Network Working Group S. Harris
Request for Comments: 3160 Merit Network
FYI: 17 August 2001
Obsoletes: 1718
Category: Informational
Network Working Group S. Harris
Request for Comments: 3160 Merit Network
FYI: 17 August 2001
Obsoletes: 1718
Category: Informational
The Tao of IETF - A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force
IETF之道-互联网工程任务组新手指南
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 (2001). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2001年）。版权所有。
Abstract
摘要
This document describes the inner workings of IETF meetings and Working Groups, discusses organizations related to the IETF, and introduces the standards process.
本文件描述了IETF会议和工作组的内部工作，讨论了与IETF相关的组织，并介绍了标准流程。
Table of Contents
目录
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1. What Is the IETF? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1 Humble Beginnings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2 The Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.1 ISOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.2 IESG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.3 IAB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2.4 IANA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.5 RFC Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.6 IETF Secretariat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3 IETF Mailing Lists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2. IETF Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1 Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2 Newcomers' Orientation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3 Dress Code. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4 Seeing Spots Before Your Eyes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5 Terminal Room . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6 Meals and Other Delights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.7 Social Event. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1. What Is the IETF? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1 Humble Beginnings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2 The Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.1 ISOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.2 IESG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.3 IAB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2.4 IANA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.5 RFC Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.6 IETF Secretariat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3 IETF Mailing Lists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2. IETF Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1 Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2 Newcomers' Orientation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3 Dress Code. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4 Seeing Spots Before Your Eyes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5 Terminal Room . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6 Meals and Other Delights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.7 Social Event. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.8 Agenda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.9 Where Do I Fit In?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.9.1 IS Managers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.9.2 Network Operators and ISPs . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.9.3 Networking Hardware and Software Vendors . . . . 15
2.9.4 Academics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.9.5 Computer Trade Press . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.10 Proceedings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.11 Other General Things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3. Working Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.1 Working Group Chairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
3.2 Getting Things Done in a Working Group. . . . . . . . . 19
3.3 Preparing for Working Group Meetings . . . . . . . . 19
3.4 Working Group Mailing Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.5 Interim Working Group Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4. BOFs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5. New to the IETF? STOP HERE! (Temporarily). . . . . . . . . 22
6. RFCs and Internet Drafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.1 Getting a Standard Published . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.2 Letting Go Gracefully . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.3 Internet Drafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.3.1 Recommended Reading for Writers . . . . . . . . . 25
6.3.2 Filenames and Other Matters . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.4 Standards-Track RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.4.1 Telling It Like It Is -- Using MUST and
SHOULD and MAY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.4.2 Normative References in Standards . . . . . . . . 28
6.4.3 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.4.4 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.4.5 Patents in IETF Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.5 Informational and Experimental RFCs . . . . . . . . . . 31
7. How to Contribute to the IETF -- What You Can Do . . . . . . 31
7.1 What Your Company Can Do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
8. IETF and the Outside World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8.1 IETF and Other Standards Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8.2 Press Coverage of the IETF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9.1 Tao . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9.2 Useful E-mail Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9.3 Useful Documents and Files. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9.4 Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in the Tao . . . . . . 36
9.5 Documents Cited in the Tao . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Editor's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.8 Agenda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.9 Where Do I Fit In?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.9.1 IS Managers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.9.2 Network Operators and ISPs . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.9.3 Networking Hardware and Software Vendors . . . . 15
2.9.4 Academics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.9.5 Computer Trade Press . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.10 Proceedings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.11 Other General Things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3. Working Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.1 Working Group Chairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
3.2 Getting Things Done in a Working Group. . . . . . . . . 19
3.3 Preparing for Working Group Meetings . . . . . . . . 19
3.4 Working Group Mailing Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.5 Interim Working Group Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4. BOFs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5. New to the IETF? STOP HERE! (Temporarily). . . . . . . . . 22
6. RFCs and Internet Drafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.1 Getting a Standard Published . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.2 Letting Go Gracefully . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.3 Internet Drafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.3.1 Recommended Reading for Writers . . . . . . . . . 25
6.3.2 Filenames and Other Matters . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.4 Standards-Track RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.4.1 Telling It Like It Is -- Using MUST and
SHOULD and MAY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.4.2 Normative References in Standards . . . . . . . . 28
6.4.3 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.4.4 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.4.5 Patents in IETF Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.5 Informational and Experimental RFCs . . . . . . . . . . 31
7. How to Contribute to the IETF -- What You Can Do . . . . . . 31
7.1 What Your Company Can Do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
8. IETF and the Outside World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8.1 IETF and Other Standards Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8.2 Press Coverage of the IETF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9.1 Tao . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9.2 Useful E-mail Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9.3 Useful Documents and Files. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9.4 Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in the Tao . . . . . . 36
9.5 Documents Cited in the Tao . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Editor's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Introduction
介绍
Over the last several years, attendance at Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) face-to-face meetings has grown phenomenally. Many of the attendees are new to the IETF at each meeting, and many of those go on to become regular attendees. When the meetings were smaller, it was relatively easy for a newcomer to get into the swing of things. Today, however, a newcomer meets many more new people, some previously known only as the authors of documents or thought-provoking e-mail messages.
在过去几年中，参加互联网工程任务组（IETF）面对面的会议的人数显著增加。在每次会议上，许多与会者都是IETF的新手，其中许多人后来成为定期与会者。当会议规模较小时，新来者相对容易参与到事情的发展中来。然而，今天，一个新来者会遇到更多的新朋友，有些人以前只知道是文档或发人深省的电子邮件的作者。
This document describes many aspects of the IETF, with the goal of explaining to newcomers how the IETF works. This will give them a warm, fuzzy feeling and enable them to make the meeting and the Working Group discussions more productive for everyone.
本文档描述了IETF的许多方面，目的是向新来者解释IETF是如何工作的。这将给他们一种温暖、模糊的感觉，使他们能够使会议和工作组的讨论对每个人都更有成效。
Of course, it's true that many IETF participants don't go to the face-to-face meetings at all. Instead, they're active on the mailing list of various IETF Working Groups. Since the inner workings of Working Groups can be hard for newcomers to understand, this FYI provides the mundane bits of information that newcomers will need in order to become active participants.
当然，许多IETF参与者根本不参加面对面的会议，这是事实。相反，他们活跃在各个IETF工作组的邮件列表中。由于工作组的内部工作对新手来说可能很难理解，本FYI提供了新手成为积极参与者所需的平凡信息。
Many types of IETF documentation are mentioned in the Tao, from BCPs to RFCs and FYIs. (BCPs make recommendations for Best Current Practices in the Internet; RFCs are the IETF's main technical documentation series, politely known as "Requests for Comments;" and FYIs provide topical and technical overviews that are introductory or appeal to a broad audience. See Section 6 for more information.)
Tao中提到了许多类型的IETF文档，从BCP到RFC和FYI。（BCP为互联网上的最佳实践提供建议；RFC是IETF的主要技术文档系列，礼貌地称为“评论请求”；FYI提供介绍性或吸引广大受众的主题和技术概述。更多信息，请参见第6节。）
The acronyms and abbreviations used in this document are usually expanded in place, and are explained fully in Section 9.
本文件中使用的首字母缩略词和缩写词通常会适当扩展，并在第9节中进行了详细解释。
Acknowledgements
致谢
The original version of this document, published in 1994, was written by Gary Malkin. His knowledge of the IETF, insights, and unmatched writing style set the standard for this later revision, and his contributions to the current draft are also much appreciated. Paul Hoffman wrote significant portions of this revision and provided encouragement, expertise, and much-needed guidance. Other contributors include Scott Bradner, Michael Patton, Donald E. Eastlake III, the IETF Secretariat, and members of the User Services Working Group.
该文件的原始版本于1994年出版，由加里·马尔金撰写。他对IETF的知识、见解和无与伦比的写作风格为后来的修订定下了标准，他对当前草案的贡献也备受赞赏。保罗·霍夫曼（Paul Hoffman）撰写了本次修订的重要部分，并提供了鼓励、专业知识和急需的指导。其他贡献者包括Scott Bradner、Michael Patton、Donald E.Eastlake III、IETF秘书处和用户服务工作组成员。
The Internet Engineering Task Force is a loosely self-organized group of people who contribute to the engineering and evolution of Internet technologies. It is the principal body engaged in the development of new Internet standard specifications. The IETF is unusual in that it exists as a collection of happenings, but is not a corporation and has no board of directors, no members, and no dues.
互联网工程任务组是一个松散的自组织团队，为互联网技术的工程和发展做出贡献。它是负责制定新的互联网标准规范的主要机构。IETF与众不同之处在于它是一个事件集合，但不是一个公司，没有董事会，没有成员，也没有会费。
Its mission includes:
其任务包括：
- Identifying, and proposing solutions to, pressing operational and technical problems in the Internet;
- 识别互联网上紧迫的运营和技术问题，并提出解决方案；
- Specifying the development or usage of protocols and the near-term architecture to solve such technical problems for the Internet;
- 指定协议的开发或使用以及解决互联网技术问题的近期架构；
- Making recommendations to the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) regarding the standardization of protocols and protocol usage in the Internet;
- 向互联网工程指导小组（IESG）提出关于互联网协议和协议使用标准化的建议；
- Facilitating technology transfer from the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) to the wider Internet community; and
- 促进互联网研究工作队（IRTF）向更广泛的互联网社区进行技术转让；和
- Providing a forum for the exchange of information within the Internet community between vendors, users, researchers, agency contractors, and network managers.
- 为供应商、用户、研究人员、机构承包商和网络经理之间在互联网社区内交流信息提供论坛。
The IETF meeting is not a conference, although there are technical presentations. The IETF is not a traditional standards organization, although many specifications are produced that become standards. The IETF is made up of volunteers, many of whom meet three times a year to fulfill the IETF mission.
IETF会议不是一个会议，尽管有技术演示。IETF不是一个传统的标准组织，尽管许多规范已经成为标准。IETF由志愿者组成，其中许多人每年开会三次以完成IETF任务。
There is no membership in the IETF. Anyone may register for and attend any meeting. The closest thing there is to being an IETF member is being on the IETF or Working Group mailing lists (see Section 1.3). This is where the best information about current IETF activities and focus can be found.
IETF没有成员资格。任何人都可以注册并参加任何会议。最接近IETF成员的是IETF或工作组邮件列表（见第1.3节）。在这里可以找到有关当前IETF活动和重点的最佳信息。
Of course, no organization can be as successful as the IETF is without having some sort of structure. In the IETF's case, that structure is provided by other organizations, as described in BCP 11, "The Organizations Involved in the IETF Standards Process." If you participate in the IETF and only read one BCP, this is the one you should read.
当然，如果没有某种结构，任何组织都不可能像IETF那样成功。在IETF的案例中，该结构由其他组织提供，如BCP 11“参与IETF标准过程的组织”中所述。如果您参与IETF并且只阅读一个BCP，则这是您应该阅读的BCP。
The first IETF meeting was held in January, 1986, at Linkabit in San Diego, with 21 attendees. The 4th IETF, held at SRI in Menlo Park in October, 1986, was the first that non-government vendors attended. The concept of Working Groups was introduced at the 5th IETF meeting at the NASA Ames Research Center in California in February, 1987. The 7th IETF, held at MITRE in McLean, Virginia in July, 1987, was the first meeting with over 100 attendees.
第一次IETF会议于1986年1月在圣地亚哥的林卡比特举行，有21名与会者。第四届IETF于1986年10月在门罗公园SRI举行，是第一次非政府供应商参加。工作组的概念于1987年2月在加利福尼亚州NASA艾姆斯研究中心举行的第五届IETF会议上提出。第七届IETF于1987年7月在弗吉尼亚州麦克莱恩的米特举行，是第一次有100多人参加的会议。
The 14th IETF meeting was held at Stanford University in July 1989. It marked a major change in the structure of the IETF universe. The IAB (then Internet Activities Board, now Internet Architecture Board), which until that time oversaw many "task forces," changed its structure to leave only two: the IETF and the IRTF. The IRTF is tasked to consider long-term research problems in the Internet. The IETF also changed at that time.
第14届IETF会议于1989年7月在斯坦福大学举行。它标志着IETF宇宙结构的重大变化。IAB（当时的互联网活动委员会，现在的互联网架构委员会）在此之前监督了许多“工作组”，改变了结构，只剩下两个：IETF和IRTF。IRTF的任务是考虑互联网上的长期研究问题。当时IETF也发生了变化。
After the Internet Society (ISOC) was formed in January, 1992, the IAB proposed to ISOC that the IAB's activities should take place under the auspices of the Internet Society. During INET92 in Kobe, Japan, the ISOC Trustees approved a new charter for the IAB to reflect the proposed relationship.
互联网协会（ISOC）于1992年1月成立后，IAB向ISOC建议，IAB的活动应在互联网协会的赞助下进行。在日本神户INET92期间，ISOC受托人批准了IAB的新章程，以反映拟议的关系。
The IETF met in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, in July 1993. This was the first IETF meeting held in Europe, and the US/non-US attendee split was nearly 50/50. One in five IETF meetings are now held in Europe or Asia, and the number of non-US attendees continues to be high -- about 50%, even at meetings held in the US.
IETF于1993年7月在荷兰阿姆斯特丹举行会议。这是第一次在欧洲举行的IETF会议，美国/非美国与会者的比例接近50/50。五分之一的IETF会议现在在欧洲或亚洲举行，非美国与会者的数量仍然很高——大约50%，即使在美国举行的会议上也是如此。
The Internet Society is an international, non-profit, membership organization that fosters the expansion of the Internet. One of the ways that ISOC does this is through financial and legal support of the other "I" groups described here, particularly the IETF. ISOC's oversight of the IETF is remarkably hands-off, so many IETF participants don't even know about it. ISOC provides insurance coverage for many of the people in the IETF process, and acts as a public relations channel for the times that one of the "I" groups wants to say something to the press. The ISOC is one of the major unsung (and under-funded) heroes of the Internet.
互联网协会是一个促进互联网发展的国际性非营利会员组织。ISOC做到这一点的方法之一是通过本文所述的其他“I”团体，特别是IETF的财政和法律支持。ISOC对IETF的监督非常随意，所以许多IETF参与者甚至都不知道。ISOC为IETF过程中的许多人提供保险，并作为一个公共关系渠道，为一个“I”团体想向媒体发表意见的时报提供服务。ISOC是互联网上主要的无名英雄之一。
The IESG is responsible for technical management of IETF activities and the Internet standards process. It administers the process according to the rules and procedures that have been ratified by the ISOC Trustees. However, the IESG doesn't do much direct leadership, such as the kind you will find in many other standards organizations. The IESG ratifies or corrects the output from the IETF's Working Groups, gets WGs started and finished, and makes sure that non-WG drafts that are about to become RFCs are correct.
IESG负责IETF活动和互联网标准流程的技术管理。它根据ISOC受托人批准的规则和程序管理流程。然而，IESG并没有做太多的直接领导工作，就像你在许多其他标准组织中看到的那样。IESG批准或纠正IETF工作组的输出，启动和完成工作组，并确保即将成为RFC的非工作组草案是正确的。
The IESG consists of the Area Directors ("ADs"), who are selected by the Nominations Committee (which is usually called "Nomcom") and are appointed for two years. The process for choosing the members of the IESG is detailed in BCP 10, "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees."
IESG由区域总监（“ADs”）组成，由提名委员会（通常称为“Nomcom”）选出，任期两年。选择IESG成员的流程详见BCP 10，“IAB和IESG选择、确认和召回流程：提名和召回委员会的运作”
The current areas and abbreviations are:
当前区域和缩写为：
- Applications (APP) Protocols seen by user programs, such as e-mail and the Web - General (GEN) Catch-all for WGs that don't fit in other areas (which is very few) - Internet (INT) Different ways of moving IP packets and DNS information - Operations and Operational aspects, network monitoring, Management (OPS) and configuration - Routing (RTG) Getting packets to their destinations - Security (SEC) Authentication and privacy - Transport (TSV) Special services for special packets - User Services (USV) Support for end users and user support organizations
- 用户程序看到的应用程序（APP）协议，如电子邮件和Web-一般（GEN）适用于不适合其他领域的WG（非常少）-互联网（INT）移动IP数据包和DNS信息的不同方式-操作和操作方面，网络监控、管理（OPS）和配置-路由（RTG）将数据包送到目的地-安全（SEC）认证和隐私-特殊数据包的传输（TSV）特殊服务-终端用户和用户支持组织的用户服务（USV）支持
Because the IESG has a great deal of influence on whether Internet Drafts become RFCs, many people look at the ADs as somewhat godlike creatures. IETF participants sometimes reverently ask an Area Director for their opinion on a particular subject. However, most ADs are nearly indistinguishable from mere mortals and rarely speak from mountaintops. In fact, when asked for specific technical comments, the ADs may often defer to members at large whom they feel have more knowledge than they do in that area.
由于IESG对互联网草稿是否成为RFC有很大的影响，许多人认为这些广告有点像上帝。IETF参与者有时会虔诚地向区域主管征求他们对特定主题的意见。然而，大多数广告几乎无法与凡人区分开来，也很少从山顶说起。事实上，当被问及具体的技术意见时，广告往往会听从那些他们认为在该领域比他们有更多知识的广大会员的意见。
The ADs for a particular area are expected to know more about the combined work of the WGs in that area than anyone else. On the other hand, the entire IESG discusses each Internet Draft that is proposed to become an RFC. At least two IESG members must express concerns before a draft can be blocked from moving forward. These checks help
某一特定领域的广告预计比其他任何人都更了解工作组在该领域的联合工作。另一方面，整个IESG讨论拟成为RFC的每个互联网草案。至少有两名IESG成员必须表达担忧，才能阻止草案向前推进。这些支票有帮助
ensure that an AD's "pet project" doesn't make it onto the standards track if it will have a negative effect on the rest of the IETF protocols.
如果广告的“宠物项目”会对其他IETF协议产生负面影响，请确保它不会进入标准轨道。
This is not to say that the IESG never wields power. When the IESG sees a Working Group veering from its charter, or when a WG asks the IESG to make the WG's badly designed protocol a standard, the IESG will act. In fact, because of its high workload, the IESG usually moves in a reactive fashion. It approves most WG requests for Internet Drafts to become RFCs, and usually only steps in when something has gone very wrong. Another way to think about this is that the ADs are selected to think, not to just run the process. The quality of the IETF standards comes both from the review they get in the Working Groups and the review that the WG review gets from the ADs.
这并不是说IESG从未掌权。当IESG看到一个工作组偏离其章程，或当工作组要求IESG将工作组设计糟糕的协议作为标准时，IESG将采取行动。事实上，由于其高工作量，IESG通常以反应式方式移动。它批准了大多数工作组关于互联网草案成为RFC的请求，通常只有在出现严重问题时才介入。考虑这一点的另一种方式是，选择广告是为了思考，而不仅仅是为了运行流程。IETF标准的质量既来自于他们在工作组中得到的评审，也来自于工作组评审从ADs中得到的评审。
The IETF is run by rough consensus, and it is the IESG that decides if a WG has come up with a result that has a real consensus. Because of this, one of the main reasons that the IESG might block something that was produced in a WG is that the result did not really gain consensus in the IETF as a whole, that is, among all of the Working Groups in all areas. For instance, the result of one WG might clash with a technology developed in a different Working Group. An important job of the IESG is to watch over the output of all the WGs to help prevent IETF protocols that are at odds with each other. This is why ADs are supposed to review the drafts coming out of areas other than their own.
IETF由大致一致的意见运行，IESG决定工作组是否得出了真正一致的结果。因此，IESG可能会阻止工作组中产生的内容的主要原因之一是，结果并没有真正在IETF中取得一致意见，也就是说，在所有领域的所有工作组中。例如，一个工作组的结果可能与另一个工作组开发的技术发生冲突。IESG的一项重要工作是监视所有工作组的输出，以帮助防止IETF协议相互冲突。这就是为什么广告应该审查来自不同领域的草稿。
The IAB is responsible for keeping an eye on the "big picture" of the Internet, and focuses on long-range planning and coordination among the various areas of IETF activity. The IAB stays informed about important long-term issues in the Internet, and brings these topics to the attention of people they think should know about them.
IAB负责关注互联网的“大局”，并专注于IETF活动各个领域之间的长期规划和协调。IAB随时了解互联网上的重要长期问题，并将这些话题提请他们认为应该了解的人注意。
IAB members pay special attention to emerging activities in the IETF. When a new IETF working group is proposed, the IAB reviews its charter for architectural consistency and integrity. Even before the group is chartered, the IAB members are more than willing to discuss new ideas with the people proposing them.
IAB成员特别关注IETF中出现的活动。当提出新的IETF工作组时，IAB将审查其架构一致性和完整性章程。甚至在集团特许成立之前，IAB成员就非常愿意与提出新想法的人讨论新想法。
The IAB also sponsors and organizes the Internet Research Task Force, and convenes invitational workshops that provide in-depth reviews of specific Internet architectural issues. Typically, the workshop reports make recommendations to the IETF community and to the IESG.
IAB还赞助和组织互联网研究工作组，并举办邀请研讨会，深入审查具体的互联网架构问题。通常，研讨会报告向IETF社区和IESG提出建议。
The IAB also:
IAB还：
- Approves Nomcom's IESG nominations - Acts as the appeals board for appeals against IESG actions - Appoints and oversees the RFC Editor - Approves the appointment of the IANA - Acts as an advisory body to the ISOC - Oversees IETF liaisons with other standards bodies
- 批准Nomcom的IESG提名-担任针对IESG行动的上诉委员会-任命并监督RFC编辑-批准IANA的任命-担任ISOC的咨询机构-监督IETF与其他标准机构的联络
Like the IESG, the IAB members are selected for multi-year positions by the Nomcom, and are approved by the Board of Trustees of the ISOC.
与IESG一样，IAB成员由Nomcom挑选担任多年职位，并由ISOC董事会批准。
The core registrar for the IETF's activities is the IANA. Many Internet protocols require that someone keep track of protocol items that were added after the protocol came out. Typical examples of the kinds of registries needed are for TCP port numbers and MIME types. The IAB has designated the IANA organization to perform these tasks, and the IANA's activities are financially supported by ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.
IETF活动的核心注册机构是IANA。许多互联网协议要求有人跟踪协议发布后添加的协议项。TCP端口号和MIME类型是所需注册表类型的典型示例。IAB已指定IANA组织执行这些任务，IANA的活动由ICANN（互联网名称和号码分配公司）提供财政支持。
Five years ago, no one would have expected to ever see the IANA mentioned on the front page of a newspaper. IANA's role had always been very low key. The fact that IANA was also the keeper of the root of the domain name system forced it to become a much more public entity, one which was badly maligned by a variety of people who never looked at what its role was. Nowadays the IETF is generally no longer involved in the IANA's domain name and IP address assignment functions, which are overseen by ICANN.
五年前，没有人会想到在报纸的头版上会提到IANA。伊安娜的角色一直都很低调。事实上，IANA也是域名系统的根的守护者，这迫使它成为一个更加公开的实体，一个被各种各样的人严重诽谤的实体，他们从来没有考虑过它的角色是什么。如今，IETF一般不再参与IANA的域名和IP地址分配功能，这些功能由ICANN监管。
Even though being a registrar may not sound interesting, many IETF participants will testify to how important IANA has been for the Internet. Having a stable, long-term repository run by careful and conservative operators makes it much easier for people to experiment without worrying about messing things up. IANA's founder, Jon Postel, was heavily relied upon to keep things in order while the Internet kept growing by leaps and bounds, and he did a fine job of it until his untimely death in 1998.
尽管作为一名注册官听起来可能并不有趣，但许多IETF参与者将证明IANA对互联网的重要性。拥有一个由谨慎保守的运营商运行的稳定、长期的存储库，让人们更容易进行实验，而不用担心把事情搞砸。IANA的创始人乔恩·波斯特尔（Jon Postel）在互联网飞速发展的同时，一直依靠他来维持秩序，他在这方面做得很好，直到1998年他不合时宜地去世。
The RFC Editor edits, formats, and publishes Internet Drafts as RFCs, working in conjunction with the IESG. An important secondary role is to provide one definitive repository for all RFCs (see http://www.rfc-editor.org). Once an RFC is published, it is never revised. If the standard it describes changes, the standard will be re-published in another RFC that "obsoletes" the first.
RFC编辑器与IESG合作，以RFC的形式编辑、格式化和发布互联网草稿。一个重要的次要角色是为所有RFC提供一个最终存储库（请参见http://www.rfc-editor.org). RFC一旦发布，就永远不会修改。如果所描述的标准发生变化，该标准将在另一个“淘汰”第一个RFC中重新发布。
One of the most popular misconceptions in the IETF community is that the role of the RFC Editor is performed by IANA. In fact, the RFC Editor is a separate job, although both the RFC Editor and IANA involved the same people for many years. The IAB approves the organization that will act as RFC Editor and the RFC Editor's general policy. The RFC Editor is funded by ISOC and can be contacted by e-mail at rfc-ed@rfc-editor.org.
IETF社区中最常见的误解之一是RFC编辑器的角色由IANA执行。事实上，RFC编辑器是一项独立的工作，尽管RFC编辑器和IANA多年来都涉及同一个人。IAB批准担任RFC编辑的组织和RFC编辑的一般政策。RFC编辑器由ISOC资助，可通过电子邮件联系RFC-ed@rfc-editor.org。
There are, in fact, a few people who are paid to maintain the IETF. The IETF Secretariat provides day-to-day logistical support, which mainly means coordinating face-to-face meetings and running the IETF-specific mailing lists (not the WG mailing lists). The Secretariat is also responsible for keeping the official Internet Drafts directory up to date and orderly, maintaining the IETF Web site, and for helping the IESG do its work. The IETF Secretariat is financially supported by the fees of the face-to-face meetings.
事实上，有一些人是为维护IETF而付费的。IETF秘书处提供日常后勤支持，这主要意味着协调面对面会议和运行IETF特定邮件列表（而非工作组邮件列表）。秘书处还负责使官方互联网草稿目录保持最新和有序，维护IETF网站，并帮助IESG开展工作。IETF秘书处由面对面会议的费用提供财政支持。
Anyone who plans to attend an IETF meeting should join the IETF announcement mailing list, "ietf-announce@ietf.org". This is where all of the meeting information, Internet Draft and RFC announcements, and IESG Protocol Actions and Last Calls are posted. People who would like to "get technical" may also join the IETF discussion list, "ietf@ietf.org". This is where discussions of cosmic significance are held (Working Groups have their own mailing lists for discussions related to their work).
计划参加IETF会议的任何人都应加入IETF公告邮件列表“IETF”-announce@ietf.org". 这是所有会议信息、互联网草案和RFC公告、IESG协议操作和最后通话的发布地点。希望“掌握技术”的人也可以加入IETF讨论列表ietf@ietf.org". 这是举行具有宇宙意义的讨论的地方（工作组有自己的邮件列表，用于与工作相关的讨论）。
Subscriptions to these and other IETF mailing lists are handled by a program called Majordomo. Majordomo tends to be somewhat finicky about the format of subscription messages, and interacts poorly with email programs that make all email messages into HTML files. Majordomo will treat you well, however, if you format your messages just the way it likes. To join the IETF announcement list, for example, send email to:
这些和其他IETF邮件列表的订阅由一个名为Majordomo的程序处理。Majordomo倾向于对订阅消息的格式有点挑剔，并且与将所有电子邮件消息转换为HTML文件的电子邮件程序的交互较差。然而，如果你按照它喜欢的方式格式化你的信息，Majordomo会对你很好。例如，要加入IETF公告列表，请发送电子邮件至：
ietf-announce-request@ietf.org
ietf宣布-request@ietf.org
Enter the word 'subscribe' (without the quotes) in the Subject line of the message and in the message body. To join the IETF discussion list, send email to:
在邮件的主题行和邮件正文中输入单词“subscribe”（不带引号）。要加入IETF讨论列表，请发送电子邮件至：
ietf-request@ietf.org
ietf-request@ietf.org
and enter the word 'subscribe' as explained above. If you decide to withdraw from either list, use the word 'unsubscribe.' Your messages to Majordomo should have nothing other than the commands 'subscribe' or 'unsubscribe' in them.
并输入“订阅”一词，如上所述。如果您决定从任一列表中退出，请使用“取消订阅”一词。您发送给Majordomo的消息中除了“订阅”或“取消订阅”命令外，不应包含任何内容。
Both lists are archived on the IETF web site:
这两个列表都存档在IETF网站上：
http://www.ietf.org/maillist.html
http://www.ietf.org/maillist.html
Do not, ever, under any circumstances, for any reason, send a request to join a list to the list itself! The thousands of people on the list don't need, or want, to know when a new person joins. Similarly, when changing e-mail addresses or leaving a list, send your request only to the "-request" address, not to the main list. This means you!!
在任何情况下，无论出于何种原因，都不要向列表本身发送加入列表的请求！名单上成千上万的人不需要或不想知道一个新人何时加入。同样，在更改电子邮件地址或留下列表时，只将请求发送到“-request”地址，而不是主列表。这意味着你！！
The IETF discussion list is unmoderated. This means that anyone can express their opinions about issues affecting the Internet. However, it is not a place for companies or individuals to solicit or advertise, as noted in "IETF Discussion List Charter," RFC 3005. It is a good idea to read the whole RFC (it's short!) before posting to the IETF discussion list.
IETF讨论列表未降额。这意味着任何人都可以就影响互联网的问题发表意见。然而，正如“IETF讨论列表章程”RFC 3005所述，它不是公司或个人招揽或宣传的场所。在发布到IETF讨论列表之前，最好先阅读整个RFC（很短！）。
Only the Secretariat can send messages to the announcement list.
只有秘书处可以向公告名单发送信息。
Even though the IETF mailing lists "represent" the IETF membership at large, it is important to note that attending an IETF meeting does not mean you'll be automatically added to either mailing list.
尽管IETF邮件列表“代表”了IETF的全体成员，但重要的是要注意，参加IETF会议并不意味着您将自动添加到任一邮件列表中。
The computer industry is rife with conferences, seminars, expositions, and all manner of other kinds of meetings. IETF face-to-face meetings are nothing like these. The meetings, held three times a year, are week-long dweebfests whose primary goal is to reinvigorate the WGs to get their tasks done, and whose secondary goal is to promote a fair amount of mixing between the WGs and the areas. The cost of the meetings is paid by the people attending and by the corporate host for each meeting, although ISOC kicks in additional funds for things like the multicast simulcast of some Working Group sessions.
计算机行业充斥着会议、研讨会、展览和各种各样的会议。IETF面对面会议与此完全不同。这些会议每年举行三次，为期一周，其主要目标是重振工作组以完成其任务，其次要目标是促进工作组和各领域之间的合理混合。会议的费用由出席人员和每次会议的公司主持人支付，尽管ISOC为一些工作组会议的多播同步广播等事项提供了额外资金。
For many people, IETF meetings are a breath of fresh air when compared to the standard computer industry conferences. There is no exposition hall, few tutorials, and no big-name industry pundits. Instead, there is lots of work, as well as a fair amount of time for socializing. IETF meetings are of little interest to sales and marketing folks, but of high interest to engineers and developers.
对于许多人来说，与标准的计算机行业会议相比，IETF会议是一股新鲜空气。这里没有展览厅，很少有教程，也没有知名的行业专家。相反，这里有很多工作，也有相当多的社交时间。销售和营销人员对IETF会议不感兴趣，但工程师和开发人员对IETF会议感兴趣。
Most IETF meetings are held in North America, because that's where most of the participants are from; however, meetings are held on other continents about once every year or two. The past few meetings have had about 2,500 attendees. There have been over 50 IETF meetings so far, and a list of upcoming meetings is available on the IETF web pages, http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt.
大多数IETF会议在北美举行，因为大部分参与者都来自北美；然而，会议在其他大陆大约每年或两年举行一次。过去几次会议约有2500名与会者。到目前为止，已经有超过50次IETF会议，IETF网页上提供了即将召开的会议的列表，http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt.
Newcomers to IETF face-to-face meetings are often in a bit of shock. They expect them to be like other standards bodies, or like computer conferences. Fortunately, the shock wears off after a day or two, and many new attendees get quite animated about how much fun they are having. One particularly jarring feature of recent IETF meetings is the use of wireless Internet connections throughout the meeting space. It is common to see half the people in a WG meeting reading e-mail or perusing the web during presentations they find uninteresting.
IETF面对面会议的新手通常会感到有点震惊。他们希望他们像其他标准机构一样，或者像计算机会议一样。幸运的是，一两天后，这种震惊就消失了，许多新与会者对他们的乐趣感到非常兴奋。最近IETF会议的一个特别令人不安的特点是在整个会议空间使用无线互联网连接。在工作组会议上，通常会看到一半的人在他们觉得无趣的演讲期间阅读电子邮件或浏览网页。
To attend an IETF meeting you have to register and you have to pay the registration fee. The meeting site and advance registration are announced about two months ahead of the meeting -- earlier if possible. An announcement goes out via e-mail to the IETF-announce mailing list, and information is posted on the IETF web site, http://www.ietf.org, that same day.
要参加IETF会议，您必须注册并支付注册费。会议地点和预先登记将在会议召开前两个月左右公布——如果可能的话，提前公布。公告通过电子邮件发送到IETF公告邮件列表，信息发布在IETF网站上，http://www.ietf.org，当天。
To pre-register, you must submit your registration on the Web. You may pre-register and pre-pay, pre-register and return to the Web site later to pay with a credit card, pre-register and pay on-site at the meeting, or register and pay on-site. To get a lower registration fee, you must pay by the early registration deadline (about one week before the meeting). The registration fee covers all of the week's meetings, the Sunday evening reception (cash bar), daily continental breakfasts, and afternoon coffee breaks.
要预注册，您必须在Web上提交注册。您可以预先注册并预付，预先注册并稍后返回网站以使用信用卡支付，在会议上预先注册并在现场支付，或在现场注册并支付。为了获得更低的注册费，您必须在提前的注册截止日期（会议前一周左右）之前支付。注册费包括一周的所有会议、周日晚上的招待会（现金吧）、每天的欧式早餐和下午的咖啡休息。
Credit card payments on the web are encrypted and secure, or, if you prefer, you can use PGP to send your payment information to the Registrar (ietf-registrar@ietf.org).
网上的信用卡支付是加密和安全的，或者，如果您愿意，您可以使用PGP将您的支付信息发送给注册机构（ietf）-registrar@ietf.org).
Registration is open throughout the week of the meeting. However, the Secretariat highly recommends that attendees arrive for early registration, beginning at noon on Sunday and continuing throughout the 5:00 Sunday evening reception. The reception is a popular event where you can get a bite to eat and socialize with other early arrivals.
整个会议的一周都开放注册。然而，秘书处强烈建议与会者尽早登记，从周日中午开始，一直持续到周日晚5:00的招待会。招待会是一个受欢迎的活动，在那里你可以吃点东西，并与其他提前到达的人进行社交活动。
Registered attendees (and there aren't any other kind) receive a registration packet. It contains much useful information, including a general orientation sheet, the most recent agenda, and a name tag. Attendees who pre-paid will also find their receipt in their packet. It's worth noting that neither attendee names and addresses or IETF mailing lists are ever offered for sale.
注册的与会者（没有其他类型的人）收到一个注册包。它包含了很多有用的信息，包括一张总体介绍表、最近的议程和一个姓名标签。预付费的与会者也会在他们的包裹中找到收据。值得注意的是，与会者姓名和地址或IETF邮件列表均未出售。
Newcomers are encouraged to attend the Newcomers' Orientation, which is especially designed for first-time attendees. The orientation is organized and conducted by the IETF Secretariat, and is intended to provide useful introductory information. The orientation is typically about 30 minutes long and covers what's in the attendee packets, what all the dots on name tags mean, the structure of the IETF, and many other essential and enlightening topics for new IETFers.
鼓励新来者参加新来者入职培训，这是专门为初次参加培训的人设计的。介绍会由IETF秘书处组织和进行，旨在提供有用的介绍信息。培训通常约30分钟，内容包括与会者信息包中的内容、姓名标签上的所有点的含义、IETF的结构以及新IETF的许多其他重要和启发性主题。
Immediately following the Newcomers' Orientation is the IETF Standards Process Orientation. This session demystifies much of the standards process by explaining what stages a document has to pass through on its way to becoming a standard, and what has to be done to advance to the next stage. The Standards Process Orientation also lasts about 30 minutes.
紧随新来者方向的是IETF标准过程方向。本课程通过解释文档在成为标准的过程中必须经过哪些阶段，以及必须采取哪些措施才能进入下一个阶段，从而揭开标准过程的神秘面纱。标准流程培训也会持续约30分钟。
There is ample time at the end for questions. The Secretariat also provides handouts that include an overview of the IETF, a list of important files available online, and hard copies of the slides of the "IETF Structure and Internet Standards Process" presentation. These very useful slides are also available online at www.ietf.org under "Additional Information".
最后有足够的时间提问。秘书处还提供讲义，包括IETF概述、在线可用的重要文件列表以及“IETF结构和互联网标准过程”演示文稿幻灯片的硬拷贝。这些非常有用的幻灯片也可在www.ietf.org的“附加信息”下在线获取。
The orientation is held on Sunday afternoon before the 5:00 p.m. reception (check the agenda for exact time and location). Be advised that attending the orientation does NOT mean you can go to the reception early!
迎新会在周日下午5:00接待前举行（查看日程，了解确切时间和地点）。请注意，参加迎新并不意味着你可以提前参加招待会！
Since attendees must wear their name tags, they must also wear shirts or blouses. Pants or skirts are also highly recommended. Seriously though, many newcomers are often embarrassed when they show up Monday morning in suits, to discover that everybody else is wearing t-shirts, jeans (shorts, if weather permits) and sandals. There are those in the IETF who refuse to wear anything other than suits. Fortunately, they are well known (for other reasons) so they are
由于与会者必须佩戴姓名标签，他们还必须穿衬衫或衬衫。强烈建议穿裤子或裙子。不过，说真的，许多新来者在周一早上穿着西装出现时，发现其他人都穿着t恤、牛仔裤（如果天气允许，可以穿短裤）和凉鞋，常常感到尴尬。IETF中有些人拒绝穿西装以外的任何衣服。幸运的是，他们是众所周知的（因为其他原因），所以他们是
forgiven this particular idiosyncrasy. The general rule is "dress for the weather" (unless you plan to work so hard that you won't go outside, in which case, "dress for comfort" is the rule!).
原谅了这种特殊的癖好。一般的规则是“穿着适合天气”（除非你计划努力工作而不出门，在这种情况下，“穿着舒适”是规则！）。
Some of the people at the IETF will have a little colored dot on their name tag. A few people have more than one. These dots identify people who are silly enough to volunteer to do a lot of extra work. The colors have the following meanings:
IETF的一些人的姓名标签上会有一个小点。少数人有不止一个。这些点表示那些愚蠢到自愿做大量额外工作的人。颜色具有以下含义：
blue - Working Group/BOF chair green - Host group red - IAB member yellow - IESG member orange - Nominating Committee member
蓝色-工作组/BOF主席绿色-东道主组红色-IAB成员黄色-IESG成员橙色-提名委员会成员
(Members of the press wear orange-tinted badges.)
（媒体成员佩戴橙色徽章。）
Local hosts are the people who can answer questions about the terminal room, restaurants, and points of interest in the area.
当地主持人是可以回答有关航站楼、餐厅和该地区景点的问题的人。
It is important that newcomers to the IETF not be afraid to strike up conversations with people who wear these dots. If the IAB and IESG members and Working Group and BOF chairs didn't want to talk to anybody, they wouldn't be wearing the dots in the first place.
IETF的新来者不要害怕与佩戴这些圆点的人交谈，这一点很重要。如果IAB和IESG成员、工作组和BOF主席不想与任何人交谈，他们一开始就不会戴上圆点。
One of the most important (depending on your point of view) things the host does is provide Internet access for the meeting attendees. In general, wired and wireless connectivity is excellent. This is entirely due to the Olympian efforts of the local hosts, and their ability to beg, borrow and steal. The people and companies who donate their equipment, services and time are to be heartily congratulated and thanked.
主持人所做的最重要的事情之一（取决于您的观点）是为与会者提供互联网接入。一般来说，有线和无线连接都非常好。这完全是由于当地东道主在奥运会上的努力，以及他们乞讨、借贷和偷窃的能力。向捐赠设备、服务和时间的人们和公司表示衷心的祝贺和感谢。
While preparation far in advance of the meeting is encouraged, there may be some unavoidable "last minute" things that can be accomplished in the terminal room. It may also be useful to people who need to make trip reports or status reports while things are still fresh in their minds. The terminal room provides workstations, one or two printers, and ports for laptops.
虽然鼓励在会议之前进行充分的准备，但可能会有一些不可避免的“最后一分钟”的事情可以在候机室完成。它也可能对那些需要在头脑中还记忆犹新的时候做旅行报告或状态报告的人有用。终端室提供工作站、一台或两台打印机以及笔记本电脑端口。
Marshall Rose once remarked that the IETF was a place to go for "many fine lunches and dinners." While it is true that some people eat very well at the IETF, they find the food on their own; lunches and dinners are not included in the registration fee. The Secretariat does provide appetizers at the Sunday evening reception (not meant to be a replacement for dinner), continental breakfast every morning, and (best of all) cookies, brownies and other yummies during afternoon breaks.
马歇尔·罗斯（Marshall Rose）曾说过，IETF是一个“许多美味午餐和晚餐”的去处。虽然确实有些人在IETF吃得很好，但他们自己找到了食物；注册费不包括午餐和晚餐。秘书处确实在周日晚上的招待会上提供开胃菜（并非取代晚餐）、每天早上的欧式早餐，以及（最重要的是）下午休息时的饼干、布朗尼和其他美味佳肴。
If you prefer to get out of the hotel for meals, the local host usually provides a list of places to eat within easy reach of the meeting site.
如果你想离开酒店吃饭，当地的主人通常会提供一份在会议地点附近的用餐地点清单。
Another of the most important things organized and managed by the host is the IETF social event. Sometimes, the social event is a computer or high-tech related event. At the Boston IETF, for example, the social was dinner at the Computer Museum. Other times, the social might be a dinner cruise or a trip to an art gallery.
由主持人组织和管理的另一项最重要的活动是IETF社交活动。有时，社交活动是计算机或高科技相关活动。例如，在波士顿IETF，社交聚会是在计算机博物馆举行的晚宴。其他时候，社交活动可能是一次晚宴巡游或是一次艺术画廊之旅。
Newcomers to the IETF are encouraged to attend the social event. Everyone is encouraged to wear their name tags and leave their laptops behind. The social event is designed to give people a chance to meet on a social, rather than technical, level.
IETF的新成员被鼓励参加社交活动。我们鼓励每个人都带上自己的名牌，把笔记本电脑扔在身后。社交活动旨在让人们有机会在社交而非技术层面上见面。
The agenda for the IETF meetings is a very fluid thing. It is sent, updated, to the IETF announcement list three times prior to the meeting, and is also available on the web. The agenda for the 50th IETF, for example, is at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/agenda_50.html. The final agenda is included in the registration packets. Of course, "final" in the IETF doesn't mean the same thing as it does elsewhere in the world. The final agenda is simply the version that went to the printer. The Secretariat will post agenda changes on the bulletin board near the IETF registration desk (not the hotel registration desk).
IETF会议的议程是一个非常不稳定的事情。在会议之前，它会三次发送、更新到IETF公告列表中，也可以在web上获得。例如，第50届IETF的议程如下：http://www.ietf.org/meetings/agenda_50.html. 最终议程包含在注册包中。当然，IETF中的“最终”并不像世界上其他地方那样意味着同样的事情。最后的议程只是送到打印机的版本。秘书处将在IETF登记处（而非酒店登记处）附近的公告板上张贴议程变更。
Assignments for breakout rooms (where the Working Groups and BOFs meet) and a map showing the room locations are also shown on the agenda. Room assignments can change as the agenda changes. Some Working Groups meet multiple times during a meeting and every attempt is made to have a Working Group meet in the same room for each session.
会议议程上还显示了分组会议室的分配（工作组和BOF开会的地方）和显示会议室位置的地图。房间分配可以随着日程的变化而变化。一些工作组在一次会议期间举行多次会议，每次会议都试图让工作组在同一个会议室举行会议。
The IETF is different things to different people. There are many people who have been very active in the IETF who have never attended an IETF meeting. You should not feel obligated to come to an IETF meeting just to get a feel for the IETF. The following guidelines (based on stereotypes of people in various industries) might help you decide whether you actually want to come and, if so, what might be the best use of your time at your first meeting.
IETF对不同的人来说是不同的。许多人在IETF中非常活跃，他们从未参加过IETF会议。你不应该觉得有义务参加IETF会议只是为了感受IETF。下面的指导原则（基于不同行业的人的刻板印象）可能会帮助你决定是否真的想来，如果真的想来，在第一次会议上什么是最好的时间利用方式。
As discussed throughout this document, an IETF meeting is nothing like any trade show you have attended. IETF meetings are singularly bad places to go if your intention is to find out what will be hot in the Internet industry next year. You can safely assume that going to Working Group meetings will confuse you more than it will help you understand what is happening, or will be happening, in the industry.
正如本文件中所讨论的，IETF会议与您参加过的任何贸易展览会完全不同。如果你想了解明年互联网行业的热点，那么IETF会议是一个非常糟糕的去处。你可以放心地认为，参加工作组会议会让你更加困惑，而不是帮助你了解行业正在发生或将要发生的事情。
This is not to say that no one from industry should go to IETF meetings. As an IS manager, you might want to consider sending specific people who are responsible for technologies that are under development in the IETF. As these people read the current Internet Drafts and the traffic on the relevant Working Group lists, they will get a sense of whether or not their presence would be worthwhile for your company or for the Working Groups.
这并不是说工业界的任何人都不应该参加IETF会议。作为一名IS经理，您可能需要考虑发送负责IETF中正在开发的技术的特定人员。当这些人阅读当前的互联网草稿和相关工作组列表上的流量时，他们会意识到他们的存在是否值得为您的公司或工作组服务。
Running a network is hard enough without having to grapple with new protocols or new versions of the protocols with which you are already dealing. If you work for the type of network that is always using the very latest hardware and software, and you are following the relevant Working Groups in your copious free time, you might find attending the IETF meeting valuable. The closer you are to the bleeding edge of networking, particularly in the areas of routing and switching, the more likely it is that you will be able to learn and contribute at an IETF meeting.
运行一个网络已经够困难的了，而不需要处理新的协议或协议的新版本。如果您为始终使用最新硬件和软件的网络类型工作，并且在充裕的空闲时间内跟随相关工作组，您可能会发现参加IETF会议很有价值。你越接近网络的前沿，尤其是在路由和交换领域，你就越有可能在IETF会议上学习并做出贡献。
The image of the IETF being mostly ivory tower academics may have been true in the past, but the jobs of typical attendees are now in industry. In most areas of the IETF, employees of vendors are the ones writing the protocols and leading the Working Groups, so it's completely appropriate for vendors to attend. If you create Internet hardware or software, and no one from your company has ever attended an IETF meeting, it behooves you to come to a meeting if for no other
IETF大多是象牙塔学者的形象在过去可能是真实的，但典型与会者的工作现在已经进入了行业。在IETF的大多数领域，供应商的员工是编写协议和领导工作组的人，因此供应商完全适合参加。如果您创建了Internet硬件或软件，并且您的公司没有人参加过IETF会议，那么您应该参加会议，如果没有其他原因的话
reason than to tell the others how relevant the meeting was or was not to your business.
而不是告诉其他人会议与您的业务有多相关。
This is not to say that companies should close up shop during IETF meeting weeks so everyone can go to the meeting. Marketing folks, even technical marketing folks, are usually safe in staying away from the IETF as long as some of the technical people from the company are at the meeting. Similarly, it isn't required, or likely useful, for everyone from a technical department to go, particularly if they are not all reading the Internet Drafts and following the Working Group mailing lists. Many companies have just a few designated meeting attendees who are chosen for their ability to do complete and useful trip reports.
这并不是说公司应该在IETF会议周内关闭店铺，以便每个人都可以参加会议。营销人员，甚至技术营销人员，只要公司的一些技术人员出席会议，通常都可以安全地远离IETF。同样，对于技术部门的每个人来说，这不是必需的，也可能不是有用的，特别是如果他们不是都在阅读互联网草稿并遵循工作组邮件列表的话。许多公司只有少数指定的会议参与者，他们被选中是因为他们有能力完成完整而有用的旅行报告。
IETF meetings are often excellent places for computer science folk to find out what is happening in the way of soon-to-be-deployed protocols. Professors and grad students (and sometimes overachieving undergrads) who are doing research in networking or communications can get a wealth of information by following Working Groups in their specific fields of interest. Wandering into different Working Group meetings can have the same effect as going to symposia and seminars in your department.
IETF会议通常是计算机科学界人士了解即将部署的协议的最佳场所。从事网络或通信研究的教授和研究生（有时是成绩优异的本科生）可以通过跟踪他们感兴趣的特定领域的工作组获得大量信息。在不同的工作组会议上闲逛会产生与在你的部门参加专题讨论会和研讨会相同的效果。
If you're a member of the press and are considering attending IETF, we've prepared a special section of the Tao just for you -- please see Section 8.2.
如果您是媒体的一员，并且正在考虑参加IETF，我们为您准备了一个专门的Tao章节——请参阅第8.2节。
IETF proceedings are compiled in the two months following each meeting, and are available on the web, on CD, and in print. Be sure to look through a copy -- the proceedings are filled with information about IETF that you're not likely to find anywhere else. For example, you'll find snapshots of most WG charters at the time of the meeting, giving you a better understanding of the evolution of any given effort.
IETF会议记录在每次会议后的两个月内汇编，可在网上、光盘上和印刷品上查阅。一定要翻阅一份副本——会议记录中充满了关于IETF的信息，而这些信息在其他任何地方都找不到。例如，您将在会议期间找到大多数工作组章程的快照，从而更好地了解任何给定工作的发展。
The proceedings usually start with an informative (and highly entertaining) message from Steve Coya, the Executive Director of the IETF. Each volume of contains the final (hindsight) agenda, an IETF overview, area and Working Group reports, and slides from the protocol and technical presentations. The Working Group reports and presentations are sometimes incomplete, if the materials haven't been turned in to the Secretariat in time for publication.
会议通常以IETF执行董事史蒂夫·科亚（Steve Coya）的信息（高度娱乐性）开始。每卷包含最终（事后）议程、IETF概述、区域和工作组报告以及协议和技术演示的幻灯片。如果材料没有及时提交秘书处出版，工作组的报告和介绍有时是不完整的。
An attendee list is also included, and contains names, affiliations, work and fax phone numbers, and e-mail addresses as provided on the registration form. For information about obtaining copies of the proceedings, see the Web listing at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/directory.html.
与会者名单也包括在内，包括登记表上提供的姓名、联系方式、工作和传真电话号码以及电子邮件地址。有关获取会议记录副本的信息，请参阅http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/directory.html.
The IETF Secretariat, and IETFers in general, are very approachable. Never be afraid to approach someone and introduce yourself. Also, don't be afraid to ask questions, especially when it comes to jargon and acronyms!
IETF秘书处和IETFER总体上都非常平易近人。永远不要害怕接近某人并介绍自己。另外，不要害怕问问题，尤其是当涉及到行话和首字母缩略词时！
Hallway conversations are very important. A lot of very good work gets done by people who talk together between meetings and over lunches and dinners. Every minute of the IETF can be considered work time (much to some people's dismay).
走廊上的对话非常重要。很多非常好的工作都是由在会议之间、午餐和晚餐时一起交谈的人完成的。IETF的每一分钟都可以被视为工作时间（让一些人感到沮丧）。
A "bar BOF" is an unofficial get-together, usually in the late evening, during which a lot of work gets done over drinks. Bar BOFs spring up in many different places around an IETF meeting, such as restaurants, coffee shops, and (if we are so lucky) pools.
“酒吧聚会”是一种非正式的聚会，通常在深夜举行，其间许多工作都是在喝酒的时候完成的。IETF会议期间，酒吧BOF在许多不同的地方涌现，如餐厅、咖啡馆和（如果我们运气好的话）游泳池。
It's unwise to get between a hungry IETFer (and there isn't any other kind) and coffee break brownies and cookies, no matter how interesting a hallway conversation is.
不管走廊上的谈话有多有趣，在饥饿的便笺簿（而且没有其他种类的便笺簿）和咖啡休息时间的巧克力饼和饼干之间徘徊是不明智的。
IETFers are fiercely independent. It's safe to question opinions and offer alternatives, but don't expect an IETFer to follow orders.
他们是非常独立的。质疑意见和提供替代方案是安全的，但不要指望听命于人。
The IETF, and the plenary session in particular, are not places for vendors to try to sell their wares. People can certainly answer questions about their company and its products, but bear in mind that the IETF is not a trade show. This does not preclude people from recouping costs for IETF-related t-shirts, buttons and pocket protectors.
IETF，特别是全体会议，不是供应商试图销售其产品的场所。人们当然可以回答有关他们公司及其产品的问题，但请记住，IETF不是一个贸易展览会。这并不妨碍人们收回与IETF相关的t恤、纽扣和口袋保护器的费用。
There is always a "materials distribution table" near the registration desk. This desk is used to make appropriate information available to the attendees (e.g., copies of something discussed in a Working Group session, descriptions of online IETF-related information, etc.). Please check with the Secretariat before placing materials on the desk; the Secretariat has the right to remove material that they feel is not appropriate.
登记台附近总是有一张“材料分配表”。该办公桌用于向与会者提供适当的信息（例如，工作组会议中讨论的内容的副本、在线IETF相关信息的描述等）。在将材料放在桌子上之前，请与秘书处核对；秘书处有权删除他们认为不适当的材料。
The vast majority of the IETF's work is done in many "Working Groups;" at the time of this writing, there are about 115 different WGs. (The term "Working Group" is often seen capitalized, but probably not for a very good reason.) BCP 25, "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures," is an excellent resource for anyone participating in WG discussions.
IETF的绝大多数工作是在许多“工作组”中完成的；在撰写本文时，大约有115个不同的工作组。（术语“工作组”通常被视为大写，但可能不是出于一个很好的理由。）BCP 25，“IETF工作组指南和程序”，对于任何参与工作组讨论的人来说都是一个极好的资源。
A WG is really just a mailing list with a bit of adult supervision. You "join" the WG by subscribing to the mailing list; all mailing lists are open to anyone. Some IETF WG mailing lists only let subscribers to the mailing list post to the mailing list, while others let anyone post. Each Working Group has one or two chairs.
一个工作组实际上只是一个带有成人监督的邮件列表。您通过订阅邮件列表“加入”工作组；所有邮件列表对任何人开放。一些IETF工作组邮件列表只允许邮件列表的订阅者发布到邮件列表，而其他人则允许任何人发布。每个工作组有一个或两个主席。
More importantly, each WG has a charter that the WG is supposed to follow. The charter states the scope of discussion for the Working Group, as well as its goals. The WG's mailing list and face-to-face meetings are supposed to focus on just what is in the charter, and not to wander off on other "interesting" topics. Of course, looking a bit outside the scope of the WG is occasionally useful, but the large majority of the discussion should be on the topics listed in the charter. In fact, some WG charters actually specify what the WG will not do, particularly if there were some attractive but nebulous topics brought up during the drafting of the charter. The list of all WG charters makes interesting reading for folks who want to know what the different Working Groups are supposed to be doing.
更重要的是，每个工作组都有一个工作组应该遵守的章程。《宪章》规定了工作组的讨论范围及其目标。工作组的邮件列表和面对面的会议应该只关注章程中的内容，而不是偏离其他“有趣”的话题。当然，稍微超出工作组的范围有时是有用的，但绝大多数讨论应该是关于宪章中列出的主题。事实上，一些工作组章程实际上规定了工作组不会做的事情，特别是如果在起草章程期间提出了一些有吸引力但模糊的主题。所有工作组章程的列表对于那些想知道不同工作组应该做什么的人来说是一本有趣的读物。
The role of the WG chairs is described in both BCP 11 and BCP 25. Basically, their job is to keep the discussion moving forward towards the milestones in the WG charter -- usually publication of one or more RFCs. They are not meant to be taskmasters, but are responsible for assuring positive forward motion and preventing random wandering.
工作组主席的作用在BCP 11和BCP 25中均有描述。基本上，他们的工作是保持讨论朝着工作组章程中的里程碑前进——通常是发布一个或多个RFC。他们不是监工，而是负责确保正向运动和防止随机游荡。
As you can imagine, some Working Group chairs are much better at their jobs than others. When a WG has fulfilled its charter, it is supposed to cease operations. (Most WG mailing lists continue on after a WG is closed, still discussing the same topics as the Working Group did.) In the IETF, it is a mark of success that the WG closes up because it fulfilled its charter. This is one of the aspects of the IETF that newcomers who have experience with other standards bodies have a hard time understanding. However, some WG chairs never manage to get their WG to finish, or keep adding new tasks to the charter so that the Working Group drags on for many years. The output of these aging WGs is often not nearly as useful as the
正如你所能想象的，一些工作组主席的工作要比其他人好得多。工作组履行其章程后，应停止运营。（大多数工作组邮件列表在工作组关闭后仍在继续，仍在讨论与工作组相同的主题。）在IETF中，工作组关闭是成功的标志，因为它履行了章程。这是IETF的一个方面，具有其他标准机构经验的新手很难理解。然而，一些工作组主席从来没有设法让他们的工作组完成，或者不断地在章程中增加新的任务，以至于工作组拖了很多年。这些老化工作组的输出通常不如
earlier products, and the messy results are sometimes called "degenerative Working Group syndrome."
早期的产品和混乱的结果有时被称为“退化工作组综合症”
One important role of the chair is to decide which Internet Drafts get published as "official" Working Group drafts, and which don't. In practice, there is actually not much procedural difference between WG drafts and independent drafts; for example, many WG mailing lists also discuss independent drafts (at the discretion of the WG chair). Procedures for Internet Drafts are covered in much more detail later in this document.
主席的一个重要角色是决定哪些互联网草案作为“官方”工作组草案发布，哪些不发布。在实践中，工作组草案和独立草案之间实际上没有太大的程序差异；例如，许多工作组邮件列表也讨论独立草案（由工作组主席决定）。本文件后面将更详细地介绍互联网草稿的程序。
WG chairs are strongly advised to go to the new chairs' training lunch the first day of the IETF meeting. If you're interested in what they hear there, take a look at the slides at http://www.ietf.org/wgchair/index.htm.
强烈建议工作组主席在IETF会议的第一天参加新主席的培训午餐。如果你对他们听到的内容感兴趣，请看http://www.ietf.org/wgchair/index.htm.
One fact that confuses many novices is that the face-to-face WG meetings are much less important in the IETF than they are in most other organizations. Any decision made at a face-to-face meeting must also gain consensus on the WG mailing list. There are numerous examples of important decisions made in WG meetings that are later overturned on the mailing list, often because someone who couldn't attend the meeting pointed out a serious flaw in the logic used to come to the decision.
让许多新手困惑的一个事实是，面对面工作组会议在IETF中的重要性远远低于在大多数其他组织中的重要性。在面对面会议上做出的任何决定也必须在工作组邮件列表上取得一致意见。有许多在工作组会议上做出的重要决定后来在邮件列表上被推翻的例子，通常是因为无法出席会议的人指出了做出决定的逻辑中的一个严重缺陷。
Another aspect of Working Groups that confounds many people is the fact that there is no formal voting. The general rule on disputed topics is that the Working Group has to come to "rough consensus," meaning that a very large majority of those who care must agree. The exact method of determining rough consensus varies from Working Group to Working Group. The lack of voting has caused some very long delays for some proposals, but most IETF participants who have witnessed rough consensus after acrimonious debates feel that the delays often result in better protocols. (And, if you think about it, how could you have "voting" in a group that anyone can join, and when it's impossible to count the participants?)
令许多人困惑的工作组的另一个方面是没有正式投票。关于争议话题的一般规则是，工作组必须达成“大致共识”，这意味着绝大多数关心的人必须同意。确定大致共识的确切方法因工作组而异。由于缺乏投票，一些提案出现了很长时间的延迟，但在激烈的辩论后见证了大致共识的大多数IETF参与者认为，延迟往往会导致更好的协议。（如果你仔细想想，你怎么能在一个任何人都可以加入的团体中进行“投票”，而且当无法统计参与者时？）
The most important thing that everyone (newcomers and seasoned experts) should do before coming to a face-to-face meeting is to read the Internet Drafts and RFCs beforehand. WG meetings are explicitly not for education: they are for developing the group's documents. Even if you do not plan to say anything in the meeting, you should read the group's documents before attending so you can understand what is being said.
每个人（新来者和经验丰富的专家）在参加面对面会议之前应该做的最重要的事情是事先阅读互联网草稿和RFC。工作组会议明确不是为了教育：它们是为了制定工作组的文件。即使你不打算在会议上说什么，你也应该在参加会议之前阅读小组的文件，这样你才能理解他们在说什么。
It's up to the WG chair to set the meeting agenda, usually a few weeks in advance. If you want something discussed at the meeting, be sure to let the chair know about it. The agendas for all the WG meetings are available in advance (see http://www.ietf.org/meetings/wg_agenda_xx.html, where 'xx' is the meeting number), but many WG chairs are lax (if not totally negligent) about turning them in.
由工作组主席制定会议议程，通常提前几周。如果你想在会议上讨论一些事情，一定要让主席知道。所有工作组会议的议程均提前提供（见http://www.ietf.org/meetings/wg_agenda_xx.html，其中“xx”是会议编号），但许多工作组主席在提交会议时很松懈（如果不是完全疏忽的话）。
The Secretariat only schedules WG meetings a few weeks in advance, and the schedule often changes as little as a week before the first day. If you are only coming for one WG meeting, you may have a hard time booking your flight with such little notice, particularly if the Working Group's meeting changes schedule. Be sure to keep track of the current agenda so you can schedule flights and hotels. But, when it comes down to it, you probably shouldn't be coming for just one WG meeting. It's likely that your knowledge could be valuable in a few WGs, assuming that you've read the drafts and RFCs for those groups.
秘书处只提前几周安排工作组会议，而日程往往在第一天的前一周变化很小。如果你只来参加一次工作组会议，那么你可能很难在通知如此之少的情况下预订航班，特别是如果工作组的会议改变了日程安排。确保跟踪当前议程，以便安排航班和酒店。但是，归根结底，你可能不应该只参加一次工作组会议。假设您已经阅读了这些小组的草稿和RFC，那么您的知识可能在一些工作组中很有价值。
If you're giving a presentation at a face-to-face meeting, you should probably come with a few slides prepared. Projectors for laptop-based presentations are available in all the meeting rooms. And here's a tip for your slides: don't put your company's logo on every one, even though it's common practice outside the IETF. The IETF frowns on this kind of corporate advertising, and most presenters don't even put their logo on their opening slide. The IETF is about technical content, not company boosterism.
如果你在面对面会议上做报告，你可能需要准备一些幻灯片。所有会议室都提供用于笔记本电脑演示的投影仪。这里有一个关于你的幻灯片的提示：不要在每一张幻灯片上都贴上你公司的标志，即使这是IETF之外的常见做法。IETF不赞成这种公司广告，大多数演讲者甚至不在开场幻灯片上贴上他们的标志。IETF关注的是技术内容，而不是公司宣传。
As we mentioned earlier, the IETF announcement and discussion mailing lists are the central mailing lists for IETF activities. However, there are many other mailing lists related to IETF work. For example, every Working Group has its own discussion list. In addition, there are some long-term technical debates that have been moved off of the IETF list onto lists created specifically for those topics. It is highly recommended that everybody follow the discussions on the mailing lists of the Working Groups that they wish to attend. The more work that is done on the mailing lists, the less work that will need to be done at the meeting, leaving time for cross pollination (i.e., attending Working Groups outside one's primary area of interest in order to broaden one's perspective).
如前所述，IETF公告和讨论邮件列表是IETF活动的中心邮件列表。然而，还有许多其他与IETF工作相关的邮件列表。例如，每个工作组都有自己的讨论列表。此外，还有一些长期的技术争论已经从IETF列表中转移到专门为这些主题创建的列表中。强烈建议大家关注他们希望参加的工作组邮件列表上的讨论。邮件列表上完成的工作越多，会议上需要完成的工作就越少，留出时间进行异花授粉（即，参加自己主要兴趣领域以外的工作组，以拓宽自己的视野）。
The mailing lists also provide a forum for those who wish to follow, or contribute to, the Working Groups' efforts, but can't attend the IETF meetings.
邮件列表还为那些希望关注工作组的工作或为工作组的工作做出贡献但不能参加IETF会议的人提供了一个论坛。
Most IETF discussion lists use Majordomo and have a "-request" address which handles the administrative details of joining and leaving the list. (See Section 1.3 for more information on Majordomo.) It is generally frowned upon when such administrivia appears on the discussion mailing list.
大多数IETF讨论列表使用Majordomo，并有一个“-request”地址，用于处理加入和离开列表的管理细节。（有关Majordomo的更多信息，请参见第1.3节。）当此类管理员出现在讨论邮件列表上时，通常不赞成这样做。
Most IETF discussion lists are archived. That is, all of the messages sent to the list are automatically stored on a host for anonymous FTP access. Many such archives are listed online at ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/. If you don't find the list you're looking for, send a message to the list's "-request" address (not to the list itself!).
大多数IETF讨论列表都已存档。也就是说，发送到列表的所有消息都自动存储在主机上，以便进行匿名FTP访问。许多这样的档案都在网上列出ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/. 如果找不到要查找的列表，请将消息发送到列表的“-request”地址（而不是列表本身！）。
Working groups sometimes hold interim meetings between IETFs. Interim meetings aren't a substitute for IETF meetings, however -- a group can't decide to skip a meeting in a location they're not fond of and meet in Cancun three weeks later, for example. Interim meetings require AD approval, and need to be announced at least one month in advance. Location and timing need to allow fair access for all participants. Like regular IETF meetings, someone needs to take notes and send them to minutes@ietf.org, and the group needs to take attendance.
工作组有时在IETF之间举行临时会议。然而，临时会议并不能代替IETF会议——例如，一个团队不能决定跳过他们不喜欢的地点的会议，三周后在坎昆开会。临时会议需要广告批准，并且需要至少提前一个月宣布。地点和时间需要允许所有参与者公平进入。像定期的IETF会议一样，需要有人做笔记并发送给minutes@ietf.org，小组需要参加。
In order to form a Working Group, you need a charter and someone who is able to be chair. In order to get those things, you need to get people interested so that they can help focus the charter and convince an Area Director that the project is worthwhile. A face-to-face meeting is useful for this. In fact, very few WGs get started by an Area Director; most start after a face-to-face BOF because attendees have expressed interest in the topic.
为了组建一个工作组，你需要一个章程和一个能够担任主席的人。为了得到这些东西，你需要让人们感兴趣，以便他们能够帮助关注宪章，并说服区域主管该项目是值得的。为此，面对面会议很有用。事实上，很少有工作组是由区域主管启动的；大多数在面对面BOF之后开始，因为与会者对该主题表示了兴趣。
A BOF meeting has to be approved by the Area Director in the relevant area before it can be scheduled. If you think you really need a new WG, approach an AD informally with your proposal and see what they think. The next step is to request a meeting slot at the next face-to-face meeting. Of course, you don't need to wait for that meeting to get some work done, such as setting up a mailing list and starting to discuss a charter.
在安排BOF会议之前，相关区域的区域总监必须批准BOF会议。如果你认为你真的需要一个新的工作组，用你的建议非正式地接触一个广告，看看他们怎么想。下一步是在下次面对面会议上申请会议时间。当然，你不需要等待会议完成一些工作，比如建立邮件列表和开始讨论章程。
BOF meetings have a very different tone than WG meetings. The purpose of a BOF is to make sure that a good charter with good milestones can be created, and that there are enough people willing to do the work needed in order to create standards. Some BOFs have Internet Drafts already in process, while others start from scratch.
BOF会议的基调与WG会议截然不同。BOF的目的是确保能够创建具有良好里程碑的良好章程，并且有足够多的人愿意完成创建标准所需的工作。一些BOF已经在互联网上起草了草案，而其他BOF则从零开始。
An advantage of having a draft before the BOF is to help focus the discussion. On the other hand, having a draft might tend to limit what the other folks in the BOF want to do in the charter. It's important to remember that most BOFs are held in order to get support for an eventual Working Group, not to get support for a particular document.
在BOF之前有草案的一个优点是有助于集中讨论。另一方面，起草一份草案可能会限制BOF中其他人在章程中想要做的事情。重要的是要记住，大多数BOF的召开是为了获得最终工作组的支持，而不是为了获得特定文件的支持。
Many BOFs don't turn into WGs for a variety of reasons. A common problem is that not enough people can agree on a focus for the work. Another typical reason is that the work wouldn't end up being a standard -- if, for example, the document authors don't really want to relinquish change control to a WG. (We'll discuss change control later in this document.) Only two meetings of a BOF can be scheduled on a particular subject; either a WG has to form, or the topic should be dropped.
由于各种原因，许多BOF不能转变为WG。一个常见的问题是，没有足够的人能够就工作重点达成一致。另一个典型的原因是，如果文档作者真的不想将更改控制权交给工作组，那么该工作最终不会成为标准。（我们将在本文件后面讨论变更控制。）一个BOF只能就一个特定主题安排两次会议；要么工作组必须成立，要么主题应该被删除。
5. ** New to the IETF? STOP HERE! (Temporarily) **
-----------------------------------------
If you're new to the IETF and this is the only reference you plan to
read before coming to the meeting, stop here -- at least temporarily.
Then, on your flight home, read the rest of the Tao. By that time
you'll be ready to get actively involved in the Working Groups that
interested you at the meeting, and the Tao will get you started on
your way.
5. ** New to the IETF? STOP HERE! (Temporarily) **
-----------------------------------------
If you're new to the IETF and this is the only reference you plan to
read before coming to the meeting, stop here -- at least temporarily.
Then, on your flight home, read the rest of the Tao. By that time
you'll be ready to get actively involved in the Working Groups that
interested you at the meeting, and the Tao will get you started on
your way.
If you're a new IETF participant and are looking for a particular RFC or Internet Draft, go to the RFC Editor's Web pages, http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. That site also has links to other RFC collections, many with search capabilities. If you know the number of the RFC you're looking for, go to the IETF RFC pages, http://www.ietf.org/rfc.html. For Internet Drafts, the best resource is the IETF web site, http://www.ietf.org/ID.html, where you can search by title and keyword.
如果您是新的IETF参与者，并且正在寻找特定的RFC或Internet草稿，请访问RFC编辑器的网页，http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. 该网站还提供了指向其他RFC收藏的链接，其中许多具有搜索功能。如果您知道要查找的RFC的编号，请转到IETF RFC页面，http://www.ietf.org/rfc.html. 对于Internet草稿，最好的资源是IETF网站，http://www.ietf.org/ID.html，您可以在其中按标题和关键字进行搜索。
One of the most common questions seasoned IETFers hear from newcomers is, "How do I get an IETF standard published?" A much better question is, "Should I write an IETF standard?" since the answer is not always "yes." If you do decide to try to write a document that becomes an IETF standard, be warned that the overall process may be arduous, even if the individual steps are fairly straightforward. Lots of people get through the process unscathed, though, and there's plenty of written guidance that helps authors emerge with their ego more or less intact.
经验丰富的IETF人员从新来者那里听到的一个最常见的问题是，“我如何发布IETF标准？”一个更好的问题是，“我应该编写IETF标准吗？”因为答案并不总是“是”。如果您决定尝试编写一份成为IETF标准的文档，请注意，整个过程可能很艰巨，即使每个步骤都相当简单。然而，很多人都安然无恙地完成了这个过程，而且有很多书面指导帮助作者或多或少地保持自我。
Every IETF standard is published as an RFC (a "Request For Comments," but everyone just calls them RFCs), and every RFC starts out as an Internet Draft (often called an "I-D"). The basic steps for getting something published as an IETF standard are:
每一个IETF标准都以RFC（征求意见）的形式发布（但每个人都称之为RFC），每一个RFC都以互联网草案（通常称为“I-D”）的形式发布。将某些内容发布为IETF标准的基本步骤如下：
1. Publish the document as an Internet Draft 2. Receive comments on the draft 3. Edit your draft based on the comments 4. Repeat steps 1 through 3 a few times 5. Ask an Area Director to take the draft to the IESG (if it's an individual submission). If the draft is an official Working Group product, the WG chair asks the AD to take it to the IESG. 6. Make any changes deemed necessary by the IESG (this might include giving up on becoming a standard) 7. Wait for the document to be published by the RFC Editor
1. 将文档发布为Internet草稿2。接受对草案3的评论。根据评论4编辑您的草稿。重复步骤1至3几次5。请区域主管将草案提交给IESG（如果是个人提交）。如果草案是正式工作组产品，工作组主席要求广告将其提交给IESG。6.做出IESG认为必要的任何更改（这可能包括放弃成为标准）7。等待RFC编辑器发布文档
A much more complete explanation of these steps is contained in BCP 9, "The Internet Standards Process." Anyone who writes a draft that they hope will become an IETF standard must read BCP 9 so that they can follow the path of their document through the process. BCP 9 goes into great detail on a topic that is very often misunderstood, even by seasoned IETF participants: different types of RFCs go through different processes and have different rankings. There are six kinds of RFCs:
BCP 9“互联网标准过程”中包含了对这些步骤更为完整的解释。任何撰写草案希望成为IETF标准的人都必须阅读BCP 9，以便他们能够沿着文件的路径通过过程。BCP 9非常详细地讨论了一个经常被误解的话题，即使是经验丰富的IETF参与者也是如此：不同类型的RFC会经历不同的过程，并有不同的排名。有六种RFC：
- Proposed standards - Draft standards - Internet standards (sometimes called "full standards") - Experimental protocols - Informational documents - Historic standards
- 拟定标准-标准草案-互联网标准（有时称为“完整标准”）-实验协议-信息文件-历史标准
Only the first three (proposed, draft, and full) are standards within the IETF. A good summary of this can be found in the aptly titled RFC 1796, "Not All RFCs are Standards."
只有前三个（建议、草案和完整）是IETF中的标准。这方面的一个很好的总结可以在标题恰当的RFC1796“并非所有RFC都是标准”中找到
There are also three sub-series of RFCs, known as FYIs, BCPs, and STDs. The For Your Information RFC sub-series was created to document overviews and topics which are introductory or appeal to a broad audience. Frequently, FYIs are created by groups within the IETF User Services Area. Best Current Practice documents describe the application of various technologies in the Internet. The STD RFC sub-series was created to identify RFCs that do in fact specify Internet standards. Some STDs are actually sets of more than one RFC, and the "standard" designation applies to the whole set of documents.
RFC还有三个子系列，即FYIs、BCP和STD。“为您提供信息”RFC子系列是为了记录概述和主题而创建的，这些概述和主题是介绍性的，或对广大读者有吸引力。通常，FYI由IETF用户服务区域内的组创建。当前最佳实践文件描述了各种技术在互联网上的应用。创建STD RFC子系列是为了识别实际上指定了互联网标准的RFC。有些STD实际上是一套以上的RFC，“标准”名称适用于整套文件。
The biggest reason some people do not want their documents put on the IETF standards track is that they must give up change control of the protocol. That is, as soon as you propose that your protocol become an IETF standard, you must fully relinquish control of the protocol. If there is general agreement, parts of the protocol can be completely changed, whole sections can be ripped out, new things can be added, and the name can be changed.
一些人不希望他们的文档进入IETF标准轨道的最大原因是他们必须放弃对协议的更改控制。也就是说，一旦您提议您的协议成为IETF标准，您就必须完全放弃对该协议的控制。如果达成一致，协议的部分内容可以完全更改，整个部分可以删除，可以添加新内容，名称可以更改。
Some authors find it very hard to give up control of their pet protocol. If you are one of those people, don't even think about trying to get your protocol to become an IETF standard. On the other hand, if your goal is the best standard possible with the widest implementation, then you might find the IETF process to your liking.
一些作者发现很难放弃对pet协议的控制。如果你是这些人中的一员，甚至不要考虑让你的协议成为IETF标准。另一方面，如果您的目标是实现最广泛的最佳标准，那么您可能会发现IETF过程符合您的喜好。
Incidentally, the change control on Internet standards doesn't end when the protocol is put on the standards track. The protocol itself can be changed later for a number of reasons, the most common of which is that implementors discover a problem as they implement the standard. These later changes are also under the control of the IETF, not the editors of the standards document.
顺便说一句，当协议进入标准轨道时，互联网标准的变更控制并没有结束。协议本身可以在以后更改，原因有很多，其中最常见的是实现者在实现标准时发现问题。这些后续变更也由IETF控制，而不是由标准文件的编辑控制。
IETF standards exist so that people will use them to write Internet programs that interoperate. They don't exist to document the (possibly wonderful) ideas of their authors, nor do they exist so that a company can say "we have an IETF standard." If a standards-track RFC only has one implementation (whereas two are required for it to advance on the standards track), it was probably a mistake to put it on the standards track in the first place.
IETF标准的存在使得人们可以使用它们来编写互操作的互联网程序。它们的存在不是为了记录作者的想法（可能很好），也不是为了让公司说“我们有一个IETF标准”。如果一个标准轨道RFC只有一个实现（而在标准轨道上需要两个实现），首先把它放在标准轨道上可能是一个错误。
First things first. Every document that ends up in the RFC repository starts life as an Internet Draft. Internet Drafts are tentative documents -- they're meant for readers to comment on, so authors can mull over those comments and decide which ones to incorporate in the draft. In order to remind folks of their tentativeness, Internet Drafts are automatically removed from the online directories after six months. They are most definitely not standards or even specifications. As BCP 9 says:
第一件事。RFC存储库中的每个文档都以互联网草稿的形式开始使用。互联网上的草稿是暂时性的文件——它们是供读者评论的，因此作者可以仔细考虑这些评论，并决定将哪些评论纳入草稿中。为了提醒人们他们的潜力，互联网草稿在六个月后会自动从在线目录中删除。它们绝对不是标准，甚至不是规范。正如BCP 9所说：
An Internet Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a specification; specifications are published through the RFC mechanism ... Internet Drafts have no formal status, and are subject to change or removal at any time. Under no circumstances should an Internet Draft be referenced by any paper, report, or Request-for-Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance with an Internet Draft.
互联网草案不是“发布”规范的手段；规范通过RFC机制发布。。。互联网草稿没有正式状态，随时可能更改或删除。在任何情况下，任何文件、报告或提案请求均不得引用互联网草案，供应商也不得声称遵守互联网草案。
You can always tell a person who doesn't understand the IETF (or is intentionally trying to fool people) when they brag about having published an Internet Draft; it takes no significant effort.
你可以告诉一个不懂IETF的人（或者有意愚弄他人），当他们吹嘘自己已经在互联网上发表了一份草稿；这不需要很大的努力。
An I-D should have approximately the same format as an RFC. Contrary to many people's beliefs, an I-D does not need to look exactly like an RFC, but if you can use the same formatting procedures used by the RFC Editor when you create your I-Ds, it will simplify the RFC Editor's work when your draft is published as an RFC. RFC 2223, "Instructions to RFC Authors," describes the nroff formatting used by the RFC Editor.
I-D的格式应与RFC大致相同。与许多人的信念相反，I-D不需要看起来完全像RFC，但是如果您可以在创建I-D时使用RFC编辑器使用的相同格式设置过程，那么当您的草稿作为RFC发布时，它将简化RFC编辑器的工作。RFC 2223，“RFC作者须知”描述了RFC编辑器使用的nroff格式。
An Internet Draft can be either a Working Group draft or an individual submission. Working Group drafts are usually reviewed by the chair before being accepted as a WG item.
互联网草案可以是工作组草案，也可以是个人提交的文件。工作组草案通常在作为工作组项目接受之前由主席进行审查。
Before you create the first draft of your Internet Draft, you should read four documents:
在创建Internet草稿的第一稿之前，您应该阅读四个文档：
- More important than just explaining formatting, RFC 2223 also explains what needs to be in an Internet Draft before it can become an RFC. This document describes all the sections and notices that will need to be in your document, and it's good to have them there from the beginning so that readers aren't surprised when you put them in later versions.
- 更重要的是，RFC2223不仅解释了格式，还解释了互联网草稿在成为RFC之前需要包含哪些内容。本文档描述了文档中需要包含的所有部分和注意事项，最好从一开始就将它们放在文档中，这样读者在您将它们放入更高版本时不会感到惊讶。
- BCP 22, "Guide for Internet Standards Writers," provides tips that will help you write a standard that leads to interoperability. For instance, it explains how to choose the right number of protocol options, how to respond to out-of-spec behavior, and how to show state diagrams.
- BCP 22，“互联网标准编写者指南”提供了一些技巧，可以帮助您编写一个实现互操作性的标准。例如，它解释了如何选择正确数量的协议选项，如何响应超出规范的行为，以及如何显示状态图。
- The online "Guidelines to Authors of Internet Drafts," http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt, has up-to-date information about the process for turning in Internet Drafts, as well as the most current boilerplate information that has to be included in each Internet Draft.
- 在线“互联网草稿作者指南，”http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt，具有有关提交互联网草稿过程的最新信息，以及必须包含在每个互联网草稿中的最新样板信息。
- When you think you are finished with the draft process and are ready to request that the draft become an RFC, you should definitely read "Considerations for Internet Drafts," http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html, a list of common "nits" that have been known to stop documents in the IESG. In fact, you should probably read that document well before you are finished, so that you don't have to make a bunch of last-minute changes.
- 当您认为您已经完成了草稿流程，并准备好要求草稿成为RFC时，您应该明确阅读“互联网草稿的注意事项”http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html，这是一个常见的“NIT”列表，已知这些NIT会阻止IESG中的文档。事实上，您可能应该在完成之前阅读该文档，这样您就不必在最后一刻进行大量更改。
When you're ready to turn in your Internet Draft, send it to the Internet Drafts editor at internet-drafts@ietf.org. There is a real person at the other end of this mail address -- their job is to make sure you've included the minimum items you need for the Internet Draft to be published. When you submit the first version of the draft, the draft editor supplies the filename for the draft. If the draft is an official Working Group product, the name will start with "draft-ietf-" followed by the designation of the WG, followed by a descriptive word or two, followed by "00.txt".
当您准备好提交Internet草稿时，请将其发送到Internet上的Internet草稿编辑器-drafts@ietf.org. 在这个邮件地址的另一端有一个真实的人——他们的工作是确保你已经包含了互联网草稿发布所需的最低项目。提交草稿的第一个版本时，草稿编辑器将提供草稿的文件名。如果草案是正式工作组产品，名称将以“草案ietf-”开头，然后是工作组名称，然后是一两个描述性单词，最后是“00.txt”。
For example, a draft in the S/MIME WG about creating keys might be named "draft-ietf-smime-keying-00.txt". If it's not the product of a Working Group, the name will start with "draft-" and the last name of one of the authors followed by a descriptive word or two, followed by "00.txt". For example, a draft that someone named Smith wrote might be named "draft-smith-keying-00.txt". If a draft is an individual submission but relates to a particular working group, the author sometimes follows their name with the name of the working group, such as "draft-smith-smime-keying-00.txt". You are welcome to suggest names; however, it is up to the Internet Drafts editor (and, if it is an official WG draft, the WG chair) to come up with the filename.
例如，S/MIME工作组中关于创建密钥的草案可能命名为“draft-ietf-smime-keying-00.txt”。如果不是工作组的产品，名称将以“草稿-”开头，其中一位作者的姓氏后接一两个描述性单词，然后是“00.txt”。例如，一个名叫史密斯的人写的草稿可能被命名为“draft-Smith-keying-00.txt”。如果草稿是个人提交的，但与特定工作组有关，则作者有时会在其姓名后面加上工作组的名称，如“draft-smith-smime-keying-00.txt”。欢迎你推荐名字；但是，由互联网草稿编辑（如果是正式的工作组草稿，则由工作组主席）提出文件名。
After the first edition of a draft, the number in the filename is incremented; for instance, the second edition of the S/MIME draft named above would be "draft-ietf-smime-keying-01.txt". Note that there are cases where the filename changes after the first version, such as when a personal effort is pulled into a Working Group.
初版草稿之后，文件名中的数字将递增；例如，上述S/MIME草案的第二版将是“draft-ietf-smime-keying-01.txt”。请注意，在某些情况下，文件名在第一个版本后会发生更改，例如当个人工作被拉入工作组时。
The procedure for creating and advancing a standard is described in BCP 9. After an Internet Draft has been sufficiently discussed and there is rough consensus that what it says would be a useful standard, it is presented to the IESG for consideration. If the draft is an official WG draft, the WG chair sends it to the appropriate Area Director after it has gone through Working Group last call. If the draft is an individual submission, the draft's author or editor submits it to the appropriate Area Director. BCP 9 also describes the appeals process for people who feel that a Working Group chair, an AD, or the IESG has made the wrong decision in considering the creation or advancement of a standard.
BCP 9中描述了创建和推进标准的程序。互联网草案经过充分讨论后，人们大致一致认为它所说的将是一个有用的标准，然后提交给IESG审议。如果草案是工作组的正式草案，工作组主席在完成工作组最后一次会议后将其发送给相应的区域主任。如果草稿是个人提交的，草稿的作者或编辑将其提交给相应的区域主管。BCP 9还描述了那些认为工作组主席、广告或IESG在考虑创建或推进标准时做出错误决定的人的上诉程序。
After it is submitted to the IESG, the IESG announces an IETF-wide last call. This helps get the attention of people who weren't following the progress of the draft, and can sometimes cause further changes to the draft. It is also a time when people in the WG who
提交给IESG后，IESG宣布IETF范围内的最后一次呼叫。这有助于引起那些不关注草案进展的人的注意，有时可能会导致草案的进一步修改。这也是工作组中的人
feel that they weren't heard can make their comments to everyone. The IETF last call is two weeks for drafts coming from WGs and four weeks for individual submissions.
觉得自己没被听到，可以向每个人发表评论。IETF的最后一次呼叫是两周，针对来自WGs的草案，以及四周的个人提交。
If the IESG approves the draft to become an Internet Standard, they ask the RFC Editor to publish it as a Proposed Standard. After it has been a Proposed Standard for at least six months, the RFC's author (or the appropriate WG chair) can ask for it to become a Draft Standard. Before that happens, however, someone needs to convince the appropriate Area Director that there are at least two independent, interoperable implementations of each part of the standard. This is a good test of the usefulness of the standard as a whole, as well as an excellent way to check if the standard was really readable.
如果IESG批准草案成为互联网标准，他们会要求RFC编辑将其作为建议标准发布。在其成为拟议标准至少六个月后，RFC的作者（或相应的工作组主席）可以要求其成为标准草案。然而，在此之前，需要有人说服相应的区域主管，标准的每个部分至少有两个独立的、可互操作的实现。这是对整个标准有用性的一个很好的测试，也是检查标准是否真正可读的一个很好的方法。
A few things typically happen at this point. First, it's common to find that some of the specifications in the standard need to be reworded because one implementor thought they meant one thing while another implementor thought they meant something else. Another common occurrence is that none of the implementations actually tried to implement a few of the features of the standard; these features get removed not just because no one tested them, but also because they weren't needed.
此时通常会发生一些事情。首先，通常会发现标准中的一些规范需要重新编写，因为一个实现者认为它们意味着一件事，而另一个实现者认为它们意味着另一件事。另一个常见的情况是，没有一个实现实际尝试实现标准的一些特性；这些特性被删除不仅仅是因为没有人测试它们，还因为它们不需要。
Don't be surprised if a particular standard doesn't progress from Proposed to Draft. In fact, most of the standards in common use are Proposed Standards and never move forward. This may be because no one took the time to try to get them to Draft, or some of the normative references in the standard are still at Proposed Standard, or it may be that everyone found more important things to do.
如果一个特定的标准没有从提出到起草，不要感到惊讶。事实上，大多数常用的标准都是提议的标准，从未向前推进过。这可能是因为没有人花时间试图让他们起草，或者标准中的一些规范性引用仍在拟定标准中，或者可能是每个人都发现了更重要的事情要做。
A few years after a document has been a Draft Standard, it can become an Internet Standard, also known as "full standard." This doesn't happen often, and is usually reserved for protocols that are absolutely required for the Internet to function. The IESG goes over the document with a fine-tooth comb before making a Draft Standard an Internet Standard.
在文档成为标准草案的几年后，它可以成为互联网标准，也称为“完整标准”。这种情况并不经常发生，通常只适用于互联网运行绝对需要的协议。IESG在将标准草案作为互联网标准之前，对文件进行了仔细的梳理。
Writing specifications that get implemented the way you want is a bit of an art. You can keep the specification very short, with just a list of requirements, but that tends to cause implementors to take too much leeway. If you instead make the specification very wordy with lots of suggestions, implementors tend to miss the requirements (and often disagree with your suggestions anyway). An optimal specification is somewhere in between.
编写以您想要的方式实现的规范是一门艺术。您可以将规范保持得非常简短，只列出一系列需求，但这往往会导致实现者留有太多的余地。如果您将规范变得非常冗长，并提出了大量建议，那么实现者往往会错过需求（并且通常不同意您的建议）。最佳规格介于两者之间。
One way to make it more likely that developers will create interoperable implementations of standards is to be clear about what's being mandated in a specification. Early RFCs used all kinds of expressions to explain what was needed, so implementors didn't always know which parts were suggestions and which were requirements. As a result, standards writers in the IETF generally agreed to limit their wording to a few specific words with a few specific meanings.
使开发人员更有可能创建可互操作的标准实现的一种方法是明确规范中规定的内容。早期的RFC使用各种表达式来解释需要什么，所以实现者并不总是知道哪些部分是建议，哪些是需求。因此，IETF中的标准编写者普遍同意将其措辞限制为几个具有特定含义的特定单词。
RFC 1123, "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application and Support," written way back in 1989, had a short list of words that had appeared to be useful, namely "must", "should", and "may". These definitions were updated and further refined in BCP 14, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels," which is widely referenced in current Internet standards. BCP 14 also specifically defines "must not" and "should not", and lists a few synonyms for the words defined.
早在1989年，RFC1123《对互联网主机的要求——应用程序和支持》就有一个简短的词汇列表，这些词汇似乎很有用，即“必须”、“应该”和“可能”。这些定义在BCP 14“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键字”中进行了更新和进一步完善，该定义在当前的互联网标准中被广泛引用。BCP 14还明确定义了“不得”和“不应”，并列出了所定义单词的几个同义词。
In a standard, in order to make it clear that you're using the definitions from BCP 14, you should do two things. First, refer to BCP 14 (although most people refer to it as RFC 2119, because that's what BCP 14 tells you to do), so that the reader knows how you're defining your words. Second, you should point out which instances of the words you are using come from BCP 14. The accepted practice for this is to capitalize the words. That is why you see "MUST" and "SHOULD" capitalized in IETF standards.
在一个标准中，为了明确您使用的是BCP14中的定义，您应该做两件事。首先，参考BCP14（尽管大多数人将其称为RFC2119，因为这是BCP14告诉您要做的），以便读者知道您如何定义您的单词。其次，你应该指出你正在使用的单词的实例来自BCP14。公认的做法是将单词大写。这就是为什么在IETF标准中“必须”和“应该”大写的原因。
BCP 14 is a short document, and should be read by everyone who is reading or writing IETF standards. Although the definitions of "must" and "must not" are fairly clear, the definitions of "should" and "should not" cause a great deal of discussion in many WGs. When reviewing an Internet Draft, the question is often raised, "should that sentence have a MUST or a SHOULD in it?" This is, indeed, a very good question, because specifications shouldn't have gratuitous MUSTs, but also should not have SHOULDs where a MUST is needed for interoperability. This goes to the crux of the question of over-specifying and under-specifying requirements in standards.
BCP 14是一个简短的文档，每个阅读或编写IETF标准的人都应该阅读。虽然“必须”和“不得”的定义相当明确，“应该”和“不应该”的定义在许多工作组中引起了大量讨论。在审查互联网草案时，经常会提出这样一个问题：“这句话中应该包含“必须”还是“应该？”这确实是一个很好的问题，因为规范不应该包含免费的“必须”，也不应该包含互操作性所需的“应该”。这就涉及到标准中过度规定和不充分规定要求的问题的关键。
One aspect of writing IETF standards that trips up many novices (and quite a few long-time IETF folk) is the rule about how to make "normative references" to non-IETF documents or to other RFCs in a standard. A normative reference is a reference to a document that must be followed in order to implement the standard. A non-normative reference is one that is helpful to an implementor but is not needed. As we noted above, a "MUST" specification would certainly be normative, so any reference needed to implement the "MUST" would be normative. A "SHOULD" or "MAY" specification is not necessarily
编写IETF标准的一个方面让许多新手（以及许多长期从事IETF的人）感到困惑，那就是关于如何对非IETF文件或标准中的其他RFC进行“规范性引用”的规则。规范性引用是指为实施本标准而必须遵循的文件。非规范性引用是对实施者有用但不需要的引用。如上所述，“必须”规范肯定是规范性的，因此实现“必须”所需的任何引用都是规范性的。“应该”或“可能”规范不一定是
normative, but it could be normative based on what is being required. There is definitely room for debate here!
规范性的，但它可以是基于所需内容的规范性的。这里绝对有辩论的余地！
An IETF standard may make a normative reference to any other standards-track RFC that is at the same standards level or higher, or to any "open standard" that has been developed outside the IETF. The "same level or higher" rule means that before a standard can move from Proposed to Draft, all of the RFCs for which there is a normative reference must also be at Draft or Internet Standard. This rule gives implementors assurance that everything in a Draft Standard or Internet Standard is quite stable, even the things referenced outside the standard. This can also delay the publication of the Draft or Internet Standard by many months (sometimes even years) while the other documents catch up.
IETF标准可对处于相同或更高标准级别的任何其他标准或IETF之外开发的任何“开放标准”进行规范性引用。“同一级别或更高级别”规则意味着，在一个标准可以从提议的标准转变为草案标准之前，有规范性参考的所有RFC也必须是草案标准或互联网标准。该规则为实现者提供了保证，即标准草案或互联网标准中的所有内容都是相当稳定的，即使是标准之外引用的内容也是如此。这也会使草案或互联网标准的发布延迟数月（有时甚至数年），而其他文件则会赶上。
There is no hard and fast rule about what is an "open standard," but generally this means a stable standard that anyone can get a copy of (although they might have to pay for it) and that was made by a generally recognized standards group. If the external standard changes, you have to reference the particular instantiation of that standard in your specification, as with a designation of the date of the standard. Some external standards bodies don't make old standards available, which is a problem for IETF standards that need to be used in the future. When in doubt, a draft author should ask the WG chair or appropriate Area Director if a particular external standard can be used in an IETF standard.
关于什么是“开放标准”没有硬性规定，但一般来说，这意味着一个稳定的标准，任何人都可以获得一份（尽管他们可能需要付费），这是由一个公认的标准团体制定的。如果外部标准发生变化，您必须在规范中引用该标准的特定实例，如标准日期的指定。一些外部标准机构不提供旧标准，这是未来需要使用的IETF标准的一个问题。当有疑问时，草案作者应询问工作组主席或适当的区域主任，是否可以在IETF标准中使用特定的外部标准。
More and more IETF standards require the registration of various protocol parameters, such as named options in the protocol. As we noted in Section 1.2.4, the main registry for all IETF standards has long been IANA. Because of the large and diverse kinds of registries that standards require, IANA needs to have specific information about how to register parameters, what not to register, who (if anyone) will decide what is to be registered, and so on.
越来越多的IETF标准要求注册各种协议参数，例如协议中的命名选项。正如我们在第1.2.4节中指出的，所有IETF标准的主要注册中心一直是IANA。由于标准要求的注册种类繁多，IANA需要有关于如何注册参数、不注册什么、由谁（如果有人）决定注册什么等的具体信息。
Anyone writing an Internet standard that may need an IANA registry needs to read BCP 26, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs," which describes how RFC authors should properly ask for IANA to start or take over a registry. IANA also maintains registries that were started long before BCP 26 was produced.
任何编写可能需要IANA注册中心的互联网标准的人都需要阅读BCP 26《RFC中IANA注意事项编写指南》，其中描述了RFC作者应如何正确要求IANA启动或接管注册中心。IANA还维护早在BCP 26产生之前就开始的注册。
One thing that's required in every RFC is a "Security Considerations" section. This section should describe any known vulnerabilities of the protocol, possible threats, and mechanisms or strategies to
每个RFC都需要一个“安全注意事项”部分。本节应描述协议的任何已知漏洞、可能的威胁以及应对这些漏洞的机制或策略
address them. Don't gloss over this section -- in particular, don't say "here's our protocol, if you want security, just use IPSEC". This won't do at all, because it doesn't answer the question of how IPSEC interacts with your protocol, and vice versa. Be sure to check with your Working Group chair if you're not sure how to handle this section in your draft.
称呼他们。不要掩饰这一部分——尤其不要说“这是我们的协议，如果您想要安全性，就使用IPSEC”。这根本不行，因为它不能回答IPSEC如何与您的协议交互的问题，反之亦然。如果您不确定如何在草稿中处理此部分，请务必咨询您的工作组主席。
The problems of intellectual property have cropped up more and more often in the past few years, particularly with respect to patents. The goal of the IETF is to have its standards widely used and validated in the marketplace. If creating a product that uses a standard requires getting a license for a patent, people are less likely to implement the standard. Not surprisingly, then, the general rule has been "use good non-patented technology where possible."
在过去几年中，知识产权问题越来越频繁地出现，特别是在专利方面。IETF的目标是在市场上广泛使用和验证其标准。如果创建使用标准的产品需要获得专利许可证，那么人们就不太可能实施标准。因此，毫不奇怪，一般规则是“尽可能使用良好的非专利技术”
Of course, this isn't always possible. Sometimes patents appear after a standard has been established. Sometimes there's a patent on something that is so valuable that there isn't a non-patented equivalent. Sometimes, the patent holder is generous and promises to give all implementors of a standard a royalty-free license to the patent, thereby making it almost as easy to implement as it would have been if no patent existed.
当然，这并不总是可能的。有时，专利会在标准制定后出现。有时，有些东西的专利价值如此之高，以至于没有非专利的等价物。有时，专利持有人慷慨大方，承诺向标准的所有实施者授予专利免版税许可证，从而使其几乎与不存在专利时一样易于实施。
The IETF's methods for dealing with patents in standards are a subject of much debate. You can read about the official rules in BCP 9, but you should assume that the application of those rules is flexible and depends on the type of patent, the patent holder, and the availability of alternate technologies that are not encumbered by patents.
IETF在标准中处理专利的方法是一个备受争议的话题。您可以阅读BCP 9中的官方规则，但是您应该假设这些规则的应用是灵活的，并且取决于专利类型、专利持有人以及不受专利限制的替代技术的可用性。
Patent holders who freely allow their patents to be used by people implementing IETF standards often get a great deal of good will from the folks in the IETF. Such generosity is more common than you might think. For example, RFC 1822 is a license from IBM for one of its security patents, and the security community has responded very favorably to IBM for this (whereas a number of other companies have made themselves pariahs for their intractability on their security patents).
自由允许自己的专利被执行IETF标准的人使用的专利持有者通常会从IETF的人那里得到很多善意。这种慷慨比你想象的还要普遍。例如，RFC1822是IBM对其一项安全专利的许可证，而安全社区对此给予了IBM非常积极的回应（而其他一些公司因其安全专利的难处理性而受到排斥）。
If you are writing an Internet Draft and you know of a patent that applies to the technology you're writing about, don't list the patent in the document. Instead, send a note to the IETF Secretariat (ietf-secretariat@ietf.org) about the patent or other intellectual property rights. The note will be published on the IETF IPR web page (http://www.ietf.org/ipr.html). Intellectual property rights aren't
如果你正在写一份互联网草稿，并且你知道一项专利适用于你正在写的技术，不要在文档中列出该专利。相反，向IETF秘书处（IETF）发送一份说明-secretariat@ietf.org)关于专利或其他知识产权。该说明将发布在IETF IPR网页上(http://www.ietf.org/ipr.html). 知识产权并非如此
mentioned in RFCs because RFCs never change after they are published, but knowledge of IPR can change at any time. Therefore, an IPR list in a RFC could be incomplete and mislead the reader. BCP 9 provides specific text that should be added to RFCs where the author knows of IPR issues.
在RFC中提到，因为RFC在发布后不会更改，但知识产权知识可以随时更改。因此，RFC中的IPR列表可能不完整，并误导读者。BCP 9提供了作者知道知识产权问题时应添加到RFC中的特定文本。
As we noted earlier, not all RFCs are standards. In fact, plenty of important RFCs are not on the standards track at all. Currently, there are two designations for RFCs that are not meant to be standards: Informational, like the Tao, and Experimental. (There is actually a third designation, Historical, but that is reserved for documents that were on the standards track and have been removed due to lack of current use, or that more recent thinking indicates the technology is actually harmful to the Internet.)
正如我们前面提到的，并不是所有的RFC都是标准的。事实上，许多重要的RFC根本不在标准轨道上。目前，RFC有两个名称并不意味着是标准：信息性的，如Tao，和实验性的。（实际上还有第三个名称，即历史名称，但它是为那些在标准轨道上的文档保留的，这些文档由于缺乏当前使用而被删除，或者最近的想法表明该技术实际上对互联网有害。）
The role of Informational RFCs is often debated in the IETF. Many people like having them, particularly for specifications that were created outside the IETF but are referenced by IETF documents. They are also useful for specifications that are the precursors for work being done by IETF Working Groups. On the other hand, some people refer to Informational RFCs as "standards" even though the RFCs are not standards, usually to fool the gullible public about something that the person is selling or supporting. When this happens, the debate about Informational RFCs is renewed.
IETF中经常讨论信息RFC的作用。许多人喜欢拥有它们，特别是那些在IETF之外创建但被IETF文档引用的规范。它们对于作为IETF工作组所做工作的先驱的规范也很有用。另一方面，有些人将信息RFC称为“标准”，即使RFC不是标准，通常是为了愚弄容易上当的公众，让他们知道他们正在销售或支持的东西。当这种情况发生时，关于信息RFC的争论又重新开始了。
Experimental RFCs are for specifications that may be interesting, but for which it is unclear if there will be much interest in implementing them. That is, a specification might solve a problem, but if it is not clear many people think that the problem is important, or think that they will bother fixing the problem with the specification, the specification might be labeled an Experimental RFC. If, later, the specification becomes popular, it can be re-issued as a standards-track RFC. Experimental RFCs are also used to get people to experiment with a technology that looks like it might be standards track material, but for which there are still unanswered questions.
实验性RFC适用于可能感兴趣的规范，但目前尚不清楚是否对实现这些规范感兴趣。也就是说，一个规范可能会解决一个问题，但是如果不清楚，许多人认为这个问题很重要，或者认为他们会用规范来解决这个问题，那么这个规范可能会被标记为实验性RFC。如果以后规范变得流行，它可以作为标准跟踪RFC重新发布。实验性RFC也被用来让人们用一种看起来可能是标准轨道材料的技术进行实验，但对于这项技术，仍然有一些尚未解答的问题。
Read -- Review the Internet Drafts in your area of expertise, and comment on them in the Working Groups. Participate in the discussion in a friendly, helpful fashion, with the goal being the best Internet standards possible. Listen much more than you speak.
阅读——回顾你专业领域的互联网草稿，并在工作组中对其进行评论。以友好、有益的方式参与讨论，目标是尽可能达到最佳的互联网标准。多听多说。
Implement -- Write programs that use the current Internet standards. The standards aren't worth much unless they are available to Internet users. Implement even the "minor" standards, since they will become less minor if they appear in more software. Report any problems you find with the standards to the appropriate Working Group so that the standard can be clarified in later revisions. One of the oft-quoted tenets of the IETF is "running code wins," so you can help support the standards you want to become more widespread by creating more running code.
实现——编写使用当前Internet标准的程序。除非互联网用户可以使用这些标准，否则这些标准没有多大价值。甚至实现“次要”标准，因为如果它们出现在更多的软件中，它们将变得不那么次要。向相应的工作组报告您发现的与标准有关的任何问题，以便在以后的修订中澄清标准。IETF的一个经常被引用的原则是“运行代码胜出”，因此您可以通过创建更多运行代码来帮助支持您希望变得更广泛的标准。
Write -- Edit or co-author Internet Drafts in your area of expertise. Do this for the benefit of the Internet community, not to get your name (or, even worse, your company's name) on a document. Draft authors are subject to all kinds of technical (and sometimes personal) criticism; receive it with equanimity and use it to improve your draft in order to produce the best and most interoperable standard.
写作——编辑或共同撰写您专业领域的互联网草稿。这样做是为了互联网社区的利益，而不是为了让你的名字（或者更糟糕的是，你公司的名字）出现在文档上。草稿作者受到各种技术（有时是个人）批评；平静地接受它，并使用它来改进您的草稿，以产生最佳和最可互操作的标准。
Share -- Avoid proprietary standards. If you are an implementor, exhibit a strong preference for IETF standards. If the IETF standards aren't as good as the proprietary standards, work to make the IETF standards better. If you're a purchaser, avoid products that use proprietary standards that compete with the open standards of the IETF, and tell the companies you buy from that you are doing so.
共享——避免专有标准。如果您是一名实施者，请表现出对IETF标准的强烈偏好。如果IETF标准不如专有标准好，那么努力使IETF标准更好。如果您是买家，请避免使用与IETF开放标准竞争的专有标准的产品，并告诉您购买的公司您正在这样做。
Open Up -- If your company controls a patent that is used in an IETF standard, convince them to make the patent available at no cost to everyone who is implementing the standard. In the past few years, patents have caused a lot of serious problems for Internet standards because they prevent some companies from being able to freely implement the standards. Fortunately, many companies have generously offered unlimited licenses for particular patents in order to help the IETF standards flourish. These companies are usually rewarded with positive publicity for the fact that they are not as greedy or short-sighted as other patent-holders.
开放——如果您的公司控制着IETF标准中使用的专利，请说服他们免费向实施该标准的所有人提供该专利。在过去几年中，专利给互联网标准带来了许多严重问题，因为它们妨碍了一些公司自由实施这些标准。幸运的是，许多公司慷慨地为特定专利提供了无限许可证，以帮助IETF标准蓬勃发展。这些公司通常会得到积极的宣传，因为它们不像其他专利持有者那样贪婪或短视。
Join -- Become a member of ISOC. More importantly, urge any company that has benefited from the Internet to become a corporate member of ISOC, since this has the greatest financial benefit for the group. It will, of course, also benefit the Internet as a whole.
加入--成为ISOC的成员。更重要的是，敦促任何受益于互联网的公司成为ISOC的公司成员，因为这对集团的财务利益最大。当然，这也将使整个互联网受益。
As much as many IETF participants would like to think otherwise, the IETF does not exist in a standards vacuum. There are many (perhaps too many) other standards organizations whose decisions affect the Internet. There are also a fair number of standards bodies who ignored the Internet for a long time and now want to get a piece of the action.
尽管许多IETF参与者不这么认为，IETF并不存在于标准真空中。有许多（也许太多）其他标准组织的决策会影响互联网。还有相当多的标准机构长期忽视互联网，现在想从中分得一杯羹。
In general, the IETF tries to have cordial relationships with other significant standards bodies. This isn't always easy, since many other bodies have very different structures than the IETF, and the IETF is mostly run by volunteers who would probably prefer to write standards rather than meet with representatives from other bodies. Even so, some other standards bodies make a great effort to interact well with the IETF despite the obvious cultural differences.
一般来说，IETF试图与其他重要的标准机构建立友好关系。这并不总是容易的，因为许多其他机构的结构与IETF非常不同，IETF主要由志愿者管理，他们可能更愿意编写标准，而不是与其他机构的代表会面。即便如此，尽管存在明显的文化差异，但其他一些标准机构仍在努力与IETF良好互动。
At the time of this writing, the IESG has some liaisons with large standards bodies, including the ITU (International Telecommunication Union), the W3C, the Unicode Consortium, the ATM Forum, and ISO-IEC/JTC1 (The Joint Technical Committee of the International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission). The list of IETF liaisons, www.ietf.org/ietf/1iesg-liaisons.txt, shows that there are many different liaisons to ISO-IEC/JTC1 subcommittees.
在撰写本文时，IESG与大型标准机构有一些联系，包括ITU（国际电信联盟）、W3C、Unicode联盟、ATM论坛和ISO-IEC/JTC1（国际标准化组织和国际电工委员会的联合技术委员会）。IETF联络人列表（www.IETF.org/IETF/1iesg-connections.txt）显示，ISO-IEC/JTC1小组委员会有许多不同的联络人。
Given that the IETF is one of the best-known bodies that is helping move the Internet forward, it's natural for the computer press (and even the trade press) to want to cover its actions. In recent years, a small number of magazines have assigned reporters and editors to cover the IETF in depth over a long period of time. These reporters have ample scars from articles that they got wrong, incorrect statements about the status of Internet Drafts, quotes from people who are unrelated to the IETF work, and so on.
鉴于IETF是帮助推动互联网发展的最知名机构之一，计算机媒体（甚至贸易媒体）自然希望报道其行动。近年来，少数杂志指派记者和编辑长期深入报道IETF。这些记者从错误的文章、关于互联网草稿状态的错误陈述、与IETF工作无关的人的引用中留下了大量的伤疤，等等。
Major press errors fall into two categories: saying that the IETF is considering something when in fact there is just an Internet Draft in a Working Group, and saying that the IETF approved something when all that happened was that an Informational RFC was published. In both cases, the press is not fully to blame for the problem, since they are usually alerted to the story by a company trying to get publicity for a protocol that they developed or at least support. Of course, a bit of research by the reporter would probably get them in contact with someone who could straighten them out, such as a WG chair or an Area Director. The official press contact for the IETF is the IETF Secretariat.
主要的新闻错误分为两类：一类是说IETF正在考虑某件事，而事实上工作组中只有一份互联网草案；另一类是说IETF批准了某件事，而事实上只是发布了一份信息RFC。在这两种情况下，媒体并不是问题的全部责任，因为他们通常会被一家公司提醒，该公司试图为他们制定或至少支持的协议获得宣传。当然，记者的一点研究可能会让他们接触到一些可以解决问题的人，比如工作组主席或区域主管。IETF的官方媒体联系人是IETF秘书处。
The fact that those reporters who've gotten it wrong once come back to IETF meetings shows that it is possible to get it right eventually. However, IETF meetings are definitely not for reporters who are naive about the IETF process (although if you are a reporter the fact that you are reading this document is a very good sign!). Further, if you think that you'll get a hot story from attending an IETF meeting, you are likely to be disappointed.
事实上，那些犯错误的记者一旦回到IETF会议上，就表明最终有可能纠正错误。然而，IETF会议绝对不是为那些对IETF过程不了解的记者而召开的（尽管如果你是记者，那么你正在阅读本文件是一个非常好的迹象！）。此外，如果您认为参加IETF会议会引起轰动，您可能会感到失望。
Considering all this, it's not surprising that some IETFers would prefer to have the press stay as far away from meetings as possible. Having a bit of press publicity for protocols that are almost near completion and will become significant in the industry in the next year can be a good thing. However, it is the rare reporter who can resist over-hyping a nascent protocol as the next savior for the Internet. Such stories do much more harm than good, both for the readers of the article and for the IETF.
考虑到所有这些，一些电子记者希望媒体尽可能远离会议也就不足为奇了。对即将完成的协议进行一点新闻宣传，并将在明年在业界发挥重要作用，这可能是一件好事。然而，很少有记者能够抵制将一个新生的协议过度炒作为互联网的下一个救世主。对于本文读者和IETF来说，这样的故事弊大于利。
The main reason why a reporter might want to attend an IETF meeting is not to cover hot technologies (since that can be done in the comfort of your office by reading the mailing lists), but to meet people face to face. Unfortunately, the most interesting people are the ones who are also the busiest during the IETF meeting, and some folks have a tendency to run away when they see a press badge. However, IETF meetings are excellent places to meet and speak with document authors and Working Group chairs; this can be quite valuable for reporters who are covering the progress of protocols.
记者可能想参加IETF会议的主要原因不是为了报道热门技术（因为这可以通过阅读邮件列表在办公室舒适的环境下完成），而是为了与人们面对面地见面。不幸的是，最有趣的人是那些在IETF会议期间最忙的人，一些人在看到记者徽章时有逃跑的倾向。然而，IETF会议是与文件作者和工作组主席会面和交谈的绝佳场所；这对于报道协议进展的记者来说是非常有价值的。
Reporters who want to find out about "what the IETF is doing" on a particular topic would be well-advised to talk to more than one person who is active on that topic in the IETF, and should probably try to talk to the WG chair in any case. It's impossible to determine what will happen with a draft by looking at the draft or talking to the draft's author. Fortunately, all WGs have archives that a reporter can look through for recent indications about what the progress of a draft is; unfortunately, few reporters have the time or inclination to do this kind of research. Because the IETF
想要了解某一特定主题的“IETF正在做什么”的记者最好与多个在IETF中活跃于该主题的人交谈，并且在任何情况下都应该尝试与工作组主席交谈。通过查看草稿或与草稿作者交谈来确定草稿会发生什么是不可能的。幸运的是，所有的工作组都有档案，记者可以通过这些档案查找关于草案进展情况的最新迹象；不幸的是，很少有记者有时间或倾向于做这种研究。因为IETF
doesn't have a press liaison, a magazine or newspaper that runs a story with errors won't hear directly from the IETF and therefore often won't know what they did wrong, so they might easily do it again later.
如果没有新闻联络人，一家刊登有错误报道的杂志或报纸不会直接从IETF那里得到消息，因此通常不知道他们做错了什么，因此他们可能很容易在以后再这样做。
Pronounced "dow", Tao is the basic principle behind the teachings of Lao-tse, a Chinese master. Its familiar symbol is the black and white Yin-Yang circle. Taoism conceives the universe as a single organism, and human beings as interdependent parts of a cosmic whole. Tao is sometimes translated "the way," but according to Taoist philosophy the true meaning of the word cannot be expressed in words.
道的发音为“道”，是中国大师老子教导背后的基本原则。它熟悉的符号是黑白阴阳圆。道教认为宇宙是一个单一的有机体，人类是宇宙整体中相互依存的部分。道有时被翻译成“道”，但根据道家哲学，道的真正含义无法用语言表达。
agenda@ietf.org Requests for agenda slots at IETF meetings ietf-info@ietf.org General questions about the IETF ietf-registrar@ietf.org Questions about registration, meeting locations, and fees ietf-request@ietf.org Requests to join/leave IETF lists ietf-secretariat@ietf.org Questions for the Secretariat ietf-web@ietf.org Web questions/comments internet-drafts@ietf.org Internet Draft submissions and queries minutes@ietf.org Where to send Working Group minutes proceedings@ietf.org IETF Proceedings Coordinator iana@iana.org Internet Assigned Numbers Authority rfc-ed@rfc-editor.org RFC Editor
agenda@ietf.org请求在IETF会议上安排议程-info@ietf.org关于IETF IETF的一般问题-registrar@ietf.org关于注册、会议地点的问题，和费用-request@ietf.org加入/离开IETF列表的请求IETF-secretariat@ietf.org向秘书处提出的问题-web@ietf.org网上问题/评论-drafts@ietf.org互联网草案提交和查询minutes@ietf.org向何处发送工作组会议记录proceedings@ietf.orgIETF程序协调员iana@iana.org 互联网分配号码管理局-ed@rfc-org RFC编辑器
The IETF web site, http://www.ietf.org, is the best source for information about meetings, Working Groups, Internet Drafts, RFCs, IETF e-mail addresses, and much more. Click on "Additional Information" to find a variety of helpful links. Internet Drafts and other documents are also available in the "ietf" directory on anonymous FTP sites worldwide. For a listing of these sites, see:
IETF网站，http://www.ietf.org，是有关会议、工作组、Internet草稿、RFC、IETF电子邮件地址等信息的最佳来源。点击“附加信息”查找各种有用的链接。Internet草稿和其他文档也可在全球匿名FTP站点的“ietf”目录中找到。有关这些网站的列表，请参阅：
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Check the IESG web pages, http://www.ietf.org/iesg.html, to find up-to-date information about drafts processed, RFCs published, and documents in Last Call, as well as the monthly IETF status reports.
查看IESG网页，http://www.ietf.org/iesg.html，以查找有关已处理的草稿、已发布的RFC和上次通话中的文档以及每月IETF状态报告的最新信息。
AD Area Director
BCP Best Current Practice
BOF Birds Of a Feather
FAQ Frequently Asked Question(s)
FYI For Your Information (RFC)
IAB Internet Architecture Board
IANA Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
ICANN Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers,
http://www.icann.org/
I-D Internet Draft
IESG Internet Engineering Steering Group,
http://www.ietf.org/iesg.html
IETF Internet Engineering Task Force, http://www.ietf.org/
INET Internet Society Conference,
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/inet/
IRTF Internet Research Task Force, http://www.irtf.org/
ISO International Organization for Standardization,
http://www.iso.ch/
ISO-IEC/JTC1
Joint Technical Committee of the International
Organization for Standardization and International
Electrotechnical Commission, http://www.jtc1.org/
ISOC Internet Society, http://www.isoc.org
ITU International Telecommunication Union, http://www.itu.int
RFC Request For Comments
STD Standard (RFC)
W3C World Wide Web Consortium, http://www.w3.org/
WG Working Group
AD Area Director
BCP Best Current Practice
BOF Birds Of a Feather
FAQ Frequently Asked Question(s)
FYI For Your Information (RFC)
IAB Internet Architecture Board
IANA Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
ICANN Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers,
http://www.icann.org/
I-D Internet Draft
IESG Internet Engineering Steering Group,
http://www.ietf.org/iesg.html
IETF Internet Engineering Task Force, http://www.ietf.org/
INET Internet Society Conference,
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/inet/
IRTF Internet Research Task Force, http://www.irtf.org/
ISO International Organization for Standardization,
http://www.iso.ch/
ISO-IEC/JTC1
Joint Technical Committee of the International
Organization for Standardization and International
Electrotechnical Commission, http://www.jtc1.org/
ISOC Internet Society, http://www.isoc.org
ITU International Telecommunication Union, http://www.itu.int
RFC Request For Comments
STD Standard (RFC)
W3C World Wide Web Consortium, http://www.w3.org/
WG Working Group
BCP 9 "The Internet Standards Process" BCP 10 "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees" BCP 11 "The Organizations Involved in the IETF Standards Process" BCP 14 "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels" BCP 22 "Guide for Internet Standards Writers" BCP 25 "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures" BCP 26 "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" RFC 1123 "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application and Support" RFC 1796 "Not All RFCs are Standards" RFC 2223 "Instructions to RFC Authors"
BCP 9“互联网标准流程”BCP 10“IAB和IESG选择、确认和召回流程：提名和召回委员会的运作“BCP 11”参与IETF标准流程的组织“BCP 14”RFC中用于指示需求水平的关键词“BCP 22”互联网标准编写者指南“BCP 25”“IETF工作组指南和程序”BCP 26“编写互联网主机RFC“RFC 1123”要求中IANA注意事项部分的指南——应用和支持“RFC 1796”并非所有RFC都是标准“RFC 2223”RFC作者说明
"Considerations for Internet Drafts,"
http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html
"Considerations for Internet Drafts,"
http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html
"Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts,"
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
"Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts,"
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
Security Considerations
安全考虑
Section 6.4.5 explains why each RFC is required to have a Security Considerations section, and gives some idea of what it should and should not contain. Other than that information, this document does not touch on Internet security.
第6.4.5节解释了为什么要求每个RFC都有一个安全注意事项部分，并给出了它应该和不应该包含的内容的一些想法。除此之外，本文件不涉及互联网安全。
Editor's Address
编辑地址
Susan Harris Merit Network, Inc. 4251 Plymouth Road, Suite 2000 Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Susan Harris Merit Network，Inc.美国密歇根州安娜堡普利茅斯路4251号2000室，邮编：48105
EMail: srh@merit.edu
EMail: srh@merit.edu
Full Copyright Statement
完整版权声明
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2001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。