Network Working Group B. Fenner
Request for Comments: 4794 AT&T Labs - Research
Obsoletes: 1264 December 2006
Category: Informational
Network Working Group B. Fenner
Request for Comments: 4794 AT&T Labs - Research
Obsoletes: 1264 December 2006
Category: Informational
RFC 1264 Is Obsolete
RFC 1264已过时
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 IETF Trust (2006).
版权所有（C）IETF信托基金（2006年）。
Abstract
摘要
RFC 1264 was written during what was effectively a completely different time in the life of the Internet. It prescribed rules to protect the Internet against new routing protocols that may have various undesirable properties. In today's Internet, there are so many other pressures against deploying unreasonable protocols that we believe that existing controls suffice, and the RFC 1264 rules just get in the way.
RFC 1264是在互联网生活中一个完全不同的时期写成的。它规定了保护互联网免受可能具有各种不良特性的新路由协议影响的规则。在今天的互联网上，有太多的其他压力反对部署不合理的协议，我们认为现有的控制已经足够了，而RFC1264规则正好成为阻碍。
RFC 1264 [RFC1264] describes various rules to be applied when publishing routing protocols on the IETF Standards Track, including requirements for implementation, MIBs, security, etc. These rules were written in an attempt to protect the Internet from incomplete or unscalable new protocols.
RFC 1264[RFC1264]描述了在IETF标准轨道上发布路由协议时要应用的各种规则，包括实施、MIB、安全等要求。编写这些规则是为了保护互联网免受不完整或不可扩展的新协议的影响。
Today, one of the big problems the IETF faces is timeliness. Applying additional rules to a certain class of protocols hurts the IETF's ability to publish specifications in a timely manner.
今天，IETF面临的一个大问题是及时性。对某类协议应用附加规则会损害IETF及时发布规范的能力。
The current standards process [RFC2026] already permits the IESG to require additional implementation experience when it appears to be needed. We do not need any more rules than that. RFC 2026 says:
当前的标准流程[RFC2026]已经允许IESG在需要时需要额外的实施经验。我们不需要更多的规则。RFC 2026规定：
Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed Standard. However, such experience is highly desirable, and will usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard designation.
通常，将规范指定为拟定标准既不需要实施也不需要操作经验。然而，这样的经验是非常可取的，并且通常会代表一个支持提议的标准指定的有力论据。
The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies behavior that may have significant operational impact on the Internet.
IESG在授予对核心互联网协议有重大影响的规范或规定可能对互联网有重大运营影响的行为的规范拟议标准状态之前，可能需要实施和/或运营经验。
Therefore, this document reclassifies RFC 1264 as historic. While that does not prohibit the Routing Area Directors from requiring implementation and/or operational experience under the RFC 2026 rules, it removes the broad, general requirement from all routing documents.
因此，本文件将RFC 1264重新分类为历史记录。虽然这并不禁止路由区域主管根据RFC 2026规则要求实施和/或运营经验，但它从所有路由文件中删除了广泛的一般要求。
Some working groups within the Routing Area have developed procedures, based on RFC 1264, to require implementations before forwarding a document to the IESG. This action does not prevent those working groups from continuing with these procedures if the working group prefers to work this way. We encourage working groups to put measures in place to improve the quality of their output.
路由区域内的一些工作组已根据RFC 1264制定了程序，要求在将文件转发给IESG之前实施。如果工作组愿意以这种方式工作，这一行动并不妨碍这些工作组继续执行这些程序。我们鼓励各工作组采取措施，提高产出质量。
RFC 1264 required a MIB module to be in development for a protocol; this is still encouraged in a broad sense. This is not meant to be limiting, however; protocol management and manageability should be
RFC 1264要求正在为协议开发MIB模块；这在广义上仍然受到鼓励。然而，这并不意味着限制；协议管理和可管理性应
considered in the context of current IETF management protocols. In addition, [RTG-REQS] contains a description of a "Manageability Requirements" section; this is not currently a requirement but should be considered.
在当前IETF管理协议的背景下考虑。此外，[RTG-REQS]包含“可管理性要求”部分的说明；这目前不是一项要求，但应予以考虑。
While RFC 1264's rules placed additional constraints on the security-related contents of an RFC, current policies (e.g., the requirement for a Security Considerations section) suffice.
虽然RFC 1264的规则对RFC的安全相关内容施加了额外的限制，但当前的政策（例如，安全注意事项部分的要求）就足够了。
Alex Zinin and Bill Fenner spent a great deal of time trying to produce an updated version of the RFC 1264 rules that would apply to today's Internet. This work was eventually abandoned when it was realized (after much public discussion at Routing Area meetings, Internet Area meetings, and on the Routing Area mailing list) that there was just no way to write the rules in a way that advanced the goals of the IETF.
亚历克斯·齐宁（Alex Zinin）和比尔·芬纳（Bill Fenner）花了大量时间试图制定适用于当今互联网的RFC 1264规则的更新版本。当人们意识到（在路由区域会议、互联网区域会议和路由区域邮件列表上进行了大量公开讨论后）根本无法以推进IETF目标的方式编写规则时，这项工作最终被放弃。
[RFC1264] Hinden, R., "Internet Engineering Task Force Internet Routing Protocol Standardization Criteria", RFC 1264, October 1991.
[RFC1264]Hinden，R.，“互联网工程任务组互联网路由协议标准化标准”，RFC 1264，1991年10月。
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2026]Bradner，S.，“互联网标准过程——第3版”，BCP 9，RFC 2026，1996年10月。
[RTG-REQS] Farrel, A., Andersson, L., and A. Doria, "Requirements for Manageability Sections in Routing Area Drafts", Work in Progress, October 2005.
[RTG-REQS]Farrel，A.，Andersson，L.，和A.Doria，“路由区域草案中可管理性部分的要求”，正在进行的工作，2005年10月。
Author's Address
作者地址
Bill Fenner AT&T Labs - Research 1 River Oaks Place San Jose, CA 95134-1918 USA
比尔·芬纳AT&T实验室-美国加利福尼亚州圣何塞河橡树广场研究1号，邮编95134-1918
Phone: +1 408 493-8505
EMail: fenner@research.att.com
Phone: +1 408 493-8505
EMail: fenner@research.att.com
Full Copyright Statement
完整版权声明
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).
版权所有（C）IETF信托基金（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, THE IETF TRUST, 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以“原样”为基础提供，贡献者、他/她所代表或赞助的组织（如有）、互联网协会、IETF信托基金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 currently provided by the Internet Society.
RFC编辑功能的资金目前由互联网协会提供。