Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Cotton
Request for Comments: 8126 PTI
BCP: 26 B. Leiba
Obsoletes: 5226 Huawei Technologies
Category: Best Current Practice T. Narten
ISSN: 2070-1721 IBM Corporation
June 2017
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Cotton
Request for Comments: 8126 PTI
BCP: 26 B. Leiba
Obsoletes: 5226 Huawei Technologies
Category: Best Current Practice T. Narten
ISSN: 2070-1721 IBM Corporation
June 2017
Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs
在RFCs中编写IANA注意事项部分的指南
Abstract
摘要
Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values in these fields do not have conflicting uses and to promote interoperability, their allocations are often coordinated by a central record keeper. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).
许多协议利用可扩展点，这些扩展点使用常量来标识各种协议参数。为了确保这些字段中的值没有相互冲突的用途，并促进互操作性，它们的分配通常由一个中央记录保管人进行协调。对于IETF协议，该角色由互联网分配号码管理局（IANA）担任。
To make assignments in a given registry prudently, guidance describing the conditions under which new values should be assigned, as well as when and how modifications to existing values can be made, is needed. This document defines a framework for the documentation of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that the provided guidance for the IANA Considerations is clear and addresses the various issues that are likely in the operation of a registry.
为了谨慎地在给定的登记处进行分配，需要提供指南，说明应在何种条件下分配新值，以及何时以及如何修改现有值。本文件定义了规范作者记录这些指南的框架，以确保为IANA考虑事项提供的指导是明确的，并解决了注册中心运行中可能出现的各种问题。
This is the third edition of this document; it obsoletes RFC 5226.
这是本文件的第三版；它淘汰了RFC 5226。
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 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 BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
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BCP的更多信息，请参见RFC 7841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/rfc8126.
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/rfc8126.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2017 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Keep IANA Considerations for IANA . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. For Updated Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3. A Quick Checklist Upfront . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Creating and Revising Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1. Organization of Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2. Documentation Requirements for Registries . . . . . . . . 8
2.3. Specifying Change Control for a Registry . . . . . . . . 11
2.4. Revising Existing Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. Registering New Values in an Existing Registry . . . . . . . 12
3.1. Documentation Requirements for Registrations . . . . . . 12
3.2. Updating Existing Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3. Overriding Registration Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4. Early Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4. Choosing a Registration Policy and Well-Known Policies . . . 15
4.1. Private Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.2. Experimental Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3. Hierarchical Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.4. First Come First Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.5. Expert Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.6. Specification Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.7. RFC Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.8. IETF Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.9. Standards Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.10. IESG Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.11. Using the Well-Known Registration Policies . . . . . . . 24
4.12. Using Multiple Policies in Combination . . . . . . . . . 26
4.13. Provisional Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Keep IANA Considerations for IANA . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. For Updated Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3. A Quick Checklist Upfront . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Creating and Revising Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1. Organization of Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2. Documentation Requirements for Registries . . . . . . . . 8
2.3. Specifying Change Control for a Registry . . . . . . . . 11
2.4. Revising Existing Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. Registering New Values in an Existing Registry . . . . . . . 12
3.1. Documentation Requirements for Registrations . . . . . . 12
3.2. Updating Existing Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3. Overriding Registration Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4. Early Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4. Choosing a Registration Policy and Well-Known Policies . . . 15
4.1. Private Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.2. Experimental Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3. Hierarchical Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.4. First Come First Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.5. Expert Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.6. Specification Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.7. RFC Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.8. IETF Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.9. Standards Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.10. IESG Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.11. Using the Well-Known Registration Policies . . . . . . . 24
4.12. Using Multiple Policies in Combination . . . . . . . . . 26
4.13. Provisional Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5. Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.1. The Motivation for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.2. The Role of the Designated Expert . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.2.1. Managing Designated Experts in the IETF . . . . . . . 29
5.3. Designated Expert Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.4. Expert Reviews and the Document Lifecycle . . . . . . . . 31
6. Well-Known Registration Status Terminology . . . . . . . . . 31
7. Documentation References in IANA Registries . . . . . . . . . 32
8. What to Do in "bis" Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
9. Miscellaneous Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
9.1. When There Are No IANA Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
9.2. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance . . . . . . . . . 35
9.3. After-the-Fact Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9.4. Reclaiming Assigned Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9.5. Contact Person vs Assignee or Owner . . . . . . . . . . . 36
9.6. Closing or Obsoleting a Registry/Registrations . . . . . 37
10. Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
11. Mailing Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
14. Changes Relative to Earlier Editions of BCP 26 . . . . . . . 38
14.1. 2016: Changes in This Document Relative to RFC 5226 . . 38
14.2. 2008: Changes in RFC 5226 Relative to RFC 2434 . . . . . 39
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Acknowledgments for This Document (2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Acknowledgments from the Second Edition (2008) . . . . . . . . . 46
Acknowledgments from the First Edition (1998) . . . . . . . . . . 46
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5. Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.1. The Motivation for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.2. The Role of the Designated Expert . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.2.1. Managing Designated Experts in the IETF . . . . . . . 29
5.3. Designated Expert Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.4. Expert Reviews and the Document Lifecycle . . . . . . . . 31
6. Well-Known Registration Status Terminology . . . . . . . . . 31
7. Documentation References in IANA Registries . . . . . . . . . 32
8. What to Do in "bis" Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
9. Miscellaneous Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
9.1. When There Are No IANA Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
9.2. Namespaces Lacking Documented Guidance . . . . . . . . . 35
9.3. After-the-Fact Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9.4. Reclaiming Assigned Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9.5. Contact Person vs Assignee or Owner . . . . . . . . . . . 36
9.6. Closing or Obsoleting a Registry/Registrations . . . . . 37
10. Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
11. Mailing Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
14. Changes Relative to Earlier Editions of BCP 26 . . . . . . . 38
14.1. 2016: Changes in This Document Relative to RFC 5226 . . 38
14.2. 2008: Changes in RFC 5226 Relative to RFC 2434 . . . . . 39
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Acknowledgments for This Document (2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Acknowledgments from the Second Edition (2008) . . . . . . . . . 46
Acknowledgments from the First Edition (1998) . . . . . . . . . . 46
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values in these fields do not have conflicting uses and to promote interoperability, their allocations are often coordinated by a central record keeper. The Protocol field in the IP header [RFC791] and MIME media types [RFC6838] are two examples of such coordinations.
许多协议利用可扩展点，这些扩展点使用常量来标识各种协议参数。为了确保这些字段中的值没有相互冲突的用途，并促进互操作性，它们的分配通常由一个中央记录保管人进行协调。IP头[RFC791]和MIME媒体类型[RFC6838]中的协议字段是此类协调的两个示例。
The IETF selects an IANA Functions Operator (IFO) for protocol parameters defined by the IETF. In the contract between the IETF and the current IFO (ICANN), that entity is referred to as the IANA PROTOCOL PARAMETER SERVICES Operator, or IPPSO. For consistency with past practice, the IFO or IPPSO is referred to in this document as "IANA" [RFC2860].
IETF为IETF定义的协议参数选择IANA函数运算符（IFO）。在IETF和当前IFO（ICANN）之间的合同中，该实体被称为IANA协议参数服务运营商或IPPSO。为与以往惯例保持一致，本文件将IFO或IPPSO称为“IANA”[RFC2860]。
In this document, we call the range of possible values for such a field a "namespace". The binding or association of a specific value with a particular purpose within a namespace is called an assignment (or, variously: an assigned number, assigned value, code point, protocol constant, or protocol parameter). The act of assignment is called a registration, and it takes place in the context of a registry. The terms "assignment" and "registration" are used interchangeably throughout this document.
在本文档中，我们将此类字段的可能值范围称为“名称空间”。名称空间中特定值与特定目的的绑定或关联称为赋值（或者，可以是赋值、赋值、代码点、协议常量或协议参数）。转让行为称为登记，它发生在登记处的范围内。术语“转让”和“注册”在本文件中互换使用。
To make assignments in a given namespace prudently, guidance describing the conditions under which new values should be assigned, as well as when and how modifications to existing values can be made, is needed. This document defines a framework for the documentation of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that the guidance for the IANA Considerations is clear and addresses the various issues that are likely in the operation of a registry.
为了谨慎地在给定的名称空间中进行赋值，需要提供指南，说明应在何种条件下分配新值，以及何时以及如何修改现有值。本文件定义了规范作者记录这些指南的框架，以确保IANA注意事项指南清晰，并解决注册中心运行中可能出现的各种问题。
Typically, this information is recorded in a dedicated section of the specification with the title "IANA Considerations".
通常，该信息记录在规范的专用章节中，标题为“IANA注意事项”。
The purpose of having a dedicated IANA Considerations section is to provide a single place to collect clear and concise information and instructions for IANA. Technical documentation should reside in other parts of the document; the IANA Considerations should refer to these other sections by reference only (as needed). Using the IANA Considerations section as primary technical documentation both hides it from the target audience of the document and interferes with IANA's review of the actions they need to take.
设立一个专门的IANA注意事项部分的目的是为IANA提供一个单一的地方来收集清晰简洁的信息和说明。技术文件应保存在文件的其他部分；IANA注意事项应仅参考其他章节（如需要）。使用IANA注意事项部分作为主要技术文档，既对文档的目标受众隐瞒了它，又干扰了IANA对他们需要采取的行动的审查。
An ideal IANA Considerations section clearly enumerates and specifies each requested IANA action; includes all information IANA needs, such as the full names of all applicable registries; and includes clear references to elsewhere in the document for other information.
理想的IANA注意事项部分明确列举并指定了每个请求的IANA操作；包括IANA需要的所有信息，如所有适用登记处的全名；并明确提及文件中其他地方的其他信息。
The IANA actions are normally phrased as requests for IANA (such as, "IANA is asked to assign the value TBD1 from the Frobozz Registry..."); the RFC Editor will change those sentences to reflect the actions taken ("IANA has assigned the value 83 from the Frobozz Registry...").
IANA操作通常被表述为IANA请求（例如，“要求IANA从Frobozz注册表中分配值TBD1…”）；RFC编辑器将更改这些句子以反映所采取的行动（“IANA已从Frobozz注册表中分配值83…”）。
IANA maintains a web page that includes additional clarification information beyond what is provided here, such as minor updates and summary guidance. Document authors should check that page. Any significant updates to the best current practice will have to feed into updates to BCP 26 (this document), which is definitive.
IANA维护一个网页，其中包含除此处提供的内容之外的其他澄清信息，如次要更新和总结指南。文档作者应检查该页面。对当前最佳实践的任何重大更新都必须纳入BCP 26（本文件）的更新，该文件是确定的。
<https://iana.org/help/protocol-registration>
<https://iana.org/help/protocol-registration>
It's useful to be familiar with this document as a whole. But when you return for quick reference, here are checklists for the most common things you'll need to do and references to help with the less common ones.
从整体上熟悉本文档是很有用的。但是当你回来快速参考时，这里有你需要做的最常见的事情的清单，以及帮助你处理不太常见的事情的参考资料。
In general...
一般来说
1. Put all the information that IANA will need to know into the "IANA Considerations" section of your document (see Section 1.1).
1. 将IANA需要了解的所有信息放在文档的“IANA注意事项”部分（见第1.1节）。
2. Try to keep that section only for information to IANA and to designated expert reviewers; put significant technical information in the appropriate technical sections of the document (see Section 1.1).
2. 尽量将该部分仅用于向IANA和指定专家评审员提供信息；将重要的技术信息放在文件的相应技术章节中（见第1.1节）。
3. Note that the IESG has the authority to resolve issues with IANA registrations. If you have any questions or problems, you should consult your document shepherd and/or working group chair, who may ultimately involve an Area Director (see Section 3.3).
3. 请注意，IESG有权解决IANA注册问题。如果您有任何疑问或问题，请咨询您的文档管理员和/或工作组主席，他们可能最终会涉及到一名区域总监（见第3.3节）。
If you are creating a new registry...
如果您正在创建新注册表。。。
1. Give the registry a descriptive name and provide a brief description of its use (see Section 2.2).
1. 给注册中心一个描述性名称，并简要说明其用途（见第2.2节）。
2. Identify any registry grouping that it should be part of (see Section 2.1).
2. 确定它应该属于的任何注册表分组（参见第2.1节）。
3. Clearly specify what information is required in order to register new items (see Section 2.2). Be sure to specify data types, lengths, and valid ranges for fields.
3. 明确说明登记新项目所需的信息（见第2.2节）。确保为字段指定数据类型、长度和有效范围。
4. Specify the initial set of items for the registry, if applicable (see Section 2.2).
4. 指定注册表的初始项集（如果适用）（参见第2.2节）。
5. Make sure the change control policy for the registry is clear to IANA, in case changes to the format or policies need to be made later (see Sections 2.3 and 9.5).
5. 确保IANA清楚注册表的变更控制策略，以防以后需要更改格式或策略（参见第2.3节和第9.5节）。
6. Select a registration policy -- or a set of policies -- to use for future registrations (see Section 4, and especially note Sections 4.11 and 4.12).
6. 选择一个注册策略或一组策略用于将来的注册（请参阅第4节，特别注意第4.11和4.12节）。
7. If you're using a policy that requires a designated expert (Expert Review or Specification Required), understand Section 5 and provide review guidance to the designated expert (see Section 5.3).
7. 如果您使用的政策需要指定专家（需要专家评审或规范），请理解第5节，并向指定专家提供评审指导（见第5.3节）。
8. If any items or ranges in your registry need to be reserved for special use or are otherwise unavailable for assignment, see Section 6.
8. 如果注册表中的任何项目或范围需要保留以供特殊使用，或者无法分配，请参阅第6节。
If you are registering into an existing registry...
如果您正在注册到现有注册表。。。
1. Clearly identify the registry by its exact name and optionally by its URL (see Section 3.1).
1. 通过其确切名称和URL（可选）明确标识注册表（见第3.1节）。
2. If the registry has multiple ranges from which assignments can be made, make it clear which range is requested (see Section 3.1).
2. 如果注册表中有多个可以进行分配的范围，请明确请求的范围（参见第3.1节）。
3. Avoid using specific values for numeric or bit assignments, and let IANA pick a suitable value at registration time (see Section 3.1). This will avoid registration conflicts among multiple documents.
3. 避免将特定值用于数字或位分配，并让IANA在注册时选择合适的值（参见第3.1节）。这将避免多个文档之间的注册冲突。
4. For "reference" fields, use the document that provides the best and most current documentation for the item being registered. Include section numbers to make it easier for readers to locate the relevant documentation (see Sections 3.1 and 7).
4. 对于“参考”字段，请使用为正在注册的项目提供最佳和最新文档的文档。包括章节编号，以便于读者查找相关文档（参见第3.1节和第7节）。
5. Look up (in the registry's reference document) what information is required for the registry and accurately provide all the necessary information (see Section 3.1).
5. 查阅（在注册处的参考文件中）注册所需的信息，并准确地提供所有必要的信息（见第3.1节）。
6. Look up (in the registry's reference document) any special rules or processes there may be for the registry, such as posting to a particular mailing list for comment, and be sure to follow the process (see Section 3.1).
6. 查阅（在注册处的参考文件中）注册处可能存在的任何特殊规则或流程，例如张贴到特定邮件列表以征求意见，并确保遵循该流程（见第3.1节）。
7. If the registration policy for the registry does not already dictate the change control policy, make sure it's clear to IANA what the change control policy is for the item, in case changes to the registration need to be made later (see Section 9.5).
7. 如果注册表的注册政策尚未规定变更控制政策，请确保IANA清楚该项目的变更控制政策是什么，以防以后需要对注册进行更改（见第9.5节）。
If you're writing a "bis" document or otherwise making older documents obsolete, see Section 8.
如果您正在编写“bis”文档或以其他方式使旧文档过时，请参阅第8节。
If you need to make an early registration, such as for supporting test implementations during document development, rather than waiting for your document to be finished and approved, see [RFC7120].
如果您需要提前注册，例如在文档开发期间支持测试实现，而不是等待文档完成并获得批准，请参阅[RFC7120]。
If you need to change the format/contents or policies for an existing registry, see Section 2.4.
如果需要更改现有注册表的格式/内容或策略，请参阅第2.4节。
If you need to update an existing registration, see Section 3.2.
如果您需要更新现有注册，请参阅第3.2节。
If you need to close down a registry because it is no longer needed, see Section 9.6.
如果因为不再需要注册表而需要关闭注册表，请参阅第9.6节。
Defining a registry involves describing the namespaces to be created, listing an initial set of assignments (if applicable), and documenting guidelines on how future assignments are to be made.
定义注册表涉及描述要创建的名称空间，列出初始分配集（如果适用），以及记录关于如何进行未来分配的指导原则。
When defining a registry, consider structuring the namespace in such a way that only top-level assignments need to be made with central coordination, and those assignments can delegate lower-level assignments so coordination for them can be distributed. This lessens the burden on IANA for dealing with assignments, and is particularly useful in situations where distributed coordinators have better knowledge of their portion of the namespace and are better suited to handling those assignments.
在定义注册表时，考虑构建命名空间，这样只需要用中心协调来完成顶层任务，并且这些任务可以委派较低级别的任务，以便可以对它们进行协调。这减轻了IANA处理分配的负担，在分布式协调员更好地了解其命名空间部分并且更适合处理这些分配的情况下尤其有用。
All registries are anchored from the IANA "Protocol Registries" page:
所有注册都从IANA“协议注册”页面锚定：
<https://www.iana.org/protocols>
<https://www.iana.org/protocols>
That page lists registries in protocol category groups, placing related registries together and making it easier for users of the registries to find the necessary information. Clicking on the title of one of the registries on the IANA Protocol Registries page will take the reader to the details page for that registry.
该页面将登记册列在协议类别组中，将相关登记册放在一起，使登记册用户更容易找到必要的信息。单击IANA协议注册表页面上其中一个注册表的标题，读者将进入该注册表的详细信息页面。
Unfortunately, we have been inconsistent in how we refer to these entities. The group names, as they are referred to here, have been variously called "protocol category groups", "groups", "top-level registries", or just "registries". The registries under them have been called "registries" or "sub-registries".
不幸的是，我们对这些实体的定义一直不一致。这里所指的组名被不同地称为“协议类别组”、“组”、“顶级注册表”或“注册表”。它们之下的登记处被称为“登记处”或“次级登记处”。
Regardless of the terminology used, document authors should pay attention to the registry groupings, should request that related registries be grouped together to make related registries easier to find, and, when creating a new registry, should check whether that registry might best be included in an existing group. That grouping information should be clearly communicated to IANA in the registry creation request.
无论使用何种术语，文档作者都应注意注册表分组，应要求将相关注册表分组，以便于查找相关注册表，并且在创建新注册表时，应检查该注册表是否最好包含在现有组中。该分组信息应在注册表创建请求中明确传达给IANA。
Documents that create a new namespace (or modify the definition of an existing space) and that expect IANA to play a role in maintaining that space (serving as a repository for registered values) must provide clear instructions on details of the namespace, either in the IANA Considerations section or referenced from it.
创建新名称空间（或修改现有空间的定义）以及希望IANA在维护该空间（用作注册值的存储库）方面发挥作用的文档必须在IANA注意事项部分或从中引用的部分中提供有关名称空间详细信息的明确说明。
In particular, such instructions must include:
特别是，此类说明必须包括：
The name of the registry
注册表的名称
This name will appear on the IANA web page and will be referred to in future documents that need to allocate a value from the new space. The full name (and abbreviation, if appropriate) should be provided. It is highly desirable that the chosen name not be easily confused with the name of another registry.
此名称将出现在IANA网页上，并将在将来需要从新空间分配值的文档中引用。应提供全名（以及缩写，如适用）。非常希望所选名称不容易与另一个注册表的名称混淆。
When creating a registry, the group that it is a part of must be identified using its full name, exactly as it appears in the Protocol Registries list.
创建注册表时，必须使用其全名标识它所属的组，与协议注册表列表中显示的全名完全相同。
Providing a URL to precisely identify the registry helps IANA understand the request. Such URLs can be removed from the RFC prior to final publication or left in the document for reference. If you include iana.org URLs, IANA will provide corrections, if necessary, during their review.
提供一个URL来精确标识注册表有助于IANA理解请求。这些URL可以在最终发布之前从RFC中删除，或者留在文档中以供参考。如果您包含iana.org URL，iana将在审查期间提供更正（如有必要）。
Required information for registrations
注册所需信息
This tells registrants what information they have to include in their registration requests. Some registries require only the requested value and a reference to a document where use of the value is defined. Other registries require a more detailed registration template that describes relevant security considerations, internationalization considerations, and other such information.
这会告诉注册者他们必须在注册请求中包含哪些信息。有些注册中心只需要请求的值和对定义了值使用的文档的引用。其他注册中心需要更详细的注册模板，该模板描述了相关的安全注意事项、国际化注意事项和其他此类信息。
Applicable registration policy
适用的注册政策
The policy that will apply to all future requests for registration. See Section 4.
适用于未来所有注册申请的政策。见第4节。
Size, format, and syntax of registry entries
注册表项的大小、格式和语法
What fields to record in the registry, any technical requirements on registry entries (valid ranges for integers, length limitations on strings, and such), and the exact format in which registry values should be displayed. For numeric assignments, one should specify whether values are to be recorded in decimal, in hexadecimal, or in some other format.
要在注册表中记录的字段、注册表项的任何技术要求（整数的有效范围、字符串的长度限制等），以及注册表值的确切显示格式。对于数字赋值，应该指定是以十进制、十六进制还是其他格式记录值。
Strings are expected to be ASCII, and it should be clearly specified whether case matters, and whether, for example, strings should be shown in the registry in uppercase or lowercase.
字符串应该是ASCII，并且应该清楚地指定大小写是否重要，例如，字符串是否应该在注册表中以大写或小写显示。
Strings that represent protocol parameters will rarely, if ever, need to contain non-ASCII characters. If non-ASCII characters are really necessary, instructions should make it very clear that they are allowed and that the non-ASCII characters should be represented as Unicode characters using the "(U+XXXX)" convention. Anyone creating such a registry should think carefully about this and consider internationalization advice such as that in [RFC7564], Section 10.
表示协议参数的字符串很少（如果有的话）需要包含非ASCII字符。如果确实需要非ASCII字符，说明应明确说明允许使用非ASCII字符，并且应使用“（U+XXXX）”约定将非ASCII字符表示为Unicode字符。创建这样一个注册表的人应该仔细考虑这一点，并考虑国际化建议，如在[RCFC5664 ]第10节中的建议。
Initial assignments and reservations
初始分配和保留
Any initial assignments or registrations to be included. In addition, any ranges that are to be reserved for "Private Use", "Reserved", "Unassigned", etc. (see Section 6) should be indicated.
包括任何初始转让或注册。此外，应注明为“私人使用”、“保留”、“未分配”等保留的任何范围（见第6节）。
For example, a document might specify a new registry by including:
例如，文档可以通过以下方式指定新注册表：
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
X. IANA Considerations
十、IANA考虑事项
This document defines a new DHCP option, entitled "FooBar" (see
Section y), and assigns a value of TBD1 from the DHCP Option space
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters>
[RFC2132] [RFC2939]:
Data
Tag Name Length Meaning
---- ---- ------ -------
TBD1 FooBar N FooBar server
This document defines a new DHCP option, entitled "FooBar" (see
Section y), and assigns a value of TBD1 from the DHCP Option space
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters>
[RFC2132] [RFC2939]:
Data
Tag Name Length Meaning
---- ---- ------ -------
TBD1 FooBar N FooBar server
The FooBar option also defines an 8-bit FooType field, for which IANA is to create and maintain a new registry entitled "FooType values" used by the FooBar option. Initial values for the DHCP FooBar FooType registry are given below; future assignments are to be made through Expert Review [BCP26]. Assignments consist of a DHCP FooBar FooType name and its associated value.
FooBar选项还定义了一个8位FooType字段，IANA将为该字段创建并维护一个名为“FooType values”的新注册表，该注册表由FooBar选项使用。DHCP FooBar FooType注册表的初始值如下所示；未来的任务将通过专家评审[BCP26]完成。分配由DHCP FooBar FooType名称及其关联值组成。
Value DHCP FooBar FooType Name Definition
---- ------------------------ ----------
0 Reserved
1 Frobnitz RFCXXXX, Section y.1
2 NitzFrob RFCXXXX, Section y.2
3-254 Unassigned
255 Reserved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Value DHCP FooBar FooType Name Definition
---- ------------------------ ----------
0 Reserved
1 Frobnitz RFCXXXX, Section y.1
2 NitzFrob RFCXXXX, Section y.2
3-254 Unassigned
255 Reserved
---------------------------------------------------------------
For examples of documents that establish registries, consult [RFC3575], [RFC3968], and [RFC4520].
有关建立注册的文件示例，请参阅[RFC3575]、[RFC3968]和[RFC4520]。
Any time IANA includes names and contact information in the public registry, some individuals might prefer that their contact information not be made public. In such cases, arrangements can be made with IANA to keep the contact information private.
任何时候IANA在公共注册表中包含姓名和联系信息时，有些人可能希望他们的联系信息不公开。在这种情况下，可以与IANA作出安排，将联系信息保密。
Registry definitions and registrations within registries often need to be changed after they are created. The process of making such changes is complicated when it is unclear who is authorized to make the changes. For registries created by RFCs in the IETF stream, change control for the registry lies by default with the IETF, via the IESG. The same is true for value registrations made in IETF-stream RFCs.
注册表定义和注册表中的注册通常需要在创建后进行更改。当不清楚谁有权进行更改时，进行此类更改的过程是复杂的。对于在IETF流中由RFC创建的注册表，注册表的更改控制默认由IETF通过IESG进行。IETF流RFC中的值注册也是如此。
Because registries can be created and registrations can be made outside the IETF stream, it can sometimes be desirable to have change control outside the IETF and IESG, and clear specification of change control policies is always helpful.
由于注册可以在IETF流之外创建，注册可以在IETF流之外进行，因此有时需要在IETF和IESG之外进行变更控制，明确的变更控制策略规范总是很有帮助的。
It is advised, therefore, that all registries that are created clearly specify a change control policy and a change controller. It is also advised that registries that allow registrations from outside the IETF stream include, for each value, the designation of a change controller for that value. If the definition or reference for a registered value ever needs to change, or if a registered value needs to be deprecated, it is critical that IANA know who is authorized to make the change. For example, the Media Types registry [RFC6838] includes a "Change Controller" in its registration template. See also Section 9.5.
因此，建议创建的所有注册中心明确指定变更控制策略和变更控制器。还建议允许从IETF流外部进行注册的注册中心为每个值指定变更控制器。如果某个注册值的定义或引用需要更改，或者某个注册值需要弃用，IANA必须知道谁有权进行更改。例如，媒体类型注册表[RFC6838]在其注册模板中包含一个“更改控制器”。另见第9.5节。
Updating the registration process or making changes to the format of an already existing (previously created) registry (whether created explicitly or implicitly) follows a process similar to that used when creating a new registry. That is, a document is produced that makes reference to the existing namespace and then provides detailed guidance for handling assignments in the registry or detailed instructions about the changes required.
更新注册过程或更改现有（先前创建的）注册表（无论是显式创建还是隐式创建）的格式遵循与创建新注册表时使用的过程类似的过程。也就是说，生成一个引用现有名称空间的文档，然后为在注册表中处理分配提供详细指导，或者提供有关所需更改的详细说明。
If a change requires a new column in the registry, the instructions need to be clear about how to populate that column for the existing entries. Other changes may require similar clarity.
如果更改需要注册表中的新列，则说明需要明确说明如何为现有条目填充该列。其他变更可能需要类似的明确性。
Such documents are normally processed with the same document status as the document that created the registry. Under some circumstances, such as with a straightforward change that is clearly needed (such as adding a "status" column), or when an earlier error needs to be corrected, the IESG may approve an update to a registry without requiring a new document.
此类文档通常以与创建注册表的文档相同的文档状态进行处理。在某些情况下，例如明确需要进行直接更改（例如添加“状态”列），或者当需要更正早期错误时，IESG可以批准注册表更新，而无需新文档。
Example documents that updated the guidelines for assignments in pre-existing registries include: [RFC6895], [RFC3228], and [RFC3575].
更新现有登记处转让指南的示例文件包括：[RFC6895]、[RFC3228]和[RFC3575]。
Often, documents request an assignment in an existing registry (one created by a previously published document).
通常，文档请求在现有注册表（由以前发布的文档创建的注册表）中进行分配。
Such documents should clearly identify the registry into which each value is to be registered. Use the exact registry name as listed on the IANA web page, and cite the RFC where the registry is defined. When referring to an existing registry, providing a URL to precisely identify the registry is helpful (see Section 2.2).
此类文件应清楚地标识每个值要注册到的注册表。使用IANA网页上列出的确切注册表名称，并引用定义注册表的RFC。在引用现有注册表时，提供URL以精确标识注册表是很有帮助的（请参阅第2.2节）。
There is no need to mention what the assignment policy is when making new assignments in existing registries, as that should be clear from the references. However, if multiple assignment policies might apply, as in registries with different ranges that have different policies, it is important to make it clear which range is being requested, so that IANA will know which policy applies and can assign a value in the correct range.
在现有登记处进行新的转让时，无需提及转让政策，因为从参考资料中可以清楚地看出这一点。但是，如果可能应用多个分配策略，如在具有不同策略的不同范围的注册表中，则必须明确请求的是哪个范围，以便IANA知道哪个策略适用，并可以在正确的范围内分配值。
Be sure to provide all the information required for a registration, and follow any special processes that are set out for the registry. Registries sometimes require the completion of a registration template for registration or ask registrants to post their request to a particular mailing list for discussion prior to registration. Look up the registry's reference document: the required information and special processes should be documented there.
请务必提供注册所需的所有信息，并遵循注册中心规定的任何特殊流程。登记处有时要求填写登记模板以进行登记，或要求登记人在登记前将其请求张贴到特定的邮件列表以供讨论。查阅登记处的参考文件：所需信息和特殊流程应记录在那里。
Normally, numeric values to be used are chosen by IANA when the document is approved; drafts should not specify final values. Instead, placeholders such as "TBD1" and "TBD2" should be used consistently throughout the document, giving each item to be registered a different placeholder. The IANA Considerations should ask the RFC Editor to replace the placeholder names with the IANA-assigned values. When drafts need to specify numeric values for testing or early implementations, they will either request early allocation (see Section 3.4) or use values that have already been set aside for testing or experimentation (if the registry in question allows that without explicit assignment). It is important that drafts not choose their own values, lest IANA assign one of those values to another document in the meantime. A draft can request a specific value in the IANA Considerations section, and IANA will
通常，文件批准时，IANA选择要使用的数值；草稿不应指定最终值。相反，在整个文档中应始终使用诸如“TBD1”和“TBD2”之类的占位符，为要注册的每个项目提供一个不同的占位符。IANA注意事项应要求RFC编辑器将占位符名称替换为IANA指定的值。当草案需要为测试或早期实施指定数值时，他们将请求早期分配（见第3.4节）或使用已预留用于测试或实验的值（如果相关注册表允许，无需明确分配）。重要的是，草稿不要选择自己的值，以免IANA同时将其中一个值分配给另一个文档。草案可以在IANA注意事项部分请求特定值，IANA将
accommodate such requests when possible, but the proposed number might have been assigned to some other use by the time the draft is approved.
在可能的情况下满足此类请求，但在草案获得批准时，提议的编号可能已分配给其他用途。
Normally, text-string values to be used are specified in the document, as collisions are less likely with text strings. IANA will consult with the authors if there is, in fact, a collision, and a different value has to be used. When drafts need to specify string values for testing or early implementations, they sometimes use the expected final value. But it is often useful to use a draft value instead, possibly including the draft version number. This allows the early implementations to be distinguished from those implementing the final version. A document that intends to use "foobar" in the final version might use "foobar-testing-draft-05" for the -05 version of the draft, for example.
通常，要使用的文本字符串值在文档中指定，因为与文本字符串发生冲突的可能性较小。如果事实上发生冲突，IANA将与作者协商，并且必须使用不同的值。当草稿需要为测试或早期实现指定字符串值时，它们有时会使用预期的最终值。但使用草稿值通常很有用，可能包括草稿版本号。这允许将早期实现与最终版本的实现区分开来。例如，打算在最终版本中使用“foobar”的文档可以在草案的-05版本中使用“foobar-testing-draft-05”。
For some registries, there is a long-standing policy prohibiting assignment of names or codes on a vanity or organization-name basis. For example, codes might always be assigned sequentially unless there is a strong reason for making an exception. Nothing in this document is intended to change those policies or prevent their future application.
对于一些登记处，有一项长期的政策，禁止以虚荣或组织名称为基础分配名称或代码。例如，代码可能总是按顺序分配，除非有强烈的理由进行例外。本文件中的任何内容均无意更改这些政策或阻止其未来应用。
As an example, the following text could be used to request assignment of a DHCPv6 option number:
例如，以下文本可用于请求分配DHCPv6选项号：
IANA is asked to assign an option code value of TBD1 to the DNS Recursive Name Server option and an option code value of TBD2 to the Domain Search List option from the DHCP option code space defined in Section 24.3 of RFC 3315.
IANA被要求从RFC 3315第24.3节中定义的DHCP选项代码空间向DNS递归名称服务器选项分配选项代码值TBD1，向域搜索列表选项分配选项代码值TBD2。
The IANA Considerations section should summarize all of the IANA actions, with pointers to the relevant sections elsewhere in the document as appropriate. Including section numbers is especially useful when the reference document is large; the section numbers will make it easier for those searching the reference document to find the relevant information.
IANA注意事项部分应总结所有IANA行动，并在适当的情况下指向文档其他地方的相关部分。当参考文件较大时，包括章节号特别有用；章节编号将使搜索参考文件的人员更容易找到相关信息。
When multiple values are requested, it is generally helpful to include a summary table of the additions/changes. It is also helpful for this table to be in the same format as it appears or will appear on the IANA web site. For example:
当请求多个值时，通常有助于包括添加/更改的汇总表。此表的格式与IANA网站上显示的或将要显示的格式相同也很有帮助。例如：
Value Description Reference
-------- ------------------- ---------
TBD1 Foobar this RFC, Section 3.2
TBD2 Gumbo this RFC, Section 3.3
TBD3 Banana this RFC, Section 3.4
Value Description Reference
-------- ------------------- ---------
TBD1 Foobar this RFC, Section 3.2
TBD2 Gumbo this RFC, Section 3.3
TBD3 Banana this RFC, Section 3.4
Note: In cases where authors feel that including the full table of changes is too verbose or repetitive, authors should still include the table in the draft, but may include a note asking that the table be removed prior to publication of the final RFC.
注：如果作者认为包含完整的变更表过于冗长或重复，作者仍应将该表包含在草案中，但可能会包含一条注释，要求在发布最终RFC之前删除该表。
Even after a number has been assigned, some types of registrations contain additional information that may need to be updated over time.
即使在分配了号码之后，某些类型的注册也包含可能需要随时间更新的附加信息。
For example, MIME media types, character sets, and language tags typically include more information than just the registered value itself, and may need updates to items such as point-of-contact information, security issues, pointers to updates, and literature references.
例如，MIME媒体类型、字符集和语言标记通常包含比注册值本身更多的信息，并且可能需要更新项目，例如联系人信息、安全问题、更新指针和文献引用。
In such cases, the document defining the namespace must clearly state who is responsible for maintaining and updating a registration. Depending on the registry, it may be appropriate to specify one or more of:
在这种情况下，定义名称空间的文档必须明确说明谁负责维护和更新注册。根据注册表的不同，可以指定以下一项或多项：
o Letting registrants and/or nominated change controllers update their own registrations, subject to the same constraints and review as with new registrations.
o 允许注册人和/或指定变更控制人更新其自己的注册，遵守与新注册相同的约束和审查。
o Allowing attachment of comments to the registration. This can be useful in cases where others have significant objections to a registration, but the author does not agree to change the registration.
o 允许在注册中附加评论。如果其他人对登记有重大反对意见，但提交人不同意更改登记，则这一点很有用。
o Designating the IESG, a designated expert, or another entity as having the right to change the registrant associated with a registration and any requirements or conditions on doing so. This is mainly to get around the problem when a registrant cannot be reached in order to make necessary updates.
o 指定IESG、指定专家或其他实体有权更改与注册相关的注册人以及任何相关要求或条件。这主要是为了在无法联系到注册人以进行必要的更新时解决问题。
Experience has shown that the documented IANA considerations for individual protocols do not always adequately cover the reality of registry operation or are not sufficiently clear. In addition, documented IANA considerations are sometimes found to be too stringent to allow even working group documents (for which there is strong consensus) to perform a registration in advance of actual RFC publication.
经验表明，记录在案的各个协议的IANA注意事项并不总是充分涵盖注册表操作的实际情况或不够清楚。此外，有时发现记录在案的IANA考虑因素过于严格，以至于工作组文件（对此有强烈的共识）都无法在实际RFC发布之前进行注册。
In order to allow assignments in such cases, the IESG is granted authority to override registration procedures and approve assignments on a case-by-case basis.
为了在这种情况下允许转让，IESG有权撤销登记程序，并根据具体情况批准转让。
The intention here is not to overrule properly documented procedures or to obviate the need for protocols to properly document their IANA considerations. Rather, it is to permit assignments in specific cases where it is obvious that the assignment should just be made, but updating the IANA process beforehand is too onerous.
此处的目的不是否决适当记录的程序，或避免协议需要适当记录其IANA注意事项。更确切地说，这是为了允许在特定情况下进行分配，在这种情况下，显然应该只进行分配，但事先更新IANA流程过于繁重。
When the IESG is required to take action as described above, it is a strong indicator that the applicable registration procedures should be updated, possibly in parallel with the work that instigated it.
当需要IESG采取上述行动时，这是一个强有力的指标，即应更新适用的登记程序，可能与促成登记程序的工作同时进行。
IANA always has the discretion to ask the IESG for advice or intervention when they feel it is needed, such as in cases where policies or procedures are unclear to them, where they encounter issues or questions they are unable to resolve, or where registration requests or patterns of requests appear to be unusual or abusive.
当IESG认为有必要时，IANA始终有权向IESG寻求建议或干预，例如政策或程序不明确、遇到无法解决的问题或疑问、注册请求或请求模式似乎异常或滥用。
IANA normally takes its actions when a document is approved for publication. There are times, though, when early allocation of a value is important for the development of a technology, for example, when early implementations are created while the document is still under development.
IANA通常在批准发布文件时采取行动。但是，有时早期分配价值对于技术的开发很重要，例如，在文档仍在开发中时创建早期实现。
IANA has a mechanism for handling such early allocations in some cases. See [RFC7120] for details. It is usually not necessary to explicitly mark a registry as allowing early allocation, because the general rules will apply.
IANA在某些情况下具有处理此类早期分配的机制。详见[RFC7120]。通常不必显式地将注册表标记为允许提前分配，因为一般规则将适用。
A registration policy is the policy that controls how new assignments in a registry are accepted. There are several issues to consider when defining the registration policy.
注册策略是控制如何接受注册表中的新分配的策略。在定义注册策略时需要考虑几个问题。
If the registry's namespace is limited, assignments will need to be made carefully to prevent exhaustion.
如果注册表的名称空间有限，则需要小心地进行分配以防止耗尽。
Even when the space is essentially unlimited, it is still often desirable to have at least a minimal review prior to assignment in order to:
即使空间基本上是无限的，通常还是希望在分配之前至少进行一次最低限度的审查，以便：
o prevent the hoarding of or unnecessary wasting of values. For example, if the space consists of text strings, it may be desirable to prevent entities from obtaining large sets of strings that correspond to desirable names (existing company names, for example).
o 防止囤积或不必要地浪费价值。例如，如果空格由文本字符串组成，则可能需要防止实体获取与所需名称（例如，现有公司名称）对应的大型字符串集。
o provide a sanity check that the request actually makes sense and is necessary. Experience has shown that some level of minimal review from a subject matter expert is useful to prevent assignments in cases where the request is malformed or not actually needed (for example, an existing assignment for an essentially equivalent service already exists).
o 提供一个健全的检查，以确保请求实际上是有意义的，并且是必要的。经验表明，在请求格式不正确或实际不需要的情况下（例如，已经存在实质上等同的服务的现有分配），主题专家的某种程度的最低审查有助于防止分配。
Perhaps most importantly, unreviewed extensions can impact interoperability and security. See [RFC6709].
也许最重要的是，未经查看的扩展可能会影响互操作性和安全性。见[RFC6709]。
When the namespace is essentially unlimited and there are no potential interoperability or security issues, assigned numbers can usually be given out to anyone without any subjective review. In such cases, IANA can make assignments directly, provided that IANA is given detailed instructions on what types of requests it should grant, and it is able to do so without exercising subjective judgment.
当名称空间基本上是无限的，并且没有潜在的互操作性或安全问题时，分配的号码通常可以分发给任何人，而无需任何主观审查。在这种情况下，IANA可以直接进行分配，前提是IANA得到了关于其应批准何种类型请求的详细说明，并且IANA能够在不进行主观判断的情况下进行分配。
When this is not the case, some level of review is required. However, it's important to balance adequate review and ease of registration. In many cases, those making registrations will not be IETF participants; requests often come from other standards organizations, from organizations not directly involved in standards, from ad-hoc community work (from an open-source project, for example), and so on. Registration must not be unnecessarily difficult, unnecessarily costly (in terms of time and other resources), nor unnecessarily subject to denial.
如果情况并非如此，则需要进行某种程度的审查。然而，重要的是要平衡充分的审查和易于注册。在许多情况下，注册者将不是IETF参与者；请求通常来自其他标准组织、不直接参与标准的组织、临时社区工作（例如，来自开源项目）等等。注册不得有不必要的困难、不必要的成本（在时间和其他资源方面），也不得有不必要的拒绝。
While it is sometimes necessary to restrict what gets registered (e.g., for limited resources such as bits in a byte, or for items for which unsupported values can be damaging to protocol operation), in many cases having what's in use represented in the registry is more important. Overly strict review criteria and excessive cost (in time and effort) discourage people from even attempting to make a registration. If a registry fails to reflect the protocol elements actually in use, it can adversely affect deployment of protocols on the Internet, and the registry itself is devalued.
虽然有时有必要限制注册的内容（例如，对于有限的资源，例如字节中的位，或者对于不支持的值可能会破坏协议操作的项目），但在许多情况下，在注册表中表示正在使用的内容更为重要。过于严格的审查标准和过高的成本（在时间和精力上）使人们甚至不愿尝试注册。如果注册表未能反映实际使用的协议元素，可能会对Internet上协议的部署产生不利影响，注册表本身也会贬值。
Therefore, it is important to think specifically about the registration policy, and not just pick one arbitrarily nor copy text from another document. Working groups and other document developers should use care in selecting appropriate registration policies when their documents create registries. They should select the least strict policy that suits a registry's needs, and look for specific justification for policies that require significant community involvement (those stricter than Expert Review or Specification Required, in terms of the well-known policies). The needs here will vary from registry to registry, and, indeed, over time, and this BCP will not be the last word on the subject.
因此，重要的是要具体考虑注册政策，而不是随意挑选一个文件或从另一个文件中复制文本。工作组和其他文档开发人员在其文档创建注册表时应谨慎选择适当的注册策略。他们应选择最不严格的政策，以满足登记处的需要，并为需要大量社区参与的政策寻找具体的理由（就众所周知的政策而言，这些政策比所需的专家审查或规范更严格）。这里的需求将因注册中心而异，事实上，随着时间的推移，这一业务连续性计划将不会是关于这一主题的最后决定。
The following policies are defined for common usage. These cover a range of typical policies that have been used to describe the procedures for assigning new values in a namespace. It is not strictly required that documents use these terms; the actual requirement is that the instructions to IANA be clear and unambiguous. However, use of these terms is strongly recommended because their meanings are widely understood. Newly minted policies, including ones that combine the elements of procedures associated with these terms in novel ways, may be used if none of these policies are suitable; it will help the review process if an explanation is included as to why that is the case. The terms are fully explained in the following subsections.
以下策略是为通用而定义的。这些策略涵盖了一系列典型策略，这些策略用于描述在命名空间中分配新值的过程。文件不严格要求使用这些术语；实际要求是IANA的说明应清晰明确。但是，强烈建议使用这些术语，因为它们的含义已被广泛理解。新制定的政策，包括以新颖方式结合与这些术语相关的程序要素的政策，如果这些政策都不适用，则可以使用；如果能解释为什么会这样，这将有助于审查进程。以下小节对这些术语进行了详细解释。
1. Private Use 2. Experimental Use 3. Hierarchical Allocation 4. First Come First Served 5. Expert Review 6. Specification Required 7. RFC Required 8. IETF Review 9. Standards Action 10. IESG Approval
1. 私人用途2。实验用途3。分层分配4。先到先得。专家审评6。所需规格7。RFC要求8。IETF评论9。标准行动10。IESG批准
It should be noted that it often makes sense to partition a namespace into multiple categories, with assignments within each category handled differently. Many protocols now partition namespaces into two or more parts, with one range reserved for Private or Experimental Use while other ranges are reserved for globally unique assignments assigned following some review process. Dividing a namespace into ranges makes it possible to have different policies in place for different ranges and different use cases.
应该注意的是，将名称空间划分为多个类别通常是有意义的，每个类别中的分配处理方式不同。许多协议现在将名称空间划分为两个或多个部分，其中一个范围保留供私人或实验使用，而另一个范围保留供在某些审查过程之后分配的全局唯一分配。将名称空间划分为多个范围可以为不同的范围和不同的用例制定不同的策略。
Similarly, it will often be useful to specify multiple policies in parallel, with each policy being used under different circumstances. For more discussion of that topic, see Section 4.12.
类似地，并行指定多个策略通常很有用，每个策略在不同的情况下使用。有关该主题的更多讨论，请参见第4.12节。
Examples of RFCs that specify multiple policies in parallel:
并行指定多个策略的RFC示例：
LDAP [RFC4520] TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers [RFC5246] (as detailed in the subsections below) MPLS Pseudowire Types Registry [RFC4446]
LDAP[RFC4520]TLS客户端证书类型标识符[RFC5246]（详见下文小节）MPLS伪线类型注册表[RFC4446]
Private Use is for private or local use only, with the type and purpose defined by the local site. No attempt is made to prevent multiple sites from using the same value in different (and incompatible) ways. IANA does not record assignments from registries or ranges with this policy (and therefore there is no need for IANA to review them) and assignments are not generally useful for broad interoperability. It is the responsibility of the sites making use of the Private Use range to ensure that no conflicts occur (within the intended scope of use).
私人用途仅供私人或本地使用，其类型和用途由本地站点定义。未尝试阻止多个站点以不同（且不兼容）的方式使用相同的值。IANA不使用此策略记录来自注册中心或范围的分配（因此，IANA无需审查这些分配），并且分配对于广泛的互操作性通常没有用处。使用私人使用范围的场所有责任确保不发生冲突（在预期使用范围内）。
Examples:
示例：
Site-specific options in DHCP [RFC2939]
Fibre Channel Port Type Registry [RFC4044]
TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers 224-255 [RFC5246]
Site-specific options in DHCP [RFC2939]
Fibre Channel Port Type Registry [RFC4044]
TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers 224-255 [RFC5246]
Experimental Use is similar to Private Use, but with the purpose being to facilitate experimentation. See [RFC3692] for details. IANA does not record assignments from registries or ranges with this policy (and therefore there is no need for IANA to review them) and assignments are not generally useful for broad interoperability. Unless the registry explicitly allows it, it is not appropriate for documents to select explicit values from registries or ranges with this policy. Specific experiments will select a value to use during the experiment.
实验性使用类似于私人使用，但目的是为了方便实验。详见[RFC3692]。IANA不使用此策略记录来自注册中心或范围的分配（因此，IANA无需审查这些分配），并且分配对于广泛的互操作性通常没有用处。除非注册表明确允许，否则文档不适合使用此策略从注册表或范围中选择显式值。特定实验将选择一个值，以便在实验过程中使用。
When code points are set aside for Experimental Use, it's important to make clear any expected restrictions on experimental scope. For example, say whether it's acceptable to run experiments using those code points over the open Internet or whether such experiments should be confined to more closed environments. See [RFC6994] for an example of such considerations.
当代码点被留作实验使用时，明确实验范围的任何预期限制是很重要的。比如说，在开放的互联网上使用这些代码点进行实验是可以接受的，还是应该将这些实验限制在更封闭的环境中。有关此类注意事项的示例，请参见[RFC6994]。
Example:
例子：
Experimental Values in IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers [RFC4727]
IPv4、IPv6、ICMPv4、ICMPv6、UDP和TCP标头中的实验值[RFC4727]
With Hierarchical Allocation, delegated administrators are given control over part of the namespace and can assign values in that part of the namespace. IANA makes allocations in the higher levels of the namespace according to one of the other policies.
通过分层分配，授权管理员可以控制命名空间的一部分，并可以在该部分命名空间中分配值。IANA根据其他策略之一在命名空间的更高级别进行分配。
Examples:
示例：
o DNS names - IANA manages the top-level domains (TLDs), and, as [RFC1591] says:
o DNS名称-IANA管理顶级域（TLD），如[RFC1591]所述：
Under each TLD may be created a hierarchy of names. Generally, under the generic TLDs the structure is very flat. That is, many organizations are registered directly under the TLD, and any further structure is up to the individual organizations.
在每个TLD下可以创建一个名称层次结构。一般来说，在通用TLD下，结构非常平坦。也就是说，许多组织直接在TLD下注册，任何进一步的结构取决于各个组织。
o Object Identifiers - defined by ITU-T recommendation X.208. According to <http://www.alvestrand.no/objectid/>, some registries include
o 对象标识符-由ITU-T建议X.208定义。据<http://www.alvestrand.no/objectid/>，部分注册处包括
* IANA, which hands out OIDs under the "Private Enterprises" branch, * ANSI, which hands out OIDs under the "US Organizations" branch, and * BSI, which hands out OIDs under the "UK Organizations" branch.
* IANA在“私营企业”分支机构下发放OID，*ANSI在“美国组织”分支机构下发放OID，*BSI在“英国组织”分支机构下发放OID。
o URN namespaces - IANA registers URN Namespace IDs (NIDs [RFC8141]), and the organization registering an NID is responsible for allocations of URNs within that namespace.
o URN名称空间-IANA注册URN名称空间ID（NID[RFC8141]），注册NID的组织负责在该名称空间内分配URN。
For the First Come First Served policy, assignments are made to anyone on a first come, first served basis. There is no substantive review of the request, other than to ensure that it is well-formed and doesn't duplicate an existing assignment. However, requests must include a minimal amount of clerical information, such as a point of contact (including an email address, and sometimes a postal address) and a brief description of how the value will be used. Additional information specific to the type of value requested may also need to be provided, as defined by the namespace. For numbers, IANA generally assigns the next in-sequence unallocated value, but other values may be requested and assigned if an extenuating circumstance exists. With names, specific text strings can usually be requested.
对于先到先得的政策，分配给任何人都是先到先得的。对请求没有实质性审查，只是为了确保请求的格式正确，并且不会与现有任务重复。但是，请求必须包含最低数量的文书信息，例如联系人（包括电子邮件地址，有时还包括邮政地址）以及如何使用价值的简要说明。根据名称空间的定义，可能还需要提供特定于请求的值类型的附加信息。对于数字，IANA通常会按顺序分配下一个未分配值，但如果存在可减轻的情况，则可能会请求并分配其他值。对于名称，通常可以请求特定的文本字符串。
When creating a new registry with First Come First Served as the registration policy, in addition to the contact person field or reference, the registry should contain a field for change controller. Having a change controller for each entry for these types of registrations makes authorization of future modifications more clear. See Section 2.3.
当创建一个以先到先得作为注册策略的新注册表时，除了联系人字段或引用之外，注册表还应包含一个change controller字段。为这些类型的注册的每个条目设置一个变更控制器可以使未来修改的授权更加明确。见第2.3节。
It is important that changes to the registration of a First Come First Served code point retain compatibility with the current usage of that code point, so changes need to be made with care. The change controller should not, in most cases, be requesting incompatible changes nor repurposing a registered code point. See also Sections 9.4 and 9.5.
先到先得的代码点的注册更改必须与该代码点的当前使用保持兼容，因此需要小心进行更改。在大多数情况下，变更控制器不应请求不兼容的变更，也不应重新调整已注册代码点的用途。另见第9.4节和第9.5节。
A working group or any other entity that is developing a protocol based on a First Come First Served code point has to be extremely careful that the protocol retains wire compatibility with current use of the code point. Once that is no longer true, the new work needs to change to a different code point (and register that use at the appropriate time).
根据先到先得的代码点开发协议的工作组或任何其他实体必须非常小心，以确保协议与当前使用的代码点保持有线兼容性。一旦这不再正确，新的工作需要更改到不同的代码点（并在适当的时间注册使用的代码点）。
It is also important to understand that First Come First Served really has no filtering. Essentially, any well-formed request is accepted.
同样重要的是要了解，先到先得确实没有过滤功能。基本上，任何形式良好的请求都会被接受。
Examples:
示例：
SASL mechanism names [RFC4422] LDAP Protocol Mechanisms and LDAP Syntax [RFC4520]
SASL机制名称[RFC4422]LDAP协议机制和LDAP语法[RFC4520]
For the Expert Review policy, review and approval by a designated expert (see Section 5) is required. While this does not necessarily require formal documentation, information needs to be provided with the request for the designated expert to evaluate. The registry's definition needs to make clear to registrants what information is necessary. The actual process for requesting registrations is administered by IANA (see Section 1.2 for details).
对于专家审查政策，需要指定专家的审查和批准（见第5节）。虽然这不一定需要正式文件，但需要在请求指定专家评估时提供信息。登记处的定义需要向登记人明确哪些信息是必要的。申请注册的实际流程由IANA管理（详见第1.2节）。
(This policy was also called "Designated Expert" in earlier editions of this document. The current term is "Expert Review".)
（本政策在本文件早期版本中也称为“指定专家”。当前术语为“专家评审”。）
The required documentation and review criteria, giving clear guidance to the designated expert, should be provided when defining the registry. It is particularly important to lay out what should be considered when performing an evaluation and reasons for rejecting a request. It is also a good idea to include, when possible, a sense
在界定登记册时，应提供所需的文件和审查标准，向指定专家提供明确的指导。特别重要的是，列出在执行评估时应考虑的内容以及拒绝请求的原因。在可能的情况下，加入一种感觉也是一个好主意
of whether many registrations are expected over time, or if the registry is expected to be updated infrequently or in exceptional circumstances only.
是否预计随着时间的推移会有许多注册，或者是否预计注册不经常更新，或者仅在特殊情况下更新。
Thorough understanding of Section 5 is important when deciding on an Expert Review policy and designing the guidance to the designated expert.
在决定专家审评政策和为指定专家设计指南时，彻底理解第5节非常重要。
Good examples of guidance to designated experts:
向指定专家提供指导的好例子：
Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) [RFC3748], Sections 6 and 7.2 North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE Information Using BGP [RFC7752], Section 5.1
可扩展认证协议（EAP）[RFC3748]，第6节和第7.2节使用BGP[RFC7752]的链路状态和TE信息北向分布，第5.1节
When creating a new registry with Expert Review as the registration policy, in addition to the contact person field or reference, the registry should contain a field for change controller. Having a change controller for each entry for these types of registrations makes authorization of future modifications more clear. See Section 2.3.
在创建以专家评审作为注册策略的新注册表时，除了联系人字段或参考之外，注册表还应包含更改控制器字段。为这些类型的注册的每个条目设置一个变更控制器可以使未来修改的授权更加明确。见第2.3节。
Examples:
示例：
EAP Method Types [RFC3748]
HTTP Digest AKA algorithm versions [RFC4169]
URI schemes [RFC7595]
GEOPRIV Location Types [RFC4589]
EAP Method Types [RFC3748]
HTTP Digest AKA algorithm versions [RFC4169]
URI schemes [RFC7595]
GEOPRIV Location Types [RFC4589]
For the Specification Required policy, review and approval by a designated expert (see Section 5) is required, and the values and their meanings must be documented in a permanent and readily available public specification, in sufficient detail so that interoperability between independent implementations is possible. This policy is the same as Expert Review, with the additional requirement of a formal public specification. In addition to the normal review of such a request, the designated expert will review the public specification and evaluate whether it is sufficiently stable and permanent, and sufficiently clear and technically sound to allow interoperable implementations.
对于规范要求的政策，需要指定专家（见第5节）的审查和批准，并且必须将值及其含义记录在永久且随时可用的公共规范中，足够详细，以便独立实现之间的互操作性成为可能。该政策与专家评审相同，但有正式公共规范的附加要求。除了对此类请求进行正常审查外，指定专家还将审查公共规范，并评估其是否足够稳定和永久，是否足够清晰和技术健全，以允许互操作实施。
The intention behind "permanent and readily available" is that a document can reasonably be expected to be findable and retrievable long after IANA assignment of the requested value. Publication of an RFC is an ideal means of achieving this requirement, but Specification Required is intended to also cover the case of a
“永久和随时可用”背后的意图是，在IANA分配请求的值之后，可以合理地预期文档可以被查找和检索。发布RFC是实现此要求的理想方式，但所需规范也旨在涵盖以下情况：
document published outside of the RFC path, including informal documentation.
在RFC路径之外发布的文档，包括非正式文档。
For RFC publication, formal review by the designated expert is still requested, but the normal RFC review process is expected to provide the necessary review for interoperability. The designated expert's review is still important, but it's equally important to note that when there is IETF consensus, the expert can sometimes be "in the rough" (see also the last paragraph of Section 5.4).
对于RFC出版物，仍然要求指定专家进行正式审查，但正常的RFC审查过程预计将提供必要的互操作性审查。指定专家的审查仍然很重要，但同样重要的是要注意，当IETF达成共识时，专家有时可能“处于粗略状态”（另见第5.4节最后一段）。
As with Expert Review (Section 4.5), clear guidance to the designated expert should be provided when defining the registry, and thorough understanding of Section 5 is important.
与专家审评（第4.5节）一样，在界定登记册时，应向指定专家提供明确的指导，对第5节的透彻理解非常重要。
When specifying this policy, just use the term "Specification Required". Some specifications have chosen to refer to it as "Expert Review with Specification Required", and that only causes confusion.
在指定此策略时，只需使用术语“需要规范”。一些规范选择将其称为“需要规范的专家评审”，这只会引起混淆。
Examples:
示例：
Diffserv-aware TE Bandwidth Constraints Model Identifiers
[RFC4124]
TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers 64-223 [RFC5246]
ROHC Profile Identifiers [RFC5795]
Diffserv-aware TE Bandwidth Constraints Model Identifiers
[RFC4124]
TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers 64-223 [RFC5246]
ROHC Profile Identifiers [RFC5795]
With the RFC Required policy, the registration request, along with associated documentation, must be published in an RFC. The RFC need not be in the IETF stream, but may be in any RFC stream (currently an RFC may be in the IETF, IRTF, IAB, or Independent Submission streams [RFC5742]).
根据RFC要求的策略，注册请求以及相关文档必须在RFC中发布。RFC不需要在IETF流中，但可以在任何RFC流中（当前RFC可以在IETF、IRTF、IAB或独立提交流[RFC5742]）。
Unless otherwise specified, any type of RFC is sufficient (currently Standards Track, BCP, Informational, Experimental, or Historic).
除非另有规定，否则任何类型的RFC都是足够的（目前标准轨道、BCP、信息、实验或历史）。
Examples:
示例：
DNSSEC DNS Security Algorithm Numbers [RFC6014]
Media Control Channel Framework registries [RFC6230]
DANE TLSA Certificate Usages [RFC6698]
DNSSEC DNS Security Algorithm Numbers [RFC6014]
Media Control Channel Framework registries [RFC6230]
DANE TLSA Certificate Usages [RFC6698]
(Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in the first edition of this document.) With the IETF Review policy, new values are assigned only through RFCs in the IETF Stream -- those that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD-Sponsored or IETF working group documents
（在本文件第一版中以前称为“IETF共识”）。根据IETF审查政策，新的值仅通过IETF流中的RFC分配——这些值已作为AD赞助文件或IETF工作组文件通过IESG引导
[RFC2026] [RFC5378], have gone through IETF Last Call, and have been approved by the IESG as having IETF consensus.
[RFC2026][RFC5378]，已通过IETF最后一次呼叫，并已被IESG批准为具有IETF共识。
The intent is that the document and proposed assignment will be reviewed by the IETF community (including appropriate IETF working groups, directorates, and other experts) and by the IESG, to ensure that the proposed assignment will not negatively affect interoperability or otherwise extend IETF protocols in an inappropriate or damaging manner.
其目的是由IETF团体（包括适当的IETF工作组、董事会和其他专家）和IESG审查文件和提议的任务，以确保提议的任务不会对互操作性产生负面影响，或以不适当或有害的方式扩展IETF协议。
Unless otherwise specified, any type of RFC is sufficient (currently Standards Track, BCP, Informational, Experimental, or Historic).
除非另有规定，否则任何类型的RFC都是足够的（目前标准轨道、BCP、信息、实验或历史）。
Examples:
示例：
IPSECKEY Algorithm Types [RFC4025] TLS Extension Types [RFC5246]
IPSECKEY算法类型[RFC4025]TLS扩展类型[RFC5246]
For the Standards Action policy, values are assigned only through Standards Track or Best Current Practice RFCs in the IETF Stream.
对于标准行动政策，仅通过IETF流中的标准跟踪或最佳当前实践RFC分配值。
Examples:
示例：
BGP message types [RFC4271]
Mobile Node Identifier option types [RFC4283]
TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers 0-63 [RFC5246]
DCCP Packet Types [RFC4340]
BGP message types [RFC4271]
Mobile Node Identifier option types [RFC4283]
TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers 0-63 [RFC5246]
DCCP Packet Types [RFC4340]
New assignments may be approved by the IESG. Although there is no requirement that the request be documented in an RFC, the IESG has the discretion to request documents or other supporting materials on a case-by-case basis.
新任务可由IESG批准。虽然不要求将请求记录在RFC中，但IESG有权根据具体情况请求文件或其他支持材料。
IESG Approval is not intended to be used often or as a "common case"; indeed, it has seldom been used in practice. Rather, it is intended to be available in conjunction with other policies as a fall-back mechanism in the case where one of the other allowable approval mechanisms cannot be employed in a timely fashion or for some other compelling reason. IESG Approval is not intended to circumvent the public review processes implied by other policies that could have been employed for a particular assignment. IESG Approval would be appropriate, however, in cases where expediency is desired and there is strong consensus (such as from a working group) for making the assignment.
IESG批准不打算经常使用或作为“常见情况”；事实上，它很少在实践中使用。相反，当其他允许的批准机制之一无法及时使用或由于其他一些强制性原因无法使用时，它将与其他政策一起作为一种后备机制提供。IESG的批准并不是为了规避可能用于特定任务的其他政策暗示的公共审查流程。然而，如果需要权宜之计，并且对派遣达成了强烈共识（如工作组），IESG批准是合适的。
Before approving a request, the IESG might consider consulting the community, via a "call for comments" that provides as much information as is reasonably possible about the request.
在批准请求之前，IESG可以考虑通过“征求意见”来咨询社区，它提供了与请求合理合理的信息。
Examples:
示例：
IPv4 Multicast address assignments [RFC5771]
IPv4 IGMP Type and Code values [RFC3228]
Mobile IPv6 Mobility Header Type and Option values [RFC6275]
IPv4 Multicast address assignments [RFC5771]
IPv4 IGMP Type and Code values [RFC3228]
Mobile IPv6 Mobility Header Type and Option values [RFC6275]
Because the well-known policies benefit from both community experience and wide understanding, their use is encouraged, and the creation of new policies needs to be accompanied by reasonable justification.
由于众所周知的政策得益于社区经验和广泛理解，因此鼓励使用这些政策，制定新政策时需要有合理的理由。
It is also acceptable to cite one or more well-known policies and include additional guidelines for what kind of considerations should be taken into account by the review process.
还可以引用一项或多项众所周知的政策，并就审查过程中应考虑的考虑事项提出补充准则。
For example, for media-type registrations [RFC6838], a number of different situations are covered that involve the use of IETF Review and Specification Required, while also including specific additional criteria the designated expert should follow. This is not meant to represent a registration procedure, but to show an example of what can be done when special circumstances need to be covered.
例如，对于媒体类型注册[RFC6838]，涉及使用IETF审查和所需规范的许多不同情况，同时还包括指定专家应遵循的特定附加标准。这并不是为了代表一个登记程序，而是为了举例说明在需要涵盖特殊情况时可以做些什么。
The well-known policies from "First Come First Served" to "Standards Action" specify a range of policies in increasing order of strictness (using the numbering from the full list in Section 4):
从“先到先得”到“标准行动”的著名政策按照严格的顺序规定了一系列政策（使用第4节完整列表中的编号）：
4. First Come First Served No review, minimal documentation.
4. 先到先得，无需审查，只需极少的文档。
5 and 6 (of equal strictness).
5和6（严格程度相同）。
5. Expert Review Expert review with sufficient documentation for review.
5. 专家评审专家评审，提供足够的评审文件。
6. Specification Required Significant stable public documentation sufficient for interoperability.
6. 该规范需要大量稳定的公共文档，足以实现互操作性。
7. RFC Required Any RFC publication, IETF or a non-IETF Stream.
7. RFC需要任何RFC出版物、IETF或非IETF流。
8. IETF Review
8. IETF审查
RFC publication, IETF Stream only, but need not be Standards Track.
RFC出版物，仅限IETF流，但不必是标准跟踪。
9. Standards Action RFC publication, IETF Stream, Standards Track or BCP only.
9. 仅限标准行动RFC出版物、IETF流、标准跟踪或BCP。
Examples of situations that might merit IETF Review or Standards Action include the following:
可能值得IETF审查或标准行动的情况示例包括：
o When a resource is limited, such as bits in a byte (or in two bytes, or four), or numbers in a limited range. In these cases, allowing registrations that haven't been carefully reviewed and agreed to by community consensus could too quickly deplete the allowable values.
o 当资源受到限制时，例如一个字节（或两个字节或四个字节）中的位，或有限范围内的数字。在这些情况下，允许未经社区协商一致仔细审查和同意的注册可能会很快耗尽允许值。
o When thorough community review is necessary to avoid extending or modifying the protocol in ways that could be damaging. One example is in defining new command codes, as opposed to options that use existing command codes: the former might require a strict policy, where a more relaxed policy could be adequate for the latter. Another example is in defining protocol elements that change the semantics of existing operations.
o 当需要进行彻底的社区审查以避免以可能造成损害的方式扩展或修改协议时。一个例子是定义新的命令代码，而不是使用现有命令代码的选项：前者可能需要严格的策略，后者可能需要更宽松的策略。另一个例子是定义更改现有操作语义的协议元素。
o When there are security implications with respect to the resource, and thorough review is needed to ensure that the new usage is sound. Examples of this include lists of acceptable hashing and cryptographic algorithms, and assignment of transport ports in the system range.
o 当资源存在安全隐患时，需要进行彻底的审查以确保新的使用是合理的。这方面的示例包括可接受的哈希和加密算法列表，以及系统范围内传输端口的分配。
When reviewing a document that asks IANA to create a new registry or change a registration policy to any policy more stringent than Expert Review or Specification Required, the IESG should ask for justification to ensure that more relaxed policies have been considered and that the more strict policy is the right one.
当审查要求IANA创建新注册中心或将注册政策更改为比专家审查或规范要求更严格的任何政策的文件时，IESG应要求提供理由，以确保考虑了更宽松的政策，并且更严格的政策是正确的。
Accordingly, document developers need to anticipate this and document their considerations for selecting the specified policy (ideally, in the document itself; failing that, in the shepherd writeup). Likewise, the document shepherd should ensure that the selected policies have been justified before sending the document to the IESG.
因此，文档开发人员需要预见到这一点，并记录他们选择指定策略的注意事项（理想情况下，在文档本身中；否则，在shepherd writeup中）。同样，文件管理员应确保在将文件发送给IESG之前，所选政策已被证明合理。
When specifications are revised, registration policies should be reviewed in light of experience since the policies were set.
修订规范时，应根据政策制定以来的经验审查注册政策。
In some situations, it is necessary to define multiple registration policies. For example, registrations through the normal IETF process
在某些情况下，有必要定义多个注册策略。例如，通过正常的IETF流程进行注册
might use one policy, while registrations from outside the process would have a different policy applied.
可能使用一个策略，而来自进程外部的注册将应用不同的策略。
Thus, a particular registry might want to use a policy such as "RFC Required" or "IETF Review" sometimes, with a designated expert checking a "Specification Required" policy at other times.
因此，特定的注册中心有时可能希望使用诸如“RFC要求”或“IETF审查”之类的策略，而指定专家在其他时间检查“规范要求”策略。
The alternative to using a combination requires either that all requests come through RFCs or that requests in RFCs go through review by the designated expert, even though they already have IETF review and consensus.
使用组合的替代方案要求所有请求通过RFC或RFC中的请求通过指定专家的审查，即使他们已经有IETF审查和共识。
This can be documented in the IANA Considerations section when the registry is created, for example:
创建注册表时，可以在IANA注意事项部分记录这一点，例如：
IANA is asked to create the registry "Fruit Access Flags" under the "Fruit Parameters" group. New registrations will be permitted through either the IETF Review policy or the Specification Required policy [BCP26]. The latter should be used only for registrations requested by SDOs outside the IETF. Registrations requested in IETF documents will be subject to IETF review.
IANA被要求在“水果参数”组下创建注册表“水果访问标志”。将通过IETF审查政策或规范要求政策[BCP26]允许新注册。后者应仅用于IETF之外的SDO请求的注册。IETF文件中要求的注册将接受IETF审查。
Such combinations will commonly use one of {Standards Action, IETF Review, RFC Required} in combination with one of {Specification Required, Expert Review}. Guidance should be provided about when each policy is appropriate, as in the example above.
这种组合通常使用{标准行动，IETF审查，RFC要求}中的一种与{规范要求，专家审查}中的一种组合。应提供有关每项政策何时适用的指导，如上例所示。
Some existing registries have policies that allow provisional registration: see URI Schemes [RFC7595] and Email Header Fields [RFC3864]. Registrations that are designated as provisional are usually defined as being more readily created, changed, reassigned, moved to another status, or removed entirely. URI Schemes, for example, allow provisional registrations to be made with incomplete information.
一些现有注册中心具有允许临时注册的策略：请参阅URI方案[RFC7595]和电子邮件头字段[RFC3864]。被指定为临时的注册通常被定义为更容易创建、更改、重新分配、移动到另一个状态或完全删除。例如，URI方案允许使用不完整的信息进行临时注册。
Allowing provisional registration ensures that the primary goal of maintaining a registry -- avoiding collisions between incompatible semantics -- is achieved without the side effect of "endorsing" the protocol mechanism the provisional value is used for. Provisional registrations for codepoints that are ultimately standardized can be promoted to permanent status. The criteria that are defined for converting a provisional registration to permanent will likely be more strict than those that allowed the provisional registration.
允许临时注册可确保实现维护注册表的主要目标——避免不兼容语义之间的冲突——而不会产生“认可”临时值用于的协议机制的副作用。最终标准化的代码点临时注册可以升级为永久状态。将临时登记转为永久登记的标准可能比允许临时登记的标准更严格。
If your registry does not have a practical limit on codepoints, perhaps adding the option for provisional registrations might be
如果您的注册中心没有对代码点的实际限制，那么添加临时注册的选项可能是
right for that registry as well.
也适用于该注册表。
Discussion on a mailing list can provide valuable technical feedback, but opinions often vary and discussions may continue for some time without clear resolution. In addition, IANA cannot participate in all of these mailing lists and cannot determine if or when such discussions reach consensus. Therefore, IANA relies on a "designated expert" for advice regarding the specific question of whether an assignment should be made. The designated expert is an individual who is responsible for carrying out an appropriate evaluation and returning a recommendation to IANA.
邮件列表上的讨论可以提供有价值的技术反馈，但意见往往不同，讨论可能会持续一段时间而没有明确的解决方案。此外，IANA无法参与所有这些邮件列表，也无法确定这些讨论是否或何时达成共识。因此，IANA依赖“指定专家”就是否应进行任务的具体问题提供建议。指定专家是负责进行适当评估并向IANA返回建议的个人。
It should be noted that a key motivation for having designated experts is for the IETF to provide IANA with a subject matter expert to whom the evaluation process can be delegated. IANA forwards requests for an assignment to the expert for evaluation, and the expert (after performing the evaluation) informs IANA as to whether or not to make the assignment or registration. In most cases, the registrants do not work directly with the designated experts. The list of designated experts for a registry is listed in the registry.
应该注意的是，指定专家的一个关键动机是IETF向IANA提供一名主题专家，评估过程可以委托给该专家。IANA将派遣请求转发给专家进行评估，专家（在执行评估后）通知IANA是否进行派遣或注册。在大多数情况下，注册人不直接与指定专家合作。登记册中列出了登记册的指定专家名单。
It will often be useful to use a designated expert only some of the time, as a supplement to other processes. For more discussion of that topic, see Section 4.12.
仅在某些时候使用指定专家作为其他过程的补充通常是有用的。有关该主题的更多讨论，请参见第4.12节。
The designated expert is responsible for coordinating the appropriate review of an assignment request. The review may be wide or narrow, depending on the situation and the judgment of the designated expert. This may involve consultation with a set of technology experts, discussion on a public mailing list, consultation with a working group (or its mailing list if the working group has disbanded), etc. Ideally, the designated expert follows specific review criteria as documented with the protocol that creates or uses the namespace. See the IANA Considerations sections of [RFC3748] and [RFC3575] for specific examples.
指定专家负责协调任务请求的适当审查。根据情况和指定专家的判断，审查可能是广泛的，也可能是狭窄的。这可能涉及咨询一组技术专家、讨论公共邮件列表、咨询工作组（或其邮件列表，如果工作组已解散）等。理想情况下，指定专家遵循创建或使用名称空间的协议中记录的特定审查标准。有关具体示例，请参见[RFC3748]和[RFC3575]的IANA注意事项部分。
Designated experts are expected to be able to defend their decisions to the IETF community, and the evaluation process is not intended to be secretive or bestow unquestioned power on the expert. Experts are expected to apply applicable documented review or vetting procedures, or in the absence of documented criteria, follow generally accepted norms such as those in Section 5.3. Designated experts are generally
指定专家应能够向IETF社区捍卫其决定，评估过程不应是秘密的，也不应赋予专家不容置疑的权力。专家应采用适用的文件化审查或审查程序，或在没有文件化标准的情况下，遵循第5.3节中的一般公认规范。指定专家一般是
not expected to be "gatekeepers", setting out to make registrations difficult to obtain, unless the guidance in the defining document specifies that they should act as such. Absent stronger guidance, the experts should be evaluating registration requests for completeness, interoperability, and conflicts with existing protocols and options.
不希望成为“看门人”，试图使注册难以获得，除非定义文件中的指南规定他们应该这样做。如果没有更强有力的指导，专家们应该评估注册请求的完整性、互操作性以及与现有协议和选项的冲突。
It has proven useful to have multiple designated experts for some registries. Sometimes those experts work together in evaluating a request, while in other cases additional experts serve as backups, acting only when the primary expert is unavailable. In registries with a pool of experts, the pool often has a single chair responsible for defining how requests are to be assigned to and reviewed by experts. In other cases, IANA might assign requests to individual members in sequential or approximate random order. The document defining the registry can, if it's appropriate for the situation, specify how the group should work -- for example, it might be appropriate to specify rough consensus on a mailing list, within a related working group or among a pool of designated experts.
事实证明，为一些登记册指定多名专家是有益的。有时，这些专家一起评估请求，而在其他情况下，其他专家充当备份，仅在主要专家不可用时才采取行动。在设有专家库的登记处，专家库通常由一名主席负责确定如何将请求分配给专家并由专家进行审查。在其他情况下，IANA可能会按顺序或近似随机顺序将请求分配给单个成员。定义登记册的文件如果适合这种情况，可以具体说明工作组应如何工作——例如，在一个相关工作组内或在一批指定专家之间就邮寄名单达成大致共识可能是适当的。
In cases of disagreement among multiple experts, it is the responsibility of those experts to make a single clear recommendation to IANA. It is not appropriate for IANA to resolve disputes among experts. In extreme situations, such as deadlock, the designating body may need to step in to resolve the problem.
如果多个专家之间存在分歧，则这些专家有责任向IANA提出一个明确的建议。IANA不适合解决专家之间的争议。在诸如僵局等极端情况下，指定机构可能需要介入解决问题。
If a designated expert has a conflict of interest for a particular review (is, for example, an author or significant proponent of a specification related to the registration under review), that expert should recuse himself. In the event that all the designated experts are conflicted, they should ask that a temporary expert be designated for the conflicted review. The responsible AD may then appoint someone or the AD may handle the review.
如果指定专家在某一特定审查中存在利益冲突（例如，与受审查登记有关的规范的作者或重要支持者），该专家应回避。如果所有指定专家都有冲突，他们应要求指定一名临时专家进行冲突评审。然后，负责的广告可以指定人员，或者广告可以处理审查。
This document defines the designated expert mechanism with respect to documents in the IETF stream only. If other streams want to use registration policies that require designated experts, it is up to those streams (or those documents) to specify how those designated experts are appointed and managed. What is described below, with management by the IESG, is only appropriate for the IETF stream.
本文件仅就IETF流中的文件定义了指定专家机制。如果其他流希望使用需要指定专家的注册政策，则由这些流（或那些文件）指定如何任命和管理这些指定专家。下面描述的由IESG管理的内容仅适用于IETF流。
Designated experts for registries created by the IETF are appointed by the IESG, normally upon recommendation by the relevant Area Director. They may be appointed at the time a document creating or updating a namespace is approved by the IESG, or subsequently, when the first registration request is received. Because experts
IETF创建的注册的指定专家由IESG任命，通常由相关区域主任推荐。他们可以在IESG批准创建或更新名称空间的文档时任命，也可以在随后收到第一个注册请求时任命。因为专家
originally appointed may later become unavailable, the IESG will appoint replacements as necessary. The IESG may remove any designated expert that it appointed, at its discretion.
最初指定的可能在以后无法使用，IESG将根据需要指定替代者。IESG可自行决定罢免其任命的任何指定专家。
The normal appeals process, as described in [RFC2026], Section 6.5.1, applies to issues that arise with the designated expert team. For this purpose, the designated expert team takes the place of the working group in that description.
[RFC2026]第6.5.1节所述的正常上诉程序适用于指定专家组出现的问题。为此目的，指定的专家组在该说明中取代工作组。
In the years since [RFC2434] was published and put to use, experience has led to the following observations:
[RFC2434]出版并投入使用后的几年中，经验导致了以下观察结果：
o A designated expert must respond in a timely fashion, normally within a week for simple requests to a few weeks for more complex ones. Unreasonable delays can cause significant problems for those needing assignments, such as when products need code points to ship. This is not to say that all reviews can be completed under a firm deadline, but they must be started, and the requester and IANA should have some transparency into the process if an answer cannot be given quickly.
o 指定专家必须及时做出响应，对于简单的请求，通常在一周内做出响应，对于更复杂的请求，通常在几周内做出响应。不合理的延迟可能会给那些需要分配任务的人带来重大问题，例如当产品需要代码点时。这并不是说所有审查都可以在一个确定的截止日期内完成，但必须开始，如果不能很快给出答案，请求者和IANA应该在这个过程中有一定的透明度。
o If a designated expert does not respond to IANA's requests within a reasonable period of time, either with a response or with a reasonable explanation for the delay (some requests may be particularly complex), and if this is a recurring event, IANA must raise the issue with the IESG. Because of the problems caused by delayed evaluations and assignments, the IESG should take appropriate actions to ensure that the expert understands and accepts his or her responsibilities, or appoint a new expert.
o 如果指定专家没有在合理的时间内对IANA的请求做出回应，或者对延迟做出合理的解释（有些请求可能特别复杂），并且如果这是一个重复发生的事件，IANA必须向IESG提出该问题。由于评估和任务延迟造成的问题，IESG应采取适当措施确保专家理解并接受其职责，或任命新专家。
o The designated expert is not required to personally bear the burden of evaluating and deciding all requests, but acts as a shepherd for the request, enlisting the help of others as appropriate. In the case that a request is denied, and rejecting the request is likely to be controversial, the expert should have the support of other subject matter experts. That is, the expert must be able to defend a decision to the community as a whole.
o 指定专家不需要亲自承担评估和决定所有请求的责任，而是充当请求的守护者，酌情寻求其他人的帮助。如果请求被拒绝，并且拒绝请求可能会引起争议，专家应得到其他主题专家的支持。也就是说，专家必须能够为整个社区的决定辩护。
When a designated expert is used, the documentation should give clear guidance to the designated expert, laying out criteria for performing an evaluation and reasons for rejecting a request. In the case where there are no specific documented criteria, the presumption should be that a code point should be granted unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary (and see also Section 5.4). Reasons that have been used to deny requests have included these:
使用指定专家时，文件应向指定专家提供明确的指导，列出进行评估的标准和拒绝请求的原因。如果没有具体的文件化标准，则应假定应授予代码点，除非有令人信服的相反理由（另见第5.4节）。用于拒绝请求的原因包括：
o Scarcity of code points, where the finite remaining code points should be prudently managed, or where a request for a large number of code points is made and a single code point is the norm.
o 缺少代码点，剩余的有限代码点应谨慎管理，或者请求大量代码点，并且单个代码点是标准。
o Documentation is not of sufficient clarity to evaluate or ensure interoperability.
o 文档不够清晰，无法评估或确保互操作性。
o The code point is needed for a protocol extension, but the extension is not consistent with the documented (or generally understood) architecture of the base protocol being extended and would be harmful to the protocol if widely deployed. It is not the intent that "inconsistencies" refer to minor differences "of a personal preference nature". Instead, they refer to significant differences such as inconsistencies with the underlying security model, implying a change to the semantics of an existing message type or operation, requiring unwarranted changes in deployed systems (compared with alternate ways of achieving a similar result), etc.
o 协议扩展需要代码点，但扩展与被扩展的基本协议的文档化（或普遍理解的）体系结构不一致，如果广泛部署，将对协议有害。“不一致”并非指“个人偏好性质”的细微差异。相反，它们指的是显著的差异，例如与底层安全模型的不一致，意味着对现有消息类型或操作的语义进行更改，需要在部署的系统中进行不必要的更改（与实现类似结果的其他方法相比），等等。
o The extension would cause problems with existing deployed systems.
o 扩展将导致现有已部署系统出现问题。
o The extension would conflict with one under active development by the IETF, and having both would harm rather than foster interoperability.
o 该扩展将与IETF正在积极开发的扩展相冲突，两者兼而有之将损害而不是促进互操作性。
Documents must not name the designated expert(s) in the document itself; instead, any suggested names should be relayed to the appropriate Area Director at the time the document is sent to the IESG for approval. This is usually done in the document shepherd writeup.
文件不得在文件中指定专家；相反，在将文件发送给IESG审批时，应将任何建议的名称转发给相应的区域主管。这通常在文档shepherd writeup中完成。
If the request should also be reviewed on a specific public mailing list, its address should be specified.
如果还应在特定的公共邮件列表上审查该请求，则应指定其地址。
Review by the designated expert is necessarily done at a particular point in time and represents review of a particular version of the document. While reviews are generally done around the time of IETF Last Call, deciding when the review should take place is a question of good judgment. And while rereviews might be done when it's acknowledged that the documentation of the registered item has changed substantially, making sure that rereview happens requires attention and care.
指定专家的审查必须在特定时间点进行，并代表对特定版本文件的审查。虽然审查通常在IETF最后一次呼叫时进行，但决定何时进行审查是一个良好判断的问题。当确认注册项目的文档已发生实质性更改时，可能会进行重新查看，但确保重新查看需要注意和小心。
It is possible, through carelessness, accident, inattentiveness, or even willful disregard, that changes might be made after the designated expert's review and approval that would, if the document were rereviewed, cause the expert not to approve the registration. It is up to the IESG, with the token held by the responsible Area Director, to be alert to such situations and to recognize that such changes need to be checked.
由于粗心、意外、疏忽，甚至故意忽视，在指定专家审查和批准后可能会做出更改，如果重新审查文件，将导致专家不批准注册。由IESG（负责区域总监持有令牌）对此类情况保持警惕，并认识到需要检查此类变更。
For registrations made from documents on the Standards Track, there is often expert review required (by the registration policy) in addition to IETF consensus (for approval as a Standards Track RFC). In such cases, the review by the designated expert needs to be timely, submitted before the IESG evaluates the document. The IESG should generally not hold the document up waiting for a late review. It is also not intended for the expert review to override IETF consensus: the IESG should consider the review in its own evaluation, as it would do for other Last Call reviews.
对于根据标准轨道上的文件进行的注册，除了IETF共识（作为标准轨道RFC批准）外，通常还需要专家审查（注册政策）。在这种情况下，需要在IESG评估文件之前及时提交指定专家的审查。IESG通常不应将文件搁置等待后期审查。它也不是为了专家审查推翻IETF共识：IESG应该考虑在其自己的评估审查，因为它会为其他最后通话评论。
The following labels describe the status of an assignment or range of assignments:
以下标签描述分配或分配范围的状态：
Private Use: Private use only (not assigned), as described in Section 4.1.
私人使用：仅私人使用（未分配），如第4.1节所述。
Experimental: Available for general experimental use as described in [RFC3692]. IANA does not record specific assignments for any particular use.
实验：可用于[RFC3692]中所述的一般实验用途。IANA不记录任何特定用途的特定任务。
Unassigned: Not currently assigned, and available for assignment via documented procedures. While it's generally clear that any values that are not registered are unassigned and available for assignment, it is sometimes useful to explicitly specify that situation. Note that this is distinctly different from "Reserved".
未分配：当前未分配，可通过文件化程序进行分配。虽然通常很清楚，任何未注册的值都是未赋值的，并且可用于赋值，但有时明确指定这种情况是有用的。请注意，这与“保留”明显不同。
Reserved: Not assigned and not available for assignment. Reserved values are held for special uses, such as to extend the namespace when it becomes exhausted. "Reserved" is also sometimes used to designate values that had been assigned but are no longer in use, keeping them set aside as long as other unassigned values are available. Note that this is distinctly different from "Unassigned".
保留：未分配且不可用于分配。保留值用于特殊用途，例如在名称空间耗尽时扩展名称空间。“保留”有时也用于指定已分配但不再使用的值，只要有其他未分配的值可用，就将其保留在一旁。请注意，这与“未分配”明显不同。
Reserved values can be released for assignment by the change controller for the registry (this is often the IESG, for registries created by RFCs in the IETF stream).
保留值可以由注册表的更改控制器释放以进行分配（对于IETF流中由RFC创建的注册表，这通常是IESG）。
Known Unregistered Use: It's known that the assignment or range is in use without having been defined in accordance with reasonable practice. Documentation for use of the assignment or range may be unavailable, inadequate, or conflicting. This is a warning against use, as well as an alert to network operators who might see these values in use on their networks.
已知未注册用途：已知转让或范围在使用中，未按照合理惯例进行定义。分配或范围的使用文件可能不可用、不充分或相互冲突。这是对使用的警告，也是对可能在其网络上看到这些值正在使用的网络运营商的警告。
Usually, registries and registry entries include references to documentation (RFCs or other documents). The purpose of these references is to provide pointers for implementors to find details necessary for implementation, NOT to simply note what document created the registry or entry. Therefore:
通常，注册表和注册表项包括对文档（RFC或其他文档）的引用。这些引用的目的是为实现人员提供指针，以查找实现所需的详细信息，而不是简单地说明是什么文档创建了注册表或条目。因此：
o If a document registers an item that is defined and explained elsewhere, the registered reference should be to the document containing the definition, not to the document that is merely performing the registration.
o 如果文件注册了其他地方定义和解释的项目，则注册的参考应是包含该定义的文件，而不是仅执行注册的文件。
o If the registered item is defined and explained in the current document, it is important to include sufficient information to enable implementors to understand the item and to create a proper implementation.
o 如果在当前文档中定义并解释了注册项，则必须包含足够的信息，以使实施者能够理解该项并创建适当的实施。
o If the registered item is explained primarily in a specific section of the reference document, it is useful to include a section reference. For example, "[RFC4637], Section 3.2", rather than just "[RFC4637]".
o 如果注册项目主要在参考文件的特定章节中解释，则包含章节参考是有用的。例如，“[RFC4637]，第3.2节”，而不仅仅是“[RFC4637]”。
o For documentation of a new registry, the reference should provide information about the registry itself, not just a pointer to the creation of it. Useful information includes the purpose of the registry, a rationale for its creation, documentation of the process and policy for new registrations, guidelines for new
o 对于新注册表的文档，引用应该提供有关注册表本身的信息，而不仅仅是指向创建注册表的指针。有用的信息包括登记册的目的、设立登记册的理由、新登记的程序和政策文件、新登记的指南
registrants or designated experts, and other such related information. But note that, while it's important to include this information in the document, it needn't all be in the IANA Considerations section. See Section 1.1.
注册人或指定专家，以及其他此类相关信息。但是请注意，虽然在文档中包含这些信息很重要，但不必全部包含在IANA注意事项部分。见第1.1节。
On occasion, an RFC is issued that obsoletes a previous edition of the same document. We sometimes call these "bis" documents, such as when RFC 4637 is to be obsoleted by draft-ietf-foo-rfc4637bis. When the original document created registries and/or registered entries, there is a question of how to handle the IANA Considerations section in the "bis" document.
有时，发布的RFC会淘汰同一文件的前一版。我们有时将这些文件称为“bis”，例如RFC 4637将被草案-ietf-foo-rfc4637bis淘汰。当原始文件创建注册和/或注册条目时，存在如何处理“bis”文件中IANA注意事项部分的问题。
If the registrations specify the original document as a reference, those registrations should be updated to point to the current (not obsolete) documentation for those items. Usually, that will mean changing the reference to be the "bis" document.
如果注册指定原始文件作为参考，则应更新这些注册，以指向这些项目的当前（非过时）文件。通常，这意味着将参考文件更改为“bis”文件。
There will, though, be times when a document updates another, but does not make it obsolete, and the definitive reference is changed for some items but not for others. Be sure that the references always point to the correct, current documentation for each item.
但是，有时一个文档会更新另一个文档，但不会使其过时，并且某些项目的最终引用会更改，而其他项目的最终引用则不会更改。确保参考文件始终指向每个项目的正确、当前文档。
For example, suppose RFC 4637 registered the "BANANA" flag in the "Fruit Access Flags" registry, and the documentation for that flag is in Section 3.2.
例如，假设RFC4637在“水果访问标志”注册表中注册了“香蕉”标志，该标志的文档在第3.2节中。
The current registry might look, in part, like this:
当前注册表的部分外观可能如下所示：
Name Description Reference
-------- ------------------- ---------
BANANA Flag for bananas [RFC4637], Section 3.2
Name Description Reference
-------- ------------------- ---------
BANANA Flag for bananas [RFC4637], Section 3.2
If draft-ietf-foo-rfc4637bis obsoletes RFC 4637 and, because of some rearrangement, now documents the flag in Section 4.1.2, the IANA Considerations of the bis document might contain text such as this:
如果草案-ietf-foo-rfc4637bis淘汰了RFC 4637，并且由于一些重新安排，现在在第4.1.2节中记录了该标志，则bis文件的IANA注意事项可能包含如下文本：
IANA is asked to change the registration information for the BANANA flag in the "Fruit Access Flags" registry to the following:
IANA被要求将“水果访问标志”注册表中香蕉标志的注册信息更改为以下内容：
Name Description Reference
-------- ------------------- ---------
BANANA Flag for bananas [[this RFC]], Section 4.2.1
Name Description Reference
-------- ------------------- ---------
BANANA Flag for bananas [[this RFC]], Section 4.2.1
In many cases, if there are a number of registered references to the original RFC and the document organization has not changed the registered section numbering much, it may simply be reasonable to do this:
在许多情况下，如果有许多原始RFC的注册参考，并且文件组织没有对注册章节编号进行太多更改，那么这样做可能是合理的：
Because this document obsoletes RFC 4637, IANA is asked to change all registration information that references [RFC4637] to instead reference [[this RFC]].
由于本文件废除了RFC 4637，IANA被要求将引用[RFC4637]的所有注册信息改为引用[[this RFC]]。
If information for registered items has been or is being moved to other documents, then the registration information should be changed to point to those other documents. In most cases, documentation references should not be left pointing to the obsoleted document for registries or registered items that are still in current use. For registries or registered items that are no longer in current use, it will usually make sense to leave the references pointing to the old document -- the last current reference for the obsolete items. The main point is to make sure that the reference pointers are as useful and current as is reasonable, and authors should consider that as they write the IANA Considerations for the new document. As always: do the right thing, and there is flexibility to allow for that.
如果已注册项目的信息已经或正在移动到其他文档中，则应将注册信息更改为指向这些其他文档。在大多数情况下，文件参考不应指向目前仍在使用的登记册或登记项目的过时文件。对于不再在当前使用的注册表或已注册项，将引用保留在指向旧文档（过时项的最后一个当前引用）的位置通常是有意义的。关键是要确保引用指针是有用的和当前的合理的，并且作者应该考虑到，当他们为新文档编写IANA考虑时。一如往常：做正确的事情，这是有灵活性的。
It is extremely important to be clear in your instructions regarding updating references, especially in cases where some references need to be updated and others do not.
在您的说明中明确更新参考资料非常重要，尤其是在某些参考资料需要更新而其他参考资料不需要更新的情况下。
Before an Internet-Draft can be published as an RFC, IANA needs to know what actions (if any) it needs to perform. Experience has shown that it is not always immediately obvious whether a document has no IANA actions, without reviewing the document in some detail. In order to make it clear to IANA that it has no actions to perform (and that the author has consciously made such a determination), such documents should, after the authors confirm that this is the case, include an IANA Considerations section that states:
在互联网草案可以作为RFC发布之前，IANA需要知道它需要执行哪些操作（如果有）。经验表明，如果没有对文档进行详细审查，文档是否没有IANA操作并不总是显而易见的。为了向IANA明确说明其无需采取任何行动（且提交人已有意识地做出此类决定），在提交人确认情况属实后，此类文件应包括IANA注意事项部分，其中说明：
This document has no IANA actions.
本文档没有IANA操作。
IANA prefers that these "empty" IANA Considerations sections be left in the document for the record: it makes it clear later on that the document explicitly said that no IANA actions were needed (and that it wasn't just omitted). This is a change from the prior practice of requesting that such sections be removed by the RFC Editor, and authors are asked to accommodate this change.
IANA倾向于将这些“空的”IANA注意事项部分保留在文件中以备记录：文件随后明确表示，不需要IANA行动（并且不仅仅是省略）。这是对先前要求RFC编辑器删除此类章节的做法的更改，并要求作者适应此更改。
For all existing RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on IANA to make assignments without specifying a precise assignment policy, IANA will work with the IESG to decide what policy is appropriate. Changes to existing policies can always be initiated through the normal IETF consensus process, or through the IESG when appropriate.
对于所有显式或隐式依赖IANA进行分配而不指定精确分配政策的现有RFC，IANA将与IESG合作，以确定适当的政策。对现有政策的更改始终可以通过正常的IETF协商一致过程发起，或在适当时通过IESG发起。
All future RFCs that either explicitly or implicitly rely on IANA to register or otherwise administer namespace assignments must provide guidelines for administration of the namespace.
所有显式或隐式依赖IANA注册或以其他方式管理命名空间分配的未来RFC必须提供命名空间管理指南。
Occasionally, the IETF becomes aware that an unassigned value from a namespace is in use on the Internet or that an assigned value is being used for a different purpose than it was registered for. The IETF does not condone such misuse; procedures of the type described in this document need to be applied to such cases, and it might not always be possible to formally assign the desired value. In the absence of specifications to the contrary, values may only be reassigned for a different purpose with the consent of the original assignee (when possible) and with due consideration of the impact of such a reassignment. In cases of likely controversy, consultation with the IESG is advised.
偶尔，IETF会意识到来自名称空间的未分配值正在互联网上使用，或者分配的值用于与注册目的不同的目的。IETF不允许此类滥用；本文件中所述类型的程序需要应用于此类情况，并且可能并不总是能够正式分配所需的值。在没有相反规定的情况下，只有在征得原受让人同意（如有可能）并适当考虑此类重新分配的影响的情况下，才能为不同的目的重新分配价值。如果可能存在争议，建议咨询IESG。
This is part of the reason for the advice in Section 3.1 about using placeholder values, such as "TBD1", during document development: problems are often caused by the open use of unregistered values after results from well-meant, early implementations, where the implementations retained the use of developmental code points that never proceeded to a final IANA assignment.
这是第3.1节中关于在文档开发过程中使用占位符值（如“TBD1”）的建议的部分原因：问题通常是由于在善意的早期实施结果之后公开使用未注册值造成的，其中，实施保留了开发代码点的使用，这些代码点从未进行过最终的IANA分配。
Reclaiming previously assigned values for reuse is tricky, because doing so can lead to interoperability problems with deployed systems still using the assigned values. Moreover, it can be extremely difficult to determine the extent of deployment of systems making use of a particular value. However, in cases where the namespace is running out of unassigned values and additional ones are needed, it may be desirable to attempt to reclaim unused values. When reclaiming unused values, the following (at a minimum) should be considered:
回收以前分配的值以供重用是一件棘手的事情，因为这样做会导致部署的系统仍然使用分配的值时出现互操作性问题。此外，确定使用特定价值的系统的部署程度可能非常困难。但是，如果名称空间没有未分配的值，并且需要其他值，则可能需要尝试回收未使用的值。回收未使用的值时，应考虑以下（至少）：
o Attempts should be made to contact the original party to which a value is assigned, to determine if the value was ever used, and if so, the extent of deployment. (In some cases, products were never shipped or have long ceased being used. In other cases, it may be known that a value was never actually used at all.)
o 应尝试联系分配值的原始方，以确定是否使用过该值，如果使用过，部署的范围。（在某些情况下，产品从未发货或长期停止使用。在其他情况下，可能知道价值从未实际使用过。）
o Reassignments should not normally be made without the concurrence of the original requester. Reclamation under such conditions should only take place where there is strong evidence that a value is not widely used, and the need to reclaim the value outweighs the cost of a hostile reclamation. IESG Approval is needed in this case.
o 未经原始请求者同意，通常不应进行重新分配。只有在有确凿证据表明某一价值未被广泛使用，且回收价值的需要超过恶意回收的成本时，才应在此类条件下进行回收。在这种情况下，需要IESG批准。
o It may be appropriate to write up the proposed action and solicit comments from relevant user communities. In some cases, it may be appropriate to write an RFC that goes through a formal IETF process (including IETF Last Call) as was done when DHCP reclaimed some of its "Private Use" options [RFC3942].
o 可能适合写下提议的行动，并征求相关用户社区的意见。在某些情况下，编写一个经过正式IETF过程（包括IETF最后一次调用）的RFC可能是合适的，就像DHCP回收其一些“私人使用”选项时所做的那样[RFC3942]。
o It may be useful to differentiate between revocation, release, and transfer. Revocation occurs when IANA removes an assignment, release occurs when the assignee initiates that removal, and transfer occurs when either revocation or release is coupled with immediate reassignment. It may be useful to specify procedures for each of these or to explicitly prohibit combinations that are not desired.
o 区分撤销、释放和转移可能很有用。IANA删除分配时发生撤销，受让人发起删除时发生释放，撤销或释放与立即重新分配同时发生时发生转移。为其中每一个指定程序或明确禁止不需要的组合可能是有用的。
Many registries include designation of a technical or administrative contact associated with each entry. Often, this is recorded as contact information for an individual. It is unclear, though, what role the individual has with respect to the registration: is this item registered on behalf of the individual, the company the individual worked for, or perhaps another organization the individual was acting for?
许多登记处包括指定与每个条目相关的技术或行政联系人。通常，这会记录为个人的联系信息。但是，不清楚个人在注册方面扮演什么角色：该项目是否代表个人、该个人工作的公司或该个人代理的其他组织注册？
This matters because some time later, when the individual has changed jobs or roles, and perhaps can no longer be contacted, someone might want to update the registration. IANA has no way to know what company, organization, or individual should be allowed to take the registration over. For registrations rooted in RFCs, the stream owner (such as the IESG or the IAB) can make an overriding decision. But in other cases, there is no recourse.
这一点很重要，因为一段时间后，当个人换了工作或角色，可能无法再联系时，可能有人想要更新注册。IANA无法知道应该允许哪些公司、组织或个人接管注册。对于基于RFC的注册，流所有者（如IESG或IAB）可以做出压倒一切的决定。但在其他情况下，没有追索权。
Registries can include, in addition to a "Contact" field, an "Assignee" or "Owner" field (also referred to as "Change Controller") that can be used to address this situation, giving IANA clear
除了“联系人”字段外，注册中心还可以包括一个“受让人”或“所有者”字段（也称为“变更控制人”），该字段可用于解决这种情况，为IANA提供明确的信息
guidance as to the actual owner of the registration. This is strongly advised, especially for registries that do not require RFCs to manage their information (e.g., registries with policies such as First Come First Served (Section 4.4), Expert Review (Section 4.5), and Specification Required (Section 4.6)). Alternatively, organizations can put an organizational role into the "Contact" field in order to make their ownership clear.
关于登记实际所有人的指导。强烈建议这样做，特别是对于不要求RFC管理其信息的登记处（例如，具有先到先得（第4.4节）、专家审评（第4.5节）和所需规范（第4.6节）等政策的登记处）。或者，组织可以将组织角色放入“联系人”字段，以明确其所有权。
Sometimes there is a request to "close" a registry to further registrations. When a registry is closed, no further registrations will be accepted. The information in the registry will still be valid and registrations already in the registry can still be updated.
有时会请求“关闭”注册表以进一步注册。当注册中心关闭时，将不接受进一步的注册。注册表中的信息仍然有效，并且注册表中已有的注册仍然可以更新。
A closed registry can also be marked as "obsolete", as an indication that the information in the registry is no longer in current use.
关闭的注册表也可以标记为“过时”，以表明注册表中的信息不再在当前使用。
Specific entries in a registry can be marked as "obsolete" (no longer in use) or "deprecated" (use is not recommended).
注册表中的特定条目可以标记为“过时”（不再使用）或“不推荐使用”（不建议使用）。
Such changes to registries and registered values are subject to normal change controls (see Section 2.3). Any closure, obsolescence, or deprecation serves to annotate the registry involved; the information in the registry remains there for informational and historic purposes.
对登记册和登记值的此类变更受正常变更控制（见第2.3节）。任何关闭、过时或弃用均用于对所涉及的注册表进行注释；注册表中的信息保留在那里，以供参考和历史使用。
Appeals of protocol parameter registration decisions can be made using the normal IETF appeals process as described in [RFC2026], Section 6.5. That is, an initial appeal should be directed to the IESG, followed (if necessary) by an appeal to the IAB.
可使用[RFC2026]第6.5节所述的正常IETF上诉程序对协议参数注册决定提出上诉。也就是说，应向IESG提出初步上诉，然后（如有必要）向IAB提出上诉。
All IETF mailing lists associated with evaluating or discussing assignment requests as described in this document are subject to whatever rules of conduct and methods of list management are currently defined by best current practices or by IESG decision.
本文件中描述的与评估或讨论任务请求相关的所有IETF邮件列表均受当前最佳实践或IESG决策中定义的任何行为规则和列表管理方法的约束。
Information that creates or updates a registration needs to be authenticated and authorized. IANA updates registries according to instructions in published RFCs and from the IESG. It may also accept clarifications from document authors, relevant working group chairs, designated experts, and mail list participants.
创建或更新注册的信息需要经过身份验证和授权。IANA根据已发布的RFC和IESG中的说明更新注册表。它还可以接受文件作者、相关工作组主席、指定专家和邮件列表参与者的澄清。
Information concerning possible security vulnerabilities of a protocol may change over time. Likewise, security vulnerabilities related to how an assigned number is used may change as well. As new vulnerabilities are discovered, information about such vulnerabilities may need to be attached to existing registrations so that users are not misled as to the true security issues surrounding the use of a registered number.
有关协议可能存在的安全漏洞的信息可能会随时间而变化。同样，与分配号码的使用方式相关的安全漏洞也可能发生变化。当发现新的漏洞时，可能需要将有关此类漏洞的信息附加到现有注册中，这样用户就不会被误导到使用注册号码的真正安全问题上。
Security needs to be considered as part of the selection of a registration policy. For some protocols, registration of certain parameters will have security implications, and registration policies for the relevant registries must ensure that requests get appropriate review with those security implications in mind.
在选择注册策略时，需要考虑安全性。对于某些协议，某些参数的注册将涉及安全问题，相关注册中心的注册政策必须确保在考虑到这些安全问题的情况下对请求进行适当审查。
An analysis of security issues is generally required for all protocols that make use of parameters (data types, operation codes, keywords, etc.) documented in IETF protocols or registered by IANA. Such security considerations are usually included in the protocol document [BCP72]. It is the responsibility of the IANA considerations associated with a particular registry to specify whether value-specific security considerations must be provided when assigning new values and the process for reviewing such claims.
对于使用IETF协议中记录的或IANA注册的参数（数据类型、操作代码、关键字等）的所有协议，通常需要对安全问题进行分析。此类安全注意事项通常包含在协议文件[BCP72]中。与特定注册相关的IANA注意事项负责指定在分配新值时是否必须提供特定于值的安全注意事项以及审查此类索赔的流程。
Sitewide, IANA has replaced references to RFC 5226 with references to this document.
IANA已将对RFC 5226的引用替换为对本文件的引用。
Significant additions:
重要补充：
o Removed RFC 2119 key words, boilerplate, and reference, preferring plain English -- this is not a protocol specification.
o 删除了RFC2119关键字、样板文件和参考文件，更喜欢纯英语——这不是协议规范。
o Added Section 1.1, Keep IANA Considerations for IANA
o 增加了第1.1节，为IANA保留IANA注意事项
o Added Section 1.2, For Updated Information
o 增加了第1.2节，以获取更新信息
o Added Section 2.1, Organization of Registries
o 增加了第2.1节，登记册的组织
o Added best practice for selecting an appropriate policy into Section 4.
o 在第4节中增加了选择适当政策的最佳实践。
o Added Section 4.12, Using Multiple Policies in Combination
o 增加了第4.12节，结合使用多个策略
o Added Section 2.3, Specifying Change Control for a Registry
o 增加了第2.3节，指定注册表的更改控制
o Added Section 3.4, Early Allocations
o 增加了第3.4节，早期分配
o Moved each well-known policy into a separate subsection of Section 4.
o 将每个众所周知的保单移至第4节的单独小节中。
o Added Section 5.4, Expert Reviews and the Document Lifecycle
o 增加了第5.4节，专家评审和文件生命周期
o Added Section 7, Documentation References in IANA Registries
o 增加了第7节，IANA注册中的文件参考
o Added Section 8, What to Do in "bis" Documents
o 增加第8节，在“bis”文件中做什么
o Added Section 9.5, Contact Person vs Assignee or Owner
o 增加第9.5节，联系人与受让人或所有者
o Added Section 9.6, Closing or Obsoleting a Registry/Registrations
o 增加第9.6节，关闭或废除注册/登记
Clarifications and such:
澄清等：
o Some reorganization -- moved text around for clarity and easier reading.
o 一些重组——移动文本以清晰易读。
o Made clarifications about identification of IANA registries and use of URLs for them.
o 澄清了IANA注册中心的标识和URL的使用。
o Clarified the distinction between "Unassigned" and "Reserved".
o 澄清了“未分配”和“保留”之间的区别。
o Made some clarifications in "Expert Review" about instructions to the designated expert.
o 在“专家评审”中对指定专家的指示进行了澄清。
o Made some clarifications in "Specification Required" about how to declare this policy.
o 在“所需规范”中对如何声明此政策做了一些澄清。
o Assorted minor clarifications and editorial changes throughout.
o 在整个过程中进行了分类的小澄清和编辑更改。
Changes include:
变化包括：
o Major reordering of text to expand descriptions and to better group topics such as "updating registries" vs. "creating new registries", in order to make it easier for authors to find the text most applicable to their needs.
o 对文本进行主要的重新排序，以扩展描述并更好地分组主题，如“更新注册表”与“创建新注册表”，以便作者更容易找到最适合其需要的文本。
o Numerous editorial changes to improve readability.
o 为提高可读性而进行的大量编辑修改。
o Changed the term "IETF Consensus" to "IETF Review" and added more clarifications. History has shown that people see the words "IETF Consensus" (without consulting the actual definition) and are quick to make incorrect assumptions about what the term means in the context of IANA Considerations.
o 将术语“IETF共识”更改为“IETF审查”，并添加了更多澄清。历史表明，人们看到“IETF共识”一词（未参考实际定义）时，很快就会对IANA考虑中该词的含义做出错误的假设。
o Added "RFC Required" to list of defined policies.
o 在已定义策略列表中添加了“需要RFC”。
o Much more explicit directions and examples of "what to put in RFCs".
o “在RFC中放置什么”的更明确的说明和示例。
o "Specification Required" now implies use of a designated expert to evaluate specs for sufficient clarity.
o “所需规范”现在意味着使用指定专家评估规范，以获得足够的清晰度。
o Added a section describing provisional registrations.
o 增加了描述临时注册的部分。
o Significantly changed the wording in the "Designated Experts" section. Main purpose is to make clear that Expert Reviewers are accountable to the community, and to provide some guidance for review criteria in the default case.
o “指定专家”一节中的措辞发生了重大变化。主要目的是明确专家评审员对社区负责，并为默认情况下的评审标准提供一些指导。
o Changed wording to remove any special appeals path. The normal RFC 2026 appeals path is used.
o 更改措辞以删除任何特殊上诉路径。使用正常RFC 2026上诉路径。
o Added a section about reclaiming unused values.
o 添加了关于回收未使用值的部分。
o Added a section on after-the-fact registrations.
o 增加了关于事后登记的一节。
o Added a section indicating that mailing lists used to evaluate possible assignments (such as by a designated expert) are subject to normal IETF rules.
o 增加了一个部分，指出用于评估可能的任务（如指定专家）的邮件列表受正常IETF规则的约束。
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.
[RFC2026]Bradner，S.，“互联网标准过程——第3版”，BCP 9，RFC 2026，DOI 10.17487/RFC2026，1996年10月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.
[BCP72] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp72>.
[BCP72]Rescorla，E.和B.Korver，“关于安全考虑的RFC文本编写指南”，BCP 72，RFC 3552，2003年7月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp72>.
[RFC791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[RFC791]Postel，J.，“互联网协议”，STD 5，RFC 791，DOI 10.17487/RFC07911981年9月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[RFC1591] Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and Delegation", RFC 1591, DOI 10.17487/RFC1591, March 1994, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1591>.
[RFC1591]Postel，J.，“域名系统结构和授权”，RFC 1591，DOI 10.17487/RFC15911994年3月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1591>.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434, DOI 10.17487/RFC2434, October 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2434>.
[RFC2434]Narten，T.和H.Alvestrand，“在RFCs中编写IANA注意事项部分的指南”，RFC 2434，DOI 10.17487/RFC2434，1998年10月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2434>.
[RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, DOI 10.17487/RFC2860, June 2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2860>.
[RFC2860]Carpenter，B.，Baker，F.和M.Roberts，“关于互联网分配号码管理局技术工作的谅解备忘录”，RFC 2860，DOI 10.17487/RFC2860，2000年6月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2860>.
[RFC2939] Droms, R., "Procedures and IANA Guidelines for Definition of New DHCP Options and Message Types", BCP 43, RFC 2939, DOI 10.17487/RFC2939, September 2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2939>.
[RFC2939]Droms，R.，“新DHCP选项和消息类型定义的程序和IANA指南”，BCP 43，RFC 2939，DOI 10.17487/RFC2939，2000年9月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2939>.
[RFC3228] Fenner, B., "IANA Considerations for IPv4 Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP)", BCP 57, RFC 3228, DOI 10.17487/RFC3228, February 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3228>.
[RFC3228]Fenner，B.，“IPv4互联网组管理协议（IGMP）的IANA考虑因素”，BCP 57，RFC 3228，DOI 10.17487/RFC3228，2002年2月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3228>.
[RFC3575] Aboba, B., "IANA Considerations for RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial In User Service)", RFC 3575, DOI 10.17487/RFC3575, July 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3575>.
[RFC3575]Aboba，B.“RADIUS（远程认证拨入用户服务）的IANA注意事项”，RFC 3575，DOI 10.17487/RFC3575，2003年7月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3575>.
[RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, DOI 10.17487/RFC3692, January 2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3692>.
[RFC3692]Narten，T.，“分配被认为有用的实验和测试数字”，BCP 82，RFC 3692，DOI 10.17487/RFC3692，2004年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3692>.
[RFC3748] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H. Levkowetz, Ed., "Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 3748, DOI 10.17487/RFC3748, June 2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3748>.
[RFC3748]Aboba，B.，Blunk，L.，Vollbrecht，J.，Carlson，J.，和H.Levkowetz，编辑，“可扩展身份验证协议（EAP）”，RFC 3748，DOI 10.17487/RFC3748，2004年6月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3748>.
[RFC3864] Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864, DOI 10.17487/RFC3864, September 2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3864>.
[RFC3864]Klyne，G.，Nottingham，M.和J.Mogul，“消息头字段的注册程序”，BCP 90，RFC 3864，DOI 10.17487/RFC3864，2004年9月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3864>.
[RFC3942] Volz, B., "Reclassifying Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version 4 (DHCPv4) Options", RFC 3942, DOI 10.17487/RFC3942, November 2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3942>.
[RFC3942]Volz，B.“重新分类动态主机配置协议版本4（DHCPv4）选项”，RFC 3942，DOI 10.17487/RFC3942，2004年11月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3942>.
[RFC3968] Camarillo, G., "The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) Header Field Parameter Registry for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", BCP 98, RFC 3968, DOI 10.17487/RFC3968, December 2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3968>.
[RFC3968]Camarillo，G.“会话启动协议（SIP）的Internet分配号码管理局（IANA）头字段参数注册表”，BCP 98，RFC 3968，DOI 10.17487/RFC3968，2004年12月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3968>.
[RFC4025] Richardson, M., "A Method for Storing IPsec Keying Material in DNS", RFC 4025, DOI 10.17487/RFC4025, March 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4025>.
[RFC4025]Richardson，M.，“在DNS中存储IPsec密钥材料的方法”，RFC 4025，DOI 10.17487/RFC4025，2005年3月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4025>.
[RFC4044] McCloghrie, K., "Fibre Channel Management MIB", RFC 4044, DOI 10.17487/RFC4044, May 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4044>.
[RFC4044]McCloghrie，K.，“光纤通道管理MIB”，RFC 4044，DOI 10.17487/RFC4044，2005年5月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4044>.
[RFC4124] Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "Protocol Extensions for Support of Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124, DOI 10.17487/RFC4124, June 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4124>.
[RFC4124]Le Faucheur，F.，编辑，“支持区分服务感知MPLS流量工程的协议扩展”，RFC 4124DOI 10.17487/RFC4124，2005年6月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4124>.
[RFC4169] Torvinen, V., Arkko, J., and M. Naslund, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Digest Authentication Using Authentication and Key Agreement (AKA) Version-2", RFC 4169, DOI 10.17487/RFC4169, November 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4169>.
[RFC4169]Torvinen，V.，Arkko，J.，和M.Naslund，“使用认证和密钥协议（AKA）版本2的超文本传输协议（HTTP）摘要认证”，RFC 4169，DOI 10.17487/RFC4169，2005年11月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4169>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4271]Rekhter，Y.，Ed.，Li，T.，Ed.，和S.Hares，Ed.，“边境网关协议4（BGP-4）”，RFC 4271，DOI 10.17487/RFC4271，2006年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4283] Patel, A., Leung, K., Khalil, M., Akhtar, H., and K. Chowdhury, "Mobile Node Identifier Option for Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6)", RFC 4283, DOI 10.17487/RFC4283, November 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4283>.
[RFC4283]Patel，A.，Leung，K.，Khalil，M.，Akhtar，H.，和K.Chowdhury，“移动IPv6的移动节点标识符选项（MIPv6）”，RFC 4283，DOI 10.17487/RFC4283，2005年11月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4283>.
[RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, DOI 10.17487/RFC4340, March 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4340>.
[RFC4340]Kohler，E.，Handley，M.和S.Floyd，“数据报拥塞控制协议（DCCP）”，RFC 4340，DOI 10.17487/RFC4340，2006年3月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4340>.
[RFC4422] Melnikov, A., Ed. and K. Zeilenga, Ed., "Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)", RFC 4422, DOI 10.17487/RFC4422, June 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4422>.
[RFC4422]Melnikov，A.，Ed.和K.Zeilenga，Ed.，“简单身份验证和安全层（SASL）”，RFC 4422，DOI 10.17487/RFC4422，2006年6月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4422>.
[RFC4446] Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)", BCP 116, RFC 4446, DOI 10.17487/RFC4446, April 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4446>.
[RFC4446]Martini，L.，“伪线边到边仿真（PWE3）的IANA分配”，BCP 116，RFC 4446，DOI 10.17487/RFC4446，2006年4月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4446>.
[RFC4520] Zeilenga, K., "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Considerations for the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)", BCP 64, RFC 4520, DOI 10.17487/RFC4520, June 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4520>.
[RFC4520]Zeilenga，K.，“轻量级目录访问协议（LDAP）的互联网分配号码管理局（IANA）注意事项”，BCP 64，RFC 4520，DOI 10.17487/RFC4520，2006年6月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4520>.
[RFC4589] Schulzrinne, H. and H. Tschofenig, "Location Types Registry", RFC 4589, DOI 10.17487/RFC4589, July 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4589>.
[RFC4589]Schulzrinne，H.和H.Tschofenig，“位置类型注册表”，RFC 4589，DOI 10.17487/RFC4589，2006年7月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4589>.
[RFC4727] Fenner, B., "Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers", RFC 4727, DOI 10.17487/RFC4727, November 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4727>.
[RFC4727]Fenner，B.“IPv4、IPv6、ICMPv4、ICMPv6、UDP和TCP报头中的实验值”，RFC 4727，DOI 10.17487/RFC4727，2006年11月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4727>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC5246]Dierks，T.和E.Rescorla，“传输层安全（TLS）协议版本1.2”，RFC 5246，DOI 10.17487/RFC5246，2008年8月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC5378] Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378, DOI 10.17487/RFC5378, November 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5378>.
[RFC5378]Bradner，S.，Ed.和J.Contreras，Ed.，“向IETF信托提供的权利出资人”，BCP 78，RFC 5378，DOI 10.17487/RFC5378，2008年11月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5378>.
[RFC5742] Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions", BCP 92, RFC 5742, DOI 10.17487/RFC5742, December 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5742>.
[RFC5742]Alvestrand，H.和R.Housley，“IESG处理独立和IRTF流提交的程序”，BCP 92，RFC 5742，DOI 10.17487/RFC5742，2009年12月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5742>.
[RFC5771] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., and D. Meyer, "IANA Guidelines for IPv4 Multicast Address Assignments", BCP 51, RFC 5771, DOI 10.17487/RFC5771, March 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5771>.
[RFC5771]Cotton，M.，Vegoda，L.，和D.Meyer，“IPv4多播地址分配的IANA指南”，BCP 51，RFC 5771，DOI 10.17487/RFC5771，2010年3月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5771>.
[RFC5795] Sandlund, K., Pelletier, G., and L-E. Jonsson, "The RObust Header Compression (ROHC) Framework", RFC 5795, DOI 10.17487/RFC5795, March 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5795>.
[RFC5795]Sandlund，K.，Pelletier，G.和L-E.Jonsson，“鲁棒头压缩（ROHC）框架”，RFC 5795，DOI 10.17487/RFC5795，2010年3月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5795>.
[RFC6014] Hoffman, P., "Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier Allocation for DNSSEC", RFC 6014, DOI 10.17487/RFC6014, November 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6014>.
[RFC6014]Hoffman，P.，“DNSSEC的密码算法标识符分配”，RFC 6014，DOI 10.17487/RFC6014，2010年11月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6014>.
[RFC6230] Boulton, C., Melanchuk, T., and S. McGlashan, "Media Control Channel Framework", RFC 6230, DOI 10.17487/RFC6230, May 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6230>.
[RFC6230]Boulton，C.，Melanchuk，T.，和S.McGrashan，“媒体控制渠道框架”，RFC 6230，DOI 10.17487/RFC6230，2011年5月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6230>.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.
[RFC6275]Perkins，C.，Ed.，Johnson，D.，和J.Arkko，“IPv6中的移动支持”，RFC 6275，DOI 10.17487/RFC6275，2011年7月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.
[RFC6698] Hoffman, P. and J. Schlyter, "The DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol: TLSA", RFC 6698, DOI 10.17487/RFC6698, August 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6698>.
[RFC6698]Hoffman，P.和J.Schlyter，“基于DNS的命名实体认证（DANE）传输层安全（TLS）协议：TLSA”，RFC 6698，DOI 10.17487/RFC6698，2012年8月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6698>.
[RFC6709] Carpenter, B., Aboba, B., Ed., and S. Cheshire, "Design Considerations for Protocol Extensions", RFC 6709, DOI 10.17487/RFC6709, September 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6709>.
[RFC6709]Carpenter，B.，Aboba，B.，Ed.，和S.Cheshire，“协议扩展的设计考虑”，RFC 6709，DOI 10.17487/RFC6709，2012年9月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6709>.
[RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6838>.
[RFC6838]Freed，N.，Klensin，J.和T.Hansen，“介质类型规范和注册程序”，BCP 13，RFC 6838，DOI 10.17487/RFC6838，2013年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6838>.
[RFC6895] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 6895, DOI 10.17487/RFC6895, April 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6895>.
[RFC6895]Eastlake 3rd，D.，“域名系统（DNS）IANA注意事项”，BCP 42，RFC 6895，DOI 10.17487/RFC6895，2013年4月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6895>.
[RFC6994] Touch, J., "Shared Use of Experimental TCP Options", RFC 6994, DOI 10.17487/RFC6994, August 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6994>.
[RFC6994]Touch，J.，“实验TCP选项的共享使用”，RFC 6994，DOI 10.17487/RFC6994，2013年8月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6994>.
[RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.
[RFC7120]Cotton，M.，“标准轨道代码点的早期IANA分配”，BCP 100，RFC 7120，DOI 10.17487/RFC7120，2014年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.
[RFC7564] Saint-Andre, P. and M. Blanchet, "PRECIS Framework: Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized Strings in Application Protocols", RFC 7564, DOI 10.17487/RFC7564, May 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7564>.
[RFC7564]Saint Andre，P.和M.Blanchet，“PRECIS框架：应用协议中国际化字符串的准备、实施和比较”，RFC 7564，DOI 10.17487/RFC7564，2015年5月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7564>.
[RFC7595] Thaler, D., Ed., Hansen, T., and T. Hardie, "Guidelines and Registration Procedures for URI Schemes", BCP 35, RFC 7595, DOI 10.17487/RFC7595, June 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7595>.
[RFC7595]Thaler，D.，Ed.，Hansen，T.和T.Hardie，“URI方案的指南和注册程序”，BCP 35，RFC 7595，DOI 10.17487/RFC7595，2015年6月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7595>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC7752]Gredler，H.，Ed.，Medved，J.，Previdi，S.，Farrel，A.，和S.Ray，“使用BGP的链路状态和流量工程（TE）信息的北向分布”，RFC 7752，DOI 10.17487/RFC7752，2016年3月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC8141] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Klensin, "Uniform Resource Names (URNs)", RFC 8141, DOI 10.17487/RFC8141, April 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8141>.
[RFC8141]Saint Andre，P.和J.Klensin，“统一资源名称（URN）”，RFC 8141，DOI 10.17487/RFC81412017年4月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8141>.
Acknowledgments for This Document (2017)
对本文件的确认（2017年）
Thomas Narten and Harald Tveit Alvestrand edited the two earlier editions of this document (RFCs 2434 and 5226), and Thomas continues his role in this third edition. Much of the text from RFC 5226 remains in this edition.
Thomas Narten和Harald Tveit Alvestrand编辑了本文件的两个早期版本（RFCs 2434和5226），Thomas在第三版中继续扮演他的角色。RFC5226中的大部分文本仍保留在本版中。
Thank you to Amanda Baber and Pearl Liang for their multiple reviews and suggestions for making this document as thorough as possible.
感谢Amanda Baber和Pearl Liang对本文件进行的多方面审查和建议，以使本文件尽可能全面。
This document has benefited from thorough review and comments by many people, including Benoit Claise, Alissa Cooper, Adrian Farrel, Stephen Farrell, Tony Hansen, John Klensin, Kathleen Moriarty, Mark Nottingham, Pete Resnick, and Joe Touch.
本文件得益于许多人的全面审查和评论，包括贝诺特·克莱斯、艾莉莎·库珀、阿德里安·法雷尔、斯蒂芬·法雷尔、托尼·汉森、约翰·克莱辛、凯瑟琳·莫里亚蒂、马克·诺丁汉、皮特·雷斯尼克和乔·图奇。
Special thanks to Mark Nottingham for reorganizing some of the text for better organization and readability, to Tony Hansen for acting as document shepherd, and to Brian Haberman and Terry Manderson for acting as sponsoring ADs.
特别感谢马克·诺丁汉为更好的组织性和可读性对部分文本进行了重新组织，托尼·汉森担任文档守护者，布莱恩·哈伯曼和特里·曼德森担任广告赞助商。
Acknowledgments from the Second Edition (2008)
第二版的致谢（2008）
The original acknowledgments section in RFC 5226 was:
RFC 5226中的原始确认部分为：
This document has benefited from specific feedback from Jari Arkko, Marcelo Bagnulo Braun, Brian Carpenter, Michelle Cotton, Spencer Dawkins, Barbara Denny, Miguel Garcia, Paul Hoffman, Russ Housley, John Klensin, Allison Mankin, Blake Ramsdell, Mark Townsley, Magnus Westerlund, and Bert Wijnen.
本文件得益于贾里·阿尔科、马塞洛·巴格努洛·布劳恩、布赖恩·卡彭特、米歇尔·科顿、斯宾塞·道金斯、芭芭拉·丹尼、米格尔·加西亚、保罗·霍夫曼、罗斯·霍斯利、约翰·克莱辛、埃里森·曼金、布莱克·拉姆斯代尔、马克·汤斯利、马格纳斯·韦斯特隆德和伯特·维恩的具体反馈。
Acknowledgments from the First Edition (1998)
第一版确认书（1998年）
The original acknowledgments section in RFC 2434 was:
RFC 2434中的原始确认部分为：
Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds provided a detailed explanation on what IANA needs in order to manage assignments efficiently, and patiently provided comments on multiple versions of this document. Brian Carpenter provided helpful comments on earlier versions of the document. One paragraph in the Security Considerations section was borrowed from RFC 4288.
Jon Postel和Joyce Reynolds详细解释了IANA需要什么才能有效地管理任务，并耐心地对本文档的多个版本发表了评论。Brian Carpenter对文档的早期版本提供了有用的评论。安全注意事项一节中的一段是从RFC 4288中借用的。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Michelle Cotton PTI, an affiliate of ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 United States of America
Michelle Cotton PTI，ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive的附属公司，美国加利福尼亚州洛杉矶300号套房，邮编90094-2536
Phone: +1-424-254-5300
Email: michelle.cotton@iana.org
URI: https://www.iana.org/
Phone: +1-424-254-5300
Email: michelle.cotton@iana.org
URI: https://www.iana.org/
Barry Leiba Huawei Technologies
巴里·雷巴华为技术有限公司
Phone: +1 646 827 0648
Email: barryleiba@computer.org
URI: http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/
Phone: +1 646 827 0648
Email: barryleiba@computer.org
URI: http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/
Thomas Narten IBM Corporation 3039 Cornwallis Ave., PO Box 12195 - BRQA/502 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195 United States of America
Thomas Narten IBM Corporation美国北卡罗来纳州研究三角公园康沃利斯大道3039号邮政信箱12195-BRQA/502 27709-2195
Phone: +1 919 254 7798
Email: narten@us.ibm.com
Phone: +1 919 254 7798
Email: narten@us.ibm.com