GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc2223

Network Working Group J. Postel Request for Comments: 2223 J. Reynolds Obsoletes: 1543, 1111, 825 ISI Category: Informational October 1997

                    Instructions to RFC Authors

Status of this Memo

 This memo provides information for the Internet community.  This memo
 does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of
 this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1997).  All Rights Reserved.

Table of Contents

 1.   Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
 2.   Editorial Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
 3.   Format Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
 3a.   ASCII Format Rules  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
 3b.   PostScript Format Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
 4.   Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
 4a.   First Page Heading  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
 4b.   Running Header  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
 4c.   Running Footer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
 5.   Status Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
 6.   Copyright Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
 7.   Introduction Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
 8.   References Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
 9.   Security Considerations Section  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
 10.  Author's Address Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
 11.  Copyright Section  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
 12.  Relation to other RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
 13.  Protocol Standards Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
 14.  Contact  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
 15.  Distribution Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
 16.  RFC Index  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
 17.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
 18.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
 19.  Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
 20.  Appendix - RFC "nroff macros"  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
 21.  Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20

Postel & Reynolds Informational [Page 1] RFC 2223 Instructions to RFC Authors October 1997

1. Introduction

 This Request for Comments (RFC) provides information about the
 preparation of RFCs, and certain policies relating to the publication
 of RFCs.
 The RFC series of notes covers a broad range of interests.  The core
 topics are the Internet and the TCP/IP protocol suite.  However, any
 topic related to computer communication may be acceptable at the
 discretion of the RFC Editor.
 Memos proposed to be RFCs may be submitted by anyone.  One large
 source of memos that become RFCs is the Internet Engineering Task
 Force (IETF).  The IETF working groups (WGs) evolve their working
 memos (known as Internet Drafts or I-Ds) until they feel they are
 ready for publication, then the memos are reviewed by the Internet
 Engineering Steering Group (IESG), and if approved sent by the IESG
 to the RFC Editor.
 Most of the memos submitted to the RFC Editor from independent
 sources will be reviewed by the IESG for possible relationship to
 work in progress in the IETF Working Groups.
 RFCs are distributed online by being stored as public access files,
 and a short message 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.  (RFCs may also be
 returned via e-mail in response to an e-mail query, or RFCs may be
 found using information and database searching tools such as Gopher,
 Wais, or the World Wide Web (WWW).
 RFCs have been traditionally published and continue to be published
 in ASCII text.
 While the primary RFCs is always an ASCII text file, secondary or
 alternative versions of RFC may be provided in PostScript.  This
 decision is motivated by the desire to include diagrams, drawings,
 and such in RFCs.  PostScript documents (on paper only, so far) are
 visually more appealing and have better readability.
 PostScript was chosen for the fancy form of RFC publication over
 other possible systems (e.g., impress, interpress, oda) because of
 the perceived wide spread availability of PostScript capable
 printers.

Postel & Reynolds Informational [Page 2] RFC 2223 Instructions to RFC Authors October 1997

 However, many RFC users read the documents online and use various
 text oriented tools (e.g., emacs, grep) to search them.  Often, brief
 excerpts from RFCs are included in e-mail.  These practices are not
 yet practical with PostScript files.
 PostScript producing systems are less standard than is desirable and
 that several of the document production systems that claim to produce
 PostScript actually produce nonstandard results.
 In the future, it may be necessary to identify a set of document
 production systems authorized for use in production of PostScript
 RFCs, based on the reasonableness of the output files they generate.

2. Editorial Policy

 Documents proposed to be RFCs are reviewed by the RFC Editor and
 possibly by other reviewers he selects.
 The result of the review may be to suggest to the author some
 improvements to the document before publication.
 Occasionally, it may be apparent that the topic of a proposed RFC is
 also the subject of an IETF Working Group, and that the author could
 coordinate with the working group to the advantage of both.  The
 usual result of this is that a revised memo is produced as a working
 group Internet Draft and eventually emerges from the IETF process as
 a recommendation from the IESG to the RFC Editor.
 In some cases it may be determined that the submitted document is not
 appropriate material to be published as an RFC.
 In some cases it may be necessary to include in the document a
 statement based on the reviews about the ideas in the document.  This
 may be done in the case that the document suggests relevant but
 inappropriate or unsafe ideas, and other situations.
 The RFC Editor may make minor changes to the document, especially in
 the areas of style and format, but on some occasions also to the
 text.  Sometimes the RFC Editor will undertake to make more
 significant changes, especially when the format rules (see below) are
 not followed.  However, more often the memo will be returned to the
 author for the additional work.
 Documents intended to become RFCs specifying standards track
 protocols must be approved by the IESG before being sent to the RFC
 Editor.  The established procedure is that when the IESG completes
 work on a document that is to become a standards track RFC the
 communication will be from the Secretary of the IESG to the RFC

Postel & Reynolds Informational [Page 3] RFC 2223 Instructions to RFC Authors October 1997

 Editor.  Generally, the documents in question are Internet Drafts.
 The communication usually cites the exact Internet Draft in question
 (by file name).  The RFC Editor must assume that only that file is to
 be processed to become the RFC.  If the authors have small
 corrections to the text, they should be sent to the RFC Editor
 separately (or as a "diff"), authors should not send a new version of
 the document.
 In some cases, authors prepare alternate secondary versions of RFCs
 in fancy format using PostScript.  Since the ASCII text version of
 the RFC is the primary version, the PostScript version must match the
 text version.  The RFC Editor must decide if the PostScript version
 is "the same as" the ASCII version before the PostScript version can
 be published.
 The effect of this is that the RFC Editor first processes the ASCII
 version of the memo through to publication as an RFC.  If the author
 wishes to submit a PostScript version at that point that matches the
 ASCII version (and the RFC Editor agrees that it does), then the
 PostScript version will be installed in the RFC repositories and
 announced to the community.
 Due to various time pressures on the RFC Editorial staff, the time
 elapsed between submission and publication can vary greatly.  It is
 always acceptable to query (ping) the RFC Editor about the status of
 an RFC during this time (but not more than once a week).  The two
 weeks preceding an IETF meeting are generally very busy, so RFCs
 submitted shortly before an IETF meeting are most likely to be
 published after the meeting.

3. Format Rules

 To meet the distribution constraints, the following rules are
 established for the two allowed formats for RFCs:  ASCII and
 PostScript.
 The RFC Editor attempts to ensure a consistent RFC style.  To do this
 the RFC Editor may choose to reformat the RFC submitted.  It is much
 easier to do this if the submission matches the style of the most
 recent RFCs.  Please do look at some recent RFCs and prepare yours in
 the same style.
 You must submit an editable online document to the RFC Editor.  The
 RFC Editor may require or make minor changes in format or style and
 will insert the actual RFC number.

Postel & Reynolds Informational [Page 4] RFC 2223 Instructions to RFC Authors October 1997

 Most of the RFCs are processed by the RFC Editor with the unix
 "nroff" program using a very simple set of the formatting commands
 (or "requests") from the "ms" macro package (see the Appendix).  If a
 memo submitted to be an RFC has been prepared by the author using
 nroff, it is very helpful to let the RFC Editor know that when it is
 submitted.
 3a.  ASCII Format Rules
    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.
    Do not fill the text with extra spaces to provide a straight right
    margin.
    Do not do hyphenation of words at the right margin.
    Do not use footnotes.  If such notes are necessary, put them at
    the end of a section, or at the end of the document.
    Use single spaced text within a paragraph, and one blank line
    between paragraphs.
    Note that the number of pages in a document and the page numbers
    on which various sections fall will likely change with
    reformatting.  Thus cross references in the text by section number
    usually are easier to keep consistent than cross references by
    page number.
    RFCs in ASCII Format may be submitted to the RFC Editor in e-mail
    messages (or as online files) in either the finished publication
    format or in nroff.  If you plan to submit a document in nroff
    please consult the RFC Editor first.

Postel & Reynolds Informational [Page 5] RFC 2223 Instructions to RFC Authors October 1997

 3b.  PostScript Format Rules
    Standard page size is 8 1/2 by 11 inches.
    Margin of 1 inch on all sides (top, bottom, left, and right).
    Main text should have a point size of no less than 10 points with
    a line spacing of 12 points.
    Footnotes and graph notations no smaller than 8 points with a line
    spacing of 9.6 points.
    Three fonts are acceptable: Helvetica, Times Roman, and Courier.
    Plus their bold-face and italic versions.  These are the three
    standard fonts on most PostScript printers.
    Prepare diagrams and images based on lowest common denominator
    PostScript.  Consider common PostScript printer functionality and
    memory requirements.
    The following PostScript commands should not be used:
    initgraphics, erasepage, copypage, grestoreall, initmatrix,
    initclip, banddevice, framedevice, nulldevice and renderbands.
    Note that the number of pages in a document and the page numbers
    on which various sections fall will likely differ in the ASCII and
    the PostScript versions.  Thus cross references in the text by
    section number usually are easier to keep consistent than cross
    references by page number.
    These PostScript rules are likely to changed and expanded as
    experience is gained.
    RFCs in PostScript Format may be submitted to the RFC Editor in
    e-mail messages (or as online files).  If you plan to submit a
    document in PostScript please consult the RFC Editor first.
    Note that since the ASCII text version of the RFC is the primary
    version, the PostScript version must match the text version.  The
    RFC Editor must decide if the PostScript version is "the same as"
    the ASCII version before the PostScript version can be published.

Postel & Reynolds Informational [Page 6] RFC 2223 Instructions to RFC Authors October 1997

4. Headers and Footers

 There is the first page heading, the running headers, and the running
 footers.
 4a.  First Page
    Please see the front page of this memo for an example of the front
    page heading.  On the first page there is no running header.  The
    top of the first page has the following items:
    Network Working Group
       The traditional heading for the group that founded the RFC
       series.  This appears on the first line on the left hand side
       of the heading.
    Request for Comments: nnnn
       Identifies this as a request for comments and specifies the
       number.  Indicated on the second line on the left side.  The
       actual number is filled in at the last moment before
       publication by the RFC Editor.
    Author
       The author's name (first initial and last name only) indicated
       on the first line on the right side of the heading.
    Organization
       The author's organization, indicated on the second line on the
       right side.
    Date
       This is the Month and Year of the RFC Publication. Indicated on
       the third line on the right side.
    Updates or Obsoletes
       If this RFC Updates or Obsoletes another RFC, this is indicated
       as third line on the left side of the heading.

Postel & Reynolds Informational [Page 7] RFC 2223 Instructions to RFC Authors October 1997

    Category
       The category of this RFC, one of: Standards Track, Best Current
       Practice, Informational, or Experimental.  This is indicated on
       the third (if there is no Updates or Obsoletes indication) or
       fourth line of the left side.
    Other Numbers
       Other numbers in the RFC series of notes include the subseries
       of FYI (For Your Information) [4], BCP (Best Current Practice)
       [5], and STD (Standard) [6].  These are placed on the left
       side.
    Title
       The title appears, centered, below the rest of the heading.
       Periods or "dots" in the titles are not allowed.
    If there are multiple authors and if the multiple authors are from
    multiple organizations the right side heading may have additional
    lines to accommodate them and to associate the authors with the
    organizations properly.
 4b.  Running Headers
    The running header in one line (on page 2 and all subsequent
    pages) has the RFC number on the left (RFC NNNN), the (possibly
    nshortened form) title centered, and the date (Month Year) on the
    right.
 4c.  Running Footers
    The running footer in one line (on all pages) has the author's
    last name on the left, category centered, and the page number on
    the right ([Page N]).

5. Status Section

 Each RFC must include on its first page the "Status of this Memo"
 section which contains two elements: (1) a paragraph describing the
 type of the RFC, and (2) the distribution statement.
 The content of this section will be one of the four following
 statements.

Postel & Reynolds Informational [Page 8] RFC 2223 Instructions to RFC Authors October 1997

 Standards Track
    "This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for
    the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions
    for improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the
    "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the
    standardization state and status of this protocol.  Distribution
    of this memo is unlimited."
 Best Current Practice
    "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."
 Experimental
    "This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
    community.  This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any
    kind.  Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
    Distribution of this memo is unlimited."
 Informational
    "This memo provides information for the Internet community.  This
    memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
    Distribution of this memo is unlimited."

6. Copyright Notice

 Immediately following the Status section the statement, "Copyright
 (C) The Internet Society (date).  All Rights Reserved." is placed.
 Also, see Section 11 for the full statement that must appear at the
 end of the document.

7. Introduction Section

 Each RFC should have an Introduction section that (among other
 things) explains the motivation for the RFC and (if appropriate)
 describes the applicability of the protocol described.
    Normally, this will be the "abstract" section from the Internet
    Draft.  If the RFC is not based on an I-D, other possibilities
    are:

Postel & Reynolds Informational [Page 9] RFC 2223 Instructions to RFC Authors October 1997

       Protocol
          This protocol is intended to provide the bla-bla service,
          and be used between clients and servers on host computers.
          Typically the clients are on workstation hosts and the
          servers on mainframe hosts.
          or
          This protocol is intended to provide the bla-bla service,
          and be used between special purpose units such as terminal
          servers or routers and a monitoring host.
       Discussion
          The purpose of this RFC is to focus discussion on particular
          problems in the Internet and possible methods of solution.
          No proposed solutions in this document are intended as
          standards for the Internet.  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.
       Interest
          This RFC is being distributed to members of the Internet
          community in order to solicit their reactions to the
          proposals contained in it.  While the issues discussed may
          not be directly relevant to the research problems of the
          Internet, they may be interesting to a number of researchers
          and implementers.
       Status Report
          In response to the need for maintenance of current
          information about the status and progress of various
          projects in the Internet community, this RFC is issued for
          the benefit of community members.  The information contained
          in this document is accurate as of the date of publication,
          but is subject to change.  Subsequent RFCs will reflect such
          changes.
    These paragraphs need not be followed word for word, but the
    general intent of the RFC must be made clear.

Postel & Reynolds Informational [Page 10] RFC 2223 Instructions to RFC Authors October 1997

8. References Section

 Nearly all RFCs contain citations to other documents, and these are
 listed in a References section near the end of the RFC.  There are
 many styles for references, and the RFCs have one of their own.
 Please follow the reference style used in recent RFCs.  See the
 reference section of this RFC for an example.  Please note that for
 protocols that have been assigned STD numbers, the STD number must be
 included in the reference.
 In many standards track documents several words are used to signify
 the requirements in the specification.  These words are often
 capitalized.  BCP 14, RFC 2119 [3], defines these words as they
 should be interpreted in IETF documents.

9. Security Considerations Section

 All RFCs must contain a section near the end of the document that
 discusses the security considerations of the protocol or procedures
 that are the main topic of the RFC.

10. Author's Address Section

 Each RFC must have at the very end a section giving the author's
 address, including the name and postal address, the telephone number,
 (optional: a FAX number) and the Internet email address.

11. Copyright Section

 Per BCP 9, RFC 2026 [2], "The following copyright notice and
 disclaimer shall be included in all ISOC standards-related
 documentation."  The following statement should be placed on the last
 page of the RFC, as the "Full Copyright Statement".
    "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date).  All Rights Reserved.
    This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished
    to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise
    explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied,
    published and distributed, in whole or in part, without
    restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice
    and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative
    works.  However, this document itself may not be modified in any
    way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the
    Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed
    for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the
    procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards
    process must be followed, or as required to translate it into

Postel & Reynolds Informational [Page 11] RFC 2223 Instructions to RFC Authors October 1997

    languages other than English.
    The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not
    be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
    This document and the information contained herein is provided on
    an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
    ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
    IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
    THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
    WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

12. Relation to other RFCs

 Sometimes an RFC adds information on a topic discussed in a previous
 RFC or completely replaces an earlier RFC.  There are two terms used
 for these cases respectively, Updates and Obsoletes.  A document that
 obsoletes an earlier document can stand on its own.  A document that
 merely updates an earlier document cannot stand on its own; it is
 something that must be added to or inserted into the previously
 existing document, and has limited usefulness independently.  The
 terms Supercedes and Replaces are no longer used.
 Updates
    To be used as a reference from a new item that cannot be used
    alone (i.e., one that supplements a previous document), to refer
    to the previous document.  The newer publication is a part that
    will supplement or be added on to the existing document; e.g., an
    addendum, or separate, extra information that is to be added to
    the original document.
 Obsoletes
    To be used to refer to an earlier document that is replaced by
    this document.  This document contains either revised information,
    or else all of the same information plus some new information,
    however extensive or brief that new information is; i.e., this
    document can be used alone, without reference to the older
    document.

Postel & Reynolds Informational [Page 12] RFC 2223 Instructions to RFC Authors October 1997

    For example:
       On the Assigned Numbers RFCs the term Obsoletes should be used
       since the new document actually incorporate new information
       (however brief) into the text of existing information and is
       more up-to-date than the older document, and hence, replaces it
       and makes it Obsoletes.
 In lists of RFCs or the RFC-Index (but not on the RFCs themselves)
 the following may be used with early documents to point to later
 documents.
 Obsoleted-by
    To be used to refer to the newer document(s) that replaces the
    older document.
 Updated-by
    To be used to refer to the newer section(s) which are to be added
    to the existing, still used, document.

13. Protocol Standards Process

 See the current "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) memo
 for the definitive statement on protocol standards and their
 publication [1].
 The established procedure is that when the IESG completes work on a
 document that is to become a standards track RFC the communication
 will be from the Secretary of the IESG to the RFC Editor.  Generally,
 the documents in question are Internet Drafts.  The communication
 usually cites the exact Internet Draft (by file name) in question.
 The RFC Editor must assume that only that file is to be processed to
 become the RFC.  If the authors have small corrections to the text,
 they should be sent to the RFC Editor separately (or as a "diff"), do
 not send a new version of the document.

14. Contact

 To contact the RFC Editor send an email message to:
       "rfc-editor@isi.edu".

Postel & Reynolds Informational [Page 13] RFC 2223 Instructions to RFC Authors October 1997

15. Distribution Lists

 The RFC announcements are distributed via two mailing lists: the
 "IETF-Announce" list, and the "RFC-DIST" list.  You don't want to be
 on both lists.
 To join (or quit) the IETF-Announce list send a message to ietf-
 request@ietf.org.
 To join (or quit) the RFC-DIST list send a message to rfc-dist-
 request@isi.edu.

16. RFC Index

 Several organizations maintain RFC Index files, generally using the
 file name "rfc-index.txt".  The contents of such a file copied from
 one site may not be identical to that copied from another site.

17. Security Considerations

 This RFC raises no security issues (however, see Section 9).

18. References

 [1]  Postel, J., Editor, "Internet Official Protocol Standards", STD
      1, RFC 2200, June 1997.
 [2]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP
      9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
 [3]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
      Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
 [4]  Malkin, G., and J. Reynolds, "F.Y.I. on F.Y.I Introduction to
      the F.Y.I. Notes", FYI 1, RFC 1150, March 1990.
 [5]  Postel, J., Li, T., and Y. Rekhter, "Best Current Practices",
      BCP 1, RFC 1818, August 1995.
 [6]  Postel, J., Editor, "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311,
      March 1992.

Postel & Reynolds Informational [Page 14] RFC 2223 Instructions to RFC Authors October 1997

19. Authors' Addresses

 Jon Postel
 USC/Information Sciences Institute
 4676 Admiralty Way
 Marina del Rey, CA  90292
 Phone: +1 310-822-1511
 Fax:   +1 310-823-6714
 EMail: Postel@ISI.EDU
 Joyce K. Reynolds
 USC/Information Sciences Institute
 4676 Admiralty Way
 Marina del Rey, CA  90292
 Phone: +1 310-822-1511
 Fax:   +1 310-823-6714
 EMail: jkrey@isi.edu

Postel & Reynolds Informational [Page 15] RFC 2223 Instructions to RFC Authors October 1997

20. Appendix - RFC "nroff macros"

 Generally, we use the very simplest nroff features.  We use the "ms"
 macros.  So, "nroff -ms input-file > output-file".  However, we could
 not get nroff to do the right thing about putting a form feed after
 the last visible line on a page and no extra line feeds before the
 first visible line of the next page.  We want:
      last visible line on page i
      ^L
      first visible line on page i+1
 So, we invented a hack to fix this.  We use a perl script called
 "fix.pl".  So the command to process the file becomes:
      nroff -ms input-file | fix.pl > output-file
 The actual perl script is:

#~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ #! /local/bin/perl

# fix.pl 17-Nov-93 Craig Milo Rogers at USC/ISI # # The style guide for RFCs calls for pages to be delimited by the # sequence <last-non-blank-line><formfeed-line><first-non-blank-line>. # Unfortunately, NROFF is reluctant to produce output that conforms to # this convention. This script fixes RFC-style documents by searching # for the token "FORMFEED[Page", replacing "FORMFEED" with spaces, # appending a formfeed line, and deleting white space up to the next # non-white space character. # # There is one difference between this script's output and that of # the "fix.sh" and "pg" programs it replaces: this script includes a # newline after the formfeed after the last page in a file, whereas the # earlier programs left a bare formfeed as the last character in the # file. To obtain bare formfeeds, uncomment the second substitution # command below. To strip the final formfeed, uncomment the third # substitution command below. # # This script is intended to run as a filter, as in: # # nroff -ms input-file | fix.pl > output-file # # When porting this script, please observe the following points: # # 1) ISI keeps perl in "/local/bin/perl"; your system may keep it

Postel & Reynolds Informational [Page 16] RFC 2223 Instructions to RFC Authors October 1997

# elsewhere. # 2) On systems with a CRLF end-of-line convention, the "\n"s below # may have to be replaced with "\r\n"s.

$* = 1; # Enable multiline patterns. undef $/; # Read whole files in a single

                                      # gulp.

while (<>) { # Read the entire input file.

  s/FORMFEED(\[Page\s+\d+\])\s+/        \1\n\f\n/g;
                                      # Rewrite the end-of-pages.

# s/\f\n$/\f/; # Want bare formfeed at end? # s/\f\n$; # Want no formfeed at end? print; # Print the resultant file. } #~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This script can also be copied from: ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc- editor/fix.pl Now as to the nroff features we actually use, following is a sample memo, prepared in RFC style. Postel & Reynolds Informational [Page 17] RFC 2223 Instructions to RFC Authors October 1997 .pl 10.0i .po 0 .ll 7.2i .lt 7.2i .nr LL 7.2i .nr LT 7.2i .ds LF Waitzman .ds RF PUTFFHERE[Page %] .ds CF .ds LH RFC 1149 .ds RH 1 April 1990 .ds CH IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers .hy 0 .ad l .in 0 Network Working Group D. Waitzman Request for Comments: 1149 BBN STC 1 April 1990 .ce A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers .ti 0 Status of this Memo .fi .in 3 This memo describes an experimental method for the encapsulation of IP datagrams in avian carriers. This specification is primarily useful in Metropolitan Area Networks. This is an experimental, not recommended standard. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. .ti 0 Overview and Rational Avian carriers can provide high delay, low throughput, and low altitude service. The connection topology is limited to a single point-to-point path for each carrier, used with standard carriers, but many carriers can be used without significant interference with each other, outside of early spring. This is because of the 3D ether space available to the carriers, in contrast to the 1D ether used by IEEE802.3. The carriers have an intrinsic collision avoidance system, which increases availability. Unlike some network technologies, such as packet radio, communication is not limited to line-of-sight distance. Connection oriented service is available in some cities, usually based upon a central hub topology. Postel & Reynolds Informational [Page 18] RFC 2223 Instructions to RFC Authors October 1997 .ti 0 Frame Format The IP datagram is printed, on a small scroll of paper, in hexadecimal, with each octet separated by whitestuff and blackstuff. The scroll of paper is wrapped around one leg of the avian carrier. A band of duct tape is used to secure the datagram's edges. The bandwidth is limited to the leg length. The MTU is variable, and paradoxically, generally increases with increased carrier age. A typical MTU is 256 milligrams. Some datagram padding may be needed. Upon receipt, the duct tape is removed and the paper copy of the datagram is optically scanned into a electronically transmittable form. .ti 0 Discussion Multiple types of service can be provided with a prioritized pecking order. An additional property is built-in worm detection and eradication. Because IP only guarantees best effort delivery, loss of a carrier can be tolerated. With time, the carriers are self-regenerating. While broadcasting is not specified, storms can cause data loss. There is persistent delivery retry, until the carrier drops. Audit trails are automatically generated, and can often be found on logs and cable trays. .ti 0 Security Considerations .in 3 Security is not generally a problem in normal operation, but special measures must be taken (such as data encryption) when avian carriers are used in a tactical environment. .ti 0 Author's Address .nf David Waitzman BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation BBN Labs Division 10 Moulton Street Cambridge, MA 02238 Phone: (617) 873-4323 EMail: dwaitzman@BBN.COM Postel & Reynolds Informational [Page 19] RFC 2223 Instructions to RFC Authors October 1997 21. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1997). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE." Postel & Reynolds Informational [Page 20]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc2223.txt · Last modified: 1998/10/26 19:24 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki