Network Working Group                                         S. Bradner
Request for Comments: 2556                            Harvard University
Category: Informational                                       March 1999
        
Network Working Group                                         S. Bradner
Request for Comments: 2556                            Harvard University
Category: Informational                                       March 1999

OSI connectionless transport services on top of UDP Applicability Statement for Historic Status

OSI无连接传输服务位于UDP历史状态适用性声明之上

Status of this Memo

本备忘录的状况

This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

本备忘录为互联网社区提供信息。它没有规定任何类型的互联网标准。本备忘录的分发不受限制。

Copyright Notice

版权公告

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.

版权所有（C）互联网协会（1999年）。版权所有。

Abstract

摘要

RFC 1240, "OSI connectionless transport services on top of UDP", was published as a Proposed Standard in June 1991 but at this time there do not seem to be any implementations which follow RFC 1240. In addition there is a growing concern over using UDP-based transport protocols in environments where congestion is a possibility.

RFC 1240，“UDP之上的OSI无连接传输服务”于1991年6月作为提议的标准发布，但目前似乎没有任何遵循RFC 1240的实现。此外，在可能出现拥塞的环境中使用基于UDP的传输协议也越来越受到关注。

1. Use of RFC 1240 Technology
1. RFC1240技术的使用

A message was sent to the IETF list in October 1998 seeking any information on the actual use of the technology described in RFC 1240. A number of responses were received, including from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the keeper of the OSI protocols. None of these messages pointed to any current use for this technology. Most of the messages which made any recommendation did recommend that RFC 1240 be moved to historic.

1998年10月，向IETF名单发送了一条信息，寻求有关RFC 1240中所述技术实际使用的任何信息。收到了一些答复，包括现场视察议定书的保管人国际标准化组织（ISO）的答复。这些信息都没有指出这项技术目前的用途。提出任何建议的大多数消息都建议将RFC1240移至历史位置。

2. Responsiveness to Congestion
2. 对拥堵的反应

Since 1991 there has been a great deal of experience with the complexities of dealing with congestion in the Internet. Congestion control algorithms have been improved but there is still work underway to further understand the issues. In this environment any UDP-based protocol is somewhat worrisome since quite frequently people who use UDP-based protocols invent their own reliability and congestion control functions which may not include the results of the current state of the art. This leads to a dange r of congestion collapse with potentially quite serious consequences for the network in which it is run. See RFC 896 for a discussion of congestion

自1991年以来，人们在处理互联网拥塞的复杂性方面积累了大量经验。拥塞控制算法已得到改进，但仍有工作正在进行，以进一步了解这些问题。在这种环境下，任何基于UDP的协议都有点令人担忧，因为使用基于UDP的协议的人经常会发明自己的可靠性和拥塞控制功能，这些功能可能不包括当前最新技术的结果。这将导致拥塞崩溃的危险，并可能对运行它的网络造成相当严重的后果。有关拥塞的讨论，请参见RFC 896

collapse.

崩溃

In the case of RFC 1240, the authors seemed to assume that if some level of reliability was needed in an RFC 1240 environment that the reliability algorithms and the congestion control algorithms which would then be required would reside in the OSI protocols running over the UDP transport. It is far from clear that any perceived advantages of running over UDP would not be eclipsed by the difficulties experienced in trying to create a reasonable congestion control algorithm. Implementers would likely find that running over TCP as RFC 2126 describes is the better choice.

在RFC 1240的案例中，作者似乎假设，如果RFC 1240环境中需要某种程度的可靠性，那么所需的可靠性算法和拥塞控制算法将驻留在通过UDP传输运行的OSI协议中。在尝试创建合理的拥塞控制算法时遇到的困难是否会掩盖在UDP上运行的任何感知优势，这一点尚不清楚。实现者可能会发现，如RFC2126所述，通过TCP运行是更好的选择。

3. Conclusion
3. 结论

Due to the lack of use of the technology described in RFC 1240 and the issues surrounding congestion control in the Internet, RFC 1240 should be reclassified as Historic and its implementation actively discouraged.

由于缺乏使用RFC 1240中描述的技术以及围绕互联网拥塞控制的问题，应将RFC 1240重新归类为历史性的，并积极阻止其实施。

4. Security Considerations
4. 安全考虑

This type of non-protocol document does not directly effect the security of the Internet.

这种类型的非协议文档不会直接影响Internet的安全性。

5. References
5. 工具书类

RFC 896 Nagle, J., "Congestion control in IP/TCP internetworks", RFC 896, January 1984.

RFC 896 Nagle，J.，“IP/TCP网络中的拥塞控制”，RFC 896，1984年1月。

RFC 1240 Shue, C., Haggerty, W. and K. Dobbins, "OSI connectionless transport services on top of UDP: Version 1.", RFC 1240 June 1991.

RFC 1240 Shue，C.，Haggerty，W.和K.Dobbins，“UDP之上的OSI无连接传输服务：第1版”，RFC 1240，1991年6月。

RFC 2126 Pouffary, Y. and A. Young, "ISO Transport Service on top of TCP (ITOT)", RFC 2126, March 1997.

RFC 2126 Poufary，Y.和A.Young，“TCP之上的ISO传输服务（ITOT）”，RFC 2126，1997年3月。

6. Author's Address
6. 作者地址

Scott Bradner Harvard University 1350 Mass Ave, rm 876 Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

斯科特·布拉德纳哈佛大学马萨诸塞州剑桥市马萨诸塞大道1350号876室，邮编02138 

   Phone: +1 617 495 3864
   EMail: sob@harvard.edu
        
   Phone: +1 617 495 3864
   EMail: sob@harvard.edu
7. Full Copyright Statement
7. 完整版权声明

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.

版权所有（C）互联网协会（1999年）。版权所有。

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English.

本文件及其译本可复制并提供给他人，对其进行评论或解释或协助其实施的衍生作品可全部或部分编制、复制、出版和分发，不受任何限制，前提是上述版权声明和本段包含在所有此类副本和衍生作品中。但是，不得以任何方式修改本文件本身，例如删除版权通知或对互联网协会或其他互联网组织的引用，除非出于制定互联网标准的需要，在这种情况下，必须遵循互联网标准过程中定义的版权程序，或根据需要将其翻译成英语以外的其他语言。

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

上述授予的有限许可是永久性的，互联网协会或其继承人或受让人不会撤销。

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

本文件和其中包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，互联网协会和互联网工程任务组否认所有明示或暗示的保证，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。