fbpx
Wikipedia

Request for Comments

April 03, 2023

For the Wikipedia process, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

A Request for Comments (RFC) is a publication in a series from the principal technical development and standards-setting bodies for the Internet, most prominently the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). An RFC is authored by individuals or groups of engineers and computer scientists in the form of a memorandum describing methods, behaviors, research, or innovations applicable to the working of the Internet and Internet-connected systems. It is submitted either for peer review or to convey new concepts, information, or, occasionally, engineering humor.[1]

The IETF adopts some of the proposals published as RFCs as Internet Standards. However, many RFCs are informational or experimental in nature and are not standards.[2] The RFC system was invented by Steve Crocker in 1969 to help record unofficial notes on the development of ARPANET. RFCs have since become official documents of Internet specifications, communications protocols, procedures, and events.[3] According to Crocker, the documents "shape the Internet's inner workings and have played a significant role in its success", but are not widely known outside the community.[4]

Outside of the Internet community, other documents also called requests for comments have been published in U.S. Federal government work, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.[5]

History

The inception of the RFC format occurred in 1969 as part of the seminal ARPANET project.[4] Today, it is the official publication channel for the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), and – to some extent – the global community of computer network researchers in general.

The authors of the first RFCs typewrote their work and circulated hard copies among the ARPA researchers. Unlike the modern RFCs, many of the early RFCs were actual Requests for Comments and were titled as such to avoid sounding too declarative and to encourage discussion.[6][7] The RFC leaves questions open and is written in a less formal style. This less formal style is now typical of Internet Draft documents, the precursor step before being approved as an RFC.

In December 1969, researchers began distributing new RFCs via the newly operational ARPANET. RFC 1, titled "Host Software", was written by Steve Crocker of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and published on April 7, 1969.[8] Although written by Steve Crocker, the RFC had emerged from an early working group discussion between Steve Crocker, Steve Carr, and Jeff Rulifson.

In RFC 3, which first defined the RFC series, Crocker started attributing the RFC series to the Network Working Group. Rather than being a formal committee, it was a loose association of researchers interested in the ARPANET project. In effect, it included anyone who wanted to join the meetings and discussions about the project.

Many of the subsequent RFCs of the 1970s also came from UCLA, because UCLA is one of the first of what were Interface Message Processors (IMPs) on ARPANET. The Augmentation Research Center (ARC) at Stanford Research Institute, directed by Douglas Engelbart, is another of the four first of what were ARPANET nodes and the source of early RFCs. The ARC became the first network information center (InterNIC), which was managed by Elizabeth J. Feinler to distribute the RFCs along with other network information.[9] From 1969 until 1998, Jon Postel served as the RFC editor. On his death in 1998, his obituary was published as RFC 2468.

Following the expiration of the original ARPANET contract with the U.S. federal government, the Internet Society, acting on behalf of the IETF, contracted with the Networking Division of the University of Southern California (USC) Information Sciences Institute (ISI) to assume the editorship and publishing responsibilities under the direction of the IAB. Sandy Ginoza joined USC/ISI in 1999 to work on RFC editing, and Alice Hagens in 2005.[10]Bob Braden took over the role of RFC project lead, while Joyce K. Reynolds continued to be part of the team until October 13, 2006.

In July 2007, streams of RFCs were defined, so that the editing duties could be divided. IETF documents came from IETF working groups or submissions sponsored by an IETF area director from the Internet Engineering Steering Group. The IAB can publish its own documents. A research stream of documents comes from the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), and an independent stream from other outside sources.[11] A new model was proposed in 2008, refined, and published in August 2009, splitting the task into several roles,[12] including the RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG). The model was updated in 2012.[13] The streams were also refined in December 2009, with standards defined for their style.[14] In January 2010 the RFC Editor function was moved to a contractor, Association Management Solutions, with Glenn Kowack serving as interim series editor.[15] In late 2011, Heather Flanagan was hired as the permanent RFC Series Editor. Also at that time, an RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) was created.[16]

In 2020, the IAB convened the RFC Editor Future Development program to discuss potential changes to the RFC Editor model. The results of the program included the RFC Editor Model (Version 3) as defined in RFC 9280 published in June 2022. Generally, the new model is intended to clarify responsibilities and processes for defining and implementing policies related to the RFC series and the RFC Editor function. Changes in the new model included establishing the position of the RFC Consulting Editor, the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), and the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB). It also established a new Editorial Stream for the RFC Series and concluded the RSOC.

Requests for Comments were originally produced in non-reflowable text format. In August 2019 the format was changed so that new documents can be viewed optimally in devices with varying display sizes.[17]

Production and versioning

The RFC Editor assigns each RFC a serial number. Once assigned a number and published, an RFC is never rescinded or modified; if the document requires amendments, the authors publish a revised document. Therefore, some RFCs supersede others; the superseded RFCs are said to be deprecated, obsolete, or obsoleted by the superseding RFC. Together, the serialized RFCs compose a continuous historical record of the evolution of Internet standards and practices. The RFC process is documented in RFC 2026 (The Internet Standards Process, Revision 3).[18]

The RFC production process differs from the standardization process of formal standards organizations such as International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Internet technology experts may submit an Internet Draft without support from an external institution. Standards-track RFCs are published with approval from the IETF, and are usually produced by experts participating in IETF Working Groups, which first publish an Internet Draft. This approach facilitates initial rounds of peer review before documents mature into RFCs.[19]

The RFC tradition of pragmatic, experience-driven, after-the-fact standards authorship accomplished by individuals or small working groups can have important advantages[clarification needed] over the more formal, committee-driven process typical of ISO and national standards bodies.[citation needed]

Most RFCs use a common set of terms such as "MUST" and "NOT RECOMMENDED" (as defined by RFC 2119 and RFC 8174), augmented Backus–Naur form (ABNF) (RFC 5234) as a meta-language, and simple text-based formatting, in order to keep the RFCs consistent and easy to understand.[18]

Sub-series

The RFC series contains three sub-series for IETF RFCs: BCP, FYI, and STD. Best Current Practice (BCP) is a sub-series of mandatory IETF RFCs not on standards track. For Your Information (FYI) is a sub-series of informational RFCs promoted by the IETF as specified in RFC 1150 (FYI 1). In 2011, RFC 6360 obsoleted FYI 1 and concluded this sub-series. Standard (STD) used to be the third and highest maturity level of the IETF standards track specified in RFC 2026 (BCP 9). In 2011 RFC 6410 (a new part of BCP 9) reduced the standards track to two maturity levels.[citation needed]

Streams

There are four streams of RFCs: IETF, IRTF, IAB, and independent submission.[20] Only the IETF creates BCPs and RFCs on the standards track. An independent submission is checked by the IESG for conflicts with IETF work; the quality is assessed by an independent submission editorial board. In other words, IRTF and independent  RFCs are supposed to contain relevant info or experiments for the Internet at large not in conflict with IETF work; compare RFC 4846, RFC 5742, and RFC 5744.[citation needed]

Obtaining RFCs

RFC 2046 Media Types November 1996 A. Collected Grammar .................................... 43 1. Introduction The first document in this set, RFC 2045, defines a number of header fields, including Content-Type. The Content-Type field is used to specify the nature of the data in the body of a MIME entity, by giving media type and subtype identifiers, and by providing auxiliary information that may be required for certain media types. After the
RFC 2046, which defines the text/plain MIME type, is itself a plain text.

The official source for RFCs on the World Wide Web is the RFC Editor. Almost any published RFC can be retrieved via a URL of the form http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5000.txt, shown for RFC 5000.

Every RFC is submitted as plain ASCII text and is published in that form, but may also be available in other formats.

For easy access to the metadata of an RFC, including abstract, keywords, author(s), publication date, errata, status, and especially later updates, the RFC Editor site offers a search form with many features. A redirection sets some efficient parameters, example: rfc:5000.[citation needed]

The official International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) of the RFC series is 2070–1721.[14]

Status

Not all RFCs are standards.[21][22] Each RFC is assigned a designation with regard to status within the Internet standardization process. This status is one of the following: Informational, Experimental, Best Current Practice, Standards Track, or Historic.

Each RFC is static; if the document is changed, it is submitted again and assigned a new RFC number.[citation needed]

Standards Track

Main article: Internet Standard § Internet Standards

Standards-track documents are further divided into Proposed Standard and Internet Standard documents.[23]

Only the IETF, represented by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), can approve standards-track RFCs.

If an RFC becomes an Internet Standard (STD), it is assigned an STD number but retains its RFC number. The definitive list of Internet Standards is the Official Internet Protocol Standards. Previously STD 1 used to maintain a snapshot of the list.[24]

When an Internet Standard is updated, its STD number stays the same, now referring to a new RFC or set of RFCs. A given Internet Standard, STD n, may be RFCs x and y at a given time, but later the same standard may be updated to be RFC z instead. For example, in 2007 RFC 3700 was an Internet Standard—STD 1—and in May 2008 it was replaced with RFC 5000, so RFC 3700 changed to Historic, RFC 5000 became an Internet Standard, and as of May 2008 STD 1 is RFC 5000. as of December 2013 RFC 5000 is replaced by RFC 7100, updating RFC 2026 to no longer use STD 1.

(Best Current Practices work in a similar fashion; BCP n refers to a certain RFC or set of RFCs, but which RFC or RFCs may change over time).

Informational

An informational RFC can be nearly anything from April 1 jokes to widely recognized essential RFCs like Domain Name System Structure and Delegation (RFC 1591). Some informational RFCs formed the FYI sub-series.

Experimental

An experimental RFC can be an IETF document or an individual submission to the RFC Editor. A draft is designated experimental if it is unclear the proposal will work as intended or unclear if the proposal will be widely adopted. An experimental RFC may be promoted to standards track if it becomes popular and works well.[25]

Best Current Practice

The Best Current Practice subseries collects administrative documents and other texts which are considered as official rules and not only informational, but which do not affect over the wire data. The border between standards track and BCP is often unclear. If a document only affects the Internet Standards Process, like BCP 9,[26] or IETF administration, it is clearly a BCP. If it only defines rules and regulations for Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) registries it is less clear; most of these documents are BCPs, but some are on the standards track.

The BCP series also covers technical recommendations for how to practice Internet standards; for instance, the recommendation to use source filtering to make DoS attacks more difficult (RFC 2827: "Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing") is BCP 38.

Historic

A historic RFC is one that the technology defined by the RFC is no longer recommended for use, which differs from "Obsoletes" header in a replacement RFC. For example, RFC 821 (SMTP) itself is obsoleted by various newer RFCs, but SMTP itself is still "current technology", so it is not in "Historic" status.[27] However, since BGP version 4 has entirely superseded earlier BGP versions, the RFCs describing those earlier versions, such as RFC 1267, have been designated historic.

Unknown

Status unknown is used for some very old RFCs, where it is unclear which status the document would get if it were published today. Some of these RFCs would not be published at all today; an early RFC was often just that: a simple Request for Comments, not intended to specify a protocol, administrative procedure, or anything else for which the RFC series is used today.[28]

Copyright

The general rule is that original authors (or their employers, if their employment conditions so stipulate) retain copyright unless they make an explicit transfer of their rights.[29]

An independent body, the IETF Trust, holds the copyright for some RFCs and for all others it is granted a license by the authors that allows it to reproduce RFCs.[30] The Internet Society is referenced on many RFCs prior to RFC4714 as the copyright owner, but it transferred its rights to the IETF Trust.[31]

See also

References

  1. ^ Waitzman, David (April 1, 1990). A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers. IETF. doi:10.17487/RFC1149. RFC 1149. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
  2. ^ Huitema, Christian; Postel, Jon; Crocker, Steve (April 1995). Not All RFCs are Standards. IETF. doi:10.17487/RFC1796. RFC 1796. Retrieved May 15, 2018.
  3. ^ "RFC's, Internet Request For Comments". Livinginternet.com. Retrieved April 3, 2012.
  4. ^ a b "Stephen D. Crocker, How the Internet Got Its Rules, The New York Times, 6 April 2009". The New York Times. April 7, 2009. Retrieved April 3, 2012.
  5. ^ Notice and Request for Comments, in Federal Register (January 16, 2018).
  6. ^ Hafner, Katie; Lyon, Matthew (1996). Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins of the Internet.
  7. ^ Metz, Cade (May 18, 2012). "Meet the man who invented the instructions for the Internet". Wired. Retrieved December 18, 2018.
  8. ^ Crocker, Steve (April 7, 1969). "RFC 1". doi:10.17487/RFC0001. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  9. ^ Elizabeth J. Feinler (July–September 2010). "The Network Information Center and its Archives". Annals of the History of Computing. 32 (3): 83–89. doi:10.1109/MAHC.2010.54. S2CID 206443021.
  10. ^ Leslie Daigle (March 2010). "RFC Editor in Transition: Past, Present, and Future". The Internet Protocol Journal. Vol. 13, no. 1. Cisco Systems. Retrieved August 17, 2011.
  11. ^ Daigle, Leslie (July 2007). The RFC Series and RFC Editor. IETF. doi:10.17487/RFC4844. RFC 4844.
  12. ^ Kolkman, Olaf (August 2009). RFC Editor Model (Version 1). IETF. doi:10.17487/RFC5620. RFC 5620.
  13. ^ Kolkman, Olaf; Halpern, Joel (June 2012). RFC Editor Model (Version 2). IETF. doi:10.17487/RFC6635. RFC 6635.
  14. ^ a b Daigle, Leslie; Kolkman, Olaf (December 2009). RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates. IETF. doi:10.17487/RFC5741. RFC 5741.
  15. ^ Glenn Kowack (January 7, 2010). . Archived from the original on June 29, 2011.
  16. ^ "The RFC Series Editor and the Series Reorganization". Retrieved April 5, 2013.
  17. ^ "RFC Format Change FAQ".
  18. ^ a b "RFC Index". RFC Editor. May 25, 2008. Retrieved May 26, 2008.
  19. ^ IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures. doi:10.17487/RFC2418. RFC 2418.
  20. ^ "Independent Submissions". RFC Editor. Retrieved January 5, 2018.
  21. ^ "Are all RFCs Internet standards documents?". RFC Editor. Retrieved March 16, 2018.
  22. ^ Huitema, Christian; Postel, Jon; Crocker, Steve (April 1995). Not All RFCs are Standards. IETF. doi:10.17487/RFC1796. RFC 1796. ... each RFC has a status…: Informational, Experimental, or Standards Track (Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, Internet Standard), or Historic.
  23. ^ Housley, Russell; Crocker, Dave; Burger, Eric (October 2011). Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels. IETF. doi:10.17487/RFC6410. RFC 6410.
  24. ^ RFC 7100 Retirement of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" Summary Document
  25. ^ "7.5. Informational and Experimental RFCs", The Tao of IETF, retrieved November 26, 2017
  26. ^ Bradner, Scott O. (October 1996). The Internet Standards Process – Revision 3. IETF. BCP 9. Retrieved October 25, 2017.
  27. ^ "IESG Statement on Designating RFCs as Historic". IETF. July 20, 2014. Retrieved April 14, 2016.
  28. ^ IETF Standards Written by ISC Contributors, Internet Systems Consortium, September 10, 2021, from the original on April 5, 2022, retrieved April 11, 2022, Many of the early RFC documents have status "unknown" because they come from the long-gone era when an RFC really was just a request for comments.
  29. ^ "Reproducing RFCs". IETF Trust. Retrieved August 12, 2021.
  30. ^ Bradner, Scott; Contreras, Jorge (November 2008). Rights Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust. IETF. doi:10.17487/RFC5378. RFC 5378.
  31. ^ "Reproducing RFCs". IETF Trust. Retrieved August 13, 2021.

External links

  • RFC Editor
  • RFC Database
  • RFC Errata
  • RFC Frequently Asked Questions
  • RFC Index (text)
  • Official Internet Protocol Standards
  • IETF's RFC page
  • RFC Index (HTML) With the text of each RFC, also mentions what other RFCs this one "updates" or is "updated by".

April 03, 2023
request, comments, wikipedia, process, wikipedia, requests, comment, publication, series, from, principal, technical, development, standards, setting, bodies, internet, most, prominently, internet, engineering, task, force, ietf, authored, individuals, groups,. For the Wikipedia process see Wikipedia Requests for comment A Request for Comments RFC is a publication in a series from the principal technical development and standards setting bodies for the Internet most prominently the Internet Engineering Task Force IETF An RFC is authored by individuals or groups of engineers and computer scientists in the form of a memorandum describing methods behaviors research or innovations applicable to the working of the Internet and Internet connected systems It is submitted either for peer review or to convey new concepts information or occasionally engineering humor 1 The IETF adopts some of the proposals published as RFCs as Internet Standards However many RFCs are informational or experimental in nature and are not standards 2 The RFC system was invented by Steve Crocker in 1969 to help record unofficial notes on the development of ARPANET RFCs have since become official documents of Internet specifications communications protocols procedures and events 3 According to Crocker the documents shape the Internet s inner workings and have played a significant role in its success but are not widely known outside the community 4 Outside of the Internet community other documents also called requests for comments have been published in U S Federal government work such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 5 Contents 1 History 2 Production and versioning 2 1 Sub series 2 2 Streams 3 Obtaining RFCs 4 Status 4 1 Standards Track 4 2 Informational 4 3 Experimental 4 4 Best Current Practice 4 5 Historic 4 6 Unknown 5 Copyright 6 See also 7 References 8 External linksHistory EditThe inception of the RFC format occurred in 1969 as part of the seminal ARPANET project 4 Today it is the official publication channel for the Internet Engineering Task Force IETF the Internet Architecture Board IAB and to some extent the global community of computer network researchers in general The authors of the first RFCs typewrote their work and circulated hard copies among the ARPA researchers Unlike the modern RFCs many of the early RFCs were actual Requests for Comments and were titled as such to avoid sounding too declarative and to encourage discussion 6 7 The RFC leaves questions open and is written in a less formal style This less formal style is now typical of Internet Draft documents the precursor step before being approved as an RFC In December 1969 researchers began distributing new RFCs via the newly operational ARPANET RFC 1 titled Host Software was written by Steve Crocker of the University of California Los Angeles UCLA and published on April 7 1969 8 Although written by Steve Crocker the RFC had emerged from an early working group discussion between Steve Crocker Steve Carr and Jeff Rulifson In RFC 3 which first defined the RFC series Crocker started attributing the RFC series to the Network Working Group Rather than being a formal committee it was a loose association of researchers interested in the ARPANET project In effect it included anyone who wanted to join the meetings and discussions about the project Many of the subsequent RFCs of the 1970s also came from UCLA because UCLA is one of the first of what were Interface Message Processors IMPs on ARPANET The Augmentation Research Center ARC at Stanford Research Institute directed by Douglas Engelbart is another of the four first of what were ARPANET nodes and the source of early RFCs The ARC became the first network information center InterNIC which was managed by Elizabeth J Feinler to distribute the RFCs along with other network information 9 From 1969 until 1998 Jon Postel served as the RFC editor On his death in 1998 his obituary was published as RFC 2468 Following the expiration of the original ARPANET contract with the U S federal government the Internet Society acting on behalf of the IETF contracted with the Networking Division of the University of Southern California USC Information Sciences Institute ISI to assume the editorship and publishing responsibilities under the direction of the IAB Sandy Ginoza joined USC ISI in 1999 to work on RFC editing and Alice Hagens in 2005 10 Bob Braden took over the role of RFC project lead while Joyce K Reynolds continued to be part of the team until October 13 2006 In July 2007 streams of RFCs were defined so that the editing duties could be divided IETF documents came from IETF working groups or submissions sponsored by an IETF area director from the Internet Engineering Steering Group The IAB can publish its own documents A research stream of documents comes from the Internet Research Task Force IRTF and an independent stream from other outside sources 11 A new model was proposed in 2008 refined and published in August 2009 splitting the task into several roles 12 including the RFC Series Advisory Group RSAG The model was updated in 2012 13 The streams were also refined in December 2009 with standards defined for their style 14 In January 2010 the RFC Editor function was moved to a contractor Association Management Solutions with Glenn Kowack serving as interim series editor 15 In late 2011 Heather Flanagan was hired as the permanent RFC Series Editor Also at that time an RFC Series Oversight Committee RSOC was created 16 In 2020 the IAB convened the RFC Editor Future Development program to discuss potential changes to the RFC Editor model The results of the program included the RFC Editor Model Version 3 as defined in RFC 9280 published in June 2022 Generally the new model is intended to clarify responsibilities and processes for defining and implementing policies related to the RFC series and the RFC Editor function Changes in the new model included establishing the position of the RFC Consulting Editor the RFC Series Working Group RSWG and the RFC Series Approval Board RSAB It also established a new Editorial Stream for the RFC Series and concluded the RSOC Requests for Comments were originally produced in non reflowable text format In August 2019 the format was changed so that new documents can be viewed optimally in devices with varying display sizes 17 Production and versioning EditThe RFC Editor assigns each RFC a serial number Once assigned a number and published an RFC is never rescinded or modified if the document requires amendments the authors publish a revised document Therefore some RFCs supersede others the superseded RFCs are said to be deprecated obsolete or obsoleted by the superseding RFC Together the serialized RFCs compose a continuous historical record of the evolution of Internet standards and practices The RFC process is documented in RFC 2026 The Internet Standards Process Revision 3 18 The RFC production process differs from the standardization process of formal standards organizations such as International Organization for Standardization ISO Internet technology experts may submit an Internet Draft without support from an external institution Standards track RFCs are published with approval from the IETF and are usually produced by experts participating in IETF Working Groups which first publish an Internet Draft This approach facilitates initial rounds of peer review before documents mature into RFCs 19 The RFC tradition of pragmatic experience driven after the fact standards authorship accomplished by individuals or small working groups can have important advantages clarification needed over the more formal committee driven process typical of ISO and national standards bodies citation needed Most RFCs use a common set of terms such as MUST and NOT RECOMMENDED as defined by RFC 2119 and RFC 8174 augmented Backus Naur form ABNF RFC 5234 as a meta language and simple text based formatting in order to keep the RFCs consistent and easy to understand 18 Sub series Edit The RFC series contains three sub series for IETF RFCs BCP FYI and STD Best Current Practice BCP is a sub series of mandatory IETF RFCs not on standards track For Your Information FYI is a sub series of informational RFCs promoted by the IETF as specified in RFC 1150 FYI 1 In 2011 RFC 6360 obsoleted FYI 1 and concluded this sub series Standard STD used to be the third and highest maturity level of the IETF standards track specified in RFC 2026 BCP 9 In 2011 RFC 6410 a new part of BCP 9 reduced the standards track to two maturity levels citation needed Streams Edit There are four streams of RFCs IETF IRTF IAB and independent submission 20 Only the IETF creates BCPs and RFCs on the standards track An independent submission is checked by the IESG for conflicts with IETF work the quality is assessed by an independent submission editorial board In other words IRTF and independent RFCs are supposed to contain relevant info or experiments for the Internet at large not in conflict with IETF work compare RFC 4846 RFC 5742 and RFC 5744 citation needed Obtaining RFCs EditRFC 2046 Media Types November 1996 A Collected Grammar 43 1 Introduction The first document in this set RFC 2045 defines a number of header fields including Content Type The Content Type field is used to specify the nature of the data in the body of a MIME entity by giving media type and subtype identifiers and by providing auxiliary information that may be required for certain media types After theRFC 2046 which defines the text plain MIME type is itself a plain text The official source for RFCs on the World Wide Web is the RFC Editor Almost any published RFC can be retrieved via a URL of the form http www rfc editor org rfc rfc5000 txt shown for RFC 5000 Every RFC is submitted as plain ASCII text and is published in that form but may also be available in other formats For easy access to the metadata of an RFC including abstract keywords author s publication date errata status and especially later updates the RFC Editor site offers a search form with many features A redirection sets some efficient parameters example rfc 5000 citation needed The official International Standard Serial Number ISSN of the RFC series is 2070 1721 14 Status EditNot all RFCs are standards 21 22 Each RFC is assigned a designation with regard to status within the Internet standardization process This status is one of the following Informational Experimental Best Current Practice Standards Track or Historic Each RFC is static if the document is changed it is submitted again and assigned a new RFC number citation needed Standards Track Edit Main article Internet Standard Internet Standards Standards track documents are further divided into Proposed Standard and Internet Standard documents 23 Only the IETF represented by the Internet Engineering Steering Group IESG can approve standards track RFCs If an RFC becomes an Internet Standard STD it is assigned an STD number but retains its RFC number The definitive list of Internet Standards is the Official Internet Protocol Standards Previously STD 1 used to maintain a snapshot of the list 24 When an Internet Standard is updated its STD number stays the same now referring to a new RFC or set of RFCs A given Internet Standard STD n may be RFCs x and y at a given time but later the same standard may be updated to be RFC z instead For example in 2007 RFC 3700 was an Internet Standard STD 1 and in May 2008 it was replaced with RFC 5000 so RFC 3700 changed to Historic RFC 5000 became an Internet Standard and as of May 2008 update STD 1 is RFC 5000 as of December 2013 update RFC 5000 is replaced by RFC 7100 updating RFC 2026 to no longer use STD 1 Best Current Practices work in a similar fashion BCP n refers to a certain RFC or set of RFCs but which RFC or RFCs may change over time Informational Edit An informational RFC can be nearly anything from April 1 jokes to widely recognized essential RFCs like Domain Name System Structure and Delegation RFC 1591 Some informational RFCs formed the FYI sub series Experimental Edit An experimental RFC can be an IETF document or an individual submission to the RFC Editor A draft is designated experimental if it is unclear the proposal will work as intended or unclear if the proposal will be widely adopted An experimental RFC may be promoted to standards track if it becomes popular and works well 25 Best Current Practice Edit The Best Current Practice subseries collects administrative documents and other texts which are considered as official rules and not only informational but which do not affect over the wire data The border between standards track and BCP is often unclear If a document only affects the Internet Standards Process like BCP 9 26 or IETF administration it is clearly a BCP If it only defines rules and regulations for Internet Assigned Numbers Authority IANA registries it is less clear most of these documents are BCPs but some are on the standards track The BCP series also covers technical recommendations for how to practice Internet standards for instance the recommendation to use source filtering to make DoS attacks more difficult RFC 2827 Network Ingress Filtering Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing is BCP 38 Historic Edit A historic RFC is one that the technology defined by the RFC is no longer recommended for use which differs from Obsoletes header in a replacement RFC For example RFC 821 SMTP itself is obsoleted by various newer RFCs but SMTP itself is still current technology so it is not in Historic status 27 However since BGP version 4 has entirely superseded earlier BGP versions the RFCs describing those earlier versions such as RFC 1267 have been designated historic Unknown Edit Status unknown is used for some very old RFCs where it is unclear which status the document would get if it were published today Some of these RFCs would not be published at all today an early RFC was often just that a simple Request for Comments not intended to specify a protocol administrative procedure or anything else for which the RFC series is used today 28 Copyright EditThe general rule is that original authors or their employers if their employment conditions so stipulate retain copyright unless they make an explicit transfer of their rights 29 An independent body the IETF Trust holds the copyright for some RFCs and for all others it is granted a license by the authors that allows it to reproduce RFCs 30 The Internet Society is referenced on many RFCs prior to RFC4714 as the copyright owner but it transferred its rights to the IETF Trust 31 See also EditApril Fools Day RFC Best Current Practice Internet Experiment Note List of RFCsReferences Edit Waitzman David April 1 1990 A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers IETF doi 10 17487 RFC1149 RFC 1149 Retrieved March 29 2017 Huitema Christian Postel Jon Crocker Steve April 1995 Not All RFCs are Standards IETF doi 10 17487 RFC1796 RFC 1796 Retrieved May 15 2018 RFC s Internet Request For Comments Livinginternet com Retrieved April 3 2012 a b Stephen D Crocker How the Internet Got Its Rules The New York Times 6 April 2009 The New York Times April 7 2009 Retrieved April 3 2012 Notice and Request for Comments inFederal Register January 16 2018 Hafner Katie Lyon Matthew 1996 Where Wizards Stay Up Late The Origins of the Internet Metz Cade May 18 2012 Meet the man who invented the instructions for the Internet Wired Retrieved December 18 2018 Crocker Steve April 7 1969 RFC 1 doi 10 17487 RFC0001 a href Template Cite journal html title Template Cite journal cite journal a Cite journal requires journal help Elizabeth J Feinler July September 2010 The Network Information Center and its Archives Annals of the History of Computing 32 3 83 89 doi 10 1109 MAHC 2010 54 S2CID 206443021 Leslie Daigle March 2010 RFC Editor in Transition Past Present and Future The Internet Protocol Journal Vol 13 no 1 Cisco Systems Retrieved August 17 2011 Daigle Leslie July 2007 The RFC Series and RFC Editor IETF doi 10 17487 RFC4844 RFC 4844 Kolkman Olaf August 2009 RFC Editor Model Version 1 IETF doi 10 17487 RFC5620 RFC 5620 Kolkman Olaf Halpern Joel June 2012 RFC Editor Model Version 2 IETF doi 10 17487 RFC6635 RFC 6635 a b Daigle Leslie Kolkman Olaf December 2009 RFC Streams Headers and Boilerplates IETF doi 10 17487 RFC5741 RFC 5741 Glenn Kowack January 7 2010 RFC Editor Transition Announcement Archived from the original on June 29 2011 The RFC Series Editor and the Series Reorganization Retrieved April 5 2013 RFC Format Change FAQ a b RFC Index RFC Editor May 25 2008 Retrieved May 26 2008 IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures doi 10 17487 RFC2418 RFC 2418 Independent Submissions RFC Editor Retrieved January 5 2018 Are all RFCs Internet standards documents RFC Editor Retrieved March 16 2018 Huitema Christian Postel Jon Crocker Steve April 1995 Not All RFCs are Standards IETF doi 10 17487 RFC1796 RFC 1796 each RFC has a status Informational Experimental or Standards Track Proposed Standard Draft Standard Internet Standard or Historic Housley Russell Crocker Dave Burger Eric October 2011 Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels IETF doi 10 17487 RFC6410 RFC 6410 RFC 7100 Retirement of the Internet Official Protocol Standards Summary Document 7 5 Informational and Experimental RFCs The Tao of IETF retrieved November 26 2017 Bradner Scott O October 1996 The Internet Standards Process Revision 3 IETF BCP 9 Retrieved October 25 2017 IESG Statement on Designating RFCs as Historic IETF July 20 2014 Retrieved April 14 2016 IETF Standards Written by ISC Contributors Internet Systems Consortium September 10 2021 archived from the original on April 5 2022 retrieved April 11 2022 Many of the early RFC documents have status unknown because they come from the long gone era when an RFC really was just a request for comments Reproducing RFCs IETF Trust Retrieved August 12 2021 Bradner Scott Contreras Jorge November 2008 Rights Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust IETF doi 10 17487 RFC5378 RFC 5378 Reproducing RFCs IETF Trust Retrieved August 13 2021 External links EditRFC Editor RFC Database RFC Errata RFC Frequently Asked Questions RFC Index text Official Internet Protocol Standards IETF s RFC page RFC Index HTML With the text of each RFC also mentions what other RFCs this one updates or is updated by Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Request for Comments amp oldid 1143285688, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.