Network Working Group E. Lear
Request for Comments: 4450 Cisco Systems GmbH
Category: Informational H. Alvestrand
Cisco Systems
March 2006
Network Working Group E. Lear
Request for Comments: 4450 Cisco Systems GmbH
Category: Informational H. Alvestrand
Cisco Systems
March 2006
Getting Rid of the Cruft: Report from an Experiment in Identifying and Reclassifying Obsolete Standards Documents
摆脱积垢：识别和重新分类过时标准文档的实验报告
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
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 (2006).
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2006年）。
Abstract
摘要
This memo documents an experiment to review and classify Proposed Standards as not reflecting documented practice within the world today. The results identify a set of documents that were marked as Proposed Standards that are now reclassified as Historic.
本备忘录记录了一项实验，该实验旨在审查并将提议的标准归类为不反映当今世界记录的实践。结果确定了一组被标记为拟议标准的文件，这些文件现在被重新分类为历史文件。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction and History ........................................1
2. Bulk Decommissioning Procedure ..................................2
3. Input, Mailing list, Output, and Observations ...................2
4. Discussion ......................................................4
5. Next Steps ......................................................5
6. IANA Considerations .............................................6
7. Security Considerations .........................................6
8. Acknowledgements ................................................6
9. Normative References ............................................6
1. Introduction and History ........................................1
2. Bulk Decommissioning Procedure ..................................2
3. Input, Mailing list, Output, and Observations ...................2
4. Discussion ......................................................4
5. Next Steps ......................................................5
6. IANA Considerations .............................................6
7. Security Considerations .........................................6
8. Acknowledgements ................................................6
9. Normative References ............................................6
RFC 2026, and RFC 1602 before it, specified timelines for review of immature (draft or proposed) standards. The purpose of such review was to determine whether such documents should be advanced, retired, or developed further [1].
RFC 2026及其之前的RFC 1602规定了审查不成熟（草案或建议）标准的时间表。此类审查的目的是确定此类文件是否应提前、退役或进一步开发[1]。
This procedure has never been followed in the history of the IETF. Since this procedure has not been followed, members of the community have suggested that the retiring of a document to Historic is a significant event, which should be justified carefully -- leading to the production of documents such as RFC 2556 (OSI Connectionless Transport Services on top of UDP Applicability Statement for Historic Status) and RFC 3166 (Request to Move RFC 1403 to Historic Status).
IETF历史上从未遵循过该程序。由于未遵循此程序，社区成员建议将文档退役为历史事件，这是一个重大事件，应仔细证明其合理性——导致生成RFC 2556（历史状态UDP适用性声明之上的OSI无连接传输服务）等文档和RFC 3166（请求将RFC 1403移动到历史状态）。
Such documents require significant time and effort on the part of authors, area directors, and the RFC Editor.
这些文件需要作者、区域主管和RFC编辑花费大量时间和精力。
From the Fall of 2004 through the Spring of 2005, the authors conducted an experiment to determine how many Proposed Standards could be considered obsolete. The experiment was operated as follows:
从2004年秋天到2005年春天，作者们进行了一项实验，以确定有多少提议的标准可能被认为是过时的。实验操作如下：
o Identify a group of documents that are standards. o Assume by default that each document will be retired. o Create a mailing list for discussion with a policy of open access. o Allow any document to be removed from the list of those to be retired for virtually any reason, so long as a reason is provided. o Present the list to the working group, IETF, and IESG for review. o Revise list based on comments. o Write up results.
o 确定一组属于标准的文档。o默认情况下，假定每个文档都将失效。o创建一个邮件列表，以便使用开放访问策略进行讨论。o允许出于任何原因将任何文件从退休人员名单中删除，只要提供原因。o将清单提交工作组、IETF和IESG审查。o根据评论修改列表。o写下结果。
The initial intent of the authors was to present a list of documents to be reclassified as Historic. The NEWTRK working group supported this view. The IESG, and the IETF as a community, makes the final decision. We will discuss this further below.
作者最初的意图是提出一份将被重新归类为历史文件的文件清单。NEWTRK工作组支持这一观点。IESG和IETF作为一个社区，做出最终决定。我们将在下面进一步讨论这个问题。
We started with our initial document set being all RFCs with numbers less than 2000 and a status of Proposed Standard. The input we used, starting November 25, 2004, can be found in Appendix A. There were some 125 documents in all.
我们开始时，我们的初始文档集是所有RFC，编号小于2000，状态为建议标准。从2004年11月25日开始，我们使用的输入可以在附录A中找到。总共有125份文件。
A mailing list, old-standards@alvestrand.no, was created to discuss and remove candidates from this list. A call for participation was issued to the IETF-Announce list on or around the November 15, 2004. There were 29 members of the mailing list. Approximately 244 messages were sent to the list. People were encouraged to consider the question of whether or not an implementer would either write a new implementation or maintain an existing one.
邮寄名单，旧的-standards@alvestrand.no，用于讨论此列表中的候选人并将其从列表中删除。2004年11月15日左右，向IETF公布名单发出了参与呼吁。邮寄名单上有29名成员。向名单发送了大约244条信息。鼓励人们考虑一个实施者是否会编写一个新的实现或维护一个现有的问题。
After some months the list of documents to be considered was reduced considerably. This list was then forwarded to the IETF discussion list on December 16, 2004, and to the NEWTRK working group list for wider review.
几个月后，要审议的文件清单大大减少。该清单随后于2004年12月16日提交给IETF讨论清单，并提交给NEWTRK工作组清单进行更广泛的审查。
During review, RFCs 1518 and 1519 were removed, based on the fact that work is ongoing to revise them. Similarly, RFCs 1381, 1382, 1471, 1472, 1473, 1582, 1598, and 1755 were removed based on the belief that they were actively in use. RFC 1584 was removed based on an expected future dependency.
在审查期间，根据正在进行的修订工作，删除了RFC 1518和1519。类似地，由于认为RFC 1381、1382、1471、1472、1473、1582、1598和1755正在积极使用，因此删除了RFC 1381、1382、1471、1472、1473、1582、1598和1755。基于预期的未来依赖关系，已删除RFC 1584。
Here are the results:
结果如下：
RFC 1234 (Tunneling IPX Traffic through IP Networks) RFC 1239 (Reassignment of Experimental MIBs to Standard MIBs) RFC 1276 (Replication and Distributed Operations Extensions to provide an Internet Directory Using X.500) RFC 1285 (FDDI Management Information Base) RFC 1314 (A File Format for the Exchange of Images in the Internet) RFC 1328 (X.400 1988 to 1984 Downgrading) RFC 1370 (Applicability Statement for OSPF) RFC 1378 (The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)) RFC 1397 (Default Route Advertisement in BGP2 and BGP3 Version of the Border Gateway Protocol) RFC 1414 (Identification MIB) RFC 1415 (FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification) RFC 1418 (SNMP over OSI) RFC 1419 (SNMP over AppleTalk) RFC 1421 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part I: Message Encryption and Authentication Procedures) RFC 1422 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part II: Certificate-Based Key Management) RFC 1423 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part III: Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers) RFC 1424 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part IV: Key Certification and Related Services) RFC 1461 (SNMP MIB Extension for Multiprotocol Interconnect over X.25) RFC 1469 (IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks) RFC 1474 (The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Bridge Network Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol) RFC 1478 (An Architecture for Inter-Domain Policy Routing) RFC 1479 (Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Specification: Version 1) RFC 1494 (Equivalences between 1988 X.400 and RFC-822 Message Bodies) RFC 1496 (Rules for Downgrading Messages from X.400/88 to X.400/84) when MIME Content-types Are Present in the Messages
RFC 1234（通过IP网络传输IPX流量）RFC 1239（将实验MIB重新分配到标准MIB）RFC 1276（使用X.500提供Internet目录的复制和分布式操作扩展）RFC 1285（FDDI管理信息库）RFC 1314（用于Internet中图像交换的文件格式）RFC 1328（X.400 1988年至1984年降级）RFC 1370（OSPF适用性声明）RFC 1378（PPP AppleTalk控制协议（ATCP））RFC 1397（边界网关协议的BGP2和BGP3版本中的默认路由公告）RFC 1414（标识MIB）RFC 1415（FTP-FTAM网关规范）RFC 1418（SNMP over OSI）RFC 1419（SNMP over AppleTalk）RFC 1421（Internet电子邮件的隐私增强：第一部分：消息加密和身份验证过程）RFC 1422（Internet电子邮件的隐私增强：第二部分：基于证书的密钥管理）RFC 1423（Internet电子邮件的隐私增强：第三部分：算法、模式和标识符）RFC 1424（Internet电子邮件的隐私增强：第四部分：密钥认证和相关服务）RFC 1461（X.25上多协议互连的SNMP MIB扩展）RFC 1469（令牌环局域网上的IP多播）RFC 1474（点到点协议的网桥网络控制协议的受管对象定义）RFC 1478（域间策略路由的体系结构）RFC 1479（域间策略路由协议规范：版本1）RFC 1494（1988 X.400和RFC-822消息体之间的等价物）RFC 1496（将消息从X.400/88降级到X.400/84的规则）当消息中存在MIME内容类型时
RFC 1502 (X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets) RFC 1512 (FDDI Management Information Base) RFC 1513 (Token Ring Extensions to the Remote Network Monitoring MIB) RFC 1525 (Definitions of Managed Objects for Source Routing Bridges) RFC 1552 (The PPP Internetworking Packet Exchange Control Protocol (IPXCP)) RFC 1553 (Compressing IPX Headers over WAN Media (CIPX)) RFC 1648 (Postmaster Convention for X.400 Operations) RFC 1666 (Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA NAUs using SMIv2) RFC 1692 (Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux)) RFC 1696 (Modem Management Information Base (MIB) Using SMIv2) RFC 1742 (AppleTalk Management Information Base II) RFC 1747 (Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA Data Link Control (SDLC) Using SMIv2) RFC 1749 (IEEE 802.5 Station Source Routing MIB using SMIv2) RFC 1763 (The PPP Banyan Vines Control Protocol (BVCP)) RFC 1764 (The PPP XNS IDP Control Protocol (XNSCP)) RFC 1828 (IP Authentication using Keyed MD5) RFC 1835 (Architecture of the WHOIS++ Service) RFC 1848 (MIME Object Security Services) RFC 1913 (Architecture of the Whois++ Index Service) RFC 1914 (How to Interact with a Whois++ Mesh)
RFC 1502（扩展字符集的X.400使用）RFC 1512（FDDI管理信息库）RFC 1513（远程网络监控MIB的令牌环扩展）RFC 1525（源路由桥的受管对象定义）RFC 1552（PPP网络间数据包交换控制协议（IPXCP））RFC 1553（通过WAN媒体（CIPX）压缩IPX报头）RFC 1648（X.400操作的邮局主管惯例）RFC 1666（使用SMIv2的SNA NAU的受管对象定义）RFC 1692（传输多路复用协议（TMux））RFC 1696（使用SMIv2的调制解调器管理信息库（MIB）RFC 1742（AppleTalk管理信息库II）RFC 1747（使用SMIv2的SNA数据链路控制（SDLC）受管对象定义）RFC 1749（使用SMIv2的IEEE 802.5站源路由MIB）RFC 1763（PPP榕树控制协议（BVCP））RFC 1764（PPP XNS IDP控制协议（XNSCP））RFC 1828（使用密钥MD5的IP身份验证）RFC 1835（WHOIS++服务的体系结构）RFC 1848（MIME对象安全服务）RFC1913（Whois++索引服务的体系结构）RFC1914（如何与Whois++网格交互）
One additional document, RFC 1829, the ESP DES-CBC transform, was suggested for Historic status, but in this case, the group consensus is that the community would benefit from a separate document describing the security implications of using this algorithm.
One additional document, RFC 1829, the ESP DES-CBC transform, was suggested for Historic status, but in this case, the group consensus is that the community would benefit from a separate document describing the security implications of using this algorithm.translate error, please retry
As one peruses this list one sees several classes of documents:
阅读此列表时，可以看到几类文件：
o Multiprotocol functions for protocols that are obsolete, such as Appletalk or X.400. o Protocols that were defined but not used, such as PEM or Whois++
o 用于过时协议的多协议函数，如Appletalk或X.400。o已定义但未使用的协议，如PEM或Whois++
In either case above, a judgment is necessary as to whether or not a protocol is both in use and likely to be supported. The parameters of our experiment were sufficiently conservative to avoid cases where protocols were likely to continue to be supported. That is, anyone could remove a document from the list for any reason. In fact, in some cases we may have been too conservative. Thus, it is also worth considering the categories of documents that were removed from the list:
在上述任何一种情况下，都有必要判断协议是否正在使用，是否可能得到支持。我们的实验参数足够保守，以避免协议可能继续得到支持的情况。也就是说，任何人都可以出于任何原因从列表中删除文档。事实上，在某些情况下，我们可能过于保守。因此，还值得考虑从清单中删除的文件类别：
o specifications known to be in full use that should be considered for advancement o specifications that are currently under review within the IETF process o Specifications that were previously considered for deprecation and rejected.
o 已知已充分使用的规范，应考虑用于IETF过程中目前正在审查的规范，这些规范先前被认为是弃用和拒绝的规范。
The last category is exclusive to telnet options, which were reviewed in the late 1990s. Arguably, such options should be reconsidered for deprecation. Realistically, nobody is going to develop a new version of telnet that supports the TACACS option, for instance. Nevertheless, as a first cut we were still left with 61 documents that could be reclassified.
最后一类仅限于telnet选项，该选项在20世纪90年代末进行了审查。可以说，这种选择应该重新考虑，以便予以反对。事实上，例如，没有人会开发支持TACACS选项的telnet新版本。然而，作为第一次削减，我们仍然有61份文件可以重新分类。
In at least one case, discussion of deprecation has spurred work on documents. For instance, there is a Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) update in progress.
至少在一个案例中，关于弃用的讨论刺激了文档的工作。例如，正在进行无类域间路由（CIDR）更新。
As we mention in the introduction, the current process requires reconsideration of immature standards, and this review currently does not occur. This experiment has been an attempt at a procedure that could ease that review. The final step was working group consideration of what to do next. There were four options:
正如我们在导言中提到的，目前的过程需要重新考虑不成熟的标准，而这一审查目前没有进行。这项实验是一次尝试，尝试一种可以简化审查的程序。最后一步是工作组考虑下一步要做什么。有四种选择：
1. Accept the results of this experiment, issue a last call, and deprecate standards that remain on the list past last call. This is an aggressive approach that would preserve the intent of RFC 2026. 2. Do not accept the results of this experiment and update RFC 2026 to indicate a new practice. 3. Revise the procedure based on the results of this experiment, based on feedback from the IESG. This option might take into account the different types of old standards as described above. 4. Do nothing. This would leave the IETF and the IESG practice inconsistent with documented practice.
1. 接受此实验的结果，发出最后一次调用，并反对列表中保留的标准（超过最后一次调用）。这是一种积极的方法，将保持RFC 2026的意图。2.不要接受该实验的结果，并更新RFC 2026以指示新的实践。3.根据IESG的反馈，根据本实验结果修改程序。此选项可能会考虑上述不同类型的旧标准。4.什么也不做。这将使IETF和IESG实践与文件化实践不一致。
The working group chose the first option. The RFC Editor is requested to mark the above listed standards as Historic.
工作组选择了第一种选择。要求RFC编辑器将上述标准标记为历史标准。
It should be pointed out that we only looked at proposed standards and only those RFCs with numbers less than 2000. Should either the first or third of the above options be accepted, draft standards and those older than several years should be considered.
应该指出的是，我们只研究了提议的标准和数量少于2000的RFC。如果接受上述第一个或第三个选项，则应考虑标准草案和超过几年的标准草案。
Finally, should NEWTRK deliver a new document classification system, these documents may provide a basis for one or more new categories of that.
最后，如果NEWTRK提供了一个新的文档分类系统，这些文档可能会为该系统的一个或多个新类别提供基础。
The IANA databases contain references to many of these documents. The documents are still the normative definitions for these values, and the IANA databases do not contain information about the status of the RFCs referred to.
IANA数据库包含对许多此类文档的引用。这些文件仍然是这些值的规范性定义，IANA数据库不包含有关所述RFC状态的信息。
Therefore, the IANA should not need to do anything based on this document.
因此，IANA不需要根据本文件做任何事情。
Documents that have security problems may require special attention and individual documents to indicate what concerns exist, and when or in what ways an implementation can be deployed to alleviate concerns.
存在安全问题的文档可能需要特别注意，并需要单独的文档来说明存在哪些问题，以及何时或以何种方式部署实现以缓解这些问题。
This experiment would have been completely useless without participation of the members of the old-standards mailing list. Most notably, Pekka Savalo, Bob Braden, and John Klensin were very active contributors to the discussions.
如果没有旧标准邮件列表成员的参与，这个实验将是完全无用的。最值得注意的是，佩卡·萨瓦洛、鲍勃·布拉登和约翰·克伦星对讨论做出了非常积极的贡献。
[1] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[1] Bradner，S.，“互联网标准过程——第3版”，BCP 9，RFC 2026，1996年10月。
RFC 0698 (Telnet Extended ASCII Option) RFC 0726 (Remote Controlled Transmission and Echoing Telnet Option) RFC 0727 (Telnet Logout Option) RFC 0735 (Revised Telnet Byte Macro Option) RFC 0736 (Telnet SUPDUP Option) RFC 0749 (Telnet SUPDUP-Output Option) RFC 0779 (Telnet send-location Option) RFC 0885 (Telnet End of Record Option) RFC 0927 (TACACS User Identification Telnet Option) RFC 0933 (Output Marking Telnet Option) RFC 0946 (Telnet Terminal Location Number Option) RFC 0977 (Network News Transfer Protocol) RFC 1041 (Telnet 3270 Regime Option) RFC 1043 (Telnet Data Entry Terminal Option: DODIIS Implementation) RFC 1053 (Telnet X.3 PAD Option) RFC 1073 (Telnet Window sSize Option) RFC 1079 (Telnet Terminal Speed Option) RFC 1091 (Telnet Terminal-type Option) RFC 1096 (Telnet X Display Location Option) RFC 1144 (Compressing TCP/IP Headers for Low-speed Serial Links) RFC 1195 (Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual) RFC 1234 (Tunneling IPX Traffic through IP Networks) RFC 1239 (Reassignment of Experimental MIBs to Standard MIBs) RFC 1256 (ICMP Router Discovery Messages) RFC 1269 (Definitions of Managed Objects for the Border Gateway Protocol: Version 3) RFC 1274 (The COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema) RFC 1276 (Replication and Distributed Operations Extensions to Provide an Internet Directory Using X.500) RFC 1277 (Encoding Network Addresses to Support Operation over Non-OSI Lower Layers) RFC 1285 (FDDI Management Information Base) RFC 1314 (A File Format for the Exchange of Images in the Internet) RFC 1323 (TCP Extensions for High Performance) RFC 1328 (X.400 1988 to 1984 Downgrading) RFC 1332 (The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol (IPCP)) RFC 1370 (Applicability Statement for OSPF) RFC 1372 (Telnet Remote Flow Control Option) RFC 1377 (The PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol (OSINLCP)) RFC 1378 (The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)) RFC 1381 (SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 LAPB) RFC 1382 (SNMP MIB Extension for the X.25 Packet Layer) RFC 1397 (Default Route Advertisement in BGP2 and BGP3 Version of the Border Gateway Protocol) RFC 1413 (Identification Protocol) RFC 1414 (Identification MIB)
RFC 0698（Telnet扩展ASCII选项）RFC 0726（远程控制传输和回显Telnet选项）RFC 0727（Telnet注销选项）RFC 0735（修订的Telnet字节宏选项）RFC 0736（Telnet SUPDUP选项）RFC 0749（Telnet SUPDUP输出选项）RFC 0779（Telnet发送位置选项）RFC 0885（Telnet记录结束选项）RFC 0927（TACACS用户标识Telnet选项）RFC 0933（输出标记Telnet选项）RFC 0946（Telnet终端位置号选项）RFC 0977（网络新闻传输协议）RFC 1041（Telnet 3270体制选项）RFC 1043（Telnet数据输入终端选项：DODIIS实现）RFC 1053（Telnet X.3 PAD选项）RFC 1073（Telnet窗口sSize选项）RFC 1079（Telnet终端速度选项）RFC 1091（Telnet终端类型选项）RFC 1096（Telnet X显示位置选项）RFC 1144（压缩低速串行链路的TCP/IP头）RFC 1195（使用OSI IS-IS在TCP/IP和双通道中路由）RFC 1234（通过IP网络的隧道IPX流量）RFC 1239（将实验MIB重新分配到标准MIB）RFC 1256（ICMP路由器发现消息）RFC 1269（边界网关协议的托管对象定义：版本3）RFC 1274（余弦和Internet X.500模式）RFC 1276（使用X.500提供Internet目录的复制和分布式操作扩展）RFC 1277（对网络地址进行编码以支持在非OSI较低层上的操作）RFC 1285（FDDI管理信息库）RFC 1314（用于在互联网上交换图像的文件格式）RFC 1323（用于高性能的TCP扩展）RFC 1328（X.400 1988至1984降级）RFC 1332（PPP互联网协议控制协议（IPCP））RFC 1370（OSPF适用性声明）RFC 1372（Telnet远程流量控制选项）RFC 1377（PPP OSI网络层控制协议（OSINLCP））RFC 1378（PPP AppleTalk控制协议（ATCP））RFC 1381（X.25 LAPB的SNMP MIB扩展）RFC 1382（X.25数据包层的SNMP MIB扩展）RFC 1397（边界网关协议的BGP2和BGP3版本中的默认路由公告）RFC 1413（标识协议）RFC 1414（标识MIB）
RFC 1415 (FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification) RFC 1418 (SNMP over OSI) RFC 1419 (SNMP over AppleTalk) RFC 1420 (SNMP over IPX) RFC 1421 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part I: Message Encryption and Authentication Procedures) RFC 1422 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part II: Certificate-Based Key Management) RFC 1423 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part III: Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers) RFC 1424 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part IV: Key Certification and Related Services) RFC 1461 (SNMP MIB extension for Multiprotocol Interconnect over X.25) RFC 1469 (IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks) RFC 1471 (The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Link Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol) RFC 1472 (The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Security Protocols of the Point-to-Point Protocol) RFC 1473 (The Definitions of Managed Objects for the IP Network Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol) RFC 1474 (The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Bridge Network Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol) RFC 1478 (An Architecture for Inter-Domain Policy Routing) RFC 1479 (Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Specification: Version 1) RFC 1494 (Equivalences between 1988 X.400 and RFC-822 Message Bodies) RFC 1496 (Rules for Downgrading Messages from X.400/88 to X.400/84) RFC 1502 (X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets) RFC 1510 (The Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)) RFC 1512 (FDDI Management Information Base) RFC 1513 (Token Ring Extensions to the Remote Network Monitoring MIB) RFC 1517 (Applicability Statement for the Implementation of Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR)) RFC 1518 (An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR) RFC 1519 (Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address Assignment and Aggregation Strategy) RFC 1525 (Definitions of Managed Objects for Source Routing Bridges) RFC 1552 (The PPP Internetworking Packet Exchange Control Protocol) RFC 1553 (Compressing IPX Headers over WAN Media (CIPX)) RFC 1570 (PPP LCP Extensions) RFC 1572 (Telnet Environment Option) RFC 1582 (Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits) RFC 1584 (Multicast Extensions to OSPF) RFC 1598 (PPP in X.25)
RFC 1415（FTP-FTAM网关规范）RFC 1418（SNMP over OSI）RFC 1419（SNMP over AppleTalk）RFC 1420（SNMP over IPX）RFC 1421（Internet电子邮件的隐私增强：第一部分：消息加密和身份验证过程）RFC 1422（Internet电子邮件的隐私增强：第二部分：基于证书的密钥管理）RFC 1423（Internet电子邮件的隐私增强：第三部分：算法、模式和标识符）RFC 1424（Internet电子邮件的隐私增强：第四部分：密钥认证和相关服务）RFC 1461（用于X.25上多协议互连的SNMP MIB扩展）RFC 1469（令牌环局域网上的IP多播）RFC 1471（点到点协议的链路控制协议的托管对象定义）RFC 1472（点到点协议的安全协议的托管对象定义）RFC 1473（点到点协议的IP网络控制协议的托管对象定义）RFC 1474（点到点协议的网桥网络控制协议的受管对象定义）RFC 1478（域间策略路由的体系结构）RFC 1479（域间策略路由协议规范：版本1）RFC 1494（1988 X.400和RFC-822消息体之间的等价物）RFC 1496（将消息从X.400/88降级到X.400/84的规则）RFC 1502（X.400使用扩展字符集）RFC 1510（Kerberos网络身份验证服务（V5））RFC 1512（FDDI管理信息库）RFC 1513（远程网络监控MIB的令牌环扩展）RFC 1517（实现无类域间路由（CIDR）的适用性声明）RFC 1518（使用CIDR分配IP地址的体系结构）RFC 1519（无类域间路由（CIDR）：地址分配和聚合策略）RFC 1525（源路由桥的托管对象定义）RFC 1552（PPP网络间分组交换控制协议）RFC 1553（通过广域网媒体压缩IPX报头（CIPX））RFC 1570（PPP LCP扩展）RFC 1572（Telnet环境选项）RFC 1582（RIP扩展以支持需求电路）RFC 1584（OSPF多播扩展）RFC 1598（X.25中的PPP）
RFC 1618 (PPP over ISDN) RFC 1628 (UPS Management Information Base) RFC 1648 (Postmaster Convention for X.400 Operations) RFC 1663 (PPP Reliable Transmission) RFC 1666 (Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA NAUs Using SMIv2) RFC 1692 (Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux)) RFC 1696 (Modem Management Information Base (MIB) Using SMIv2) RFC 1697 (Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) Management) RFC 1731 (IMAP4 Authentication Mechanisms) RFC 1734 (POP3 AUTHentication command) RFC 1738 (Uniform Resource Locators (URL)) RFC 1740 (MIME Encapsulation of Macintosh Files - MacMIME) RFC 1742 (AppleTalk Management Information Base II) RFC 1747 (Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA Data Link Control) RFC 1749 (IEEE 802.5 Station Source Routing MIB Using SMIv2) RFC 1752 (The Recommendation for the IP Next Generation Protocol) RFC 1755 (ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM) RFC 1763 (The PPP Banyan Vines Control Protocol (BVCP)) RFC 1764 (The PPP XNS IDP Control Protocol (XNSCP)) RFC 1767 (MIME Encapsulation of EDI Objects) RFC 1793 (Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits) RFC 1808 (Relative Uniform Resource Locators) RFC 1812 (Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers) RFC 1828 (IP Authentication using Keyed MD5) RFC 1829 (The ESP DES-CBC Transform) RFC 1831 (RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version 2) RFC 1833 (Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2) RFC 1835 (Architecture of the WHOIS++ Service) RFC 1847 (Security Multiparts for MIME: Multipart/Signed and Multipart/Encrypted) RFC 1848 (MIME Object Security Services) RFC 1913 (Architecture of the Whois++ Index Service) RFC 1914 (How to Interact with a Whois++ Mesh) RFC 1928 (SOCKS Protocol Version 5) RFC 1929 (Username/Password Authentication for SOCKS V5) RFC 1961 (GSS-API Authentication Method for SOCKS Version 5) RFC 1962 (The PPP Compression Control Protocol (CCP)) RFC 1964 (The Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API Mechanism) RFC 1968 (The PPP Encryption Control Protocol (ECP)) RFC 1973 (PPP in Frame Relay) RFC 1982 (Serial Number Arithmetic) RFC 1985 (SMTP Service Extension for Remote Message Queue Starting) RFC 1995 (Incremental Zone Transfer in DNS) RFC 1996 (A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone Changes (DNS NOTIFY)) RFC 1997 (BGP Communities Attribute)
RFC 1618（ISDN上的PPP）RFC 1628（UPS管理信息库）RFC 1648（X.400操作的邮政主管惯例）RFC 1663（PPP可靠传输）RFC 1666（使用SMIv2的SNA NAU的受管对象定义）RFC 1692（传输多路复用协议（TMux））RFC 1696（使用SMIv2的调制解调器管理信息库（MIB）RFC 1697（关系数据库管理系统（RDBMS）管理）RFC 1731（IMAP4身份验证机制）RFC 1734（POP3身份验证命令）RFC 1738（统一资源定位器（URL））RFC 1740（Macintosh文件的MIME封装-MacMIME）RFC 1742（AppleTalk管理信息库II）RFC 1747（SNA数据链路控制的受管对象定义）RFC 1749（使用SMIv2的IEEE 802.5站源路由MIB）RFC 1752（IP下一代协议的建议）RFC 1755（ATM上IP的ATM信令支持）RFC 1763（PPP Banyan Vines控制协议（BVCP））RFC 1764（PPP XNS IDP控制协议（XNSCP））RFC 1767（EDI对象的MIME封装）RFC 1793（扩展OSPF以支持需求电路）RFC 1808（相对统一资源定位器）RFC 1812（IP版本4路由器的要求）RFC 1828（使用密钥MD5的IP认证）RFC 1829（ESP DES-CBC转换）RFC 1831（RPC：远程过程调用协议规范版本2）RFC 1833（ONC RPC版本2的绑定协议）RFC 1835（WHOIS++服务的体系结构）RFC 1847（MIME的安全多部分：多部分/签名和多部分/加密）RFC 1848（MIME对象安全服务）RFC 1913（WHOIS++索引服务的体系结构）RFC 1914（如何与WHOIS++网格交互）RFC 1928（SOCKS协议版本5）RFC 1929（SOCKS V5的用户名/密码认证）RFC 1961（SOCKS版本5的GSS-API认证方法）RFC 1962（PPP压缩控制协议（CCP））RFC 1964（Kerberos版本5的GSS-API机制）RFC 1968（PPP加密控制协议（ECP））RFC 1973（PPP帧内中继）RFC 1982（序列号算术）RFC1985（远程消息队列启动的SMTP服务扩展）RFC1995（DNS中的增量区域传输）RFC1996（区域更改提示通知（DNS通知）机制）RFC1997（BGP社区属性）
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Eliot Lear Cisco Systems GmbH Glatt-com Glattzentrum, ZH CH-8301 Switzerland
Eliot Lear Cisco系统有限公司瑞士中弘格拉茨岑特鲁姆Glatt com CH-8301
Phone: +41 1 878 7525
EMail: lear@cisco.com
Phone: +41 1 878 7525
EMail: lear@cisco.com
Harald Tveit Alvestrand Cisco Systems Weidemanns vei 27 7043 Trondheim Norway
Harald Tveit Alvestrand Cisco Systems Weidemans vei 27 7043挪威特隆赫姆
EMail: harald@alvestrand.no
EMail: harald@alvestrand.no
Full Copyright Statement
完整版权声明
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2006年）。
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
本文件受BCP 78中包含的权利、许可和限制的约束，除其中规定外，作者保留其所有权利。
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
本文件及其包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，贡献者、他/她所代表或赞助的组织（如有）、互联网协会和互联网工程任务组不承担任何明示或暗示的担保，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。
Intellectual Property
知识产权
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
IETF对可能声称与本文件所述技术的实施或使用有关的任何知识产权或其他权利的有效性或范围，或此类权利下的任何许可可能或可能不可用的程度，不采取任何立场；它也不表示它已作出任何独立努力来确定任何此类权利。有关RFC文件中权利的程序信息，请参见BCP 78和BCP 79。
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
向IETF秘书处披露的知识产权副本和任何许可证保证，或本规范实施者或用户试图获得使用此类专有权利的一般许可证或许可的结果，可从IETF在线知识产权存储库获取，网址为http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
IETF邀请任何相关方提请其注意任何版权、专利或专利申请，或其他可能涵盖实施本标准所需技术的专有权利。请将信息发送至IETF的IETF-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
确认
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
RFC编辑器功能的资金由IETF行政支持活动（IASA）提供。