the galactic clock. But what a marvelous thirty years it has been! The RFCs document the odyssey of the ARPANET and, later, the Internet, as its creators and netizens explore, discover, build, re-build, argue and resolve questions of design, concepts and applications of computer networking.
考虑到行星地球围绕太阳和太阳围绕银河系的运动，从相对论意义上讲，第一个网络是遥远的。太阳绕银河系运行需要2亿年的时间，因此30年只是银河系时钟上的一环。但是这三十年是多么奇妙啊！RFCs记录了ARPANET和后来的互联网的发展历程，其创造者和网民探索、发现、构建、重建、争论和解决计算机网络的设计、概念和应用问题。
It has been ultimately fascinating to watch the transformation of the RFCs themselves from their earliest, tentative dialog form to today's much more structured character. The growth of applications such as email, bulletin boards and the world wide web have had much to do with that transformation, but so has the scale and impact of the Internet on our social and economic fabric. As the Internet has taken on greater economic importance, the standards documented in the RFCs have become more important and the RFCs more formal. The dialog has moved to other venues as technology has changed and the working styles have adapted.
从最早的、初步的对话形式到今天更加结构化的角色，观看RFC自身的转变是一件非常有趣的事情。电子邮件、公告栏和万维网等应用程序的增长在很大程度上与这一转变有关，但互联网对我们的社会和经济结构的规模和影响也是如此。随着互联网在经济上越来越重要，RFC中记录的标准变得越来越重要，RFC也越来越正式。随着技术的改变和工作方式的改变，对话已经转移到其他场所。
Hiding in the history of the RFCs is the history of human institutions for achieving cooperative work. And also hiding in that history are some heroes that haven't been acknowledged. On this thirtieth anniversary, I am grateful for the opportunity to acknowledge some of them. It would be possible to fill a book with such names - mostly of the authors of the RFCs, but as this must be a brief contribution, I want to mention four of them in particular: Steve Crocker, Jon Postel, Joyce K. Reynolds and Bob Braden.
在区域渔业委员会的历史中，隐藏着人类机构实现合作工作的历史。在这段历史中还隐藏着一些未被承认的英雄。值此三十周年之际，我感谢有机会向其中一些人表示感谢。在一本书中可以填入这样的名字——大部分是RFCs的作者，但由于这必须是一个简短的贡献，我想特别提及其中的四位：史蒂夫·克罗克、乔恩·波斯特尔、乔伊斯·雷诺兹和鲍勃·布拉登。
Steve Crocker is a modest man and would likely never make the observation that while the contents of RFC 1 might have been entirely forgettable, the act of writing RFC 1 was indicative of the brave and ultimately clear-visioned leadership that he brought to a journey into the unknown. There were no guides in those days - computer networking was new and few historical milestones prepared us for what lay ahead. Steve's ability to accommodate a diversity of views, to synthesize them into coherence and, like Tom Sawyer, to persuade others that they wanted to devote their time to working on the problems that lay in the path of progress can be found in the early RFCs and in the Network Working Group meetings that Steve led.
史蒂夫·克罗克（Steve Crocker）是一个谦虚的人，他可能永远不会注意到，尽管RFC 1的内容可能已经被完全遗忘，但撰写RFC 1的行为表明了他在未知之旅中所带来的勇敢和最终清晰的远见。在那些日子里，没有指南——计算机网络是新的，很少有历史性的里程碑让我们为未来做好准备。Steve能够容纳各种不同的观点，将它们综合成一致性，并像Tom Sawyer一样，说服其他人他们想把时间花在解决前进道路上的问题上，这可以在早期的RFC和Steve领导的网络工作组会议中找到。
In the later work on Internet, I did my best to emulate the framework that Steve invented: the International Network Working Group (INWG) and its INWG Notes, the Internet Working Group and its Internet Experiment Notes (IENs) were brazen knock-offs of Steve's organizational vision and style.
在后来的互联网工作中，我尽力模仿史蒂夫发明的框架：国际网络工作组（INWG）及其INWG笔记、互联网工作组及其互联网实验笔记（IEN）都是史蒂夫组织愿景和风格的明目张胆的仿制品。
It is doubtful that the RFCs would be the quality body of material they are today were it not for Jonathan Postel's devotion to them from the start. Somehow, Jon knew, even thirty years ago that it might be important to document what was done and why, to say nothing of trying to capture the debate for the benefit of future networkers wondering how we'd reached some of the conclusions we did (and probably shake their heads...).
如果不是Jonathan Postel从一开始就对RFC的投入，RFC能否成为今天的优质材料是值得怀疑的。不知何故，即使在三十年前，乔恩就知道，记录下我们做了什么以及为什么会这样做可能很重要，更不用说试图抓住这场辩论，让未来的网络工作者知道我们是如何得出我们所做的一些结论的（可能还会摇头……）。
Jon was the network's Boswell, but it was his devotion to quality and his remarkable mix of technical and editing skills that permeate many of the more monumental RFCs that dealt with what we now consider the TCP/IP standards. Many bad design decisions were re-worked thanks to Jon's stubborn determination that we all get it "right" - as the editor, he simply would not let something go out that didn't meet his personal quality filter. There were times when we moaned and complained, hollered and harangued, but in the end, most of the time, Jon was right and we knew it.
乔恩是网络的博斯韦尔，但这是他对质量的投入，以及他在技术和编辑技能上的显著混合，渗透了许多我们现在考虑TCP/IP标准的更具纪念性的RFC。许多糟糕的设计决策都是因为乔恩固执地认为我们都做得“对”——作为编辑，他不会让不符合他个人素质的东西出现。有时候我们会呻吟、抱怨、大喊大叫，但最终，大多数时候，乔恩是对的，我们知道这一点。
Joyce K. Reynolds was at Jon's side for much of the time that Jon was the RFC editor and as has been observed, they functioned in unison like a matched pair of superconducting electrons - and superconductors they were of the RFC series. For all practical purposes, it was impossible to tell which of the two had edited any particular RFC. Joyce's passion for quality has matched Jon's and continues to this day. And she has the same subtle, puckish sense of humor that emerged at unexpected moments in Jon's stewardship. One example that affected me personally was Joyce's assignment of number 2468 to the RFC written to remember Jon. I never would have thought of that, and it was done so subtly that it didn't even ring a bell until someone sent me an email asking whether this was a coincidence. In analog to classical mystery stories, the editor did it.
乔伊斯·雷诺兹（Joyce K.Reynolds）在乔恩担任RFC编辑的大部分时间里都站在乔恩一边，正如人们所观察到的那样，他们就像一对匹配的超导电子和超导体一样协调工作——它们属于RFC系列。出于所有实际目的，不可能判断两人中的哪一人编辑过任何特定的RFC。乔伊斯对质量的热情与乔恩不相上下，并一直持续到今天。她有着乔恩执教期间出人意料的微妙幽默感。一个对我个人有影响的例子是乔伊斯把2468号分配给了为纪念乔恩而写的RFC。我从来没有想到过这一点，而且它做得如此巧妙，以至于在有人给我发电子邮件询问这是否是巧合之前，它甚至没有响过铃。类似于经典的神秘故事，编辑做了这件事。
Another unsung hero in the RFC saga is Bob Braden - another man whose modesty belies contributions of long-standing and monumental proportions. It is my speculation that much of the quality of the RFCs can be traced to consultations among the USC/ISI team, including Jon, Joyce and Bob among others. Of course, RFC 1122 and 1123 stand as two enormous contributions to the clarity of the Internet standards. For that task alone, Bob deserves tremendous appreciation, but he has led the End-to-End Research Group for many years out of which has come some of the most important RFCs that refine our understanding of optimal implementation of the protocols, especially TCP.
RFC传奇中的另一个无名英雄是鲍勃·布莱登——另一个谦逊的人，他的谦逊掩盖了长期以来不朽的贡献。我推测，RFC的大部分质量可以追溯到USC/ISI团队之间的协商，包括Jon、Joyce和Bob等。当然，RFC1122和1123是对互联网标准清晰性的两大贡献。仅就这项任务而言，Bob就值得高度赞赏，但多年来他一直领导着端到端的研究小组，从中产生了一些最重要的RFC，这些RFC完善了我们对协议（尤其是TCP）最佳实现的理解。
When the RFCs were first produced, they had an almost 19th century character to them - letters exchanged in public debating the merits of various design choices for protocols in the ARPANET. As email and bulletin boards emerged from the fertile fabric of the network, the far-flung participants in this historic dialog began to make increasing use of the online medium to carry out the discussion - reducing the need for documenting the debate in the RFCs and, in some respects, leaving historians somewhat impoverished in the process. RFCs slowly became conclusions rather than debates.
当RFC第一次被生产出来时，他们有一个几乎19世纪的特点——公开交换信件，讨论ARPANET协议中各种设计选择的优点。随着电子邮件和公告板从网络的肥沃结构中涌现出来，这一历史性对话的广泛参与者开始越来越多地利用在线媒体进行讨论——减少了在RFC中记录辩论的需要，在某些方面，让历史学家在这一过程中有些贫困。RFC慢慢地变成了结论，而不是辩论。
Jon permitted publication of items other than purely technical documents in this series. Hence one finds poetry, humor (especially the April 1 RFCs which are as funny today as they were when they were published), and reprints of valuable reference material mixed into the documents prepared by the network working groups.
Jon允许在本系列中发布纯技术文件以外的项目。因此，人们会发现诗歌、幽默（尤其是4月1日的RFC，它们在今天出版时一样有趣），以及有价值的参考资料的重印混合在网络工作组编写的文件中。
In the early 1970s, the Advanced Research Projects Agency was conducting several parallel research programs into packet switching technology, after the stunning success of this idea in the ARPANET. Among these were the Packet Radio Network, the Atlantic Packet Satellite Network and the Internet projects. These each spawned note series akin to but parallel to the RFCs. PRNET Notes, ARPA Satellite
20世纪70年代初，在ARPANET上取得惊人的成功后，美国高级研究计划局（Advanced Research Projects Agency）对分组交换技术进行了多项并行研究。其中包括分组无线电网络、大西洋分组卫星网络和因特网项目。这些都产生了与RFC类似但平行的注释系列。PRNET Notes，ARPA卫星
System Notes (bearing the obvious and unfortunate acronym...), Internet Experiment Notes (IENs), and so on. After the Internet protocols were mandated to be used on the ARPANET and other DARPA-sponsored networks in January 1983 (SATNET actually converted before that), Internet- related notes were merged into the RFC series. For a time, after the Internet project seemed destined to bear fruit, IENs were published in parallel with RFCs. A few voices, Danny Cohen's in particular (who was then at USC/ISI with Jon Postel) suggested that separate series were a mistake and that it would be a lot easier to maintain and to search a single series. Hindsight seems to have proven Danny right as the RFC series, with its dedicated editors, seems to have borne the test of time far better than its more ephemeral counterparts.
系统注释（带有明显且不幸的首字母缩写…），互联网实验注释（IEN），等等。1983年1月，互联网协议被授权在ARPANET和其他DARPA赞助的网络上使用（在此之前，SATNET实际上已经转换），与互联网相关的注释被合并到RFC系列中。有一段时间，在互联网项目似乎注定要取得成果之后，IEN与RFC同时发布。一些声音，尤其是丹尼·科恩（当时与乔恩·波斯特尔一起在南加州大学/三军情报局工作）表示，单独的系列是一个错误，维护和搜索单个系列要容易得多。事后看来，似乎已经证明丹尼是对的，因为RFC系列的编辑们，似乎比那些转瞬即逝的同行们更好地经受住了时间的考验。
As the organizations associated with Internet continued to evolve, one sees the RFCs adapting to changed circumstances. Perhaps the most powerful influence can be seen from the evolution of the Internet Engineering Task Force from just one of several task forces whose chairpersons formed the Internet Activities Board to the dominant, global Internet Standards development organization, managed by its Internet Engineering Steering Group and operating under the auspices of the Internet Society. The process of producing "standards-track" RFCs is now far more rigorous than it once was, carries far more impact on a burgeoning industry, and has spawned its own, relatively informal "Internet Drafts" series of short-lived documents forming the working set of the IETF working groups.
随着与互联网相关的组织不断发展，人们看到RFC正在适应不断变化的环境。也许最强大的影响可以从互联网工程工作组的演变中看出，从其主席组成互联网活动委员会的几个工作组中的一个，到占主导地位的全球互联网标准开发组织，由其互联网工程指导小组管理，并在互联网协会的支持下运作。制作“标准跟踪”RFC的过程现在比以前严格得多，对新兴行业产生了更大的影响，并产生了自己的、相对非正式的“互联网草稿”系列短期文件，形成了IETF工作组的工作集。
The dialogue that once characterized the early RFCs has given way to thrice-annual face-to-face meetings of the IETF and enormous quantities of email, as well as a growing amount of group-interactive work through chat rooms, shared white boards and even more elaborate multicast conferences. The parallelism and the increasing quantity of transient dialogue surrounding the evolution of the Internet has made the task of technology historians considerably more difficult, although one can sense a counter-balancing through the phenomenal amount of information accumulating in the World Wide Web. Even casual searches often turn up some surprising and sometimes embarrassing old memoranda - a number of which were once paper but which have been rendered into bits by some enterprising volunteer.
曾经是早期RFC特点的对话已经让位于IETF的三次年度面对面会议和大量电子邮件，以及通过聊天室、共享白板和更复杂的多播会议进行的越来越多的小组互动工作。围绕互联网发展的并行性和不断增加的短暂对话使技术历史学家的任务变得相当困难，尽管人们可以通过万维网中积累的惊人数量的信息感觉到一种平衡。即使是随意的搜索，也经常会发现一些令人惊讶、有时令人尴尬的旧备忘录——其中一些备忘录曾经是纸质的，但被一些有进取心的志愿者翻译成了碎片。
The RFCs, begun so tentatively thirty years ago, and persistently edited and maintained by Jon Postel and his colleagues at USC/ISI, tell a remarkable story of exploration, achievement, and dedication by a growing mass of internauts who will not sleep until the Internet truly is for everyone. It is in that spirit that this remembrance is offered, and in particular, in memory of our much loved colleague, Jon Postel, without whose personal commitment to this archive, the story might have been vastly different and not nearly as remarkable.
30年前初步开始的RFC，由Jon Postel和他在南加州大学/ISI的同事持续编辑和维护，讲述了一个关于探索、成就和奉献的非凡故事，越来越多的网民在互联网真正适合每个人之前不会睡觉。正是本着这种精神，我们提出了这一纪念，特别是为了纪念我们深爱的同事乔恩·波斯特尔，如果没有他的个人对这一档案的承诺，故事可能会大不相同，也不会那么引人注目。
By now we know that the first RFC was published on April 7, 1969 by Steve Crocker. It was entitled "Host Software". The second RFC was published on April 9, 1969 by Bill Duvall of SRI International (then called Stanford Research Institute or SRI), and it too was entitled "Host Software". RFC 2 was a response to suggestions made in RFC 1- -and so the dialog began.
到目前为止，我们知道第一份RFC是由Steve Crocker于1969年4月7日出版的。它被命名为“主机软件”。第二份RFC于1969年4月9日由SRI国际公司（当时称为斯坦福研究所或SRI）的比尔·杜瓦尔（Bill Duvall）出版，其标题也是“主机软件”。RFC 2是对RFC 1中提出的建议的回应，因此对话开始了。
Steve proposed 2 experiments in RFC 1:
Steve在RFC 1中提出了两个实验：
"1) SRI is currently modifying their on-line retrieval system which will be the major software component of the Network Documentation Center [or The SRI NIC as it soon came to be known] so that it can be modified with Model 35 teletypes. The control of the teletypes will be written in DEL [Decode-Encode Language]. All sites will write DEL compilers and use NLS [SRI Doug Engelbart's oNLine System] through the DEL program".
“1）SRI目前正在修改其在线检索系统，该系统将是网络文件中心[或很快被称为SRI NIC]的主要软件组件，以便可以使用35型电传打字机进行修改。电传打字机的控制将以DEL[解码-编码语言]编写。所有网站都将编写DEL编译器，并通过DEL程序使用NLS（SRI Doug Engelbart的在线系统）。”。
"2) SRI will write a DEL front end for full NLS, graphics included. UCLA and UTAH will use NLS with graphics".
“2）SRI将为完整NLS编写一个DEL前端，包括图形。UCLA和犹他州将使用带有图形的NLS”。
RFC 2, issued 2 days later, proposed detailed procedures for connecting to the NLS documentation system across the network. Steve may think RFC 1 was an "entirely forgettable" document; however, as an information person, I beg to differ with him. The concepts presented in this first dialog were mind boggling, and eventually led to the kind of network interchange we are all using on the web today. (Fortunately, we have graduated beyond DEL and Model 35 teletypes!)
2天后发布的RFC 2提出了通过网络连接NLS文档系统的详细程序。史蒂夫可能认为RFC1是一个“完全遗忘”的文件；然而，作为一个信息人士，我不同意他的看法。第一次对话中提出的概念令人难以置信，最终导致了我们今天都在网络上使用的那种网络交换。（幸运的是，我们已经超越了DEL和35型电传打字机！）
RFC 1 was, I believe, a paper document. RFC 2 was produced online via the SRI NLS system and was entered into the online SRI NLS Journal. However, it was probably mailed to each recipient via snail mail by the NIC, as email and the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) had not yet been invented.
我相信RFC1是一份纸质文件。RFC 2通过SRI NLS系统在线生成，并录入SRI NLS在线期刊。然而，由于电子邮件和文件传输协议（FTP）尚未发明，NIC可能通过蜗牛邮件将其发送给每个收件人。
RFC 3, again by Steve Crocker, was entitled, "Documentation Conventions;" and we see that already the need for a few ground rules was surfacing. More ground-breaking concepts were introduced in this RFC. It stated that:
同样由史蒂夫·克罗克（Steve Crocker）撰写的RFC 3题为“文档约定”，我们看到，对一些基本规则的需求已经浮出水面。本RFC中引入了更多开创性的概念。它说：
"The Network Working Group (NWG) is concerned with the HOST software, the strategies for using the network, and the initial experiments with the network. Documentation of the NWG's effort is through notes such as this. Notes may be produced at any site by anybody and included in this series".
“网络工作组（NWG）关注主机软件、使用网络的策略以及网络的初步实验。NWG的工作记录是通过这样的笔记记录的。笔记可以由任何人在任何网站上制作，并包含在本系列中。”。
It goes on to say:
它接着说：
"The content of a NWG note may be any thought, suggestion, etc.related to the Host software or other aspect of the network. Notes are encouraged to be timely rather than polished. Philosophical positions without examples or other specifics, specific suggestions or implementation techniques without introductory or background explanation, and explicit questions without any attempted answers are all acceptable. The minimum length for a NWG note is one sentence".
“NWG注释的内容可能是与主机软件或网络其他方面相关的任何想法、建议等。注释应及时而非润色。没有示例或其他细节的哲学立场、没有介绍性或背景解释的具体建议或实施技术，以及没有尝试回答的问题都可以接受。NWG注释的最小长度为一句话”。
"These standards (or lack of them) are stated explicitly for two reasons. First, there is a tendency to view a written statement as discussion of considerably less than authoritative ideas. Second, there is a natural hesitancy to publish something unpolished, and we hope to ease this inhibition".
“这些标准（或缺乏标准）的明确规定有两个原因。首先，人们倾向于将书面声明视为对远低于权威性观点的讨论。其次，人们对发表未经润色的内容有着天然的犹豫，我们希望缓解这种抑制”。
Steve asked that this RFC be sent to a distribution list consisting of:
Steve要求将此RFC发送到包含以下内容的分发列表：
Bob Kahn, BBN Larry Roberts, ARPA Steve Carr, UCLA Jeff Rulifson, UTAH Ron Stoughton, UCSB Steve Crocker, UCLA
鲍勃·卡恩、BBN拉里·罗伯茨、ARPA史蒂夫·卡尔、加州大学洛杉矶分校杰夫·鲁利夫森、犹他州罗恩·斯托顿、加州大学旧金山分校史蒂夫·克罗克、加州大学洛杉矶分校
Thus by the time the third RFC was published, many of the concepts of how to do business in this new networking environment had been established--there would be a working group of implementers (NWG) actually discussing and trying things out; ideas were to be free-wheeling; communications would be informal; documents would be deposited (online when possible) at the NIC and distributed freely to members of the working group; and anyone with something to contribute could come to the party. With this one document a swath was instantly cut through miles of red tape and pedantic process. Was this radical for the times or what! And we were only up to RFC 3!
因此，当第三个RFC出版时，许多关于如何在这种新的网络环境中开展业务的概念已经确立——将有一个实施者工作组（NWG）实际讨论和尝试事情；思想是自由的；通信将是非正式的；文件将存放在国家信息中心（可能时在线），并免费分发给工作组成员；任何有贡献的人都可以来参加聚会。有了这一份文件，一大片土地立刻被削减了数英里的繁文缛节和迂腐程序。这是《泰晤士报》的激进还是什么！我们只达到了RFC 3！
Many more RFCs followed and the SRI NLS Journal became the bibliographic search service of the ARPANET. It differed from other search services of the time in one important respect: when you got a "hit" searching the journal online, not only did you get a citation telling you such things as the author and title; you got an associated little string of text called a "link". If you used a command called "jump to link", voila! you got the full text of the document. You did not have to go to the library, or send an order off to an issuing agency to get a copy of the document, as was the custom with other search services of the time. The whole document
更多的RFC随之而来，SRI NLS期刊成为ARPANET的书目搜索服务。它在一个重要方面不同于当时的其他搜索服务：当你在网上搜索期刊时，你不仅得到了一份引文，告诉你作者和标题等信息；你得到了一个关联的小文本字符串，称为“链接”。如果你使用了一个叫做“跳转到链接”的命令，瞧！你得到了文件的全文。你不必去图书馆，也不必像当时其他搜索服务的习惯那样，向发行机构发送订单以获取文档副本。整个文件
itself was right there immediately!
它自己马上就在那里！
Also, any document submitted to the journal could not be changed. New versions could be submitted, and these superceded old versions, but again the new versions could not be changed. Each document was given a unique identifying number, so it was easy to track. These features were useful in a fast-moving environment. Documents often went through several drafts before they were finally issued as an RFC or other official document, and being able to track versions was very useful.
此外，提交给《日刊》的任何文件都不能更改。可以提交新版本，这些版本取代了旧版本，但新版本同样无法更改。每个文档都有一个唯一的识别号，因此很容易跟踪。这些功能在快速移动的环境中非常有用。文档在最终作为RFC或其他官方文档发布之前，通常要经过几次草稿，能够跟踪版本是非常有用的。
The SRI NLS Journal was revolutionary for the time; however, access to it online presented several operational problems. Host computers were small and crowded, and the network was growing by leaps and bounds; so connections had to be timed out and broken to give everyone a chance at access. Also, the rest of the world was still a paper world (and there were no scanners or laser printers, folks!), so the NIC still did a brisk business sending out paper documents to requestors.
SRI NLS杂志在当时是革命性的；然而，在线访问it带来了几个操作问题。主机小而拥挤,网络发展突飞猛进;；因此，连接必须超时并中断，以使每个人都有机会访问。此外，世界其他地方仍然是纸质世界（没有扫描仪或激光打印机，伙计们！），因此NIC向请求者发送纸质文档的业务仍然很活跃。
By 1972 when I became Principal Investigator for the NIC project, the ARPANET was growing rapidly, and more and more hosts were being attached to it. Each host was required to have a technical contact known as the Technical Liaison, and most of the Liaison were also members of the NWG. Each Liaison was sent a set of documents by the NIC called "functional documents" which included the Protocol Handbook (first issued by BBN and later published by the NIC.) The content of the Protocol Handbook was made up of key RFCs and a document called "BBN 1822" which specified the Host-to-Imp protocol.
到1972年，当我成为NIC项目的首席调查员时，ARPANET发展迅速，越来越多的主机连接到它。每一位主持人都需要有一个称为技术联络员的技术联系人，而且大多数联络员也是NWG的成员。NIC向每个联络人发送了一套称为“功能文件”的文件，其中包括协议手册（最初由BBN发布，后来由NIC发布）。协议手册的内容由关键RFC和一份名为“BBN 1822”的文件组成，该文件规定了Imp协议的主机。
The NWG informed the NIC as to which documents should be included in the handbook; and the NIC assembled, published, and distributed the book. Alex McKenzie of BBN helped the NIC with the first version of the handbook, but soon a young fellow, newly out of grad school, named Jon Postel joined the NWG and became the NIC's contact and ARPA's spokesperson for what should be issued in the Protocol Handbook.
NWG告知NIC手册中应包含哪些文件；国家情报委员会汇编、出版并分发了这本书。BBN的Alex McKenzie帮助NIC完成了手册的第一版，但不久，一位刚毕业的年轻人Jon Postel加入了NWG，成为NIC的联系人和ARPA的发言人，负责协议手册中应发布的内容。
No one who is familiar with the RFCs can think of them without thinking of Dr. Jonathan Postel. He was "Mister RFC" to most of us. Jon worked at SRI in the seventies and had the office next to mine. We were both members of Doug Engelbart's Augmentation Research Center. Not only was Jon a brilliant computer scientist, he also cared deeply about the process of disseminating information and establishing a methodology for working in a networking environment. We often had conversations way into the wee hours talking about ways to do this "right". The network owes Jon a debt of gratitude for his dedication to the perpetuation of the RFCs. His work, along with
熟悉RFC的人想到它们都会想到乔纳森·波斯特尔博士。对我们大多数人来说，他是“RFC先生”。乔恩70年代在斯里兰卡工作，办公室就在我的隔壁。我们都是道格·恩格尔巴特增强研究中心的成员。乔恩不仅是一位才华横溢的计算机科学家，他还非常关心传播信息的过程，以及在网络环境中建立工作方法的过程。我们经常聊到凌晨，谈论如何做到“正确”。该电视网欠乔恩一笔人情债，感谢他为RFC的永久化所做的贡献。他的工作，以及
that of his staff, the NWG, the IETF, the various NICs, and CNRI to keep this set of documents viable over the years was, and continues to be, a labor of love.
他的工作人员、NWG、IETF、各种NIC和CNRI多年来一直致力于保持这套文档的可行性，这是一项充满爱心的工作，并将继续下去。
Jon left SRI in 1976 to join USC-ISI, but by that time the die was cast, and the RFCs, NWG, Liaison, and the NIC were part of the network's way of doing business. However, the SRI NLS Journal system was becoming too big for its host computer and could not handle the number of users trying to access it. Email and FTP had been implemented by now, so the NIC developed methodology for delivering information to users via distributed information servers across the network. A user could request an RFC by email from his host computer and have it automatically delivered to his mailbox. Users could also purchase hardcopy subscriptions to the RFCs and copies of the Protocol Handbook, if they did not have network access.
乔恩于1976年离开斯里兰卡加入南加州大学-三军情报局（USC-ISI），但到那时，一切都已尘埃落定，RFC、NWG、联络和NIC已成为该网络经营方式的一部分。然而，SRI NLS日志系统对于其主机来说变得太大，无法处理试图访问它的用户数量。电子邮件和FTP现在已经实现，因此NIC开发了通过网络上的分布式信息服务器向用户传递信息的方法。用户可以通过电子邮件从其主机请求RFC，并将其自动发送到其邮箱。如果用户没有网络访问权限，还可以购买RFC的硬拷贝订阅和协议手册的副本。
The NIC worked with Jon, ARPA, DCA, NSF, other NICs, and other agencies to have secondary reference sets of RFCs easily accessible to implementers throughout the world. The RFCs were also shared freely with official standards bodies, manufacturers and vendors, other working groups, and universities. None of the RFCs were ever restricted or classified. This was no mean feat when you consider that they were being funded by DoD during the height of the Cold War.
NIC与Jon、ARPA、DCA、NSF、其他NIC和其他机构合作，使全球的实施者能够轻松访问RFC的二级参考集。RFC还与官方标准机构、制造商和供应商、其他工作组和大学自由共享。所有RFC均未受到限制或分类。当你认为他们在冷战时期被国防部资助时，这可不是什么了不起的壮举。
Many of us worked very hard in the early days to establish the RFCs as the official set of technical notes for the development of the Internet. This was not an easy job. There were suggestions for many parallel efforts and splinter groups. There were naysayers all along the way because this was a new way of doing things, and the ARPANET was "coloring outside the lines" so to speak. Jon, as Editor-in-Chief was criticized because the RFCs were not issued by an "official" standards body, and the NIC was criticized because it was not an "official" document issuing agency. We both strived to marry the new way of doing business with the old, and fortunately were usually supported by our government sponsors, who themselves were breaking new ground.
我们中的许多人在早期非常努力地建立了RFC，作为互联网发展的官方技术说明。这不是一件容易的工作。有人建议进行许多平行的努力和分裂小组。一直以来都有反对者，因为这是一种新的做事方式，可以说ARPANET是“线外着色”。Jon作为总编辑受到批评，因为RFC不是由“官方”标准机构发布的，NIC也受到批评，因为它不是“官方”文件发布机构。我们都努力将新的商业方式与旧的商业方式结合起来，幸运的是，我们的政府赞助者通常都支持我们，他们自己也在开拓新的领域。
Many RFCs were the end result of months of heated discussion and implementation. Authoring one of them was not for the faint of heart. Feelings often ran high as to what was the "right" way to go. Heated arguments sometimes ensued. Usually they were confined to substance, but sometimes they got personal. Jon would often step in and arbitrate. Eventually the NWG or the Sponsors had to say, "It's a wrap. Issue a final RFC". Jon, as Editor-in-Chief of the RFCs, often took merciless flak from those who wanted to continue discussing and implementing, or those whose ideas were left on the cutting room floor. Somehow he always managed to get past these controversies with style and grace and move on. We owe him and
许多RFC是数月热烈讨论和实施的最终结果。其中一本不是为胆小的人写的。对于什么是“正确”的道路，人们的情绪往往高涨。激烈的争论有时接踵而至。通常，他们只限于实体，但有时他们会涉及个人。乔恩经常插手仲裁。最终，NWG或赞助商不得不说，“这是一个总结。发布最终RFC”。乔恩作为RFCs的主编，经常受到那些想要继续讨论和实施的人，或者那些想法被留在剪辑室地板上的人无情的抨击。不知何故，他总是设法以优雅的风格克服这些争议，继续前进。我们欠他和他的
others, who served on the NWG or authored RFCs, an extreme debt of gratitude for their contributions and dedication.
其他在NWG服务或撰写RFC的人，对他们的贡献和献身精神深表感激。
At no time was the controversy worse than it was when DoD adopted TCP/IP as its official host-to-host protocols for communications networks. In March 1982, a military directive was issued by the Under Secretary of Defense, Richard DeLauer. It simply stated that the use of TCP and IP was mandatory for DoD communications networks. Bear in mind that a military directive is not something you discuss - the time for discussion is long over when one is issued. Rather a military directive is something you DO. The ARPANET and its successor, the Defense Data Network, were military networks, so the gauntlet was down and the race was on to prove whether the new technology could do the job on a real operational network. You have no idea what chaos and controversy that little 2-page directive caused on the network. (But that's a story for another time.) However, that directive, along with RFCs 791 and 793 (IP and TCP) gave the RFCs as a group of technical documents stature and recognition throughout the world. (And yes, TCP/IP certainly did do the job!)
当国防部采用TCP/IP作为其通信网络的官方主机对主机协议时，争议从未如此严重。1982年3月，国防部副部长理查德·德劳尔发布了一项军事指示。它只是简单地说，使用TCP和IP是国防部通信网络的强制性要求。请记住，军事指令不是你讨论的东西——一旦发布，讨论的时间早已过去。相反，军事指令是你所做的事情。ARPANET及其后继者，国防数据网络，是军事网络，因此挑战已经结束，竞赛正在进行，以证明新技术是否能够在真正的作战网络上完成这项工作。你不知道这个2页的小指令在网络上引起了什么样的混乱和争议。（但这是另一个时代的故事。）然而，该指令以及RFC791和793（IP和TCP）赋予了RFCs作为一组技术文件在全世界的地位和认可。（是的，TCP/IP确实做到了这一点！）
Jon and I were both government contractors, so of course followed the directions of our contracting officers. He was mainly under contract to ARPA, whereas the NIC was mainly under contract to DCA. BBN was another key contractor. For the most part we all worked as a team. However, there was frequent turnover in military personnel assigned to both the ARPANET and the DDN, and we all collaborated to try to get all the new participants informed as to what was available to them when they joined the network. We also tried to foster collaboration rather than duplication of effort, when it was appropriate. The NWG (or IETF as it is now known) and the RFCs became the main vehicles for interagency collaboration as the DoD protocols began to be used on other government, academic, and commercial networks.
乔恩和我都是政府承包商，所以当然会听从我们合同官员的指示。他主要与ARPA签订合同，而NIC主要与DCA签订合同。BBN是另一个关键承包商。在大多数情况下，我们都是一个团队。然而，分配到ARPANET和DDN的军事人员经常更替，我们都合作试图让所有新参与者了解他们加入网络时可以得到什么。在适当的时候，我们还努力促进合作，而不是重复努力。随着国防部协议开始在其他政府、学术和商业网络上使用，NWG（或现在所称的IETF）和RFC成为机构间协作的主要工具。
I left SRI and the NIC project in 1989. At that time there were about 30,000 hosts on what was becoming known as the Internet, and just over a 1000 RFCs had been issued. Today there are millions of hosts on the Internet, and we are well past the 3000 mark for RFCs. It was great fun to be a part of what turned out to be a technological revolution. It is heartwarming to see that the RFCs are still being issued by the IETF, and that they are still largely based on ideas that have been discussed and implemented; that the concepts of online working groups and distributed information servers are a way of life; that those little "links" (officially known as hypertext) have revolutionized the delivery of documents; and that the government, academia, and business are now all playing the same game for fun and profit. (Oh yes, I'm happy to see that Steve's idea
1989年，我离开了SRI和NIC项目。当时，互联网上大约有30000台主机，发布了1000多份RFC。今天，互联网上有数以百万计的主机，我们已经远远超过了RFC的3000大关。作为一个技术革命的一部分是非常有趣的。看到IETF仍在发布RFC，并且这些RFC在很大程度上仍然基于已经讨论和实施的想法，这是令人欣慰的；在线工作组和分布式信息服务器的概念是一种生活方式；这些小小的“链接”（官方称为超文本）彻底改变了文件的传递方式；政府、学术界和商业界现在都在玩同样的游戏以获取乐趣和利润。（哦，是的，我很高兴看到史蒂夫的想法
for integrated text and graphics has finally come to fruition, although that work took a little longer than 2 days.)
对于集成文本和图形，虽然这项工作花费了略多于2天的时间，但最终取得了成果。）
Five years ago, Jon Postel and I had wanted to publish a 25th RFC anniversary book, but, alas, we were both too busy working on other projects. We determined then that we should commemorate the thirtieth anniversary by collecting together thirty "RFC Editors' Choice" RFCs based on original ideas expressed throughout the first 30 years of their existence.
五年前，乔恩·波斯特尔和我曾想出版一本RFC 25周年纪念书，但是，唉，我们都忙于其他项目。我们当时决定，我们应该根据最初30年中表达的原创思想，收集30份“RFC编辑选择”RFC，以此纪念30周年。
Jon's untimely death in October 1998 prevented us from completing this goal. We did, however, start to put online some of the early RFCs, including RFC 1. We weren't sure whether we were going to try to make them look as close to the typewritten originals as possible, or to make a few adjustments and format them according to the latest RFC style. Those of you who still have your copies of RFC 1 will note the concessions we made to NROFF the online version. The hand-drawn diagrams of the early RFCs also present interesting challenges for conversion into ASCII format.
乔恩于1998年10月过早去世，使我们无法实现这一目标。然而，我们确实开始将一些早期的RFC上线，包括RFC1。我们不确定是要让它们看起来尽可能接近打印的原稿，还是要根据最新的RFC样式进行一些调整和格式化。那些仍然拥有RFC 1副本的人会注意到我们在网上版本上做出的让步。早期RFC的手绘图表也为转换为ASCII格式提出了有趣的挑战。
There are still opportunities to assist the RFC Editor to put many of the early RFCs online. Check the URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-online.html for more information on this project.
仍然有机会帮助RFC编辑将许多早期RFC联机。检查URL：http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-online.html 有关此项目的详细信息。
In memory of Jon, we are compiling a book for publication next year of "Favorite RFCs -- The First 30 Years".
为了纪念乔恩，我们正在编写一本书，将于明年出版“最受欢迎的RFC——前30年”。
We have set up a web interface at
我们已在以下位置设置了web界面：
http://www.rfc-editor.org/voterfc.html
http://www.rfc-editor.org/voterfc.html
for tabulating votes and recording the responses. We will accept email as well. Please send your email responses to: voterfc@isi.edu. We prefer votes accompanied by explanations for the vote choice.
用于制表投票和记录回复。我们也会接受电子邮件。请将您的电子邮件回复发送至：voterfc@isi.edu. 我们更喜欢投票并对投票选择进行解释。
We reserve the right to add to the list several RFCs that Jon Postel had already selected for the collection. Voting closes December 31, 1999.
我们保留向列表中添加Jon Postel已为收藏选择的几个RFC的权利。投票于1999年12月31日结束。
Security issues are not discussed in this commemorative RFC.
本纪念RFC不讨论安全问题。
Thank you to all the authors who contributed to this RFC on short notice. Thanks also to Fred Baker and Eve Schooler who goaded us into action. A special acknowledgment to Eitetsu Baumgardner, a student at USC, who NROFFed this document and who assisted in the formatting of RFCs 1, 54, and 62, converting hand-drawn diagrams into ASCII format.
感谢所有在短时间内为本RFC做出贡献的作者。也要感谢弗雷德·贝克和伊夫·斯库勒，他们激励我们采取行动。对南加州大学学生Eitetsu Baumgardner的特别感谢，他提供了本文件，并协助设置RFC 1、54和62的格式，将手绘图表转换为ASCII格式。
Robert Braden USC/Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way #1001 Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Robert Braden USC/信息科学研究所4676金钟路#1001马里纳德雷，加利福尼亚州90292
Phone: +1 310-822-1511
Fax: +1 310 823 6714
EMail: braden@isi.edu
Phone: +1 310-822-1511
Fax: +1 310 823 6714
EMail: braden@isi.edu
Joyce K. Reynolds USC/Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way #1001 Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Joyce K.Reynolds USC/信息科学研究所4676金钟路#1001马里纳德雷，加利福尼亚州90292
Phone: +1 310-822-1511
Fax: +1 310-823-6714
EMail: jkrey@isi.edu
Phone: +1 310-822-1511
Fax: +1 310-823-6714
EMail: jkrey@isi.edu
Steve Crocker Steve Crocker Associates, LLC 5110 Edgemoor Lane Bethesda, MD 20814
Steve Crocker Steve Crocker Associates有限责任公司马里兰州贝塞斯达埃杰莫尔巷5110号20814
Phone: +1 301-654-4569
Fax: +1 202-478-0458
EMail: crocker@mbl.edu
Phone: +1 301-654-4569
Fax: +1 202-478-0458
EMail: crocker@mbl.edu
Vint Cerf MCI
Vint Cerf MCI
EMail: vcerf@mci.net
EMail: vcerf@mci.net
Jake Feinler SRI Network Information Center 1972-1989
Jake Feinler斯里兰卡网络信息中心1972-1989
EMail: feinler@juno.com
EMail: feinler@juno.com
Celeste Anderson USC/Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way #1001 Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Celeste Anderson USC/信息科学研究所4676金钟路#1001马里纳德雷，加利福尼亚州90292
Phone: +1 310-822-1511
Fax: +1 310-823-6714
EMail: celeste@isi.edu
Phone: +1 310-822-1511
Fax: +1 310-823-6714
EMail: celeste@isi.edu
The cover page said at the top:
封面顶部写着：
"Network Working Group Request for Comments"
“网络工作组征求意见”
and then came an internal UCLA distribution list:
然后是加州大学洛杉矶分校的内部分发名单：
V. Cerf, S. Crocker, M. Elie, G. Estrin, G. Fultz, A. Gomez, D. Karas, L. Kleinrock, J. Postel, M. Wingfield, R. Braden, and W. Kehl.
塞尔夫、S.克罗克、M.埃利、G.埃斯特林、G.富尔茨、A.戈麦斯、D.卡拉斯、L.克莱诺克、J.波斯特尔、M.温菲尔德、R.布拉登和W.凯尔。
followed by an "Off Campus" distribution list:
然后是“校外”分发列表：
A. Bhushan (MIT), S. Carr (Utah), G. Cole (SDC), W. English (SRI), K. Fry (Mitre), J. Heafner (Rand), R. Kahn (BBN), L. Roberts (ARPA), P. Rovner (MIT), and R. Stoughton (UCSB).
A.布山（麻省理工学院）、S.卡尔（犹他州）、G.科尔（犹他州）、W.英格利什（SRI）、K.弗莱（米特尔）、J.希夫纳（兰德）、R.卡恩（BBN）、L.罗伯茨（ARPA）、P.罗夫纳（麻省理工学院）和R.斯托顿（UCSB）。
The following title page had
以下标题页已被删除
"Network Working Group Request for Comments: 1"
“网络工作组征求意见：1”
at the top, and then:
在顶部，然后：
HOST SOFTWARE
主机软件
STEVE CROCKER 7 APRIL 1969
史蒂夫·克罗克1969年4月7日
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（1999年）。版权所有。
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English.
本文件及其译本可复制并提供给他人，对其进行评论或解释或协助其实施的衍生作品可全部或部分编制、复制、出版和分发，不受任何限制，前提是上述版权声明和本段包含在所有此类副本和衍生作品中。但是，不得以任何方式修改本文件本身，例如删除版权通知或对互联网协会或其他互联网组织的引用，除非出于制定互联网标准的需要，在这种情况下，必须遵循互联网标准过程中定义的版权程序，或根据需要将其翻译成英语以外的其他语言。
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
上述授予的有限许可是永久性的，互联网协会或其继承人或受让人不会撤销。
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
本文件和其中包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，互联网协会和互联网工程任务组否认所有明示或暗示的保证，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。