Java Reference
In-Depth Information
RFC
Title
Description
RFC 1945
Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP 1.0)
Version 1.0 of the application layer protocol used by web browsers talking to web
servers over TCP; developed by the W3C rather than the IETF.
RFC 2045,
RFC 2046,
RFC 2047
Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions
A means of encoding binary data and non-ASCII text for transmission through
Internet email and other ASCII-oriented protocols.
RFC 2141
Uniform Resource Names
(URN) Syntax
Similar to URLs but intended to refer to actual resources in a persistent fashion
rather than the transient location of those resources.
RFC 2616
Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP 1.1)
Version 1.1 of the application layer protocol used by web browsers talking to web
servers over TCP.
RFC 2373
IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture
The format and meaning of IPv6 addresses.
RFC 3501
Internet Message Access
Protocol Version 4rev1
A protocol for remotely accessing a mailbox stored on a server including downloading
messages, deleting messages, and moving messages into and out of different
folders.
RFC 3986
Uniform Resource
Identifiers (URI): Generic
Syntax
Similar to URLs but cut a broader path. For instance, ISBN numbers may be URIs
even if the topic cannot be retrieved over the Internet.
RFC 3987
Internationalized Resource
Identifiers (IRIs)
URIs that can contain non-ASCII characters.
The IETF has traditionally worked behind the scenes to codify and standardize existing
practice. Although its activities are completely open to the public, it's been very low
profile. There simply aren't that many people who get excited about network arcana like
the Internet Gateway Message Protocol (IGMP). The participants in the process have
mostly been engineers and computer scientists, including many from academia as well
as the corporate world. Consequently, despite often vociferous debates about ideal im‐
plementations, most serious IETF efforts have produced reasonable standards.
Unfortunately, that can't be said of the IETF's efforts to produce web (as opposed to
Internet) standards. In particular, the IETF's early effort to standardize HTML was a
colossal failure. The refusal of Netscape and other key vendors to participate or even
acknowledge the process was a crucial problem. That HTML was simple enough and
high profile enough to attract the attention of assorted market droids and random
flamers didn't help matters either. Thus, in October 1994, the World Wide Web Con‐
sortium was formed as a vendor-controlled body that might be able to avoid the pitfalls
that plagued the IETF's efforts to standardize HTML and HTTP.
W3C Recommendations
Although the W3C standardization process is similar to the IETF process (a series of
working drafts hashed out on mailing lists resulting in an eventual specification), the
W3C is a fundamentally different organization. Whereas the IETF is open to partici‐
pation by anyone, only corporations and other organizations may become members of
