|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
The referred RFCs were approved by IESG (Internet Engineering Steering Group).
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
Draft Rec.X.fcs refers to abstract part ofIETF RFC 2554 (March 1999)
|
|
4.
|
Current information, if any, about IPR issues:
|
|
|
Information on IPR issues regarding RFCs is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/. Specifically: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=rfc_search&rfc_search=2554
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
The status of all the referred RFCs is "Proposed Standard".
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
The status of all the referred RFCs is "Proposed Standard".
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
References within the referenced RFCs are listed under item (8).
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
[1]Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997./
[2] Klensin, J., Catoe, R. and P. Krumviede, "IMAP/POP AUTHorize Extension for Simple Challenge/Response", RFC 2195, September 1997./
[3] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E. and D.Crocker, "SMTP Service Extensions", RFC 1869, November 1995./
[4] Moore, K, "SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 1891, January 1996./
[5] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997./
[6]Myers, J., "Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)", RFC 2222, October 1997./
[7] Gellens, R. and J. Klensin, "Message Submission", RFC 2476, December 1998./
[8] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC 821, August 1982./
[9] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982./
|
|
9.
|
Qualification of
ISOC/IETF:
|
|
|
9.1-9.6 Decisions of ITU Council to admit ISOC to participate in the work of the Sector (June 1995 and June 1996).
9.7 The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the RFCs when the need arises. Comments on RFCs and corresponding changes are accommodated through the existing standardization process.
9.8 Each revision of a given RFC has a different RFC number, so no confusion is possible. All RFCs always remain available on-line. An index of RFCs and their status may be found in the IETF archives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.
|
|
10.
|
Other (for any supplementary information):
|
|
|
None
|
|
