Network Working Group J. Klensin
Request for Comments: 4897
BCP: 97 S. Hartman
Updates: 3967 MIT
Category: Best Current Practice June 2007
Network Working Group J. Klensin
Request for Comments: 4897
BCP: 97 S. Hartman
Updates: 3967 MIT
Category: Best Current Practice June 2007
Handling Normative References to Standards-Track Documents
处理标准跟踪文件的规范性引用
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
本文件规定了互联网社区的最佳现行做法，并要求进行讨论和提出改进建议。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
版权所有（C）IETF信托基金（2007年）。
Abstract
摘要
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and Request for Comments (RFC) Editor have a long-standing rule that a document at a given maturity level cannot be published until all of the documents that it references as normative are at that maturity level or higher. This rule has sometimes resulted in very long publication delays for documents and some claims that it was a major obstruction to advancing documents in maturity level. The IETF agreed on a way to bypass this rule with RFC 3967. This document describes a simpler procedure for downward references to Standards-Track and Best Current Practice (BCP) documents, namely "note and move on". The procedure in RFC 3967 still applies for downward references to other classes of documents. In both cases, annotations should be added to such References.
互联网工程任务组（IETF）和征求意见（RFC）编辑器有一个长期的规则，即给定成熟度级别的文档在其引用为规范性文档的所有文档都达到该成熟度级别或更高之前不能发布。这一规则有时会导致文档的发布延迟很长时间，一些人声称这是在成熟度级别推进文档的主要障碍。IETF同意通过RFC 3967绕过该规则。本文件描述了向下引用标准跟踪和最佳现行做法（BCP）文件的更简单程序，即“注意并继续”。RFC 3967中的程序仍然适用于向下引用其他类别的文件。在这两种情况下，都应向此类引用添加注释。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Terminology .....................................................3
3. Normative Reference Rule ........................................3
3.1. Source Documents Not Yet Processed by the IESG .............3
3.2. Documents Already in the RFC Editor Queue ..................4
4. Target Documents Not on the Standards Track .....................4
5. Target Documents that Can Be Referenced This Way ................4
6. Security Considerations .........................................5
7. Acknowledgements ................................................5
8. Normative References ............................................5
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Terminology .....................................................3
3. Normative Reference Rule ........................................3
3.1. Source Documents Not Yet Processed by the IESG .............3
3.2. Documents Already in the RFC Editor Queue ..................4
4. Target Documents Not on the Standards Track .....................4
5. Target Documents that Can Be Referenced This Way ................4
6. Security Considerations .........................................5
7. Acknowledgements ................................................5
8. Normative References ............................................5
The IETF and RFC Editor have a long-standing rule (see, e.g., RFC 2026, Section 4.2.4 [RFC2026] and the extended discussion in RFC 3967 [RFC3967]) that a document at a given maturity level cannot be published until all of the documents to which it makes a normative reference are at that maturity level or higher. This rule has sometimes resulted in very long publication delays for documents and some claims that it was a major obstruction to advancing documents in maturity level. Recognizing the problems that this rule sometimes caused, RFC 3967 established an exception procedure for normative downward references under some specific circumstances. Perhaps because of its fairly stringent requirements, RFC 3967 has not proven adequate either to clear the backlog of documents awaiting upgraded documents or to prevent additional documents from joining that queue.
IETF和RFC编辑器有一个长期的规则（例如，参见RFC 2026第4.2.4节[RFC2026]和RFC 3967[RFC3967]中的扩展讨论），即在其作为规范性参考的所有文件都达到该成熟度或更高水平之前，不得发布给定成熟度级别的文件。这一规则有时会导致文档的发布延迟很长时间，一些人声称这是在成熟度级别推进文档的主要障碍。RFC 3967认识到这一规则有时会造成的问题，在某些特定情况下，为规范性向下引用建立了例外程序。也许是由于其相当严格的要求，RFC 3967已被证明不足以清除等待升级文档的积压文档或防止其他文档加入该队列。
This document replaces the long-standing rule for downward references to Standards-Track documents (including BCPs) that are already published. For normative references to Standards-Track and BCP documents, that rule was to hold the newer, referencing, document until the referenced ones could be brought to the appropriate maturity level. It is now possible, following procedures described below, to simply note the downward normative reference and move on.
本文档取代了长期以来对已发布的标准跟踪文档（包括BCP）进行向下引用的规则。对于标准跟踪和BCP文件的规范性引用，该规则是保留较新的引用文件，直到引用文件达到适当的成熟度。现在，按照下面描述的程序，可以简单地记下向下的规范性引用并继续。
This document also updates RFC 3967. When downward references from a source document are approved under the procedure specified in that specification, we recommend that the references in the approved (source) document be annotated in the same way as references approved under this rule.
本文件还更新了RFC 3967。当根据该规范规定的程序批准源文件中的向下引用时，我们建议以与根据本规则批准的引用相同的方式对已批准（源）文件中的引用进行注释。
A reference involves two documents, the one in which the reference is embedded and the document referenced. Where needed for clarity, these documents are referred to as the "source document" and "target document", respectively.
引用涉及两个文档，一个是嵌入引用的文档，另一个是引用的文档。为清晰起见，这些文件分别称为“源文件”和“目标文件”。
The term "Standards-Track document", as used in this specification, is assumed to include BCPs but not Informational or Experimental documents of any variety or origin.
本规范中使用的术语“标准跟踪文件”假定包括BCP，但不包括任何种类或来源的信息性或实验性文件。
This document specifies an alternative to holding source documents until all target documents referenced normatively are upgraded or by applying the procedure of RFC 3967.
本文件规定了保存源文件的替代方案，直到所有标准参考的目标文件升级或应用RFC 3967的程序。
An author or editor who requires a normative downward reference to a Standards-Track RFC uses the following very simple procedure:
要求标准轨道RFC向下引用的作者或编辑使用以下非常简单的程序：
o The reference text (i.e., in the "Normative References" section of the source document) is written as usual. o A note is included in the reference text that indicates that the reference is to a target document of a lower maturity level, that some caution should be used since it may be less stable than the document from which it is being referenced, and, optionally, explaining why the downward reference is appropriate.
o 参考文本（即，在源文件的“规范性参考文件”部分）照常编写。o参考文本中包含一条注释，表明参考是指较低成熟度的目标文件，应谨慎使用，因为该文件可能不如参考文件稳定，并且（可选）解释为什么向下参考是合适的。
The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) may, at its discretion, specify the exact text to be used, establish procedures regarding the text to use, or give guidance on this text. When establishing procedures, the IESG should seek appropriate community review.
互联网工程指导小组（IESG）可自行决定指定要使用的确切文本，建立关于要使用的文本的程序，或就此文本提供指导。在制定程序时，IESG应寻求适当的社区审查。
These annotations are part of the source document. If members of the community consider either the downward reference or the annotation text to be inappropriate, those issues can be raised at any time during the document life cycle, just as with any other text in the document. There is no separate review of these references.
这些注释是源文档的一部分。如果社区成员认为向下引用或注释文本是不合适的，那么这些问题可以在文档生命周期中的任何时候提出，就像文档中的任何其他文本一样。对这些参考文献没有单独的审查。
With appropriate community review, the IESG may establish procedures for when normative downward references should delay a document and when downward references should be noted. Absent specific guidance, authors and reviewers should use their best judgment. It is assumed that, in a significant majority of cases, noting a downward reference is preferable to delaying publication.
通过适当的社区审查，IESG可制定程序，确定何时规范性向下引用应延迟文件，何时应注意向下引用。在缺乏具体指导的情况下，作者和审稿人应做出最佳判断。假设在绝大多数情况下，注意向下引用比延迟发布更可取。
At the option of the author, similar notes may be attached to non-normative references.
根据作者的选择，类似的注释可附于非规范性引用文件。
The IESG may, at its discretion, specify a procedure to be applied to source documents that are already in the RFC Editor queue, awaiting target referenced documents. The IESG should encourage authors with documents in the RFC Editor queue awaiting downward references to Standards-Track RFCs to evaluate whether this new rule is appropriate for their documents. If authors believe that adding an annotation and releasing the document is the best way forward, then the IESG should ensure that appropriate review is conducted and, if that review agrees with that of the authors' evaluation, allow the annotations to be added. The IESG will announce its decision via the normal Protocol-Action or Document-Action mechanisms.
IESG可自行决定指定一个程序，用于已在RFC编辑器队列中等待目标引用文档的源文档。IESG应鼓励RFC编辑器队列中的文档等待向下引用标准跟踪RFC的作者评估这一新规则是否适合他们的文档。如果作者认为添加注释和发布文档是最好的方法，那么IESG应确保进行适当的审查，如果审查与作者的评估一致，则允许添加注释。IESG将通过正常的协议行动或文件行动机制宣布其决定。
In the case of a normative reference to a document not on the standards track that is approved under the procedures defined in RFC 3967, the annotation described in Section 3.1 or the retrospective annotation described in Section 3.2, SHOULD be added to the reference unless the IESG, after consideration of Last Call input, concludes it is inappropriate.
如果规范性引用文件不在RFC 3967规定的程序下批准的标准轨道上，则应将第3.1节中描述的注释或第3.2节中描述的回顾性注释添加到引用文件中，除非IESG在考虑最后一次调用输入后，结论是这是不合适的。
The "downward reference by annotation" model specified here is applicable only to published Standards-Track RFCs at lower maturity levels.
此处指定的“注释向下引用”模型仅适用于较低成熟度级别的已发布标准跟踪RFC。
Obviously, such downward references are part of the relevant source document at IETF Last Call and subject to comments from the community.
显然，这种向下的引用是IETF最后一次调用的相关源文件的一部分，并受到社区的评论。
Advancing documents, when appropriate, is still considered preferable to the use of either this procedure or the one specified in RFC 3967. This specification does not impose a specific test or requirement to determine appropriateness. This is partially because it would be impossible to do so for the general case, but more so because the intention is to permit the IESG and the community to balance the importance of getting a source document published against the time and difficulty associated with upgrading a target document. That requirement is intended to be less stringent than the one of RFC 3967.
在适当情况下，提前提交文件仍被认为比使用本程序或RFC 3967中规定的程序更可取。本规范未规定确定适当性的具体测试或要求。这部分是因为在一般情况下不可能这样做，但更重要的是，这样做的目的是允许IESG和社区平衡发布源文档的重要性与升级目标文档的时间和难度。该要求的严格程度低于RFC 3967中的要求。
This document specifies an IETF procedure. It is not believed to raise any security issues although, in principle, relaxing the normative downward reference rules for references associated with security mechanisms could make a specification less stable and hence less secure.
本文件规定了IETF程序。虽然在原则上，放松与安全机制相关的引用的规范性向下引用规则可能会降低规范的稳定性，从而降低安全性，但人们认为它不会引发任何安全问题。
This proposal was suggested by a comment by Spencer Dawkins and many complaints about the negative impact of the current rules. The author is unsure about the validity of some of those complaints; the proposal is, in part, a way to test the validity question. Spencer also provided helpful comments on a preliminary version. It was revised in response to extensive discussion in the IESG and benefited significantly by comments from Brian Carpenter.
斯宾塞·道金斯（Spencer Dawkins）的评论和许多关于现行规则负面影响的投诉提出了这一建议。提交人不确定其中一些申诉的有效性；这项提议在某种程度上是检验有效性问题的一种方式。斯宾塞还就初步版本提供了有益的意见。根据IESG中的广泛讨论对其进行了修订，并从Brian Carpenter的评论中获益匪浅。
[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。
[RFC3967] Bush, R. and T. Narten, "Clarifying when Standards Track Documents may Refer Normatively to Documents at a Lower Level", BCP 97, RFC 3967, December 2004.
[RFC3967]Bush，R.和T.Narten，“澄清标准跟踪文件何时可以规范地引用较低级别的文件”，BCP 97，RFC 3967，2004年12月。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
John C Klensin 1770 Massachusetts Ave, #322 Cambridge, MA 02140 USA
美国马萨诸塞州剑桥市322号马萨诸塞大道1770号约翰·C·克伦辛，邮编：02140
Phone: +1 617 491 5735
EMail: john-ietf@jck.com
Phone: +1 617 491 5735
EMail: john-ietf@jck.com
Sam Hartman Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Ave Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
Sam Hartman麻省理工学院美国马萨诸塞州剑桥市马萨诸塞大道77号02139
EMail: hartmans-ietf@mit.edu
EMail: hartmans-ietf@mit.edu
Full Copyright Statement
完整版权声明
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
版权所有（C）IETF信托基金（2007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。