Browse Prior Art Database

Best Current Practices (RFC1818)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000004075D
Original Publication Date: 1995-Aug-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-13
Document File: 2 page(s) / 4K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

J. Postel: AUTHOR [+3]

Abstract

This document describes a new series of documents which describe best current practices for the Internet community. Documents in this series carry the endorsement of the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).

This text was extracted from a ASCII Text document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 80% of the total text.

Network Working Group J. Postel

Request for Comments: 1818 ISI

BCP: 1 T. Li

Category: Best Current Practice cisco Systems

Y. Rekhter

cisco Systems

August 1995

Best Current Practices

Status of this Memo

This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the

Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for

improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

This document describes a new series of documents which describe best

current practices for the Internet community. Documents in this

series carry the endorsement of the Internet Engineering Steering

Group (IESG).

Discussion

The current IETF process has two types of RFCs: standards track

documents and other RFCs (e.g., informational, experimental, FYIs)

[1]. The intent of the standards track documents is clear, and

culminates in an official Internet Standard [2,3]. Informational

RFCs can be published on a less formal basis, subject to the

reasonable constraints of the RFC editor. Informational RFCs are not

subject to peer review and carry no significance whatsoever within

the IETF process [4].

The IETF currently has no other mechanism or means of publishing

relevant technical information which it endorses. This document

creates a new subseries of RFCs, entitled Best Current Practices

BCPs).

The BCP process is similar to that for proposed standards. The BCP

is submitted to the IESG for review, and the existing review process

applies, including a "last call" on the IETF announcement mailing

list. However, once the IESG has approved the document, the process

ends and the document is published. The resulting document is viewed

as having the technical approval of the IETF, but it is not, and

cannot become an official Internet Standard.

Possible examples of technical information to which BCPs could be

applied are "OSI NSAP Allocation" [5], and "OSPF Applicability

Statement" [6].

References

[1] IAB, and IESG, "Internet Standards Process -- Revision 2", RFC

1602, IAB and IESG, March 1994.

[2] Postel, J., Editor, "Internet Official Protocol Standards", STD

1, RFC 1800, IAB, July 1995.

[3] Hinden, R., "Internet Engineering Task Force Internet Routing

Protocol Standardization Criteria", RFC 1264, BBN, October 1991.

[4] Waitzman, D., "Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on

Avian Carriers", RFC 1149, BBN, April 1990.

[5] Collela, R., Callon, R., Gardner, E., and Y. Rekhter, "Guidelines

for OSI NSAP Allocation in the Internet", RFC 1629, NIST,

Wellfleet, Mitre, IBM, May 1994.

[6] Chapin, L....