RFCs in HTML Format

RFC 1818

                         Best Current Practices


   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

   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

Back to RFC index





Register domain name and transfer | Cheap webhosting service | Domain name registration