1818
HISTORIC

Best Current Practices

Authors: J. Postel, T. Li, Y. Rekhter
Date: August 1995
Stream: Legacy

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).

RFC 1818: Best Current Practices [RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Errata] [Info page]

HISTORIC
Errata Exist
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


                         <span class="h1">Best Current Practices</span>

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)
   [<a href="#ref-1" title=""Internet Standards Process -- Revision 2"">1</a>].  The intent of the standards track documents is clear, and
   culminates in an official Internet Standard [<a href="#ref-2" title=""Internet Official Protocol Standards"">2</a>,<a href="#ref-3" title=""Internet Engineering Task Force Internet Routing Protocol Standardization Criteria"">3</a>].  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 [<a href="#ref-4" title=""Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers"">4</a>].

   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.




<span class="grey">Postel, Li & Rekhter     Best Current Practice                  [Page 1]</span>

<span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1818">RFC 1818</a>                 Best Current Practices              August 1995</span>


   Possible examples of technical information to which BCPs could be
   applied are "OSI NSAP Allocation" [<a href="#ref-5" title=""Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation in the Internet"">5</a>], and "OSPF Applicability
   Statement" [<a href="#ref-6" title=""Applicability Statement for OSPF"">6</a>].

References

   [<a id="ref-1">1</a>] IAB, and IESG, "Internet Standards Process -- Revision 2", <a href="./rfc1602">RFC</a>
       <a href="./rfc1602">1602</a>, IAB and IESG, March 1994.

   [<a id="ref-2">2</a>] Postel, J., Editor, "Internet Official Protocol Standards", STD
       1, <a href="./rfc1800">RFC 1800</a>, IAB, July 1995.

   [<a id="ref-3">3</a>] Hinden, R., "Internet Engineering Task Force Internet Routing
       Protocol Standardization Criteria", <a href="./rfc1264">RFC 1264</a>, BBN, October 1991.

   [<a id="ref-4">4</a>] Waitzman, D., "Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on
       Avian Carriers", <a href="./rfc1149">RFC 1149</a>, BBN, April 1990.

   [<a id="ref-5">5</a>] Collela, R., Callon, R., Gardner, E., and Y. Rekhter, "Guidelines
       for OSI NSAP Allocation in the Internet", <a href="./rfc1629">RFC 1629</a>, NIST,
       Wellfleet, Mitre, IBM, May 1994.

   [<a id="ref-6">6</a>] Chapin, L., "Applicability Statement for OSPF", <a href="./rfc1370">RFC 1370</a>, IAB,
       October 1992.

Security Considerations

   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.























<span class="grey">Postel, Li & Rekhter     Best Current Practice                  [Page 2]</span>

<span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1818">RFC 1818</a>                 Best Current Practices              August 1995</span>


Authors' Addresses

      Jon Postel
      USC - ISI, Suite 1001
      4676 Admiralty Way
      Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695

      Phone: 310-822-1511
      EMail: [email protected]


      Yakov Rekhter
      cisco Systems, Inc.
      170 West Tasman Drive
      San Jose, CA 95134

      Phone: 914-528-0090
      EMail: [email protected]


      Tony Li
      cisco Systems, Inc.
      1525 O'Brien Drive
      Menlo Park, CA 94025

      EMail: [email protected]

























Postel, Li & Rekhter     Best Current Practice                  [Page 3]

Additional Resources