最佳当前实践(BCP, Best Current Practice):描述社区公认的最佳方法,如 RFC 2119(关键字用法指导)。 示例: RFC 2616- HTTP/1.1 RFC 791- IPv4 RFC 8200- IPv6 RFC 8446- TLS 1.3 RFC 9000- QUIC RFC 可在IETF 官网或RFC 编辑部网站查阅。 5. IETF 的影响力和贡献 IETF 负责的核心互联网技术包括: IP(...
BCP 14/RFC 2119给出了“RFC中的要求级别关键词”。作者在确定协议要求或限制潜在有害行为时,不能偏离这些定义。这些关键术语通常采用英文大写字母的方式,参见STD 3/RFC 1122/RFC 1123。 另外,形式语言表达式可被用来定义复杂的协议概念或数据类型、详细说明数据的值,使规范简单化。作者在运用形式化语言表达式前应考...
The models can be used, in particular, for the realization of the RFC9543 Network Slice Services in IP/MPLS and Segment Routing (SR) networks. RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only ...
documentaretobeinterpretedasdescribedinRFC2119[RFC2119]. Althoughthisdocumentisnotaprotocolspecification,theuseof thislanguageclarifiestheinstructionstoprotocoldesigners producingsolutionsthatsatisfytherequirementssetoutinthis document. 3.Terminology Section:Thistermreferstoasegmentofapathbetweenanytwo ...
NOT(禁止)”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” 根据RFC2119中定义的IETF标准。 elecfans小能手2020-09-16 14:06:38 云计算关键技术及标准化是什么 分析了云计算关键的技术,包括虚拟化/分布式文件系统/分布式数据库等,介绍...
The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'NOT RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and 'OPTIONAL' in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 (RFC 2119) (RFC 8174) when, and only when, they appear in all...
The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'NOT RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and 'OPTIONAL' in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 (RFC 2119) (RFC 8174) when, and only when, they appear in all...
RFC # 822 Obsoletes: RFC #733 (NIC #41952) STANDARD FOR THE FORMAT OF ARPA INTERNET TEXT MESSAGES August 13, 1982 Revised by David H. Crocker Dept. of Electrical Engineering University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19711 Network: DCrocker @ UDel-Relay ...
What is the source of the citation counts? At the very least it should be documented. If it's supposed to be RFCs-citing-RFCs the numbers are wrong (especially for Scott Bradner, even though RFC2119 is a great success). For my own data, the correct value is ~654 and the value displ...
Added normalization of RFC 2119 phrases before checking for validity, and updated tests files to include a <bcp14> test. Fixed several places where unexpected input could cause exceptions. Also turned the invalid input document warning into an error. Fixes issue #375. Preserved the element tail ...