Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Ko
Request for Comments: 6580 Consultant
Category: Standards Track D. Black
ISSN: 2070-1721 EMC
April 2012
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Ko
Request for Comments: 6580 Consultant
Category: Standards Track D. Black
ISSN: 2070-1721 EMC
April 2012
IANA Registries for the Remote Direct Data Placement (RDDP) Protocols
远程直接数据放置（RDDP）协议的IANA注册表
Abstract
摘要
The original RFCs that specified the Remote Direct Data Placement (RDDP) protocol suite did not create IANA registries for RDDP error codes, operation codes, and function codes. Extensions to the RDDP protocols now require these registries to be created. This memo creates the RDDP registries, populates them with values defined in the original RDDP RFCs, and provides guidance to IANA for future assignment of code points within these registries.
指定远程直接数据放置（RDDP）协议套件的原始RFC没有为RDDP错误代码、操作代码和功能代码创建IANA注册表。RDDP协议的扩展现在需要创建这些注册表。此备忘录创建RDDP注册表，用原始RDDP RFC中定义的值填充它们，并为IANA提供这些注册表中代码点的未来分配指南。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
这是一份互联网标准跟踪文件。
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。有关互联网标准的更多信息，请参见RFC 5741第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6580.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6580.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2012 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Security Considerations .........................................2
3. IANA Considerations .............................................2
3.1. RDMAP Errors ...............................................3
3.2. DDP Errors .................................................5
3.3. MPA Errors .................................................6
3.4. RDMAP Message Operation Codes ..............................7
3.5. SCTP Function Codes for DDP Stream Session Control .........8
4. Normative References ............................................9
5. Informative References ..........................................9
6. Acknowledgments .................................................9
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Security Considerations .........................................2
3. IANA Considerations .............................................2
3.1. RDMAP Errors ...............................................3
3.2. DDP Errors .................................................5
3.3. MPA Errors .................................................6
3.4. RDMAP Message Operation Codes ..............................7
3.5. SCTP Function Codes for DDP Stream Session Control .........8
4. Normative References ............................................9
5. Informative References ..........................................9
6. Acknowledgments .................................................9
The original RFCs that specified the RDDP protocol suite [RFC5040] [RFC5041] [RFC5043] [RFC5044] did not create IANA registries. Extensions to the RDDP protocols [RFC6581] [RMP-EXT] now require creation and use of IANA registries. This memo creates the RDDP-related IANA registries, specifies their initial contents based on the values defined in the original RDDP RFCs, and provides guidance to IANA for future assignments from these registries. In addition, this memo allocates operation code and function code points for experimental use [RFC3692].
指定RDDP协议套件[RFC5040][RFC5041][RFC5043][RFC5044]的原始RFC未创建IANA注册表。RDDP协议[RFC6581][RMP-EXT]的扩展现在需要创建和使用IANA注册表。本备忘录创建与RDDP相关的IANA注册表，根据原始RDDP RFC中定义的值指定其初始内容，并为IANA提供来自这些注册表的未来分配指南。此外，本备忘录为实验使用分配操作代码和功能代码点[RFC3692]。
Since this document is only concerned with creation and IANA management of RDDP registries, it raises no new security issues.
由于本文档仅涉及RDDP注册中心的创建和IANA管理，因此不会产生新的安全问题。
However, a few words are necessary about the use of the experimental code points defined in Sections 3.4 and 3.5. Potentially harmful side effects from the use of the experimental values need to be carefully evaluated before deploying any experiment across networks that the owner of the experiment does not entirely control. Guidance given in [RFC3692] about the use of experimental values needs to be followed.
然而，关于第3.4节和第3.5节中定义的实验代码点的使用，有必要说几句话。在跨实验所有者无法完全控制的网络部署任何实验之前，需要仔细评估使用实验值可能产生的有害副作用。需要遵循[RFC3692]中关于使用实验值的指南。
Allocation requests for the registries created by this memo may come with a suggested numerical value or values that should be assigned. Such suggestions are useful when early implementations have already chosen particular code points before the final RFC is published. If the allocation request in general is accepted, such suggestions may be honored if the suggested value is still free to be assigned.
本备忘录创建的登记处的分配请求可能会附带一个或多个建议的数值。当早期实现在最终RFC发布之前已经选择了特定的代码点时，这些建议非常有用。如果一般情况下接受分配请求，如果建议的值仍然可以自由分配，则可以接受此类建议。
This memo creates the following RDDP registries for IANA to manage:
本备忘录为IANA创建了以下RDDP注册表，以便进行管理：
o RDMAP Errors (Section 3.1) o DDP Errors (Section 3.2) o MPA Errors (Section 3.3) o RDMAP Message Operation Codes (Section 3.4) o SCTP Function Codes for DDP Stream Session Control (Section 3.5)
o RDMAP错误（第3.1节）o DDP错误（第3.2节）o MPA错误（第3.3节）o RDMAP消息操作代码（第3.4节）o DDP流会话控制的SCTP功能代码（第3.5节）
Each of the following sections specifies a registry, its initial contents, and the allocation policy in more detail.
以下每个部分都详细指定了注册表、其初始内容和分配策略。
Name of the registry: "RDMAP Errors"
注册表名称：“RDMAP错误”
Namespace details: An RDMAP (Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol) error is a 16-bit field divided into three subfields [RFC5040]:
命名空间详细信息：RDMAP（远程直接内存访问协议）错误是一个16位字段，分为三个子字段[RFC5040]：
o 4-bit Layer, always 0x0 for RDMAP errors o 4-bit Error Type o 8-bit Error Code
o 4位层，对于RDMAP错误始终为0x0 o 4位错误类型o 8位错误代码
The Error Code field is optional for this registry, as Error Codes are not used with all RDMAP Error Types. When no numerical Error Code is registered, any 8-bit value may be used as the Error Code, as the Layer and Error Type values are sufficient to specify the error. For this reason, if an RDMAP Error Type is registered without an Error Code, an entry must not be added to this registry with an Error Code for the same Error Type.
此注册表的错误代码字段是可选的，因为错误代码并非用于所有RDMAP错误类型。当没有注册数字错误代码时，任何8位值都可以用作错误代码，因为图层和错误类型值足以指定错误。因此，如果注册的RDMAP错误类型没有错误代码，则不得将具有相同错误类型错误代码的条目添加到此注册表。
Information that must be provided to assign a new value: An IESG-approved Standards-Track specification defining the semantics and interoperability requirements of the proposed new value and the fields to be recorded in the registry.
分配新值必须提供的信息：IESG批准的标准跟踪规范，定义了拟议新值的语义和互操作性要求以及要记录在注册表中的字段。
Fields to record in the registry: Layer/Error-Type/Error-Code, Error-Type-Name/Error-Code-Name, RFC Reference. The Error-Code and Error-Code-Name are omitted for Error-Types that do not have Error-Codes.
要在注册表中记录的字段：图层/错误类型/错误代码、错误类型名称/错误代码名称、RFC引用。对于没有错误代码的错误类型，将省略错误代码和错误代码名称。
When a specific Error Code is not registered, the registry entry contains the string "ALL" for the Error Code instead of a numerical value, and the Error Code Name is omitted from the registry entry.
未注册特定错误代码时，注册表项包含错误代码的字符串“ALL”而不是数值，并且注册表项中会忽略错误代码名称。
Initial registry contents:
初始注册表内容：
0x0/0x0/ALL , Local Catastrophic Error, [RFC5040]
0x0/0x0/ALL，本地灾难性错误[RFC5040]
0x0/0x1/0x00, Remote Protection Error / Invalid Steering Tag, [RFC5040]
0x0/0x1/0x00，远程保护错误/转向标签无效，[RFC5040]
0x0/0x1/0x01, Remote Protection Error / Base or bounds violation, [RFC5040]
0x0/0x1/0x01，远程保护错误/基本或边界冲突[RFC5040]
0x0/0x1/0x02, Remote Protection Error / Access rights violation, [RFC5040]
0x0/0x1/0x02，远程保护错误/访问权限冲突[RFC5040]
0x0/0x1/0x03, Remote Protection Error / Steering Tag not associated with RDMAP Stream, [RFC5040]
0x0/0x1/0x03，远程保护错误/转向标记与RDMAP流不关联，[RFC5040]
0x0/0x1/0x04, Remote Protection Error / Tagged Offset wrap, [RFC5040]
0x0/0x1/0x04, Remote Protection Error / Tagged Offset wrap, [RFC5040]
0x0/0x1/0x09, Remote Protection Error / Steering Tag cannot be invalidated, [RFC5040]
0x0/0x1/0x09，远程保护错误/转向标记不能无效，[RFC5040]
0x0/0x1/0xff, Remote Protection Error / Unspecified Error, [RFC5040]
0x0/0x1/0xff, Remote Protection Error / Unspecified Error, [RFC5040]
0x0/0x2/0x05, Remote Operation Error / Invalid RDMAP version, [RFC5040]
0x0/0x2/0x05，远程操作错误/RDMAP版本无效，[RFC5040]
0x0/0x2/0x06, Remote Operation Error / Unexpected OpCode, [RFC5040]
0x0/0x2/0x06, Remote Operation Error / Unexpected OpCode, [RFC5040]
0x0/0x2/0x07, Remote Operation Error / Catastrophic error, localized to RDMAP Stream, [RFC5040]
0x0/0x2/0x07，远程操作错误/灾难性错误，本地化为RDMAP流[RFC5040]
0x0/0x2/0x08, Remote Operation Error / Catastrophic error, global, [RFC5040]
0x0/0x2/0x08，远程操作错误/灾难性错误，全局[RFC5040]
0x0/0x2/0x09, Remote Operation Error / Steering Tag cannot be Invalidated, [RFC5040]
0x0/0x2/0x09，远程操作错误/转向标记不能无效，[RFC5040]
0x0/0x2/0xff, Remote Operation Error / Unspecified Error, [RFC5040]
0x0/0x2/0xff, Remote Operation Error / Unspecified Error, [RFC5040]
All combinations not listed above that combine 0x0 as the Layer with an Error Type and Error Code are Unassigned and available to IANA for assignment.
上面未列出的将0x0组合为具有错误类型和错误代码的图层的所有组合都将取消分配，并可供IANA分配。
Allocation Policy: Standards Action [RFC5226]
分配政策：标准行动[RFC5226]
Name of the registry: "DDP Errors"
注册表名称：“DDP错误”
Namespace details: A DDP (Direct Data Placement) error is a 16-bit field divided into three subfields [RFC5041]:
命名空间详细信息：DDP（直接数据放置）错误是一个16位字段，分为三个子字段[RFC5041]：
o 4-bit Layer, always 0x1 for DDP errors o 4-bit Error Type o 8-bit Error Code
o 4位层，DDP错误始终为0x1 o 4位错误类型o 8位错误代码
The Error Code field is required for this registry, except for the registry entry that reserves a set of errors for use by the Lower Layer Protocol. When no numerical Error Code is registered, any 8-bit value may be used as the Error Code, as the Layer and Error Type values are sufficient to specify the error. For this reason, if a DDP Error Type is registered without an Error Code, an entry must not be added to this registry with an Error Code for the same Error Type.
此注册表需要“错误代码”字段，但保留一组错误供下层协议使用的注册表项除外。当没有注册数字错误代码时，任何8位值都可以用作错误代码，因为图层和错误类型值足以指定错误。因此，如果注册的DDP错误类型没有错误代码，则不得将具有相同错误类型错误代码的条目添加到此注册表。
Information that must be provided to assign a new value: An IESG-approved Standards-Track specification defining the semantics and interoperability requirements of the proposed new value and the fields to be recorded in the registry.
分配新值必须提供的信息：IESG批准的标准跟踪规范，定义了拟议新值的语义和互操作性要求以及要记录在注册表中的字段。
Fields to record in the registry: Layer/Error-Type/Error-Code, Error-Type-Name/Error-Code-Name, RFC Reference.
要在注册表中记录的字段：图层/错误类型/错误代码、错误类型名称/错误代码名称、RFC引用。
The last registry entry in the initial registry contents below reserves a set of errors for use by the Lower Layer Protocol. That entry uses "ALL" for the Error Code and omits the Error Code Name. The use of "ALL" is unique to that entry; all other entries in this registry are required to contain a numeric Error Code and an Error Code Name.
下面初始注册表内容中的最后一个注册表项保留一组错误供下层协议使用。该条目使用“ALL”作为错误代码，并省略错误代码名称。“全部”的使用是该条目独有的；此注册表中的所有其他条目都必须包含数字错误代码和错误代码名称。
Initial registry contents:
初始注册表内容：
0x1/0x0/0x00, Local Catastrophic, [RFC5041]
0x1/0x0/0x00，本地灾难性，[RFC5041]
0x1/0x1/0x00, Tagged Buffer Error / Invalid Steering Tag, [RFC5041]
0x1/0x1/0x00, Tagged Buffer Error / Invalid Steering Tag, [RFC5041]
0x1/0x1/0x01, Tagged Buffer Error / Base or bounds violation, [RFC5041]
0x1/0x1/0x01，标记的缓冲区错误/基或边界冲突[RFC5041]
0x1/0x1/0x02, Tagged Buffer Error / Steering Tag not associated with DDP Stream, [RFC5041]
0x1/0x1/0x02，标记的缓冲区错误/转向标记与DDP流不关联，[RFC5041]
0x1/0x1/0x03, Tagged Buffer Error / Tagged Offset wrap, [RFC5041]
0x1/0x1/0x03, Tagged Buffer Error / Tagged Offset wrap, [RFC5041]
0x1/0x1/0x04, Tagged Buffer Error / Invalid DDP version, [RFC5041]
0x1/0x1/0x04, Tagged Buffer Error / Invalid DDP version, [RFC5041]
0x1/0x2/0x01, Untagged Buffer Error / Invalid Queue Number, [RFC5041]
0x1/0x2/0x01, Untagged Buffer Error / Invalid Queue Number, [RFC5041]
0x1/0x2/0x02, Untagged Buffer Error / Invalid Message Sequence Number - no buffer available, [RFC5041]
0x1/0x2/0x02，未标记的缓冲区错误/无效的消息序列号-无可用缓冲区[RFC5041]
0x1/0x2/0x03, Untagged Buffer Error / Invalid Message Sequence Number - Message Sequence Number range is not valid, [RFC5041]
0x1/0x2/0x03，未标记缓冲区错误/消息序列号无效-消息序列号范围无效，[RFC5041]
0x1/0x2/0x04, Untagged Buffer Error / Invalid Message Offset, [RFC5041]
0x1/0x2/0x04，未标记缓冲区错误/无效消息偏移量[RFC5041]
0x1/0x2/0x05, Untagged Buffer Error / DDP Message too long for available buffer, [RFC5041]
0x1/0x2/0x05，未标记缓冲区错误/DDP消息对于可用缓冲区太长，[RFC5041]
0x1/0x2/0x06, Untagged Buffer Error / Invalid DDP version, [RFC5041]
0x1/0x2/0x06, Untagged Buffer Error / Invalid DDP version, [RFC5041]
0x1/0x3/ALL , Reserved for use by Lower Layer Protocol, [RFC5041]
0x1/0x3/ALL，保留供下层协议使用，[RFC5041]
All combinations not listed above that combine 0x1 as the Layer with an Error Type and Error Code are Unassigned and available to IANA for assignment.
上面未列出的将0x1组合为具有错误类型和错误代码的层的所有组合都将取消分配，并可供IANA分配。
Allocation Policy: Standards Action [RFC5226]
分配政策：标准行动[RFC5226]
Name of the registry: "MPA Errors"
注册表名称：“MPA错误”
Namespace details: An MPA (Marker PDU Aligned Framing) error is a 16-bit field divided into three subfields [RFC5044]:
命名空间详细信息：MPA（标记PDU对齐帧）错误是一个16位字段，分为三个子字段[RFC5044]：
o 4-bit Layer, always 0x2 for MPA errors o 4-bit Error Type o 8-bit Error Code
o 4位层，对于MPA错误始终为0x2，对于4位错误类型，对于8位错误代码
The Error Code field is required for this registry.
此注册表需要“错误代码”字段。
Information that must be provided to assign a new value: An IESG-approved Standards-Track specification defining the semantics and interoperability requirements of the proposed new value and the fields to be recorded in the registry.
分配新值必须提供的信息：IESG批准的标准跟踪规范，定义了拟议新值的语义和互操作性要求以及要记录在注册表中的字段。
Fields to record in the registry: Layer/Error-Type/Error-Code, Error-Type-Name/Error-Code-Name, RFC Reference.
要在注册表中记录的字段：图层/错误类型/错误代码、错误类型名称/错误代码名称、RFC引用。
The string "ALL" is not used for the Error Code in this registry; every entry is required to contain a numeric Error Code and an Error Code Name.
字符串“ALL”不用于此注册表中的错误代码；每个条目都必须包含数字错误代码和错误代码名称。
Initial registry contents:
初始注册表内容：
0x2/0x0/0x01, MPA Error / TCP connection closed, terminated, or lost, [RFC5044]
0x2/0x0/0x01，MPA错误/TCP连接关闭、终止或丢失[RFC5044]
0x2/0x0/0x02, MPA Error / MPA CRC Error, [RFC5044]
0x2/0x0/0x02, MPA Error / MPA CRC Error, [RFC5044]
0x2/0x0/0x03, MPA Error / MPA Marker and ULPDU Length field mismatch, [RFC5044]
0x2/0x0/0x03，MPA错误/MPA标记和ULPDU长度字段不匹配，[RFC5044]
0x2/0x0/0x04, MPA Error / Invalid MPA Request Frame or MPA Response Frame, [RFC5044]
0x2/0x0/0x04，MPA错误/无效的MPA请求帧或MPA响应帧[RFC5044]
All combinations not listed above that combine 0x2 as the Layer with an Error Type and Error Code are Unassigned and available to IANA for assignment.
上面未列出的将0x2组合为具有错误类型和错误代码的层的所有组合都将取消分配，并可供IANA分配。
Allocation Policy: Standards Action [RFC5226]
分配政策：标准行动[RFC5226]
Name of the registry: "RDMAP Message Operation Codes"
注册表名称：“RDMAP消息操作代码”
Namespace details: RDMAP Operation Codes are 4-bit values [RFC5040].
名称空间详细信息：RDMAP操作代码为4位值[RFC5040]。
Information that must be provided to assign a new value: An IESG-approved Standards-Track specification defining the semantics and interoperability requirements of the proposed new value and the fields to be recorded in the registry.
分配新值必须提供的信息：IESG批准的标准跟踪规范，定义了拟议新值的语义和互操作性要求以及要记录在注册表中的字段。
Fields to record in the registry: RDMAP Message Operation Code, Message Type, RFC Reference
要在注册表中记录的字段：RDMAP消息操作代码、消息类型、RFC引用
Initial registry contents:
初始注册表内容：
0x0, RDMA Write, [RFC5040]
0x0，RDMA写入，[RFC5040]
0x1, RDMA Read Request, [RFC5040]
0x1，RDMA读取请求，[RFC5040]
0x2, RDMA Read Response, [RFC5040]
0x2，RDMA读取响应，[RFC5040]
0x3, Send, [RFC5040]
0x3，发送，[RFC5040]
0x4, Send with Invalidate, [RFC5040]
0x4，使用无效发送[RFC5040]
0x5, Send with Solicited Event, [RFC5040]
0x5，发送请求事件[RFC5040]
0x6, Send with Solicited Event and Invalidate, [RFC5040]
0x6，发送请求的事件并使其无效[RFC5040]
0x7, Terminate, [RFC5040]
0x7，终止[RFC5040]
0xF, Reserved (Experimental) [RFC6580]
0xF，保留（实验）[RFC6580]
All other values are Unassigned and available to IANA for assignment.
所有其他值均未分配，IANA可用于分配。
Allocation Policy: Standards Action [RFC5226]
分配政策：标准行动[RFC5226]
Name of the registry: "SCTP Function Codes for DDP Session Control"
注册表名称：“DDP会话控制的SCTP功能代码”
Namespace details: SCTP (Stream Control Transmission Protocol) function codes for DDP session control are 16-bit values [RFC5043].
命名空间详细信息：DDP会话控制的SCTP（流控制传输协议）功能代码为16位值[RFC5043]。
Information that must be provided to assign a new value: An IESG-approved Standards-Track specification defining the semantics and interoperability requirements of the proposed new value and the fields to be recorded in the registry.
分配新值必须提供的信息：IESG批准的标准跟踪规范，定义了拟议新值的语义和互操作性要求以及要记录在注册表中的字段。
Fields to record in the registry: SCTP Function Code, SCTP Function Name, RFC Reference
要在注册表中记录的字段：SCTP函数代码、SCTP函数名称、RFC引用
Initial registry contents:
初始注册表内容：
0x0001, DDP Stream Session Initiate, [RFC5043]
0x0001，DDP流会话启动，[RFC5043]
0x0002, DDP Stream Session Accept, [RFC5043]
0x0002，DDP流会话接受，[RFC5043]
0x0003, DDP Stream Session Reject, [RFC5043]
0x0003，DDP流会话拒绝，[RFC5043]
0x0004, DDP Stream Session Terminate, [RFC5043]
0x0004，DDP流会话终止，[RFC5043]
0xFFFF, Reserved (Experimental) [RFC6580]
0xFFFF，保留（实验）[RFC6580]
All other values are Unassigned and available to IANA for assignment.
所有其他值均未分配，IANA可用于分配。
Allocation Policy: Standards Action [RFC5226]
分配政策：标准行动[RFC5226]
[RFC5040] Recio, R., Metzler, B., Culley, P., Hilland, J., and D. Garcia, "A Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol Specification", RFC 5040, October 2007.
[RFC5040]Recio，R.，Metzler，B.，Culley，P.，Hilland，J.，和D.Garcia，“远程直接内存访问协议规范”，RFC 50402007年10月。
[RFC5041] Shah, H., Pinkerton, J., Recio, R., and P. Culley, "Direct Data Placement over Reliable Transports", RFC 5041, October 2007.
[RFC5041]Shah，H.，Pinkerton，J.，Recio，R.，和P.Culley，“可靠传输上的直接数据放置”，RFC 50412007年10月。
[RFC5043] Bestler, C., Ed., and R. Stewart, Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Direct Data Placement (DDP) Adaptation", RFC 5043, October 2007.
[RFC5043]Bestler，C.，Ed.，和R.Stewart，Ed.，“流控制传输协议（SCTP）直接数据放置（DDP）自适应”，RFC 5043，2007年10月。
[RFC5044] Culley, P., Elzur, U., Recio, R., Bailey, S., and J. Carrier, "Marker PDU Aligned Framing for TCP Specification", RFC 5044, October 2007.
[RFC5044]Culley，P.，Elzur，U.，Recio，R.，Bailey，S.，和J.Carrier，“TCP规范的标记PDU对齐帧”，RFC 5044，2007年10月。
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008.
[RFC5226]Narten，T.和H.Alvestrand，“在RFCs中编写IANA注意事项部分的指南”，BCP 26，RFC 5226，2008年5月。
[RMP-EXT] Shah, H., Marti, F., Noureddine, W., Eiriksson, A., and R. Sharp, "RDMA Protocol Extensions", Work in Progress, January 2012.
[RMP-EXT]Shah，H.，Marti，F.，Noureddine，W.，Eiriksson，A.，和R.Sharp，“RDMA协议扩展”，正在进行的工作，2012年1月。
[RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004.
[RFC3692]Narten，T.，“分配被认为有用的实验和测试数字”，BCP 82，RFC 3692，2004年1月。
[RFC6581] Kanevsky, A., Ed., Bestler, C., Ed., Sharp, R., and S. Wise, "Enhanced Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) Connection Establishment", RFC 6581, April 2012.
[RFC6581]Kanevsky，A.，Ed.，Bestler，C.，Ed.，Sharp，R.，和S.Wise，“增强型远程直接内存访问（RDMA）连接建立”，RFC 65812012年4月。
IANA's review of a draft version of this document indicated the need for some corrections; the authors thank IANA for that review. The authors would also like to thank Pete Resnick and Jari Arkko for their helpful comments from IESG review.
IANA对本文件草案版本的审查表明需要进行一些更正；作者感谢IANA的评论。作者还想感谢Pete Resnick和Jari Arkko在IESG评论中的有益评论。
Authors' Address
作者地址
Michael Ko EMail: mkosjc@gmail.com
Michael Ko电子邮件：mkosjc@gmail.com
David L. Black EMC Corporation 176 South St. Hopkinton, MA 01748, USA Phone: +1-508-293-7953 EMail: david.black@emc.com
David L.Black EMC Corporation 176 South St.Hopkinton，MA 01748，美国电话：+1-508-293-7953电子邮件：David。black@emc.com