5. 参考文献 (REFERENCES)

引言性参考文献 (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.
    本文件会定期以新的 RFC 编号重新发布；必须使用最新版本。

[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.

    This document is republished periodically with new RFC numbers; the latest version must be used.
    本文件会定期以新的 RFC 编号重新发布；必须使用最新版本。

[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.

次要参考文献 (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.

链路层参考文献 (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 包含了大量对计划使用 IEEE 802 网络的互联网实现者而言重要的信息。

IP 层参考文献 (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.
    本规范（经 RFC-963 修订）旨在描述互联网协议，但存在若干严重遗漏（例如强制的子网扩展 [IP:3] 与可选的多播扩展 [IP:4]）。它也已过时。如有冲突，必须视 RFC-791、RFC-792 和 RFC-950 为权威，而本文件对所有文件具有最高权威性。

[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.
    讨论并澄清了 TCP 最大报文段大小选项与 IP 数据报大小之间的关系。

[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.
    这篇有用的论文讨论了互联网分片带来的问题，并提出了替代解决方案。

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

    This and the following paper should be read by every implementor.
    本篇及以下一篇论文应被每一位实现者阅读。

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

次要 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.
    本 RFC 首次描述了定向广播地址。然而，该 RFC 的大部分内容关注的是网关，而非主机。

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.
    本规范（经 RFC-964 修订）旨在描述与 RFC-793 [TCP:1] 相同的协议。如有冲突，以 RFC-793 为准，而本文件对两者均具有权威性。

[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.

次要 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.

安全考量 (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.
    主机软件的通信层中存在许多安全问题，但完整讨论超出了本 RFC 的范围。

    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.
    互联网架构通常对 IP 源地址欺骗提供很少的保护，因此任何基于验证数据报 IP 源地址的安全机制都应被谨慎看待。然而，在受限环境中，某些源地址检查可能是可行的。例如，可能存在一个安全的 LAN，其到互联网其余部分的网关会丢弃任何源地址伪造了 LAN 地址的传入数据报。在这种情况下，LAN 上的主机可以使用源地址来测试本地源与远端源。源路由使此问题复杂化，并且有人建议出于安全原因应禁止主机转发源路由数据报（见第 3.3.5 节）。

    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).
    与安全问题相关的议题在以下各节中被提及：IP 安全选项（第 3.2.1.8 节）、ICMP 参数问题消息（第 3.2.2.5 节）、UDP 数据报中的 IP 选项（第 4.1.3.2 节）以及保留的 TCP 端口（第 4.2.2.1 节）。

作者地址 (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]