Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) O. Kolkman
Request for Comments: 7127 NLnet Labs
BCP: 9 S. Bradner
Updates: 2026 Harvard University
Category: Best Current Practice S. Turner
ISSN: 2070-1721 IECA, Inc.
January 2014
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) O. Kolkman
Request for Comments: 7127 NLnet Labs
BCP: 9 S. Bradner
Updates: 2026 Harvard University
Category: Best Current Practice S. Turner
ISSN: 2070-1721 IECA, Inc.
January 2014
Characterization of Proposed Standards
拟议标准的特征
Abstract
摘要
RFC 2026 describes the review performed by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) on IETF Proposed Standard RFCs and characterizes the maturity level of those documents. This document updates RFC 2026 by providing a current and more accurate characterization of Proposed Standards.
RFC 2026描述了互联网工程指导小组（IESG）对IETF提议的标准RFC进行的审查，并描述了这些文件的成熟度水平。本文件更新了RFC 2026，提供了拟议标准的最新和更准确的特征。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
本备忘录记录了互联网最佳实践。
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。互联网工程指导小组（IESG）已批准将其出版。有关BCP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/rfc7127.
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/rfc7127.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2014 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. IETF Review of Proposed Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Characterization of Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Characterization of IETF Proposed Standard Specifications 3
3.2. Characteristics of Internet Standards . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Further Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. IETF Review of Proposed Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Characterization of Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Characterization of IETF Proposed Standard Specifications 3
3.2. Characteristics of Internet Standards . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Further Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
In the two decades after publication of RFC 2026 [RFC2026], the IETF has evolved its review processes of Proposed Standard RFCs, and thus Section 4.1.1 of RFC 2026 no longer accurately describes IETF Proposed Standards.
在RFC 2026[RFC2026]出版后的二十年中，IETF已经发展了其对拟议标准RFC的审查过程，因此RFC 2026第4.1.1节不再准确描述IETF拟议标准。
This document only updates the characterization of Proposed Standards from Section 4.1.1 of RFC 2026 and does not speak to or alter the procedures for the maintenance of Standards Track documents from RFC 2026 and RFC 6410 [RFC6410]. For complete understanding of the requirements for standardization, those documents should be read in conjunction with this document.
本文件仅更新了RFC 2026第4.1.1节中拟定标准的特征，不涉及或更改RFC 2026和RFC 6410[RFC6410]中标准跟踪文件的维护程序。为了完全理解标准化要求，应结合本文件阅读这些文件。
The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed Standard". A specific action by the IESG is required to move a specification onto the Standards Track at the "Proposed Standard" level.
标准轨道的入门级成熟度为“拟议标准”。IESG需要采取具体行动，在“拟定标准”层面将规范纳入标准轨道。
Initially it was intended that most IETF technical specifications would progress through a series of maturity stages starting with Proposed Standard, then progressing to Draft Standard, then finally to Internet Standard (see Section 6 of RFC 2026). For a number of reasons this progression is not common. Many Proposed Standards are actually deployed on the Internet and used extensively, as stable protocols. This proves the point that the community often deems it unnecessary to upgrade a specification to Internet Standard. Actual practice has been that full progression through the sequence of standards levels is typically quite rare, and most popular IETF protocols remain at Proposed Standard. Over time, the IETF has developed a more extensive review process.
最初，大多数IETF技术规范将经历一系列成熟阶段，从拟定标准开始，然后发展到标准草案，最后发展到互联网标准（见RFC 2026第6节）。由于许多原因，这种进展并不常见。许多提议的标准实际上部署在互联网上，并作为稳定的协议广泛使用。这证明了社区通常认为没有必要将规范升级为Internet标准的观点。实际的做法是，通过标准级别序列的完整进展通常是非常罕见的，并且大多数流行的IETF协议仍然保持在建议的标准上。随着时间的推移，IETF开发了更广泛的审查流程。
IETF Proposed Standards documents have been subject to open development and review by the Internet technical community, generally including a number of formal cross-discipline reviews and, specifically, a security review. This is further strengthened in many cases by implementations and even the presence of interoperable code. Hence, IETF Proposed Standards are of such quality that they are ready for the usual market-based product development and deployment efforts into the Internet.
IETF提议的标准文件已经过互联网技术界的公开开发和审查，通常包括一些正式的跨学科审查，特别是安全审查。在许多情况下，通过实现甚至互操作代码的出现，这一点得到了进一步加强。因此，IETF提出的标准具有这样的质量，它们为通常基于市场的产品开发和部署到互联网中做好了准备。
The text in the following section replaces Section 4.1.1 of RFC 2026. Section 3.2 is a verbatim copy of the characterization of Internet Standards from Section 4.1.3 of RFC 2026 and is provided for convenient reference. The text only provides the characterization; process issues for Draft and Internet Standards are described in RFC 2026 and its updates, specifically RFC 6410.
以下章节中的文本取代RFC 2026第4.1.1节。第3.2节是RFC 2026第4.1.3节中互联网标准特征的逐字副本，仅供参考。文本仅提供了特征描述；RFC 2026及其更新（特别是RFC 6410）中描述了草案和互联网标准的过程问题。
The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed Standard". A specific action by the IESG is required to move a specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard" level.
标准轨道的入门级成熟度为“拟议标准”。IESG需要采取具体行动，在“拟定标准”层面将规范纳入标准轨道。
A Proposed Standard specification is stable, has resolved known design choices, has received significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered valuable.
提议的标准规范是稳定的，解决了已知的设计选择，得到了重要的社区审查，似乎有足够的社区兴趣被认为是有价值的。
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，这种经验是非常可取的，并且通常会代表一个支持拟议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。
A Proposed Standard will have no known technical omissions with respect to the requirements placed upon it. Proposed Standards are of such quality that implementations can be deployed in the Internet. However, as with all technical specifications, Proposed Standards may be revised if problems are found or better solutions are identified, when experiences with deploying implementations of such technologies at scale is gathered.
提议的标准在其要求方面没有已知的技术遗漏。提议的标准具有这样的质量，可以在互联网上部署实现。然而，与所有技术规范一样，如果发现问题或确定更好的解决方案，在收集大规模部署此类技术实施的经验时，可能会修订提议的标准。
A specification for which significant implementation and successful operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the Internet Standard level. An Internet Standard (which may simply be referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet community.
已获得重大实施和成功运营经验的规范可提升至互联网标准水平。互联网标准（可以简单地称为标准）的特点是技术高度成熟，并且普遍认为指定的协议或服务为互联网社区提供了重大利益。
Occasionally, the IETF may choose to publish as Proposed Standard a document that contains areas of known limitations or challenges. In such cases, any known issues with the document will be clearly and prominently communicated in the document, for example, in the abstract, the introduction, or a separate section or statement.
有时，IETF可能会选择将包含已知限制或挑战领域的文件发布为拟定标准。在这种情况下，文件中的任何已知问题都将在文件中明确和突出地传达，例如，在摘要、导言或单独的章节或声明中。
This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet.
本文件不会直接影响互联网的安全。
[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。
[RFC6410] Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410, October 2011.
[RFC6410]Housley，R.，Crocker，D.，和E.Burger，“将标准轨道降低到两个成熟度水平”，BCP 9，RFC 6410，2011年10月。
This document is inspired by a discussion at the open microphone session during the technical plenary at IETF 87. Thanks to, in alphabetical order, Jari Arkko, Carsten Bormann, Scott Brim, Randy Bush, Benoit Claise, Dave Cridland, Spencer Dawkins, Adrian Farrel, Stephen Farrell, Subramanian Moonesamy, and Pete Resnick for motivation, input, and review.
本文件的灵感来源于IETF 87技术全体会议期间公开话筒会议的讨论。感谢按字母顺序排列的贾里·阿尔科、卡斯滕·鲍曼、斯科特·布里姆、兰迪·布什、贝诺特·克莱斯、戴夫·克里德兰、斯宾塞·道金斯、阿德里安·法雷尔、斯蒂芬·法雷尔、Subramanian Moonesamy和皮特·雷斯尼克的激励、投入和评论。
John Klensin and Dave Crocker have provided significant contributions.
John Klesin和Dave Crocker做出了重大贡献。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Olaf Kolkman Stichting NLnet Labs Science Park 400 Amsterdam 1098 XH The Netherlands
Olaf Kolkman Stichting NLnet实验室科技园400阿姆斯特丹1098 XH荷兰
EMail: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl
URI: http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
EMail: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl
URI: http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
Scott O. Bradner Harvard University Information Technology Innovation and Architecture 8 Story St., Room 5014 Cambridge, MA 02138 United States of America
Scott O.Bradner哈佛大学信息技术创新与建筑8层，美国马萨诸塞州剑桥市5014室，邮编02138
Phone: +1 617 495 3864
EMail: sob@harvard.edu
URI: http://www.harvard.edu/huit
Phone: +1 617 495 3864
EMail: sob@harvard.edu
URI: http://www.harvard.edu/huit
Sean Turner IECA, Inc.
肖恩·特纳IECA公司。
EMail: turners@ieca.com
EMail: turners@ieca.com