Network Working Group S. Bradner
Request for Comments: 2780 Harvard University
BCP: 37 V. Paxson
Category: Best Current Practice ACIRI
March 2000
Network Working Group S. Bradner
Request for Comments: 2780 Harvard University
BCP: 37 V. Paxson
Category: Best Current Practice ACIRI
March 2000
IANA Allocation Guidelines For Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers
互联网协议和相关标头中值的IANA分配指南
Status of this Memo
本备忘录的状况
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
本文件规定了互联网社区的最佳现行做法，并要求进行讨论和提出改进建议。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2000年）。版权所有。
Abstract
摘要
This memo provides guidance for the IANA to use in assigning parameters for fields in the IPv4, IPv6, ICMP, UDP and TCP protocol headers.
本备忘录为IANA在为IPv4、IPv6、ICMP、UDP和TCP协议头中的字段分配参数时提供了指导。
For many years the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (www.iana.org) has allocated parameter values for fields in protocols which have been created or are maintained by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Starting a few years ago the IETF began to provide the IANA with guidance for the assignment of parameters for fields in newly developed protocols. Unfortunately this type of guidance was not consistently provided for the fields in protocols developed before 1998. This memo attempts to codify existing IANA practice used in the assignment of parameters in the specific case of some of these protocols. It is expected that additional memos will be developed in the future to codify existing practice in other cases.
多年来，互联网分配号码管理局（IANA）（www.IANA.org）为互联网工程任务组（IETF）创建或维护的协议中的字段分配参数值。从几年前开始，IETF开始为IANA提供新开发协议中字段参数分配的指导。不幸的是，在1998年之前制定的议定书中，没有为这些领域一贯提供这类指导。本备忘录试图编纂在某些协议的特定情况下用于参数分配的现有IANA实践。预计今后将编写更多备忘录，以编纂其他情况下的现行做法。
This memo addresses the fields within the IPv4, IPv6, ICMP, UDP and TCP protocol headers for which the IANA assigns values.
此备忘录涉及IANA为其分配值的IPv4、IPv6、ICMP、UDP和TCP协议头中的字段。
The terms "Specification Required", "Expert Review", "IESG Approval", "IETF Consensus", and "Standards Action", are used in this memo to refer to the processes described in [CONS].
本备忘录中使用的术语“所需规范”、“专家评审”、“IESG批准”、“IETF共识”和“标准行动”是指[CONS]中描述的过程。
From time to time temporary assignments are made in the values for fields in these headers for use in experiments. IESG Approval is required for any such temporary assignments.
有时会在这些标题中的字段值中进行临时指定，以供实验使用。任何此类临时任务都需要IESG批准。
3. Version field in the IP header.
3. IP标头中的版本字段。
The first field in the IP header of all current versions of IP is the Version field. New values in the Version field define new versions of the IP protocol and are allocated only after an IETF Standards Action. It should be noted that some of the Version number bits are used by TCP/IP header compression schemes. Specifically, the hi-order bit of the Version field is also used by TCP/IP header compression [HC], while the three hi-order bits are used by IP Header Compression [IPHC].
所有当前IP版本的IP头中的第一个字段是版本字段。版本字段中的新值定义IP协议的新版本，并且仅在IETF标准操作后分配。应该注意的是，TCP/IP报头压缩方案使用了一些版本号位。具体而言，版本字段的高阶位也由TCP/IP报头压缩[HC]使用，而三个高阶位由IP报头压缩[IPHC]使用。
The IPv4 header [V4] contains the following fields that carry values assigned by the IANA: Version, Type of Service, Protocol, Source Address, Destination Address, and Option Type.
IPv4标头[V4]包含以下字段，这些字段携带IANA分配的值：版本、服务类型、协议、源地址、目标地址和选项类型。
The IPv4 Version field is always 4.
IPv4版本字段始终为4。
The Type of Service field described in [V4] has been superseded[DIFF] by the 6-bit Differentiated Services (DS) field and a 2-bit field which is currently reserved. The IANA allocates values in the DS field following the IANA Considerations section in [DIFF]. [ECN] describes an experimental use of the 2-bit "currently unused" field. Other experimental uses of this field may be assigned after IESG Approval processes. Permanent values in this field are allocated following a Standards Action process.
[V4]中描述的服务类型字段已被[DIFF]替换为6位区分服务（DS）字段和当前保留的2位字段。IANA根据[DIFF]中的IANA注意事项部分在DS字段中分配值。[ECN]描述了2位“当前未使用”字段的实验性使用。该领域的其他实验用途可在IESG批准流程后分配。此字段中的永久值是按照标准操作流程分配的。
IANA allocates values from the IPv4 Protocol name space following an Expert Review, IESG Approval or Standards Action process. The Expert Review process should only be used in those special cases where non-disclosure information is involved. In these cases the expert(s) should be designated by the IESG.
IANA在专家评审、IESG批准或标准行动流程之后从IPv4协议名称空间分配值。专家审查程序只应在涉及保密信息的特殊情况下使用。在这些情况下，专家应由IESG指定。
The IPv4 source and destination addresses use the same namespace but do not necessarily use the same values. Values in these fields fall into a number of ranges defined in [V4] and [MULT].
IPv4源地址和目标地址使用相同的命名空间，但不一定使用相同的值。这些字段中的值属于[V4]和[MULT]中定义的许多范围。
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) recently accepted responsibility for the formulation of specific guidelines for the allocation of the values from the IPv4 unicast address space (values 0.0.0.0 through 223.255.255.255 ) other than values from the ranges 0/8 (which was reserved in [AN80]) and 127/8 (from which the loopback address has been taken) along with other values already assigned by the IETF for special functions or purposes. (For example, the private addresses defined in RFC 1918.) Further assignments in the 0/8 and 127/8 ranges require a Standards Action process since current IP implementations may break if this is done.
互联网名称和数字分配公司（ICANN）最近承担了制定IPv4单播地址空间（值0.0.0.0至223.255.255.255）值分配具体指南的责任，但0/8（在[AN80]中保留）和127/8范围的值除外（从中获取环回地址）以及IETF已为特殊功能或目的分配的其他值。（例如，RFC 1918中定义的专用地址。）0/8和127/8范围内的进一步分配需要标准操作过程，因为如果这样做，当前IP实现可能会中断。
IPv4 addresses that fall in the range from 224.0.0.0 through 239.255.255.255 are known as multicast addresses. The IETF through its normal processes has assigned a number of IPv4 multicast addresses for special purposes. For example, [ADSCP] assigned a number of IPv4 multicast address to correspond to IPv6 scoped multicast addresses. Also, the values in the range from 224.0.0.0 to 224.0.0.255 , inclusive, are reserved by the IANA for the use of routing protocols and other low-level topology discovery or maintenance protocols, such as gateway discovery and group membership reporting. (See the IANA web page) New values in this range are assigned following an IESG Approval or Standards Action process. Assignments of individual multicast address follow an Expert Review, IESG Approval or Standards Action process. Until further work is done on multicast protocols, large-scale assignments of IPv4 multicast addresses is not recommended.
IPv4 addresses that fall in the range from 224.0.0.0 through 239.255.255.255 are known as multicast addresses. The IETF through its normal processes has assigned a number of IPv4 multicast addresses for special purposes. For example, [ADSCP] assigned a number of IPv4 multicast address to correspond to IPv6 scoped multicast addresses. Also, the values in the range from 224.0.0.0 to 224.0.0.255 , inclusive, are reserved by the IANA for the use of routing protocols and other low-level topology discovery or maintenance protocols, such as gateway discovery and group membership reporting. (See the IANA web page) New values in this range are assigned following an IESG Approval or Standards Action process. Assignments of individual multicast address follow an Expert Review, IESG Approval or Standards Action process. Until further work is done on multicast protocols, large-scale assignments of IPv4 multicast addresses is not recommended.translate error, please retry
From time to time, there are requests for temporary assignment of multicast space for experimental purposes. These will originate in an IESG Approval process and should be for a limited duration such as one year.
有时会有出于实验目的临时分配多播空间的请求。这些将在IESG批准流程中产生，并应在有限的期限内进行，如一年。
IPv4 addresses in the range from 240.0.0.0 through 255.255.255.254 are reserved [AN81, MULT] and compliant IPv4 implementations will discard any packets that make use of them. Addresses in this range
240.0.0.0到255.255.255.254范围内的IPv4地址是保留的[AN81，MULT]，符合要求的IPv4实现将丢弃使用它们的任何数据包。此范围内的地址
are not to be assigned unless an IETF Standards Action modifies the IPv4 protocol in such a way as to make these addresses valid. Address 255.255.255.255 is the limited broadcast address.
除非IETF标准行动以使这些地址有效的方式修改IPv4协议，否则不会分配这些地址。地址255.255.255.255是有限的广播地址。
The IANA allocates values from the IPv4 Option Type name space following an IESG Approval, IETF Consensus or Standards Action process.
IANA在IESG批准、IETF共识或标准行动过程后，从IPv4选项类型名称空间分配值。
The IPv6 header [V6] contains the following fields that carry values assigned from IANA-managed name spaces: Version (by definition always 6 in IPv6), Traffic Class, Next Header, Source and Destination Address. In addition, the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options and Destination Options extension headers include an Option Type field with values assigned from an IANA-managed name space.
IPv6标头[V6]包含以下字段，这些字段携带从IANA托管名称空间分配的值：版本（根据定义，IPv6中始终为6）、流量类别、下一个标头、源地址和目标地址。此外，IPv6逐跳选项和目标选项扩展标头包含一个选项类型字段，其中的值是从IANA管理的名称空间分配的。
The IPv6 Version field is always 6.
IPv6版本字段始终为6。
The IPv6 Traffic Class field is described in [DIFF] as a 6- bit Differentiated Services (DS) field and a 2-bit field which is currently reserved. See Section 4.2 for assignment guidelines for these fields.
IPv6流量类别字段在[DIFF]中描述为6位区分服务（DS）字段和当前保留的2位字段。有关这些字段的分配指南，请参见第4.2节。
The IPv6 Next Header field carries values from the same name space as the IPv4 Protocol name space. These values are allocated as discussed in Section 4.3.
IPv6下一个标头字段包含与IPv4协议名称空间相同的名称空间中的值。这些值的分配如第4.3节所述。
The IPv6 Source and Destination address fields both use the same values and are described in [V6AD]. The addresses are divided into ranges defined by a variable length Format Prefix (FP).
IPv6源地址和目标地址字段均使用相同的值，并在[V6AD]中进行了描述。地址被划分为由可变长度格式前缀（FP）定义的范围。
The IANA was given responsibility for all IPv6 address space by the IAB in [V6AA]. Recently the IANA agreed to specific guidelines for the assignment of values in the Aggregatable Global Unicast Addresses FP (FP 001) formulated by the Regional Internet Registries.
IAA由IAB在[V6AA]中负责所有IPv6地址空间。最近，IANA同意由区域互联网注册中心制定的可聚合全球单播地址FP（FP 001）值分配的具体指南。
IPv6 anycast addresses are defined in [V6AD]. Anycast addresses are allocated from the unicast address space and anycast addresses are syntactically indistinguishable from unicast addresses. Assignment of IPv6 Anycast subnet addresses follows the process described in [V6AD]. Assignment of other IPv6 Anycast addresses follows the process used for IPv6 Aggregatable Global Unicast Addresses. (section 5.4.1)
IPv6选播地址在[V6AD]中定义。选播地址是从单播地址空间分配的，并且选播地址在语法上与单播地址不可区分。IPv6选播子网地址的分配遵循[V6AD]中描述的过程。其他IPv6选播地址的分配遵循用于IPv6可聚合全局单播地址的过程。（第5.4.1节）
IPv6 multicast addresses are defined in [V6AD]. They are identified by a FP of 0xFF. Assignment guidelines for IPv6 multicast addresses are described in [MASGN].
IPv6多播地址在[V6AD]中定义。它们由0xFF的FP标识。[MASGN]中描述了IPv6多播地址的分配准则。
The responsibility for assigning values in each of the "unassigned" and "reserved" Format Prefixes is delegated by IESG Approval or Standards Action processes since the rules for processing these Format Prefixes in IPv6 implementations have not been defined.
在每个“未分配”和“保留”格式前缀中分配值的责任由IESG批准或标准行动流程委派，因为在IPv6实施中处理这些格式前缀的规则尚未定义。
Values for the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options and Destination Options fields are allocated using an IESG Approval, IETF Consensus or Standards Action processes.
IPv6逐跳选项和目标选项字段的值是使用IESG批准、IETF共识或标准行动流程分配的。
The IPv6 Neighbor Discovery header [NDV6] contains the following fields that carry values assigned from IANA- managed name spaces: Type, Code and Option Type.
IPv6邻居发现标头[NDV6]包含以下字段，这些字段携带从IANA管理的名称空间分配的值：类型、代码和选项类型。
Values for the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Type, Code, and Option Type fields are allocated using an IESG Approval or Standards Action process.
IPv6邻居发现类型、代码和选项类型字段的值是使用IESG批准或标准操作流程分配的。
The IPv4 ICMP header [ICMP] contains the following fields that carry values assigned from IANA-managed name spaces: Type and Code. Code field values are defined relative to a specific Type value.
IPv4 ICMP标头[ICMP]包含以下字段，这些字段携带从IANA托管名称空间分配的值：类型和代码。代码字段值是相对于特定类型值定义的。
Values for the IPv4 ICMP Type fields are allocated using an IESG Approval or Standards Action processes. Code Values for existing IPv4 ICMP Type fields are allocated using IESG Approval or Standards
IPv4 ICMP类型字段的值是使用IESG批准或标准操作流程分配的。使用IESG批准或标准分配现有IPv4 ICMP类型字段的代码值
Action processes. The policy for assigning Code values for new IPv4 ICMP Types should be defined in the document defining the new Type value.
行动进程。应在定义新类型值的文档中定义为新IPv4 ICMP类型分配代码值的策略。
The IPv6 ICMP header [ICMPV6] contains the following fields that carry values assigned from IANA-managed name spaces: Type and Code. Code field values are defined relative to a specific Type value.
IPv6 ICMP标头[ICMPV6]包含以下字段，这些字段携带从IANA托管名称空间分配的值：类型和代码。代码字段值是相对于特定类型值定义的。
Values for the IPv6 ICMP Type fields are allocated using an IESG Approval or Standards Action processes. Code Values for existing IPv6 ICMP Type fields are allocated using IESG Approval or Standards Action processes. The policy for assigning Code values for new IPv6 ICMP Types should be defined in the document defining the new Type value.
IPv6 ICMP类型字段的值是使用IESG批准或标准操作流程分配的。现有IPv6 ICMP类型字段的代码值是使用IESG批准或标准操作流程分配的。应在定义新类型值的文档中定义为新IPv6 ICMP类型分配代码值的策略。
The UDP header [UDP] contains the following fields that carry values assigned from IANA-managed name spaces: Source and Destination Port.
UDP标头[UDP]包含以下字段，这些字段携带从IANA托管名称空间分配的值：源和目标端口。
Both the Source and Destination Port fields use the same namespace. Values in this namespace are assigned following a Specification Required, Expert Review, IESG Approval, IETF Consensus, or Standards Action process. Note that some assignments may involve non-disclosure information.
源端口和目标端口字段都使用相同的命名空间。此名称空间中的值是按照所需的规范、专家评审、IESG批准、IETF共识或标准行动流程分配的。请注意，某些转让可能涉及保密信息。
The TCP header [TCP] contains the following fields that carry values assigned from IANA-managed name spaces: Source and Destination Port, Reserved Bits, and Option Kind.
TCP头[TCP]包含以下字段，这些字段携带从IANA托管名称空间分配的值：源和目标端口、保留位和选项种类。
Both the Source and Destination Port fields use the same namespace. Values in this namespace are assigned following a Specification Required, Expert Review, IESG Approval, IETF Consensus, or Standards Action process. Note that some assignments may involve non-disclosure information.
源端口和目标端口字段都使用相同的命名空间。此名称空间中的值是按照所需的规范、专家评审、IESG批准、IETF共识或标准行动流程分配的。请注意，某些转让可能涉及保密信息。
The reserved bits in the TCP header are assigned following a Standards Action process.
TCP报头中的保留位按照标准操作过程分配。
Values in the Option Kind field are assigned following an IESG Approval or Standards Action process.
选项种类字段中的值是按照IESG批准或标准行动流程分配的。
Security analyzers such as firewalls and network intrusion detection monitors often rely on unambiguous interpretations of the fields described in this memo. As new values for the fields are assigned, existing security analyzers that do not understand the new values may fail, resulting in either loss of connectivity if the analyzer declines to forward the unrecognized traffic, or loss of security if it does forward the traffic and the new values are used as part of an attack. This vulnerability argues for high visibility (which the Standards Action and IETF Consensus processes ensure) for the assignments whenever possible.
防火墙和网络入侵检测监视器等安全分析器通常依赖于本备忘录中所述字段的明确解释。在为字段分配新值时，不了解新值的现有安全分析器可能会失败，如果分析器拒绝转发未识别的流量，则会导致连接丢失；如果确实转发了流量，并且新值被用作攻击的一部分，则会导致安全性丢失。此漏洞要求任务尽可能具有高可见性（这是标准行动和IETF共识过程确保的）。
[ADSCP] Meyer, D., "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", RFC 2365, July 1998.
[ADSCP]Meyer，D.，“管理范围的IP多播”，RFC 2365，1998年7月。
[AN80] Postel, J., "Assigned Numbers", RFC 758, August 1979.
[AN80]Postel，J.，“分配的数字”，RFC 758，1979年8月。
[AN81] Postel, J., "Assigned Numbers", RFC 790, September 1981.
[AN81]Postel，J.，“分配的数字”，RFC 790，1981年9月。
[CONS] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.
[CONS]Narten，T.和H.Alvestrand，“在RFCs中编写IANA注意事项部分的指南”，BCP 26，RFC 2434，1998年10月。
[DIFF] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F. and D. Black, "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December 1998.
[DIFF]Nichols，K.，Blake，S.，Baker，F.和D.Black，“IPv4和IPv6标头中区分服务字段（DS字段）的定义”，RFC 2474，1998年12月。
[ECN] Ramakrishnan, K. and S. Floyd, "A Proposal to add Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 2481, January 1999.
[ECN]Ramakrishnan，K.和S.Floyd，“向IP添加明确拥塞通知（ECN）的提案”，RFC 2481，1999年1月。
[HC] Jacobson, V., "Compressing TCP/IP headers for low-speed serial links", RFC 1144, February 1990.
[HC]Jacobson，V.，“压缩低速串行链路的TCP/IP头”，RFC 1144，1990年2月。
[ICMP] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, RFC 792, September 1981.
[ICMP]Postel，J.，“互联网控制消息协议”，STD 5，RFC 792，1981年9月。
[ICMPV6] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2463, December 1998.
[ICMPV6]Conta，A.和S.Deering，“互联网协议版本6（IPv6）的互联网控制消息协议（ICMPV6）”，RFC 24632998年12月。
[IPHC] Degermark, M., Nordgren, S. and B. Pink, "IP Header Compression", RFC 2507, February 1999.
[IPHC]Degermark，M.，Nordgren，S.和B.Pink，“IP头压缩”，RFC 2507，1999年2月。
[MASGN] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IPv6 Multicast Address Assignments", RFC 2375, July 1998.
[MASGN]Hinden，R.和S.Deering，“IPv6多播地址分配”，RFC 23751998年7月。
[MULT] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", RFC 988, July 1986.
[MULT]Deering，S.，“IP多播的主机扩展”，RFC 988，1986年7月。
[NDV6] Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and W. Simpson, "Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998.
[NDV6]Narten，T.，Nordmark，E.和W.Simpson，“IP版本6（IPv6）的邻居发现”，RFC 2461，1998年12月。
[TCP] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793, September 1981.
[TCP]Postel，J.，“传输控制协议”，STD 7，RFC 793，1981年9月。
[UDP] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, August 1980.
[UDP]Postel，J.，“用户数据报协议”，STD 6，RFC 768，1980年8月。
[V4] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September, 1981.
[V4]Postel，J.，“互联网协议”，STD 5，RFC 7911981年9月。
[V6] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[V6]Deering，S.和R.Hinden，“互联网协议，第6版（IPv6）规范”，RFC 2460，1998年12月。
[V6AA] IAB, IESG, "IPv6 Address Allocation Management", RFC 1881, December 1995.
[V6AA]IAB，IESG，“IPv6地址分配管理”，RFC 18811995年12月。
[V6AD] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998.
[V6AD]Hinden，R.和S.Deering，“IP版本6寻址体系结构”，RFC 23731998年7月。
Scott Bradner Harvard University Cambridge MA - USA 02138
斯科特·布拉德纳哈佛大学剑桥马萨诸塞州-美国02138
Phone: +1 617 495 3864
EMail: sob@harvard.edu
Phone: +1 617 495 3864
EMail: sob@harvard.edu
Vern Paxson ACIRI / ICSI 1947 Center Street, Suite 600 Berkeley, CA - USA 94704-1198
Vern Paxson ACIRI/ICSI 1947美国加利福尼亚州伯克利中心街600号套房94704-1198
Phone: +1 510 666 2882
EMail: vern@aciri.org
Phone: +1 510 666 2882
EMail: vern@aciri.org
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2000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。