5. 参考文献 (REFERENCES)

導入的参考文献 (INTRODUCTORY REFERENCES)

[INTRO:1] "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application and Support," IETF Host Requirements Working Group, R. Braden, Ed., RFC-1123.

[INTRO:2] "Requirements for Internet Gateways," R. Braden and J. Postel, RFC-1009, June 1987.

[INTRO:3] "DDN Protocol Handbook," NIC-50004, NIC-50005, NIC-50006, (three volumes), SRI International, December 1985.

[INTRO:4] "Official Internet Protocols," J. Reynolds and J. Postel, RFC-1011, May 1987.

This document is republished periodically with new RFC numbers; the latest version must be used.
本ドキュメントは新しい RFC 番号で定期的に再発行される。最新バージョンを使用しなければならない。

[INTRO:5] "Protocol Document Order Information," O. Jacobsen and J. Postel, RFC-980, March 1986.

[INTRO:6] "Assigned Numbers," J. Reynolds and J. Postel, RFC-1010, May 1987.

[INTRO:7] "Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol Implementations," D. Clark, RFC-817, July 1982.

[INTRO:8] "The Structuring of Systems Using Upcalls," D. Clark, 10th ACM SOSP, Orcas Island, Washington, December 1985.

二次参考文献 (Secondary References):

[INTRO:9] "A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication," V. Cerf and R. Kahn, IEEE Transactions on Communication, May 1974.

[INTRO:10] "The ARPA Internet Protocol," J. Postel, C. Sunshine, and D. Cohen, Computer Networks, Vol. 5, No. 4, July 1981.

[INTRO:11] "The DARPA Internet Protocol Suite," B. Leiner, J. Postel, R. Cole and D. Mills, Proceedings INFOCOM 85, IEEE, Washington DC, March 1985. Also in: IEEE Communications Magazine, March 1985. Also available as ISI-RS-85-153.

[INTRO:12] "Final Text of DIS8473, Protocol for Providing the Connectionless Mode Network Service," ANSI, published as RFC-994, March 1986.

[INTRO:13] "End System to Intermediate System Routing Exchange Protocol," ANSI X3S3.3, published as RFC-995, April 1986.

リンク層参考文献 (LINK LAYER REFERENCES)

[LINK:1] "Trailer Encapsulations," S. Leffler and M. Karels, RFC-893, April 1984.

[LINK:2] "An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol," D. Plummer, RFC-826, November 1982.

[LINK:3] "A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams over Ethernet Networks," C. Hornig, RFC-894, April 1984.

[LINK:4] "A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams over IEEE 802 Networks," J. Postel and J. Reynolds, RFC-1042, February 1988.

This RFC contains a great deal of information of importance to Internet implementers planning to use IEEE 802 networks.
本 RFC は、IEEE 802 ネットワークを使用することを計画しているインターネット実装者にとって重要な情報を多数含んでいる。

IP 層参考文献 (IP LAYER REFERENCES)

[IP:1] "Internet Protocol (IP)," J. Postel, RFC-791, September 1981.

[IP:2] "Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP)," J. Postel, RFC-792, September 1981.

[IP:3] "Internet Standard Subnetting Procedure," J. Mogul and J. Postel, RFC-950, August 1985.

[IP:4] "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting," S. Deering, RFC-1112, August 1989.

[IP:5] "Military Standard Internet Protocol," MIL-STD-1777, Department of Defense, August 1983.

This specification, as amended by RFC-963, is intended to describe the Internet Protocol but has some serious omissions (e.g., the mandatory subnet extension [IP:3] and the optional multicasting extension [IP:4]). It is also out of date. If there is a conflict, RFC-791, RFC-792, and RFC-950 must be taken as authoritative, while the present document is authoritative over all.
本仕様は RFC-963 により修正されたものであり、インターネットプロトコルを記述することを意図しているが、いくつかの重大な省略（必須のサブネット拡張 [IP:3] やオプションのマルチキャスト拡張 [IP:4] など）がある。また時代遅れである。矛盾がある場合は、RFC-791、RFC-792、RFC-950 を正とみなさなければならず、本ドキュメントはすべてに対して権威を持つ。

[IP:6] "Some Problems with the Specification of the Military Standard Internet Protocol," D. Sidhu, RFC-963, November 1985.

[IP:7] "The TCP Maximum Segment Size and Related Topics," J. Postel, RFC-879, November 1983.

Discusses and clarifies the relationship between the TCP Maximum Segment Size option and the IP datagram size.
TCP の最大セグメントサイズオプションと IP データグラムサイズの関係を議論し明確化している。

[IP:8] "Internet Protocol Security Options," B. Schofield, RFC-1108.

[IP:9] "Fragmentation Considered Harmful," C. Kent and J. Mogul, ACM SIGCOMM-87, August 1987. Published as ACM Comp Comm Review, Vol. 17, no. 5.

This useful paper discusses the problems created by Internet fragmentation and presents alternative solutions.
この有用な論文は、インターネットのフラグメンテーションによって生じる問題を議論し、代替解決策を提示している。

[IP:10] "IP Datagram Reassembly Algorithms," D. Clark, RFC-815, July 1982.

This and the following paper should be read by every implementor.
本論文および次の論文は、すべての実装者が読むべきである。

[IP:11] "Fault Isolation and Recovery," D. Clark, RFC-816, July 1982.

二次 IP 参考文献 (SECONDARY IP REFERENCES):

[IP:12] "Broadcasting Internet Datagrams in the Presence of Subnets," J. Mogul, RFC-922, October 1984.

[IP:13] "Name, Addresses, Ports, and Routes," D. Clark, RFC-814, July 1982.

[IP:14] "Something a Host Could Do with Source Quench: The Source Quench Introduced Delay (SQUID)," W. Prue and J. Postel, RFC-1016, July 1987.

This RFC first described directed broadcast addresses. However, the bulk of the RFC is concerned with gateways, not hosts.
この RFC は、最初に指向ブロードキャストアドレスを記述した。しかし、RFC の大半はゲートウェイに関するものであり、ホストではない。

UDP 参考文献 (UDP REFERENCES):

[UDP:1] "User Datagram Protocol," J. Postel, RFC-768, August 1980.

TCP 参考文献 (TCP REFERENCES):

[TCP:1] "Transmission Control Protocol," J. Postel, RFC-793, September 1981.

[TCP:2] "Transmission Control Protocol," MIL-STD-1778, US Department of Defense, August 1984.

This specification as amended by RFC-964 is intended to describe the same protocol as RFC-793 [TCP:1]. If there is a conflict, RFC-793 takes precedence, and the present document is authoritative over both.
本仕様は RFC-964 により修正されたもので、RFC-793 [TCP:1] と同じプロトコルを記述することを意図している。矛盾がある場合は RFC-793 が優先され、本ドキュメントは両者に対して権威を持つ。

[TCP:3] "Some Problems with the Specification of the Military Standard Transmission Control Protocol," D. Sidhu and T. Blumer, RFC-964, November 1985.

[TCP:4] "The TCP Maximum Segment Size and Related Topics," J. Postel, RFC-879, November 1983.

[TCP:5] "Window and Acknowledgment Strategy in TCP," D. Clark, RFC-813, July 1982.

[TCP:6] "Round Trip Time Estimation," P. Karn & C. Partridge, ACM SIGCOMM-87, August 1987.

[TCP:7] "Congestion Avoidance and Control," V. Jacobson, ACM SIGCOMM-88, August 1988.

二次 TCP 参考文献 (SECONDARY TCP REFERENCES):

[TCP:8] "Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol Implementation," D. Clark, RFC-817, July 1982.

[TCP:9] "Congestion Control in IP/TCP," J. Nagle, RFC-896, January 1984.

[TCP:10] "Computing the Internet Checksum," R. Braden, D. Borman, and C. Partridge, RFC-1071, September 1988.

[TCP:11] "TCP Extensions for Long-Delay Paths," V. Jacobson & R. Braden, RFC-1072, October 1988.

セキュリティに関する考慮事項 (Security Considerations)

There are many security issues in the communication layers of host software, but a full discussion is beyond the scope of this RFC.
ホストソフトウェアの通信層には多くのセキュリティ上の問題があるが、完全な議論は本 RFC の範囲を超えている。

The Internet architecture generally provides little protection against spoofing of IP source addresses, so any security mechanism that is based upon verifying the IP source address of a datagram should be treated with suspicion. However, in restricted environments some source-address checking may be possible. For example, there might be a secure LAN whose gateway to the rest of the Internet discarded any incoming datagram with a source address that spoofed the LAN address. In this case, a host on the LAN could use the source address to test for local vs. remote source. This problem is complicated by source routing, and some have suggested that source-routed datagram forwarding by hosts (see Section 3.3.5) should be outlawed for security reasons.
インターネットアーキテクチャは一般に、IP 送信元アドレスのなりすましに対する保護をほとんど提供しないため、データグラムの IP 送信元アドレスを検証することに基づくいかなるセキュリティメカニズムも疑ってかかるべきである。しかし、制限された環境では、一部の送信元アドレスチェックが可能な場合がある。たとえば、インターネットの残りの部分へのゲートウェイが、LAN アドレスをなりすましした送信元アドレスを持つ着信データグラムを破棄するような安全な LAN が存在するかもしれない。この場合、LAN 上のホストは送信元アドレスを使用して、ローカル送信元かリモート送信元かをテストできる。この問題はソースルーティングによって複雑になり、ホストによるソースルーティングデータグラムの転送（3.3.5 節参照）はセキュリティ上の理由から禁止すべきであると提案する者もいる。

Security-related issues are mentioned in sections concerning the IP Security option (Section 3.2.1.8), the ICMP Parameter Problem message (Section 3.2.2.5), IP options in UDP datagrams (Section 4.1.3.2), and reserved TCP ports (Section 4.2.2.1).
セキュリティ関連の問題は、IP セキュリティオプション（3.2.1.8 節）、ICMP パラメータ問題メッセージ（3.2.2.5 節）、UDP データグラム内の IP オプション（4.1.3.2 節）、および予約済み TCP ポート（4.2.2.1 節）に関する節で言及されている。

著者住所 (Author's Address)

    Robert Braden
    USC/Information Sciences Institute
    4676 Admiralty Way
    Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695

Phone: (213) 822 1511

EMail: [email protected]