|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
Standards Track - Proposed Standard (obsolete)
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
This RFC is obsoleted by 6726, however it is also a possible implementation widely used inthe maeket so, we decided to keep both options in this Recommendation.
|
|
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=3926
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
Obsoleted by RFC 6726
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
Obsoleted by RFC 6726
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
FLUTE protocol is widely used for unidirectional delivery of files over the Internet and it is particularly suited to multicast networks.
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate/
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997./
/
[RFC5775] Luby, M., Watson, M., and L. Vicisano, "Asynchronous/
Layered Coding (ALC) Protocol Instantiation", RFC 5775,/
April 2010./
/
[RFC5651] Luby, M., Watson, M., and L. Vicisano, "Layered Coding/
Transport (LCT) Building Block", RFC 5651, October 2009./
/
[RFC5052] Watson, M., Luby, M., and L. Vicisano, "Forward Error/
Correction (FEC) Building Block", RFC 5052, August 2007./
/
[RFC5445] Watson, M., "Basic Forward Error Correction (FEC)/
Schemes", RFC 5445, March 2009./
/
[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,/
"Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms/
Specification", RFC 5905, June 2010./
/
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,/
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext/
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999./
/
[XML-Schema-Part-1]/
Thompson, H., Beech, D., Maloney, M., and N. Mendelsohn,/
"XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition",/
W3C Recommendation, October 2004,/
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/./
/
[XML-Schema-Part-2]/
Biron, P. and A. Malhotra, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes/
Second Edition", W3C Recommendation, October 2004,/
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/./
/
[RFC3023] Murata, M., St. Laurent, S., and D. Kohn, "XML Media/
Types", RFC 3023, January 2001./
/
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an/
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, May 2008./
/
[RFC3738] Luby, M. and V. Goyal, "Wave and Equation Based Rate/
Control (WEBRC) Building Block", RFC 3738, April 2004./
/
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",/
RFC 4303, December 2005.
|
|
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
|
|
