RFC825 - Request for comments on Requests For Comments

领测软件测试网

　　 
　　Network Working Group J. Postel
Request for Comments: 825 ISI
November 1982

Request for Comments on Requests for Comments

This RFCis intended to clarify the status of RFCs and to provide some

guidance for the authors of RFCs in the future. It is in a sense a
specification for RFCs.

There are several reasons for publishing a memo as an RFC, for example,
to make available some information for interested people, or to begin or
continue a discussion of an interesting idea, or to specify a protocol.

Each RFCis to include on its title page or in the first or second
paragraph a statement describing the intention of the RFC.

The following sample paragraphs may be used to satisfy this
requirement:

Specification

This RFCspecifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community.
Hosts on the ARPA Internet are expected to adopt and implement
this standard.

Discussion

The purpose of this RFCis to focus discussion on particular
problems in the ARPA Internet and possible methods of solution.
No proposed solutions this document are intended as standards
at this time. Rather, it is hoped that a general consensus
will emerge as to the appropriate solution to such problems,
leading eventually to the adoption of standards.

Information

This RFCis presented to members of the ARPA Internet community
in order to solicit their reactions to the proposals contained
in it. While perhaps the issues discussed are not directly
relevant to the research problems of the ARPA Internet, they
may be particularly interesting to some researchers and
implementers.

Postel [Page 1]

RFC825 November 1982
RFCon RFCs

Status

This RFCis issued in response to the need for current
information about the status and progress of various projects
in the ARPA Internet community. The information contained in
this document is accurate as of the date of publication, but is
subject to change. Subsequent RFCs may reflect such changes.

Report

This RFCis issued to report on the results of a meeting. It
may document significant decisions made that impact the
implementation of network protocols, or limit or expand the use
of optional features of protocols. Other meeting results may
be indicated including (but not limited to) policy issues,
technical topics discussed and problems needing further work.

Of course these paragraphs need not be followed word for word, but
the general intent of the RFCmust be made clear.

RFCs are distributed online by being stored as public access files, and
a short messages is sent to the distribution list indicating the
availability of the memo.

The online files are copied by the interested people and printed or
displayed at their site on their equipment. This means that the format
of the online files must meet the constraints of a wide variety of
printing and display equipment.

To meet these constraints the following rules are established for the
format of RFCs:

The character codes are ASCII.

Each page must be limited to 58 lines followed by a form feed on a
line by itself.

Each line must be limited to 72 characters followed by carriage
return and line feed.

No overstriking (or underlining) is allowed.

These "height" and "width" constraints include any headers, footers,
page numbers, or left side indenting.

Requests to be added to or deleted from this distribution list should be
sent to NIC@SRI-NIC. Submissions for RFCs should be sent to
POSTEL@USC-ISIF.

文章来源于领测软件测试网 https://www.ltesting.net/