From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100
Subject: doc: Add RFC documents

---
 doc/rfc/rfc1818.txt | 171 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 171 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc1818.txt

(limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc1818.txt')

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1818.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1818.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fe39348
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc1818.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+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.
+
+
+
+
+Postel, Li & Rekhter     Best Current Practice                  [Page 1]
+
+RFC 1818                 Best Current Practices              August 1995
+
+
+   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., "Applicability Statement for OSPF", RFC 1370, IAB,
+       October 1992.
+
+Security Considerations
+
+   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Postel, Li & Rekhter     Best Current Practice                  [Page 2]
+
+RFC 1818                 Best Current Practices              August 1995
+
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+      Jon Postel
+      USC - ISI, Suite 1001
+      4676 Admiralty Way
+      Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695
+
+      Phone: 310-822-1511
+      EMail: postel@isi.edu
+
+
+      Yakov Rekhter
+      cisco Systems, Inc.
+      170 West Tasman Drive
+      San Jose, CA 95134
+
+      Phone: 914-528-0090
+      EMail: yakov@cisco.com
+
+
+      Tony Li
+      cisco Systems, Inc.
+      1525 O'Brien Drive
+      Menlo Park, CA 94025
+
+      EMail: tli@cisco.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Postel, Li & Rekhter     Best Current Practice                  [Page 3]
+
-- 
cgit v1.2.3