Network Working Group A. Malis
Request for Comments: 2615 Ascend Communications, Inc.
Obsoletes: 1619 W. Simpson
Category: Standards Track DayDreamer
June 1999
Network Working Group A. Malis
Request for Comments: 2615 Ascend Communications, Inc.
Obsoletes: 1619 W. Simpson
Category: Standards Track DayDreamer
June 1999
PPP over SONET/SDH
SONET/SDH上的PPP
Status of this Memo
本备忘录的状况
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
本文件规定了互联网社区的互联网标准跟踪协议，并要求进行讨论和提出改进建议。有关本协议的标准化状态和状态，请参考当前版本的“互联网官方协议标准”（STD 1）。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。
Abstract
摘要
The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) [1] provides a standard method for transporting multi-protocol datagrams over point-to-point links. This document describes the use of PPP over Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) circuits.
点到点协议（PPP）[1]提供了通过点到点链路传输多协议数据报的标准方法。本文件描述了同步光网络（SONET）和同步数字体系（SDH）电路上PPP的使用。
This document replaces and obsoletes RFC 1619. See section 7 for a summary of the changes from RFC 1619.
本文件取代并废除RFC 1619。有关RFC 1619的变更汇总，请参见第7节。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction .......................................... 2
2. Physical Layer Requirements ........................... 3
3. Framing ............................................... 4
4. X**43 + 1 Scrambler Description ....................... 4
5. Configuration Details ................................. 6
6. Security Considerations ............................... 6
7. Changes from RFC 1619 ................................. 7
8. Intellectual Property ................................. 7
9. Acknowledgments ....................................... 8
10. References ............................................ 8
11. Authors' Addresses .................................... 9
12. Full Copyright Statement .............................. 10
1. Introduction .......................................... 2
2. Physical Layer Requirements ........................... 3
3. Framing ............................................... 4
4. X**43 + 1 Scrambler Description ....................... 4
5. Configuration Details ................................. 6
6. Security Considerations ............................... 6
7. Changes from RFC 1619 ................................. 7
8. Intellectual Property ................................. 7
9. Acknowledgments ....................................... 8
10. References ............................................ 8
11. Authors' Addresses .................................... 9
12. Full Copyright Statement .............................. 10
PPP was designed as a standard method of communicating over point-to-point links. Initial deployment has been over short local lines, leased lines, and plain-old-telephone-service (POTS) using modems. As new packet services and higher speed lines are introduced, PPP is easily deployed in these environments as well.
PPP被设计为通过点对点链路进行通信的标准方法。最初的部署是通过短线本地线路、租用线路和使用调制解调器的普通老式电话服务（POTS）。随着新的分组服务和更高速线路的引入，PPP也很容易在这些环境中部署。
This specification is primarily concerned with the use of the PPP encapsulation over SONET/SDH links. Since SONET/SDH is by definition a point-to-point circuit, PPP is well suited to use over these links.
本规范主要涉及SONET/SDH链路上PPP封装的使用。由于SONET/SDH定义为点对点电路，因此PPP非常适合在这些链路上使用。
Real differences between SONET and SDH (other than terminology) are minor; for the purposes of encapsulation of PPP over SONET/SDH, they are inconsequential or irrelevant.
SONET和SDH（术语除外）之间的实际差异较小；为了封装SONET/SDH上的PPP，它们无关紧要或不相关。
For the convenience of the reader, we list the equivalent terms below:
为方便读者，我们在下面列出了等效术语：
SONET SDH
---------------------------------------------
SPE VC
STS-SPE Higher Order VC (VC-3/4/4-Nc)
STS-1 frame STM-0 frame (rarely used)
STS-1-SPE VC-3
STS-1 payload C-3
STS-3c frame STM-1 frame, AU-4
STS-3c-SPE VC-4
STS-3c payload C-4
STS-12c/48c/192c frame STM-4/16/64 frame, AU-4-4c/16c/64c
STS-12c/48c/192c-SPE VC-4-4c/16c/64c
STS-12c/48c/192c payload C-4-4c/16c/64c
SONET SDH
---------------------------------------------
SPE VC
STS-SPE Higher Order VC (VC-3/4/4-Nc)
STS-1 frame STM-0 frame (rarely used)
STS-1-SPE VC-3
STS-1 payload C-3
STS-3c frame STM-1 frame, AU-4
STS-3c-SPE VC-4
STS-3c payload C-4
STS-12c/48c/192c frame STM-4/16/64 frame, AU-4-4c/16c/64c
STS-12c/48c/192c-SPE VC-4-4c/16c/64c
STS-12c/48c/192c payload C-4-4c/16c/64c
The only currently supported SONET/SDH SPE/VCs are the following:
目前唯一受支持的SONET/SDH SPE/VCs如下：
SONET SDH
----------------------------------------
STS-3c-SPE VC-4
STS-12c-SPE VC-4-4c
STS-48c-SPE VC-4-16c
STS-192c-SPE VC-4-64c
SONET SDH
----------------------------------------
STS-3c-SPE VC-4
STS-12c-SPE VC-4-4c
STS-48c-SPE VC-4-16c
STS-192c-SPE VC-4-64c
The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, MAY, OPTIONAL, REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, and SHOULD NOT are to be interpreted as defined in [6].
关键词必须、不得、可、可选、必需、推荐、应、不应、应、不应按照[6]中的定义进行解释。
PPP treats SONET/SDH transport as octet oriented synchronous links. SONET/SDH links are full-duplex by definition.
PPP将SONET/SDH传输视为面向八位字节的同步链路。SONET/SDH链路定义为全双工。
Interface Format
接口格式
PPP in HDLC-like framing presents an octet interface to the physical layer. There is no provision for sub-octets to be supplied or accepted [3][5].
类HDLC帧中的PPP向物理层提供了一个八位组接口。没有提供或接受子八位字节的规定[3][5]。
The octet stream is mapped into the SONET STS-SPE/SDH Higher Order VC, with the octet boundaries aligned with the SONET STS-SPE/SDH Higher Order VC octet boundaries.
八位元流映射到SONET STS-SPE/SDH高阶VC，八位元边界与SONET STS-SPE/SDH高阶VC八位元边界对齐。
Scrambling is performed during insertion into the SONET STS-SPE/SDH Higher Order VC to provide adequate transparency and protect against potential security threats (see Section 6). For backwards compatibility with RFC 1619 (STS-3c-SPE/VC-4 only), the scrambler MAY have an on/off capability where the scrambler is bypassed entirely when it is in the off mode. If this capability is provided, the default MUST be set to scrambling enabled.
在插入SONET STS-SPE/SDH高阶VC期间执行加扰，以提供足够的透明度并防止潜在的安全威胁（见第6节）。为了与RFC 1619（仅限STS-3c-SPE/VC-4）向后兼容，扰码器可能具有开/关功能，当扰码器处于关闭模式时，扰码器被完全绕过。如果提供了此功能，则必须将默认设置为启用加扰。
For PPP over SONET/SDH, the entire SONET/SDH payload (SONET STS-SPE/SDH Higher Order VC minus the path overhead and any fixed stuff) is scrambled using a self-synchronous scrambler of polynomial X**43 + 1. See Section 4 for the description of the scrambler.
对于SONET/SDH上的PPP，使用多项式X**43+1的自同步扰频器对整个SONET/SDH有效载荷（SONET STS-SPE/SDH高阶VC减去路径开销和任何固定内容）进行扰频。有关扰码器的说明，请参见第4节。
The proper order of operation is:
正确的操作顺序是：
When transmitting:
发送时：
IP -> PPP -> FCS generation -> Byte stuffing -> Scrambling ->
SONET/SDH framing
IP -> PPP -> FCS generation -> Byte stuffing -> Scrambling ->
SONET/SDH framing
When receiving:
收到时：
SONET/SDH framing -> Descrambling -> Byte destuffing -> FCS
detection -> PPP -> IP
SONET/SDH framing -> Descrambling -> Byte destuffing -> FCS
detection -> PPP -> IP
The Path Signal Label (C2) indicates the contents of the SONET STS-SPE/SDH Higher Order VC. The value of 22 (16 hex) is used to indicate PPP with X^43 + 1 scrambling [4].
路径信号标签（C2）指示SONET STS-SPE/SDH高阶VC的内容。22（16十六进制）的值用于表示具有X^43+1加扰的PPP[4]。
For compatibility with RFC 1619 (STS-3c-SPE/VC-4 only), if scrambling has been configured to be off, then the value 207 (CF hex) is used for the Path Signal Label to indicate PPP without scrambling.
为了与RFC 1619（仅限STS-3c-SPE/VC-4）兼容，如果已将加扰配置为关闭，则将值207（CF十六进制）用于路径信号标签，以指示不加扰的PPP。
The Multiframe Indicator (H4) is unused, and MUST be zero.
多帧指示器（H4）未使用，必须为零。
Control Signals
控制信号
PPP does not require the use of control signals. When available, using such signals can allow greater functionality and performance. Implications are discussed in [2].
PPP不需要使用控制信号。如果可用，使用此类信号可以实现更高的功能和性能。[2]中讨论了影响。
The framing for octet-synchronous links is described in "PPP in HDLC-like Framing" [2].
八位同步链路的帧在“类似HDLC的帧中的PPP”[2]中描述。
The PPP frames are located by row within the SONET STS-SPE/SDH Higher Order VC payload. Because frames are variable in length, the frames are allowed to cross SONET STS-SPE/SDH Higher Order VC boundaries.
PPP帧按行位于SONET STS-SPE/SDH高阶VC有效负载内。由于帧的长度可变，因此允许帧跨越SONET STS-SPE/SDH高阶VC边界。
The X**43 + 1 scrambler transmitter and receiver operation are as follows:
X**43+1加扰器发射机和接收机操作如下：
Transmitter schematic:
变送器示意图：
Unscrambled Data
|
v
+-------------------------------------+ +---+
+->| --> 43 bit shift register --> |--->|xor|
| +-------------------------------------+ +---+
| |
+-----------------------------------------------+
|
v
Scrambled Data
Unscrambled Data
|
v
+-------------------------------------+ +---+
+->| --> 43 bit shift register --> |--->|xor|
| +-------------------------------------+ +---+
| |
+-----------------------------------------------+
|
v
Scrambled Data
Receiver schematic:
接收器示意图：
Scrambled Data
|
+-----------------------------------------------+
| |
| v
| +-------------------------------------+ +---+
+->| --> 43 bit shift register --> |--->|xor|
+-------------------------------------+ +---+
|
v
Unscrambled Data
Scrambled Data
|
+-----------------------------------------------+
| |
| v
| +-------------------------------------+ +---+
+->| --> 43 bit shift register --> |--->|xor|
+-------------------------------------+ +---+
|
v
Unscrambled Data
Note: While the HDLC FCS is calculated least significant bit first as shown:
注：HDLC FCS首先计算最低有效位，如图所示：
<- <- <- <-
A B C D
<- <- <- <-
A B C D
(that is, the FCS calculator is fed as follows: A[0], A[1], ... A[7], B[0], B[1], etc...), scrambling is done in the opposite manner, most significant bit first, as shown:
（即，FCS计算器按如下方式馈送：A[0]、A[1]、…A[7]、B[0]、B[1]等），以相反的方式进行加扰，最高有效位优先，如图所示：
-> -> -> -> A B C D.
->->->->->A B C D。
That is, the scrambler is fed as follows: A[7], A[6], ... A[0], B[7], B[6], etc...
也就是说，扰码器按如下方式馈送：A[7]、A[6]、。。。A[0]、B[7]、B[6]等。。。
The scrambler operates continuously through the bytes of the SONET STS-SPE/SDH Higher Order VC, bypassing bytes of SONET Path Overhead and any fixed stuff (see Figure 20 of ANSI T1.105 [3] or Figure 10-17 of ITU G.707 [5]). The scrambling state at the beginning of a SONET STS-SPE/SDH Higher Order VC is the state at the end of the previous SONET STS-SPE/SDH Higher Order VC. Thus, the scrambler runs continuously and is not reset per frame. The initial seed is randomly chosen by transmitter to improve operational security (see Section 6). Consequently, the first 43 transmitted bits following startup or reframe operation will not be descrambled correctly.
扰码器通过SONET STS-SPE/SDH高阶VC的字节连续运行，绕过SONET路径开销字节和任何固定内容（参见ANSI T1.105[3]图20或ITU G.707[5]图10-17）。SONET STS-SPE/SDH高阶VC开始时的加扰状态是前一个SONET STS-SPE/SDH高阶VC结束时的状态。因此，扰码器连续运行，并且不会每帧重置。发射机随机选择初始种子，以提高操作安全性（见第6节）。因此，在启动或重构操作之后的前43个传输比特将不能被正确解扰。
Other than the FCS length (see below), the standard LCP sync configuration defaults apply to SONET/SDH links.
除FCS长度（见下文）外，标准LCP同步配置默认值适用于SONET/SDH链路。
The following Configuration Options are RECOMMENDED for STS-3c-SPE/VC-4:
建议STS-3c-SPE/VC-4使用以下配置选项：
Magic Number No Address and Control Field Compression No Protocol Field Compression
幻数无地址和控制字段压缩无协议字段压缩
For operation at STS-12c-SPE/VC-4-4c and above, Address and Control Field Compression and Protocol Field Compression are NOT RECOMMENDED. The Magic Number option remains RECOMMENDED.
对于STS-12c-SPE/VC-4-4c及以上的操作，不建议使用地址和控制字段压缩以及协议字段压缩。仍然建议使用幻数选项。
Regarding the FCS length, with one exception, the 32-bit FCS MUST be used for all SONET/SDH rates. For STS-3c-SPE/VC-4 only, the 16-bit FCS MAY be used, although the 32-bit FCS is RECOMMENDED. The FCS length is set by provisioning and is not negotiated.
关于FCS长度，除一个例外，32位FCS必须用于所有SONET/SDH速率。仅对于STS-3c-SPE/VC-4，可使用16位FCS，但建议使用32位FCS。FCS长度由供应设置，不进行协商。
The major change from RFC 1619 is the addition of payload scrambling when inserting the HDLC-like framed PPP packets into the SONET STS-SPE/SDH Higher Order VC. RFC 1619 was operationally found to permit malicious users to generate packets with bit patterns that could create SONET/SDH-layer low-transition-density synchronization problems, emulation of the SDH set-reset scrambler pattern, and replication of the STM-N frame alignment word.
RFC 1619的主要变化是在将类似HDLC的帧PPP数据包插入SONET STS-SPE/SDH高阶VC时增加了有效负载加扰。在操作上发现，RFC 1619允许恶意用户生成具有位模式的数据包，该位模式可能造成SONET/SDH层低转换密度同步问题、SDH set reset扰码器模式的模拟以及STM-N帧对齐字的复制。
The use of the x^43 + 1 self-synchronous scrambler was introduced to alleviate these potential security problems. Predicting the output of the scrambler requires knowledge of the 43-bit state of the transmitter as the scrambling of a known input is begun. This requires knowledge of both the initial 43-bit state of the scrambler when it started and every byte of data scrambled by the device since it was started. The odds of guessing correctly are 1/2**43, with the additional probability of 1/127 that a correct guess will leave the frame properly aligned in the SONET/SDH payload, which results in a probability of 9e-16 against being able to deliberately cause SONET/SDH-layer problems. This seems reasonably secure for this application.
引入x^43+1自同步扰频器以缓解这些潜在的安全问题。当已知输入的加扰开始时，预测加扰器的输出需要知道发射机的43位状态。这需要了解加扰器启动时的初始43位状态以及设备启动后加扰的每个字节的数据。正确猜测的几率为1/2**43，正确猜测将使帧在SONET/SDH有效负载中正确对齐的额外概率为1/127，这导致能够故意导致SONET/SDH层问题的概率为9e-16。对于此应用程序，这似乎相当安全。
This scrambler is also used when transmitting ATM over SONET/SDH, and public network carriers have considerable experience with its use.
当通过SONET/SDH传输ATM时，也使用该扰码器，公共网络运营商在使用该扰码器方面具有丰富的经验。
A known security issue is bandwidth reduction by intentional transmission of characters or sequences requiring transparency processing by including flag and/or escape characters in user data. A user may cause up to a 100% increase in the bandwidth required for transmitting his or her packets by filling the packet with flag and/or escape characters.
一个已知的安全问题是，通过在用户数据中包含标志和/或转义字符，故意传输需要透明处理的字符或序列，从而降低带宽。通过用标志和/或转义字符填充数据包，用户可以使传输其数据包所需的带宽增加高达100%。
As mentioned in the previous section, the major change from RFC 1619 was the addition of payload scrambling when inserting the HDLC-like framed PPP packets into the SONET STS-SPE/SDH Higher Order VC. Other changes were:
如前一节所述，RFC 1619的主要变化是在将类似HDLC的帧PPP数据包插入SONET STS-SPE/SDH高阶VC时增加了有效负载加扰。其他变化包括：
The terminology was updated to better match that used by ANSI and ITU-T.
对术语进行了更新，以更好地匹配ANSI和ITU-T使用的术语。
The specification's applicability is now specifically restricted to:
本规范的适用性现在特别限于：
SONET SDH
----------------------------------------
STS-3c-SPE VC-4
STS-12c-SPE VC-4-4c
STS-48c-SPE VC-4-16c
STS-192c-SPE VC-4-64c
SONET SDH
----------------------------------------
STS-3c-SPE VC-4
STS-12c-SPE VC-4-4c
STS-48c-SPE VC-4-16c
STS-192c-SPE VC-4-64c
The Path Signal Label (C2) is set to 22 (16 hex) when using X^43 + 1 scrambling.
使用X^43+1加扰时，路径信号标签（C2）设置为22（16十六进制）。
The 32-bit FCS is required except for operation with STS-3c-SPE/VC-4, in which case the 16-bit FCS is allowed (but the 32-bit FCS is still recommended).
需要32位FCS，但使用STS-3c-SPE/VC-4的操作除外，在这种情况下，允许使用16位FCS（但仍建议使用32位FCS）。
The Security Considerations section was added.
增加了安全注意事项部分。
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
IETF对可能声称与本文件所述技术的实施或使用有关的任何知识产权或其他权利的有效性或范围，或此类权利下的任何许可可能或可能不可用的程度，不采取任何立场；它也不表示它已作出任何努力来确定任何此类权利。有关IETF在标准跟踪和标准相关文件中权利的程序信息，请参见BCP-11。可供发布的权利主张和许可证保证的副本，或试图获得使用此类文件的一般许可证或许可的结果
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
本规范实施者或用户的专有权可从IETF秘书处获得。
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director.
IETF邀请任何相关方提请其注意任何版权、专利或专利申请，或其他可能涉及实施本标准所需技术的专有权利。请将信息发送给IETF执行董事。
The scrambler description was provided by J. Manchester, S. Davida, B. Doshi, and J. Anderson of Lucent Technologies, R. Broberg of Cisco Systems, and Peter Lothberg of Sprint Corporation. The security analysis was provided by Iain Verigin of PMC-Sierra and Larry McAdams of Cisco Systems. The authors would also like to thank the members of the IETF's Point-to-Point Protocol Extensions Working Group for their many suggestions and improvements to the text.
扰码器的描述由朗讯科技公司的J.曼彻斯特、S.达维达、B.多西和J.安德森、思科系统公司的R.布罗伯格和斯普林特公司的彼得·洛斯伯格提供。安全分析由PMC Sierra的Iain Verigin和Cisco Systems的Larry McAdams提供。作者还想感谢IETF点对点协议扩展工作组的成员对本文提出的许多建议和改进。
[1] Simpson, W., Editor, "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD 51, RFC 1661, Daydreamer, July 1994.
[1] 辛普森，W.，编辑，“点对点协议（PPP）”，STD 51，RFC 1661，Daydreamer，1994年7月。
[2] Simpson, W., Editor, "PPP in HDLC-like Framing", STD 51, RFC 1662, Daydreamer, July 1994.
[2] 辛普森，W.，编辑，“HDLC类框架中的PPP”，STD 51，RFC 1662，Daydreamer，1994年7月。
[3] American National Standards Institute, "Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) - Basic Description including Multiplex Structure, Rates and Formats," ANSI T1.105-1995.
[3] 美国国家标准协会，“同步光网络（SONET）-基本描述，包括多路复用结构、速率和格式”，ANSI T1.105-1995。
[4] American National Standards Institute, "Synchronous Optical Network (SONET)--Payload Mappings," T1.105.02-1998.
[4] 美国国家标准协会，“同步光网络（SONET）——有效载荷映射”，T1.105.02-1998。
[5] ITU Recommendation G.707, "Network Node Interface For The Synchronous Digital Hierarchy", 1996.
[5] 国际电联建议G.707，“同步数字体系的网络节点接口”，1996年。
[6] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[6] Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
Andrew G. Malis Ascend Communications, Inc. 1 Robbins Road Westford, MA 01810 USA
美国马萨诸塞州韦斯特福德罗宾斯路1号安德鲁·G·马里斯·阿森登通信有限公司，邮编：01810
Phone: +1 978 952 7414
EMail: malis@ascend.com
Phone: +1 978 952 7414
EMail: malis@ascend.com
William Allen Simpson DayDreamer Computer Systems Consulting Services 1384 Fontaine Madison Heights, Michigan 48071
William Allen Simpson DayDreamer计算机系统咨询服务1384 Fontaine Madison Heights，Michigan 48071
EMail: wsimpson@GreenDragon.com
EMail: wsimpson@GreenDragon.com
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。
Acknowledgement
确认
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.
RFC编辑功能的资金目前由互联网协会提供。