RFC 2200 - Internet Official Protocol

Standards
faqs.org

RFC 2200 - Internet Official Protocol

Standards
 Internet RFC Index
 Usenet FAQ Index
 Other FAQs
 Documents
 Tools
 Search
 Search FAQs
 Search RFCs
 IFC Home
 Cities
 Countries
 Hospitals
 Web Hosting Ratings

01258567461511 FORID:11

UTF-8 more:rfc

Search the RFC Or Display the document by

Archives number
Search
  Display RFC By Number

w w w .faqs.org/rf
 [ RFC Index | Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | Cities | Patents ]
Network Working Group Internet Architecture Board
Request for Comments: 2200 J. Postel, Editor
Obsoletes: 2000, 1920, 1880, 1800, 1780, June 1997
1720, 1610, 1600, 1540, 1500, 1410, 1360,
1280, 1250, 1200, 1140, 1130, 1100, 1083
STD: 1
Category: Standards Track

INTERNET OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS

Status of this Memo

This memo describes the state of standardization of protocols used in

the Internet as determined by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB).
This memo is an Internet Standard. Distribution of this memo is
unlimited.

Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1. The Standardization Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The Request for Comments Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Other Reference Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Assigned Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Gateway Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Host Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. The MIL-STD Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Explanation of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Definitions of Protocol State (Maturity Level) . . . . . . 8
4.1.1. Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.4. Experimental Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.5. Informational Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.6. Historic Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status (Requirement Level) . . . 9
4.2.1. Required Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.2. Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.3. Elective Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.4. Limited Use Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.5. Not Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. The Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. The RFC Processing Decision Table . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. The Standards Track Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. The Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. Recent Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

6.1.1. New RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

6.1.2. Other Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2. Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.4. Draft Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
 6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.6. Telnet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.7. Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.8. Informational Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.9. Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.10 Obsolete Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7. Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.1.1. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact . . . . . . 35
7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . 36
7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact . . . . . 37
7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . . 37
7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact . . . . . . . . . . 38
7.4. Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . . 38
7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments . . . . . . . . . . . 39
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
9. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Introduction

A discussion of the standardization process and the RFC document

series is presented first, followed by an explanation of the terms.
Sections 6.2 - 6.10 contain the lists of protocols in each stage of
standardization. Finally are pointers to references and contacts for
further information.

This memo is intended to be issued approximately quarterly; please be

sure the copy you are reading is current. Current copies may be
obtained from the Network Information Center (INTERNIC) or from the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (see the contact
information at the end of this memo). Do not use this edition after
15-Oct-97.

See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes. In the official

lists in sections 6.2 - 6.10, an asterisk (*) next to a protocol
denotes that it is new to this document or has been moved from one
protocol level to another, or differs from the previous edition of
this document.

1. The Standardization Process

The Internet Architecture Board maintains this list of documents that

define standards for the Internet protocol suite. See RFC-1601 for
the charter of the IAB and RFC-1160 for an explanation of the role
and organization of the IAB and its subsidiary groups, the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force
(IRTF). Each of these groups has a steering group called the IESG
and IRSG, respectively. The IETF develops these standards with the
goal of co-ordinating the evolution of the Internet protocols; this
co-ordination has become quite important as the Internet protocols
are increasingly in general commercial use. The definitive
description of the Internet standards process is found in RFC-1602.

The majority of Internet protocol development and standardization

activity takes place in the working groups of the IETF.
Protocols which are to become standards in the Internet go through a
series of states or maturity levels (proposed standard, draft
standard, and standard) involving increasing amounts of scrutiny and
testing. When a protocol completes this process it is assigned a STD
number (see RFC-1311). At each step, the Internet Engineering
Steering Group (IESG) of the IETF must make a recommendation for
advancement of the protocol.

To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react to

standardization proposals, a minimum delay of 6 months before a
proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard and 4 months
before a draft standard can be promoted to standard.

It is general practice that no proposed standard can be promoted to

draft standard without at least two independent implementations (and
the recommendation of the IESG). Promotion from draft standard to
standard generally requires operational experience and demonstrated
interoperability of two or more implementations (and the
recommendation of the IESG).

In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper decision

concerning a protocol a special review committee may be appointed
consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB with the
purpose of recommending an explicit action.

Advancement of a protocol to proposed standard is an important step

since it marks a protocol as a candidate for eventual standardization
(it puts the protocol "on the standards track"). Advancement to
draft standard is a major step which warns the community that, unless
major objections are raised or flaws are discovered, the protocol is
likely to be advanced to standard in six months.

Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are otherwise

unused. Such protocols are still documented in this memorandum with
the designation "historic".

Because it is useful to document the results of early protocol

research and development work, some of the RFCs document protocols
which are still in an experimental condition. The protocols are
designated "experimental" in this memorandum. They appear in this
report as a convenience to the community and not as evidence of their
standardization.

Other protocols, such as those developed by other standards

organizations, or by particular vendors, may be of interest or may be
recommended for use in the Internet. The specifications of such
protocols may be published as RFCs for the convenience of the
Internet community. These protocols are labeled "informational" in
this memorandum.

In addition to the working groups of the IETF, protocol development

and experimentation may take place as a result of the work of the
research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or the work of
other individuals interested in Internet protocol development. The
the documentation of such experimental work in the RFC series is
encouraged, but none of this work is considered to be on the track
 for standardization until the IESG has made a recommendation to
advance the protocol to the proposed standard state.

A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without the

approval of the IESG. For example, some vendor protocols have become
very important to the Internet community even though they have not
been recommended by the IESG. However, the IAB strongly recommends
that the standards process be used in the evolution of the protocol
suite to maximize interoperability (and to prevent incompatible
protocol requirements from arising). The use of the terms
"standard", "draft standard", and "proposed standard" are reserved in
any RFC or other publication of Internet protocols to only those
protocols which the IESG has approved.

In addition to a state (like "Proposed Standard"), a protocol is also

assigned a status, or requirement level, in this document. The
possible requirement levels ("Required", "Recommended", "Elective",
"Limited Use", and "Not Recommended") are defined in Section 4.2.
When a protocol is on the standards track, that is in the proposed
standard, draft standard, or standard state (see Section 5), the
status shown in Section 6 is the current status.

Few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems; this is

because there is such a variety of possible systems, for example,

gateways, routers, terminal servers, workstations, and multi-user

hosts. The requirement level shown in this document is only a one
word label, which may not be sufficient to characterize the
implementation requirements for a protocol in all situations. For
some protocols, this document contains an additional status paragraph
(an applicability statement). In addition, more detailed status
information may be contained in separate requirements documents (see
Section 3).

2. The Request for Comments Documents

The documents called Request for Comments (or RFCs) are the working
notes of the "Network Working Group", that is the Internet research
and development community. A document in this series may be on
essentially any topic related to computer communication, and may be
anything from a meeting report to the specification of a standard.

Notice:

All standards are published as RFCs, but not all RFCs specify
standards.

Anyone can submit a document for publication as an RFC. Submissions

must be made via electronic mail to the RFC Editor (see the contact
information at the end of this memo, and see RFC 1543).

While RFCs are not refereed publications, they do receive technical

review from the task forces, individual technical experts, or the RFC
Editor, as appropriate.

The RFC series comprises a wide range of documents, ranging from

 informational documents of general interests to specifications of
standard Internet protocols. In cases where submission is intended
to document a proposed standard, draft standard, or standard
protocol, the RFC Editor will publish the document only with the
approval of the IESG. For documents describing experimental work,
the RFC Editor will notify the IESG before publication, allowing for
the possibility of review by the relevant IETF working group or IRTF
research group and provide those comments to the author. See Section
5.1 for more detail.

Once a document is assigned an RFC number and published, that RFC is

never revised or re-issued with the same number. There is never a
question of having the most recent version of a particular RFC.
However, a protocol (such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP)) may be
improved and re-documented many times in several different RFCs. It
is important to verify that you have the most recent RFC on a
particular protocol. This "Internet Official Protocol Standards"

memo is the reference for determining the correct RFC for the current
specification of each protocol.

The RFCs are available from the INTERNIC, and a number of other
sites. For more information about obtaining RFCs, see Sections 7.4
and 7.5.

3. Other Reference Documents

There are three other reference documents of interest in checking the

current status of protocol specifications and standardization. These
are the Assigned Numbers, the Gateway Requirements, and the Host
Requirements. Note that these documents are revised and updated at
different times; in case of differences between these documents, the
most recent must prevail.

Also, one should be aware of the MIL-STD publications on IP, TCP,

Telnet, FTP, and SMTP. These are described in Section 3.4.

3.1. Assigned Numbers

The "Assigned Numbers" document lists the assigned values of the

parameters used in the various protocols. For example, IP protocol
codes, TCP port numbers, Telnet Option Codes, ARP hardware types, and
Terminal Type names. Assigned Numbers was most recently issued as
RFC-1700.

3.2. Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers

This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways and

supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities.
Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers is RFC-1812.

3.3. Host Requirements

This pair of documents reviews and updates the specifications that

apply to hosts, and it supplies guidance and clarification for any
ambiguities. Host Requirements was issued as RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.
3.4. The MIL-STD Documents

The DoD MIL-STD Internet specifications are out of date and have been
discontinued. The DoD's Joint Technical Architecture (JTA) lists the
current set of IETF STDs and RFCs that the DoD intends to use in all
new and upgraded Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and
Intelligence (C4I) acquisitions. A copy of the JTA can be obtained
from http://www-jta.itsi.disa.mil.

4. Explanation of Terms

There are two independent categorization of protocols. The first is

the "maturity level" or STATE of standardization, one of "standard",
"draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental",
"informational" or "historic". The second is the "requirement level"
or STATUS of this protocol, one of "required", "recommended",
"elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".

The status or requirement level is difficult to portray in a one word

label. These status labels should be considered only as an
indication, and a further description, or applicability statement,
should be consulted.

When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard,

it is labeled with a current status.

At any given time a protocol occupies a cell of the following matrix.

Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the following
proportions (indicated by the relative number of Xs). A new protocol
is most likely to start in the (proposed standard, elective) cell, or
the (experimental, limited use) cell.

S T A T U S
Req Rec Ele Lim Not
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Std | X | XXX | XXX | | |
S +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Draft | X | X | XXX | | |
T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Prop | | X | XXX | | |
A +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Info | | | | | |
T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Expr | | | | XXX | |
E +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Hist | | | | | XXX |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

What is a "system"?

Some protocols are particular to hosts and some to gateways; a few

protocols are used in both. The definitions of the terms below
will refer to a "system" which is either a host or a gateway (or
both). It should be clear from the context of the particular
protocol which types of systems are intended.
4.1. Definitions of Protocol State

Every protocol listed in this document is assigned to a "maturity

level" or STATE of standardization: "standard", "draft standard",
"proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic".

4.1.1. Standard Protocol

The IESG has established this as an official standard protocol for

the Internet. These protocols are assigned STD numbers (see RFC-
1311). These are separated into two groups: (1) IP protocol and
above, protocols that apply to the whole Internet; and (2)
network-specific protocols, generally specifications of how to do
IP on particular types of networks.

4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol

The IESG is actively considering this protocol as a possible

Standard Protocol. Substantial and widespread testing and comment
are desired. Comments and test results should be submitted to the
IESG. There is a possibility that changes will be made in a Draft
Standard Protocol before it becomes a Standard Protocol.

4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol

These are protocol proposals that may be considered by the IESG

for standardization in the future. Implementation and testing by
several groups is desirable. Revision of the protocol
specification is likely.

4.1.4. Experimental Protocol

A system should not implement an experimental protocol unless it

is participating in the experiment and has coordinated its use of
the protocol with the developer of the protocol.

Typically, experimental protocols are those that are developed as

part of an ongoing research project not related to an operational
service offering. While they may be proposed as a service
protocol at a later stage, and thus become proposed standard,
draft standard, and then standard protocols, the designation of a
protocol as experimental may sometimes be meant to suggest that
the protocol, although perhaps mature, is not intended for
operational use.

4.1.5. Informational Protocol

Protocols developed by other standard organizations, or vendors,

or that are for other reasons outside the purview of the IESG, may
be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community
as informational protocols.

4.1.6. Historic Protocol

These are protocols that are unlikely to ever become standards in

 the Internet either because they have been superseded by later
developments or due to lack of interest.

4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status

This document lists a "requirement level" or STATUS for each

protocol. The status is one of "required", "recommended",
"elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".

4.2.1. Required Protocol

A system must implement the required protocols.

4.2.2. Recommended Protocol

A system should implement the recommended protocols.

4.2.3. Elective Protocol

A system may or may not implement an elective protocol. The

general notion is that if you are going to do something like this,
you must do exactly this. There may be several elective protocols
in a general area, for example, there are several electronic mail
protocols, and several routing protocols.

4.2.4. Limited Use Protocol

These protocols are for use in limited circumstances. This may be

because of their experimental state, specialized nature, limited
functionality, or historic state.

4.2.5. Not Recommended Protocol

These protocols are not recommended for general use. This may be
because of their limited functionality, specialized nature, or
experimental or historic state.

5. The Standards Track

This section discusses in more detail the procedures used by the RFC
Editor and the IESG in making decisions about the labeling and
publishing of protocols as standards.

5.1. The RFC Processing Decision Table

Here is the current decision table for processing submissions by the

RFC Editor. The processing depends on who submitted it, and the
status they want it to have.

+==========================================================+
|**************| S O U R C E |
+==========================================================+
| Desired | IAB | IESG | IRSG | Other |
| Status | | | | |
+==========================================================+
| | | | | |
 | Standard | Bogus | Publish | Bogus | Bogus |
| or | (2) | (1) | (2) | (2) |
| Draft | | | | |
| Standard | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| | Refer | Publish | Refer | Refer |
| Proposed | (3) | (1) | (3) | (3) |
| Standard | | | | |
| | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| | Notify | Publish | Notify | Notify |
| Experimental | (4) | (1) | (4) | (4) |
| Protocol | | | | |
| | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| Information | Publish | Publish |Discretion|Discretion|
| or Opinion | (1) | (1) | (5) | (5) |
| Paper | | | | |
| | | | | |
+==========================================================+

(1) Publish.

(2) Bogus. Inform the source of the rules. RFCs specifying

Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IESG, only.

(3) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG. Expect to see

the document again only after approval by the IESG.

(4) Notify both the IESG and IRSG. If no concerns are raised in
two weeks then do Discretion (5), else RFC Editor to resolve
the concerns or do Refer (3).

(5) RFC Editor's discretion. The RFC Editor decides if a review

is needed and if so by whom. RFC Editor decides to publish or
not.

Of course, in all cases the RFC Editor can request or make minor
changes for style, format, and presentation purposes.

The IESG has designated the IESG Secretary as its agent for
forwarding documents with IESG approval and for registering concerns
in response to notifications (4) to the RFC Editor. Documents from
Area Directors or Working Group Chairs may be considered in the same
way as documents from "other".

5.2. The Standards Track Diagram

There is a part of the STATUS and STATE categorization that is called

the standards track. Actually, only the changes of state are
significant to the progression along the standards track, though the
status assignments may change as well.
The states illustrated by single line boxes are temporary states,
those illustrated by double line boxes are long term states. A
protocol will normally be expected to remain in a temporary state for
several months (minimum six months for proposed standard, minimum
four months for draft standard). A protocol may be in a long term
state for many years.

A protocol may enter the standards track only on the recommendation

of the IESG; and may move from one state to another along the track
only on the recommendation of the IESG. That is, it takes action by
the IESG to either start a protocol on the track or to move it along.

Generally, as the protocol enters the standards track a decision is

made as to the eventual STATUS, requirement level or applicability
(elective, recommended, or required) the protocol will have, although
a somewhat less stringent current status may be assigned, and it then
is placed in the the proposed standard STATE with that status. So
the initial placement of a protocol is into state 1. At any time the
STATUS decision may be revisited.

|
+<----------------------------------------------+
| ^
V 0 | 4
+-----------+ +===========+
| enter |-->----------------+-------------->|experiment |
+-----------+ | +=====+=====+
| |
V 1 |
+-----------+ V
| proposed |-------------->+
+--->+-----+-----+ |
| | |
| V 2 |
+<---+-----+-----+ V
| draft std |-------------->+
+--->+-----+-----+ |
| | |
| V 3 |
+<---+=====+=====+ V
| standard |-------------->+
+=====+=====+ |
|
V 5
+=====+=====+
| historic |
+===========+

The transition from proposed standard (1) to draft standard (2) can
only be by action of the IESG and only after the protocol has been
proposed standard (1) for at least six months.

The transition from draft standard (2) to standard (3) can only be by
action of the IESG and only after the protocol has been draft
standard (2) for at least four months.
 Occasionally, the decision may be that the protocol is not ready for
standardization and will be assigned to the experimental state (4).
This is off the standards track, and the protocol may be resubmitted
to enter the standards track after further work. There are other
paths into the experimental and historic states that do not involve
IESG action.

Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus becomes

historic, or it may happen that a protocol on the standards track is
in a sense overtaken by another protocol (or other events) and
becomes historic (state 5).

6. The Protocols

Subsection 6.1 lists recent RFCs and other changes. Subsections 6.2
- 6.10 list the standards in groups by protocol state.

6.1. Recent Changes

6.1.1. New RFCs:

2153 - PPP Vendor Extensions

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

2152 - UTF-7

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

2151 - Not yet issued.

2150 - Not yet issued.

2149 - Multicast Server Architectures for MARS-based ATM

multicasting

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

2148 - Not yet issued.

2147 - TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2146 - U.S. Government Internet Domain Names

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

2145 - Use and Interpretation of HTTP Version Numbers

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.
2144 - The CAST-128 Encryption Algorithm

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

2143 - Encapsulating IP with the Small Computer System Interface

An Experimental protocol.

2142 - Mailbox Names for Common Services, Roles and Functions

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2141 - URN Syntax

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2140 - TCP Control Block Interdependence

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

2139 - RADIUS Accounting

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

2138 - Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2137 - Secure Domain Name System Dynamic Update

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2136 - Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2135 - Internet Society By-Laws

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

2134 - Articles of Incorporation of Internet Society

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

2133 - Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

2132 - DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor Extensions

 A Draft Standard protocol.

2131 - Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol

A Draft Standard protocol.

2130 - The Report of the IAB Character Set Workshop held 29

February - 1 March, 1996

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

2129 - Toshiba's Flow Attribute Notification Protocol (FANP)

Specification

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

2128 - Dial Control Management Information Base using SMIv2

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2127 - ISDN Management Information Base using SMIv2

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2126 - ISO Transport Service on top of TCP (ITOT)

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2125 - The PPP Bandwidth Allocation Protocol (BAP), The PPP

Bandwidth Allocation Control Protocol (BACP)

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2124 - Cabletron's Light-weight Flow Admission Protocol

Specification

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

2123 - Traffic Flow Measurement: Experiences with NeTraMet

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

2122 - VEMMI URL Specification

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2121 - Issues affecting MARS Cluster Size

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.
2120 - Managing the X.500 Root Naming Context

An Experimental protocol.

2119 - Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Level

This is a Best Current Practices document and does not

specify any level of standard.

2118 - Microsoft Point-To-Point Compression (MPPC) Protocol

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

2117 - Not yet issued.

2116 - X.500 Implementations Catalog-96

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

2115 - Not yet issued.

2114 - Data Link Switching Client Access Protocol

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

2113 - IP Router Alert Option

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2112 - The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2111 - Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource Locators

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2110 - MIME E-mail Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents, such as

HTML (MHTML)

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2100 - The Naming of Hosts

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

2099 - Request for Comments Summary - RFC Numbers 2000-2099

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

2094 - Not yet issued.

 2093 - Not yet issued.

2076 - Common Internet Message Headers

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

6.1.2. Other Changes:

The following are changes to protocols listed in the previous

edition.

1542 - Clarifications and Extensions for the Bootstrap Protocol

Elevated to Draft Standard.

1534 - Interoperation Between DHCP and BOOTP

Elevated to Draft Standard.

6.2. Standard Protocols

Protocol Name Status RFC STD *

======== ===================================== ======== ==== === =
-------- Internet Official Protocol Standards Req 2200 1
-------- Assigned Numbers Req 1700 2
-------- Host Requirements - Communications Req 1122 3
-------- Host Requirements - Applications Req 1123 3
IP Internet Protocol Req 791 5
as amended by:--------
-------- IP Subnet Extension Req 950 5
-------- IP Broadcast Datagrams Req 919 5
-------- IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets Req 922 5
ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol Req 792 5
IGMP Internet Group Multicast Protocol Rec 1112 5
UDP User Datagram Protocol Rec 768 6
TCP Transmission Control Protocol Rec 793 7
TELNET Telnet Protocol Rec 854,855 8
FTP File Transfer Protocol Rec 959 9
SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol Rec 821 10
SMTP-SIZE SMTP Service Ext for Message Size Rec 1870 10
SMTP-EXT SMTP Service Extensions Rec 1869 10
MAIL Format of Electronic Mail Messages Rec 822 11
CONTENT Content Type Header Field Rec 1049 11
NTPV2 Network Time Protocol (Version 2) Rec 1119 12
DOMAIN Domain Name System Rec 1034,1035 13
DNS-MX Mail Routing and the Domain System Rec 974 14
SNMP Simple Network Management Protocol Rec 1157 15
SMI Structure of Management Information Rec 1155 16
Concise-MIB Concise MIB Definitions Rec 1212 16
MIB-II Management Information Base-II Rec 1213 17
NETBIOS NetBIOS Service Protocols Ele 1001,1002 19
ECHO Echo Protocol Rec 862 20
DISCARD Discard Protocol Ele 863 21
CHARGEN Character Generator Protocol Ele 864 22
QUOTE Quote of the Day Protocol Ele 865 23
USERS Active Users Protocol Ele 866 24
DAYTIME Daytime Protocol Ele 867 25
TIME Time Server Protocol Ele 868 26
TFTP Trivial File Transfer Protocol Ele 1350 33
TP-TCP ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP Ele 1006 35
ETHER-MIB Ethernet MIB Ele 1643 50
PPP Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Ele 1661 51
PPP-HDLC PPP in HDLC Framing Ele 1662 51
IP-SMDS IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service Ele 1209 52
POP3 Post Office Protocol, Version 3 Ele 1939 53

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the

previous edition of this document.]

Applicability Statements:

IGMP -- The Internet Architecture Board intends to move towards

general adoption of IP multicasting, as a more efficient solution
than broadcasting for many applications. The host interface has been
standardized in RFC-1112; however, multicast-routing gateways are in
the experimental stage and are not widely available. An Internet
host should support all of RFC-1112, except for the IGMP protocol
itself which is optional; see RFC-1122 for more details. Even
without IGMP, implementation of RFC-1112 will provide an important
advance: IP-layer access to local network multicast addressing. It
is expected that IGMP will become recommended for all hosts and
gateways at some future date.

SMI, MIB-II SNMP -- The Internet Architecture Board recommends that

all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable. At the current
time, this implies implementation of the Internet MIB-II (RFC-1213),
and at least the recommended management protocol SNMP (RFC-1157).

RIP -- The Routing Information Protocol (RIP) is widely implemented

and used in the Internet. However, both implementors and users
should be aware that RIP has some serious technical limitations as a
routing protocol. The IETF is currently devpeloping several
candidates for a new standard "open" routing protocol with better
properties than RIP. The IAB urges the Internet community to track
these developments, and to implement the new protocol when it is
standardized; improved Internet service will result for many users.

TP-TCP -- As OSI protocols become more widely implemented and used,

there will be an increasing need to support interoperation with the
TCP/IP protocols. The Internet Engineering Task Force is formulating
strategies for interoperation. RFC-1006 provides one interoperation
mode, in which TCP/IP is used to emulate TP0 in order to support OSI
applications. Hosts that wish to run OSI connection-oriented
applications in this mode should use the procedure described in RFC-
1006. In the future, the IAB expects that a major portion of the
Internet will support both TCP/IP and OSI (inter-)network protocols
in parallel, and it will then be possible to run OSI applications
across the Internet using full OSI protocol "stacks".

6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols

All Network-Specific Standards have Elective status.

Protocol Name State RFC STD *

======== ===================================== ===== ===== === =
IP-ATM Classical IP and ARP over ATM Prop 1577
IP-FR Multiprotocol over Frame Relay Draft 1490
ATM-ENCAP Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Prop 1483
IP-TR-MC IP Multicast over Token-Ring LANs Prop 1469
IP-FDDI Transmission of IP and ARP over FDDI Net Std 1390 36
IP-X.25 X.25 and ISDN in the Packet Mode Draft 1356
ARP Address Resolution Protocol Std 826 37
RARP A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol Std 903 38
IP-ARPA Internet Protocol on ARPANET Std BBN1822 39
IP-WB Internet Protocol on Wideband Network Std 907 40
IP-E Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks Std 894 41
IP-EE Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets Std 895 42
IP-IEEE Internet Protocol on IEEE 802 Std 1042 43
IP-DC Internet Protocol on DC Networks Std 891 44
IP-HC Internet Protocol on Hyperchannel Std 1044 45
IP-ARC Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Nets Std 1201 46
IP-SLIP Transmission of IP over Serial Lines Std 1055 47
IP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS Std 1088 48
IP-IPX Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks Std 1132 49
IP-HIPPI IP over HIPPI Draft 2067

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the

previous edition of this document.]

Applicability Statements:

It is expected that a system will support one or more physical

networks and for each physical network supported the appropriate
protocols from the above list must be supported. That is, it is
elective to support any particular type of physical network, and for
the physical networks actually supported it is required that they be
supported exactly according to the protocols in the above list. See
also the Host and Gateway Requirements RFCs for more specific
information on network-specific ("link layer") protocols.

6.4. Draft Standard Protocols

Protocol Name Status RFC

======== ===================================== ============== =====
BOOTP DHCP Options and BOOTP Extensions Recommended 2132*
DHCP Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Elective 2131*
------- Clarifications and Extensions BOOTP Elective 1542*
DHCP-BOOTP Interoperation Between DHCP and BOOTP Elective 1534*
MIME-CONF MIME Conformance Criteria Elective 2049
MIME-MSG MIME Msg Header Ext for Non-ASCII Elective 2047
MIME-MEDIA MIME Media Types Elective 2046
MIME Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions Elective 2045
PPP-CHAP PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication Elective 1994
PPP-MP PPP Multilink Protocol Elective 1990
PPP-LINK PPP Link Quality Monitoring Elective 1989
COEX-MIB Coexistence between SNMPV1 & SNMPV2 Elective 1908
SNMPv2-MIB MIB for SNMPv2 Elective 1907
TRANS-MIB Transport Mappings for SNMPv2 Elective 1906
OPS-MIB Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 Elective 1905
CONF-MIB Conformance Statements for SNMPv2 Elective 1904
CONV-MIB Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 Elective 1903
SMIV2 SMI for SNMPv2 Elective 1902
CON-MD5 Content-MD5 Header Field Elective 1864
OSPF-MIB OSPF Version 2 MIB Elective 1850
STR-REP String Representation ... Elective 1779
X.500syn X.500 String Representation ... Elective 1778
X.500lite X.500 Lightweight ... Elective 1777
BGP-4-APP Application of BGP-4 Elective 1772
BGP-4 Border Gateway Protocol 4 Elective 1771
PPP-DNCP PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol Elective 1762
RMON-MIB Remote Network Monitoring MIB Elective 1757
802.5-MIB IEEE 802.5 Token Ring MIB Elective 1748
BGP-4-MIB BGP-4 MIB Elective 1657
RIP2-MIB RIP Version 2 MIB Extension Elective 1724
RIP2 RIP Version 2-Carrying Additional Info. Elective 1723
RIP2-APP RIP Version 2 Protocol App. Statement Elective 1722
SIP-MIB SIP Interface Type MIB Elective 1694
------- Def Man Objs Parallel-printer-like Elective 1660
------- Def Man Objs RS-232-like Elective 1659
------- Def Man Objs Character Stream Elective 1658
SMTP-8BIT SMTP Service Ext or 8bit-MIMEtransport Elective 1652
OSI-NSAP Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation Elective 1629
OSPF2 Open Shortest Path First Routing V2 Elective 1583
ISO-TS-ECHO Echo for ISO-8473 Elective 1575
DECNET-MIB DECNET MIB Elective 1559
BRIDGE-MIB BRIDGE-MIB Elective 1493
NTPV3 Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Elective 1305
IP-MTU Path MTU Discovery Elective 1191

FINGER Finger Protocol Elective 1288

NICNAME WhoIs Protocol Elective 954

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the

previous edition of this document.]

Applicability Statements:

PPP -- Point to Point Protocol is a method of sending IP over serial

lines, which are a type of physical network. It is anticipated that
PPP will be advanced to the network-specifics standard protocol state
in the future.

6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols

Protocol Name Status RFC

======== ===================================== ============== =====
IPv6-Jumbo TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms Elective 2147*
MAIL-SERV Mailbox Names for Common Services Elective 2142*
URN-SYNTAX URN Syntax Elective 2141*
RADIUS Remote Authentication Dial In Service Elective 2138*
SDNSDU Secure Domain Name System Dynamic Update Elective 2137*
DNS-UPDATE Dynamic Updates in the DNS Elective 2136*
DC-MIB Dial Control MIB using SMIv2 Elective 2128*
ISDN-MIB ISDN MIB using SMIv2 Elective 2127*
ITOT ISO Transport Service on top of TCP Elective 2126*
BAP-BACP PPP-BAP, PPP-BACP Elective 2125*
VEMMI-URL VEMMI URL Specification Elective 2122*
ROUT-ALERT IP Router Alert Option Elective 2113*
MIME-RELAT MIME Multipart/Related Content-type Elective 2112*
CIDMID-URL Content-ID and Message-ID URLs Elective 2111*
MHTML MIME E-mail Encapsulation Elective 2110*
HTTP-STATE HTTP State Management Mechanism Elective 2109
802.3-MIB 802.3 Repeater MIB using SMIv2 Elective 2108
PPP-NBFCP PPP NetBIOS Frames Control Protocol Elective 2097
TABLE-MIB IP Forwarding Table MIB Elective 2096
IMAPPOPAU IMAP/POP AUTHorize Extension Elective 2095
RIP-TRIG Trigger RIP Elective 2091
IMAP4-LIT IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals Elective 2088
IMAP4-QUO IMAP4 QUOTA extension Elective 2087
IMAP4-ACL IMAP4 ACL Extension Elective 2086
HMAC-MD5 HMAC-MD5 IP Auth. with Replay Prevention Elective 2085
RIP2-MD5 RIP-2 MD5 Authentication Elective 2082
RIPNG-IPV6 RIPng for IPv6 Elective 2080
URI-ATT URI Attribute Type and Object Class Elective 2079
GSSAP Generic Security Service Application Elective 2078
MIME-MODEL Model Primary MIME Types Elective 2077
RMON-MIB Remote Network Monitoring MIB Elective 2074

IPV6-UNI IPv6 Provider-Based Unicast Address Elective 2073

HTML-INT HTML Internationalization Elective 2070
DAA Digest Access Authentication Elective 2069
HTTP-1.1 Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1 Elective 2068
DNS-SEC Domain Name System Security Extensions Elective 2065
IMAPV4 Internet Message Access Protocol v4rev1 Elective 2060
URLZ39.50 Uniform Resource Locators for Z39.50 Elective 2056
SNANAU-APP SNANAU APPC MIB using SMIv2 Elective 2051
PPP-SNACP PPP SNA Control Protocol Elective 2043
RTP-MPEG RTP Payload Format for MPEG1/MPEG2 Elective 2038
ENTITY-MIB Entity MIB using SMIv2 Elective 2037
RTP-JPEG RTP Payload Format for JPEG-compressed Elective 2035
SMTP-ENH SMTP Enhanced Error Codes Elective 2034
RTP-H.261 RTP Payload Format for H.261 Elective 2032
RTP-CELLB RTP Payload Format of Sun's CellB Elective 2029
SPKM Simple Public-Key GSS-API Mechanism Elective 2025
DLSW-MIB DLSw MIB using SMIv2 Elective 2024
IPV6-PPP IP Version 6 over PPP Elective 2023
MULTI-UNI Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based ATM Elective 2022
RMON-MIB RMON MIB using SMIv2 Elective 2021
802.12-MIB IEEE 802.12 Interface MIB Elective 2020
IPV6-FDDI Transmission of IPv6 Packets Over FDDI Elective 2019
TCP-ACK TCP Selective Acknowledgement Options Elective 2018
URL-ACC URL Access-Type Elective 2017
MIME-PGP MIME Security with PGP Elective 2015
MIB-UDP SNMPv2 MIB for UDP Elective 2013
MIB-TCP SNMPv2 MIB for TCP Elective 2012
MIB-IP SNMPv2 MIB for IP Elective 2011
MOBILEIPMIBMobile IP MIB Definition using SMIv2 Elective 2006
MOBILEIPAPPApplicability Statement for IP Mobility Elective 2005
MINI-IP Minimal Encapsulation within IP Elective 2004
IPENCAPIP IP Encapsulation within IP Elective 2003
MOBILEIPSUPIP Mobility Support Elective 2002
TCPSLOWSRT TCP Slow Start, Congestion Avoidance... Elective 2001
BGP-COMM BGP Communities Attribute Elective 1997
DNS-NOTIFY Mech. for Notification of Zone Changes Elective 1996
DNS-IZT Incremental Zone Transfer in DNS Elective 1995
SMTP-ETRN SMTP Service Extension ETRN Elective 1985
SNA Serial Number Arithmetic Elective 1982
MTU-IPV6 Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6 Elective 1981
PPP-FRAME PPP in Frame Relay Elective 1973
IPV6-ETHER Transmission IPv6 Packets Over Ethernet Elective 1972
IPV6-AUTO IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguation Elective 1971
IPV6-ND Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 Elective 1970
PPP-ECP PPP Encryption Control Protocol Elective 1968
GSSAPI-KER Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API Mechanism Elective 1964
PPP-CCP PPP Compression Control Protocol Elective 1962
GSSAPI-SOC GSS-API Auth for SOCKS Version 5 Elective 1961

LDAP-STR String Rep. of LDAP Search Filters Elective 1960

LDAP-URL LDAP URL Format Elective 1959
ONE-PASS One-Time Password System Elective 1938
TRANS-IPV6 Transition Mechanisms IPv6 Hosts/Routers Elective 1933
AUTH-SOCKS Username Authentication for SOCKS V5 Elective 1929
SOCKSV5 SOCKS Protocol Version 5 Elective 1928
WHOIS++M How to Interact with a Whois++ Mesh Elective 1914
WHOIS++A Architecture of Whois++ Index Service Elective 1913
DSN Delivery Status Notifications Elective 1894
EMS-CODE Enhanced Mail System Status Codes Elective 1893
MIME-RPT Multipart/Report Elective 1892
SMTP-DSN SMTP Delivery Status Notifications Elective 1891
RTP-AV RTP Audio/Video Profile Elective 1890
RTP Transport Protocol for Real-Time Apps Elective 1889
DNS-IPV6 DNS Extensions to support IPv6 Elective 1886
ICMPv6 ICMPv6 for IPv6 Elective 1885
IPV6-Addr IPv6 Addressing Architecture Elective 1884
IPV6 IPv6 Specification Elective 1883
HTML Hypertext Markup Language - 2.0 Elective 1866
SMTP-Pipe SMTP Serv. Ext. for Command Pipelining Elective 1854
MIME-Sec MIME Object Security Services Elective 1848
MIME-Encyp MIME: Signed and Encrypted Elective 1847
WHOIS++ Architecture of the WHOIS++ service Elective 1835
-------- Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2 Elective 1833
XDR External Data Representation Standard Elective 1832
RPC Remote Procedure Call Protocol V. 2 Elective 1831
-------- ESP DES-CBC Transform Ele/Req 1829
-------- IP Authentication using Keyed MD5 Ele/Req 1828
ESP IP Encapsulating Security Payload Ele/Req 1827
IPV6-AH IP Authentication Header Ele/Req 1826
-------- Security Architecture for IP Ele/Req 1825
RREQ Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers Elective 1812
URL Relative Uniform Resource Locators Elective 1808
CLDAP Connection-less LDAP Elective 1798
OSPF-DC Ext. OSPF to Support Demand Circuits Elective 1793
TMUX Transport Multiplexing Protocol Elective 1692
TFTP-Opt TFTP Options Elective 1784
TFTP-Blk TFTP Blocksize Option Elective 1783
TFTP-Ext TFTP Option Extension Elective 1782
OSI-Dir OSI User Friendly Naming ... Elective 1781
MIME-EDI MIME Encapsulation of EDI Objects Elective 1767
Lang-Tag Tags for Identification of Languages Elective 1766
XNSCP PPP XNS IDP Control Protocol Elective 1764
BVCP PPP Banyan Vines Control Protocol Elective 1763
Print-MIB Printer MIB Elective 1759
ATM-SIG ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM Elective 1755
IPNG Recommendation for IP Next Generation Elective 1752
802.5-SSR 802.5 SSR MIB using SMIv2 Elective 1749

SDLCSMIv2 SNADLC SDLC MIB using SMIv2 Elective 1747

BGP4/IDRP BGP4/IDRP for IP/OSPF Interaction Elective 1745
AT-MIB Appletalk MIB Elective 1742
MacMIME MIME Encapsulation of Macintosh files Elective 1740
URL Uniform Resource Locators Elective 1738
POP3-AUTH POP3 AUTHentication command Elective 1734
IMAP4-AUTH IMAP4 Authentication Mechanisms Elective 1731
RDBMS-MIB RDMS MIB - using SMIv2 Elective 1697
MODEM-MIB Modem MIB - using SMIv2 Elective 1696
ATM-MIB ATM Management Version 8.0 using SMIv2 Elective 1695
SNANAU-MIB SNA NAUs MIB using SMIv2 Elective 1666
PPP-TRANS PPP Reliable Transmission Elective 1663
-------- Postmaster Convention X.400 Operations Elective 1648
TN3270-En TN3270 Enhancements Elective 1647
PPP-BCP PPP Bridging Control Protocol Elective 1638
UPS-MIB UPS Management Information Base Elective 1628
AAL5-MTU Default IP MTU for use over ATM AAL5 Elective 1626
PPP-SONET PPP over SONET/SDH Elective 1619
PPP-ISDN PPP over ISDN Elective 1618
DNS-R-MIB DNS Resolver MIB Extensions Elective 1612
DNS-S-MIB DNS Server MIB Extensions Elective 1611
FR-MIB Frame Relay Service MIB Elective 1604
PPP-X25 PPP in X.25 Elective 1598
OSPF-NSSA The OSPF NSSA Option Elective 1587
OSPF-Multi Multicast Extensions to OSPF Elective 1584
SONET-MIB MIB SONET/SDH Interface Type Elective 1595
RIP-DC Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Cir. Elective 1582
-------- Evolution of the Interfaces Group of MIB-II Elective 1573
PPP-LCP PPP LCP Extensions Elective 1570
X500-MIB X.500 Directory Monitoring MIB Elective 1567
MAIL-MIB Mail Monitoring MIB Elective 1566
NSM-MIB Network Services Monitoring MIB Elective 1565
CIPX Compressing IPX Headers Over WAM Media Elective 1553
IPXCP PPP Internetworking Packet Exchange Control Elective 1552
SRB-MIB Source Routing Bridge MIB Elective 1525
CIDR-STRA CIDR Address Assignment... Elective 1519
CIDR-ARCH CIDR Architecture... Elective 1518
CIDR-APP CIDR Applicability Statement Elective 1517
-------- 802.3 MAU MIB Elective 1515
HOST-MIB Host Resources MIB Elective 1514
-------- Token Ring Extensions to RMON MIB Elective 1513
FDDI-MIB FDDI Management Information Base Elective 1512
KERBEROS Kerberos Network Authentication Ser (V5) Elective 1510
GSSAPI Generic Security Service API: C-bindings Elective 1509
DASS Distributed Authentication Security... Elective 1507
-------- X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets Elective 1502
HARPOON Rules for Downgrading Messages... Elective 1496
Mapping MHS/RFC-822 Message Body Mapping Elective 1495

Equiv X.400/MIME Body Equivalences Elective 1494

IDPR Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Elective 1479
IDPR-ARCH Architecture for IDPR Elective 1478
PPP/Bridge MIB Bridge PPP MIB Elective 1474
PPP/IP MIB IP Network Control Protocol of PPP MIB Elective 1473
PPP/SEC MIB Security Protocols of PPP MIB Elective 1472
PPP/LCP MIB Link Control Protocol of PPP MIB Elective 1471
X25-MIB Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 MIB Elective 1461
SNMPv2 Introduction to SNMPv2 Elective 1441
PEM-KEY PEM - Key Certification Elective 1424
PEM-ALG PEM - Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers Elective 1423
PEM-CKM PEM - Certificate-Based Key Management Elective 1422
PEM-ENC PEM - Message Encryption and Auth Elective 1421
SNMP-IPX SNMP over IPX Elective 1420
SNMP-AT SNMP over AppleTalk Elective 1419
SNMP-OSI SNMP over OSI Elective 1418
FTP-FTAM FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification Elective 1415
IDENT-MIB Identification MIB Elective 1414
IDENT Identification Protocol Elective 1413
DS3/E3-MIB DS3/E3 Interface Type Elective 1407
DS1/E1-MIB DS1/E1 Interface Type Elective 1406
BGP-OSPF BGP OSPF Interaction Elective 1403
-------- Route Advertisement In BGP2 And BGP3 Elective 1397
SNMP-X.25 SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 Packet Layer Elective 1382
SNMP-LAPB SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 LAPB Elective 1381
PPP-ATCP PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol Elective 1378
PPP-OSINLCP PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol Elective 1377
SNMP-PARTY-MIB Administration of SNMP Elective 1353
SNMP-SEC SNMP Security Protocols Elective 1352
SNMP-ADMIN SNMP Administrative Model Elective 1351
TOS Type of Service in the Internet Elective 1349
PPP-IPCP PPP Control Protocol Elective 1332
------- X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading Elective 1328
------- Mapping between X.400(1988) Elective 1327
TCP-EXT TCP Extensions for High Performance Elective 1323
FRAME-MIB Management Information Base for Frame Elective 1315
NETFAX File Format for the Exchange of Images Elective 1314
IARP Inverse Address Resolution Protocol Elective 1293
FDDI-MIB FDDI-MIB Elective 1285
------- Encoding Network Addresses Elective 1277
------- Replication and Distributed Operations Elective 1276
------- COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema Elective 1274
BGP-MIB Border Gateway Protocol MIB (Version 3) Elective 1269
ICMP-ROUT ICMP Router Discovery Messages Elective 1256
OSI-UDP OSI TS on UDP Elective 1240
STD-MIBs Reassignment of Exp MIBs to Std MIBs Elective 1239
IPX-IP Tunneling IPX Traffic through IP Nets Elective 1234
IS-IS OSI IS-IS for TCP/IP Dual Environments Elective 1195

IP-CMPRS Compressing TCP/IP Headers Elective 1144

NNTP Network News Transfer Protocol Elective 977
[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the
previous edition of this document.]

[Note: Ele/Req indicates elective for use with IPv4 and required for use
with IPv6.]

Applicability Statements:

OSPF - RFC 1370 is an applicability statement for OSPF.

6.6. Telnet Options

For convenience, all the Telnet Options are collected here with both
their state and status.

Protocol Name Number State Status RFC STD

======== ===================================== ===== ====== ==== ===
TOPT-BIN Binary Transmission 0 Std Rec 856 27
TOPT-ECHO Echo 1 Std Rec 857 28
TOPT-RECN Reconnection 2 Prop Ele ...
TOPT-SUPP Suppress Go Ahead 3 Std Rec 858 29
TOPT-APRX Approx Message Size Negotiation 4 Prop Ele ...
TOPT-STAT Status 5 Std Rec 859 30
TOPT-TIM Timing Mark 6 Std Rec 860 31
TOPT-REM Remote Controlled Trans and Echo 7 Prop Ele 726
TOPT-OLW Output Line Width 8 Prop Ele ...
TOPT-OPS Output Page Size 9 Prop Ele ...
TOPT-OCRD Output Carriage-Return Disposition 10 Prop Ele 652
TOPT-OHT Output Horizontal Tabstops 11 Prop Ele 653
TOPT-OHTD Output Horizontal Tab Disposition 12 Prop Ele 654
TOPT-OFD Output Formfeed Disposition 13 Prop Ele 655
TOPT-OVT Output Vertical Tabstops 14 Prop Ele 656
TOPT-OVTD Output Vertical Tab Disposition 15 Prop Ele 657
TOPT-OLD Output Linefeed Disposition 16 Prop Ele 658
TOPT-EXT Extended ASCII 17 Prop Ele 698
TOPT-LOGO Logout 18 Prop Ele 727
TOPT-BYTE Byte Macro 19 Prop Ele 735
TOPT-DATA Data Entry Terminal 20 Prop Ele 1043
TOPT-SUP SUPDUP 21 Prop Ele 736
TOPT-SUPO SUPDUP Output 22 Prop Ele 749
TOPT-SNDL Send Location 23 Prop Ele 779
TOPT-TERM Terminal Type 24 Prop Ele 1091
TOPT-EOR End of Record 25 Prop Ele 885
TOPT-TACACS TACACS User Identification 26 Prop Ele 927
TOPT-OM Output Marking 27 Prop Ele 933
TOPT-TLN Terminal Location Number 28 Prop Ele 946
TOPT-3270 Telnet 3270 Regime 29 Prop Ele 1041
TOPT-X.3 X.3 PAD 30 Prop Ele 1053
TOPT-NAWS Negotiate About Window Size 31 Prop Ele 1073
TOPT-TS Terminal Speed 32 Prop Ele 1079
TOPT-RFC Remote Flow Control 33 Prop Ele 1372
TOPT-LINE Linemode 34 Draft Ele 1184
TOPT-XDL X Display Location 35 Prop Ele 1096
TOPT-ENVIR Telnet Environment Option 36 Hist Not 1408
TOPT-AUTH Telnet Authentication Option 37 Exp Ele 1416
TOPT-ENVIR Telnet Environment Option 39 Prop Ele 1572
TOPT-TN3270E TN3270 Enhancements 40 Prop Ele 1647
TOPT-AUTH Telnet XAUTH 41 Exp

TOPT-CHARSET Telnet CHARSET 42 Exp 2066

TOPT-EXTOP Extended-Options-List 255 Std Rec 861 32

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the

previous edition of this document.]

6.7. Experimental Protocols

All Experimental protocols have the Limited Use status.

Protocol Name RFC

======== ===================================== =====
IP-SCSI Encapsulating IP with the SCSI 2143*
X.500-NAME Managing the X.500 Root Naming Context 2120*
TFTP-MULTI TFTP Multicast Option 2090
IP-Echo IP Echo Host Service 2075
METER-MIB Traffic Flow Measurement Meter MIB 2064
TFM-ARCH Traffic Flow Measurement Architecture 2063
DNS-SRV Location of Services in the DNS 2052
URAS Uniform Resource Agents 2016
GPS-AR GPS-Based Addressing and Routing 2009
ETFTP Enhanced Trivial File Transfer Protocol 1986
BGP-RR BGP Route Reflection 1966
BGP-ASC Autonomous System Confederations for BGP 1965
SMKD Scalable Multicast Key Distribution 1949
HTML-TBL HTML Tables 1942
MIME-VP Voice Profile for Internet Mail 1911
SNMPV2SM User-based Security Model for SNMPv2 1910
SNMPV2AI SNMPv2 Administrative Infrastructure 1909
SNMPV2CB Introduction to Community-based SNMPv2 1901
------- IPv6 Testing Address Allocation 1897
DNS-LOC Location Information in the DNS 1876
SGML-MT SGML Media Types 1874
CONT-MT Access Type Content-ID 1873
UNARP ARP Extension - UNARP 1868
------- Form-based File Upload in HTML 1867
------- BGP/IDRP Route Server Alternative 1863
------- IP Authentication using Keyed SHA 1852
ESP3DES ESP Triple DES Transform 1851
------- SMTP 521 Reply Code 1846
------- SMTP Serv. Ext. for Checkpoint/Restart 1845
------- X.500 Mapping X.400 and RFC 822 Addresses 1838
------- Tables and Subtrees in the X.500 Directory 1837
------- O/R Address hierarchy in X.500 1836
------- SMTP Serv. Ext. Large and Binary MIME Msgs. 1830
ST2 Stream Protocol Version 2 1819
------- Content-Disposition Header 1806
------- Schema Publishing in X.500 Directory 1804

------- X.400-MHS use X.500 to support X.400-MHS Routing 1801

------- Class A Subnet Experiment 1797
TCP/IPXMIB TCP/IPX Connection Mib Specification 1792
------- TCP And UDP Over IPX Networks With Fixed Path MTU 1791
ICMP-DM ICMP Domain Name Messages 1788
CLNP-MULT Host Group Extensions for CLNP Multicasting 1768
OSPF-OVFL OSPF Database Overflow 1765
RWP Remote Write ProtocolL - Version 1.0 1756
NARP NBMA Address Resolution Protocol 1735
DNS-DEBUG Tools for DNS debugging 1713
DNS-ENCODE DNS Encoding of Geographical Location 1712
TCP-POS An Extension to TCP: Partial Order Service 1693
------- DNS to Distribute RFC1327 Mail Address Mapping Tables 1664
T/TCP TCP Extensions for Transactions 1644
MIME-UNI Using Unicode with MIME 1641
FOOBAR FTP Operation Over Big Address Records 1639
X500-CHART Charting Networks in the X.500 Directory 1609
X500-DIR Representing IP Information in the X.500 Directory 1608
SNMP-DPI SNMP Distributed Protocol Interface 1592
CLNP-TUBA Use of ISO CLNP in TUBA Environments 1561
REM-PRINT TPC.INT Subdomain Remote Printing - Technical 1528
EHF-MAIL Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages 1505
RAP Internet Route Access Protocol 1476
TP/IX TP/IX: The Next Internet 1475
X400 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services 1465
DNS Storing Arbitrary Attributes in DNS 1464
IRCP Internet Relay Chat Protocol 1459
TOS-LS Link Security TOS 1455
SIFT/UFT Sender-Initiated/Unsolicited File Transfer 1440
DIR-ARP Directed ARP 1433
TEL-SPX Telnet Authentication: SPX 1412
TEL-KER Telnet Authentication: Kerberos V4 1411
MAP-MAIL X.400 Mapping and Mail-11 1405
TRACE-IP Traceroute Using an IP Option 1393
DNS-IP Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing 1383
RMCP Remote Mail Checking Protocol 1339
TCP-HIPER TCP Extensions for High Performance 1323
MSP2 Message Send Protocol 2 1312
DSLCP Dynamically Switched Link Control 1307
-------- X.500 and Domains 1279
IN-ENCAP Internet Encapsulation Protocol 1241
CLNS-MIB CLNS-MIB 1238
CFDP Coherent File Distribution Protocol 1235
IP-AX.25 IP Encapsulation of AX.25 Frames 1226
ALERTS Managing Asynchronously Generated Alerts 1224
MPP Message Posting Protocol 1204
SNMP-BULK Bulk Table Retrieval with the SNMP 1187
DNS-RR New DNS RR Definitions 1183

IMAP2 Interactive Mail Access Protocol 1176

NTP-OSI NTP over OSI Remote Operations 1165
DMF-MAIL Digest Message Format for Mail 1153
RDP Reliable Data Protocol 908,1151
TCP-ACO TCP Alternate Checksum Option 1146
IP-DVMRP IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing 1075
VMTP Versatile Message Transaction Protocol 1045
COOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme 1004
NETBLT Bulk Data Transfer Protocol 998
IRTP Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol 938
LDP Loader Debugger Protocol 909
RLP Resource Location Protocol 887
NVP-II Network Voice Protocol ISI-memo
PVP Packet Video Protocol ISI-memo

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the

previous edition of this document.]

6.8. Informational Protocols

Information protocols have no status.

Protocol Name RFC

======= ==================================== =====
PPP-EXT PPP Vendor Extensions 2153*
UTF-7 UTF-7 2152*
CAST-128 CAST-128 Encryption Algorithm 2144*
DLSCAP Data Link Switching Client Access Protocol 2114*
PNG Portable Network Graphics Version 1.0 2083
RC5 RC5, RC5-CBC, RC5-CBC-Pad, and RC5-CTS Algorithms 2040
SNTP Simple Network Time Protocol v4 for IPv4, IPv6 and OSI 2030
PGP-MEF PGP Message Exchange Formats 1991
PPP-DEFL PPP Deflate Protocol 1979
PPP-PRED PPP Predictor Compression Protocol 1978
PPP-BSD PPP BSD Compression Protocol 1977
PPP-DCE PPP for Data Compression in DCE 1976
PPP-MAG PPP Magnalink Variable Resource Compression 1975
PPP-STAC PPP Stac LZS Compression Protocol 1974
GZIP GZIP File Format Specification Version 4.3 1952
DEFLATE DEFLATE Compressed Data Format Specification V. 1.3 1951
ZLIB ZLIB Compressed Data Format Specification V. 3.3 1950
HTTP-1.0 Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0 1945
-------- text/enriched MIME Content-type 1896
-------- Application/CALS-1840 Content-type 1895
-------- PPP IPCP Extensions for Name Server Addresses 1877
SNPP Simple Network Paging Protocol - Version 2 1861
-------- ISO Transport Class 2 Non-use Explicit Flow Control 1859
over TCP RFC1006 extension
-------- IP in IP Tunneling 1853
-------- PPP Network Control Protocol for LAN Extension 1841
TESS The Exponential Security System 1824
NFSV3 NFS Version 3 Protocol Specification 1813
-------- A Format for Bibliographic Records 1807
------- Data Link Switching: Switch-to-Switch Protocol 1795
BGP-4 Experience with the BGP-4 Protocol 1773
SDMD IPv4 Option for Sender Directed MD Delivery 1770
SNOOP Snoop Version 2 Packet Capture File Format 1761
BINHEX MIME Content Type for BinHex Encoded Files 1741
RWHOIS Referral Whois Protocol 1714
DNS-NSAP DNS NSAP Resource Records 1706
RADIO-PAGE TPC.INT Subdomain: Radio Paging -- Technical Procedures 1703
GRE-IPv4 Generic Routing Encapsulation over IPv4 1702
GRE Generic Routing Encapsulatio 1701
ADSNA-IP Advanced SNA/IP: A Simple SNA Transport Protocol 1538
TACACS Terminal Access Control Protocol 1492
MD4 MD4 Message Digest Algorithm 1320
SUN-NFS Network File System Protocol 1094
SUN-RPC Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 1057
GOPHER The Internet Gopher Protocol 1436
LISTSERV Listserv Distribute Protocol 1429
------- Replication Requirements 1275
PCMAIL Pcmail Transport Protocol 1056
MTP Multicast Transport Protocol 1301
BSD Login BSD Login 1282
DIXIE DIXIE Protocol Specification 1249
IP-X.121 IP to X.121 Address Mapping for DDN 1236
OSI-HYPER OSI and LLC1 on HYPERchannel 1223
HAP2 Host Access Protocol 1221
SUBNETASGN On the Assignment of Subnet Numbers 1219
SNMP-TRAPS Defining Traps for use with SNMP 1215
DAS Directory Assistance Service 1202
LPDP Line Printer Daemon Protocol 1179

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the

previous edition of this document.]

6.9. Historic Protocols

All Historic protocols have Not Recommended status.

Protocol Name RFC STD

======== ===================================== ===== ===
IPSO DoD Security Options for IP Elective 1108
SNMPv2 Manager-to-Manager MIB Elective 1451
SNMPv2 Party MIB for SNMPv2 Elective 1447
SNMPv2 Security Protocols for SNMPv2 Elective 1446
SNMPv2 Administrative Model for SNMPv2 Elective 1445
RIP Routing Information Protocol Ele 1058 34
-------- Mapping full 822 to Restricted 822 1137
BGP3 Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3) 1267,1268
-------- Gateway Requirements Req 1009 4
EGP Exterior Gateway Protocol Rec 904 18
SNMP-MUX SNMP MUX Protocol and MIB 1227
OIM-MIB-II OSI Internet Management: MIB-II 1214
IMAP3 Interactive Mail Access Protocol Version 3 1203
SUN-RPC Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 1 1050
802.4-MIP IEEE 802.4 Token Bus MIB 1230
CMOT Common Management Information Services 1189
-------- Mail Privacy: Procedures 1113
-------- Mail Privacy: Key Management 1114
-------- Mail Privacy: Algorithms 1115
NFILE A File Access Protocol 1037
HOSTNAME HOSTNAME Protocol 953
SFTP Simple File Transfer Protocol 913

SUPDUP SUPDUP Protocol 734

BGP Border Gateway Protocol 1163,1164
MIB-I MIB-I 1156
SGMP Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol 1028
HEMS High Level Entity Management Protocol 1021
STATSRV Statistics Server 996
POP2 Post Office Protocol, Version 2 937
RATP Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol 916
HFEP Host - Front End Protocol 929
THINWIRE Thinwire Protocol 914
HMP Host Monitoring Protocol 869
GGP Gateway Gateway Protocol 823
RTELNET Remote Telnet Service 818
CLOCK DCNET Time Server Protocol 778
MPM Internet Message Protocol 759
NETRJS Remote Job Service 740
NETED Network Standard Text Editor 569
RJE Remote Job Entry 407
XNET Cross Net Debugger IEN-158
NAMESERVER Host Name Server Protocol IEN-116
MUX Multiplexing Protocol IEN-90
GRAPHICS Graphics Protocol NIC-24308

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the

previous edition of this document.]

6.10. Obsolete Protocols

Some of the protocols listed in this memo are described in RFCs that are
obsoleted by newer RFCs. "Obsolete" or "obsoleted" is not an official
state or status of protocols. This subsection is for information only.

While it may seem to be obviously wrong to have an obsoleted RFC in the

list of standards, there may be cases when an older standard is in the
process of being replaced. This process may take a year or two.

Many obsoleted protocols are of little interest and are dropped from
this memo altogether. Some obsoleted protocols have received enough
recognition that it seems appropriate to list them under their current
status and with the following reference to their current replacement.

RFC RFC Status Title *

==== ==== ========= =================================== =
1305 obsoletes 1119 Stan/Rec Network Time Protocol version 2

Thanks to Lynn Wheeler for compiling the information in this

subsection.

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the

previous edition of this document.]

7. Contacts

7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts

7.1.1. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact

Please send your comments about this list of protocols and especially
about the Draft Standard Protocols to the Internet Architecture Board
care of Abel Winerib, IAB Executive Director.

Contacts:
 Abel Winerib
Executive Director of the IAB
Intel, JF2-64
2111 NE 25th Avenue
Hillsboro, OR 97124

1-503-696-8972 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              1-503-
696-8972      end_of_the_skype_highlighting

[email protected]

Brian E. Carpenter
Chair of the IAB
IBM United Kingdon Laboratories
Hursley Park
Winchester
Hampshire SO21 2JN

+44 1962 816833 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              +44 1962

816833      end_of_the_skype_highlighting

[email protected]

7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact

Contacts:

Fred Baker
Chair of the IETF
cisco Systems, Inc.
519 Lado Drive
Santa Barbara, CA 93111

1-805-681-0115 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              1-805-
681-0115      end_of_the_skype_highlighting

[email protected]

Steve Coya
IESG Secretary
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
Reston, VA 22091

1-703-620-8990 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              1-703-
620-8990      end_of_the_skype_highlighting

[email protected]

Steve Coya
Executive Director of the IETF
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
Reston, VA 22091
 1-703-620-8990 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              1-703-
620-8990      end_of_the_skype_highlighting

[email protected]

7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact

Contact:

Abel Winerib
Chair of the IRTF
Intel, JF2-64
2111 NE 25th Avenue
Hillsboro, OR 97124

1-503-696-8972 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              1-503-
696-8972      end_of_the_skype_highlighting

[email protected]

7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Contact

Contact:

Joyce K. Reynolds
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695

1-310-822-1511 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              1-310-
822-1511      end_of_the_skype_highlighting

[email protected]

The protocol standards are managed by the Internet Assigned Numbers

Authority.

Please refer to the document "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1700) for

further information about the status of protocol documents. There
are two documents that summarize the requirements for host and
gateways in the Internet, "Host Requirements" (RFC-1122 and RFC-1123)
and "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers" (RFC-1812).

How to obtain the most recent edition of this "Internet Official

Protocol Standards" memo:

The file "in-notes/std/std1.txt" may be copied via FTP from the

FTP.ISI.EDU computer using the FTP username "anonymous" and FTP
password "guest".

7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact

Contact:

Jon Postel
 RFC Editor
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695

1-310-822-1511 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              1-310-
822-1511      end_of_the_skype_highlighting

[email protected]

Documents may be submitted via electronic mail to the RFC Editor for
consideration for publication as RFC. If you are not familiar with
the format or style requirements please request the "Instructions for
RFC Authors". In general, the style of any recent RFC may be used as
a guide.

7.4. The Network Information Center and

Requests for Comments Distribution Contact

RFC's may be obtained from DS.INTERNIC.NET via FTP, WAIS, and

electronic mail. Through FTP, RFC's are stored as rfc/rfcnnnn.txt
or rfc/rfcnnnn.ps where 'nnnn' is the RFC number. Login as
"anonymous" and provide your e-mail address as the password.
Through WAIS, you may use either your local WAIS client or telnet
to DS.INTERNIC.NET and login as "wais" (no password required) to
access a WAIS client. Help information and a tutorial for using
WAIS are available online. The WAIS database to search is "rfcs".

Directory and Database Services also provides a mail server

interface. Send a mail message to [email protected] and
include any of the following commands in the message body:

document-by-name rfcnnnn where 'nnnn' is the RFC number

The text version is sent.

file /ftp/rfc/rfcnnnn.yyy where 'nnnn' is the RFC number.

and 'yyy' is 'txt' or 'ps'.

help to get information on how to use

the mailserver.

The InterNIC directory and database services collection of

resource listings, internet documents such as RFCs, FYIs, STDs,
and Internet Drafts, and publicly accessible databases are also

now available via Gopher. All our collections are WAIS indexed
and can be searched from the Gopher menu.

To access the InterNIC Gopher Servers, please connect to

"internic.net" port 70.

Contact: [email protected]

7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments

Details on many sources of RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by

 sending an EMAIL message to "[email protected]" with the message body
"help: ways_to_get_rfcs". For example:

To: [email protected]
Subject: getting rfcs

help: ways_to_get_rfcs

8. Security Considerations

Security issues are not addressed in this memo.

9. Author's Address

Jon Postel
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292

Phone: 310-822-1511 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              310-822-

1511      end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Fax: 310-823-6714

Email: [email protected]

User Contributions:
Comment about this RFC, ask questions, or add new information about this topic:

add /rfcs/rfc2200.htm

Name:
E-mail:
Display email publicly
Security Code:
42<(

Comment:  (50-4000 characters)
 Send

Previous: RFC 2199 - Request for Next: RFC 2201 - Core Based Trees
 
Comments Summary RFC Numbers 2100- (CBT) Multicast Routing Architecture
2199
 

[ RFC Index | Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | Cities ]

Website © 2010 Advameg, Inc.  |   Terms of Use

RFC 902 - ARPA Internet Protocol policy

faqs.org

RFC 902 - ARPA Internet Protocol policy

 Internet RFC Index
 Usenet FAQ Index
 Other FAQs
 Documents
 Tools
 Search
 Search FAQs
 Search RFCs
 IFC Home
 Cities
 Countries
 Hospitals
 Web Hosting Ratings
 and the Internet.

In 1981 DARPA established the Internet Configuration Control Board

(ICCB) to help manage the DARPA Internet Program.

RFC 902 July 1984

DARPA Internet Protocol Policy

The ICCB

The concerns of the ICCB fall into two categories:

Short Term Issues:

Keeping the Internet operating as an on-going resource, i.e.,

dealing with problems that arise due to the growth in the size
of the system and the level of use of the system. Sometimes
this suggests research on new procedures and algorithms, or
suggests changes to the existing protocols and procedures.
Sometimes the results of long range research become available
and their introduction into the current system becomes a short
term concern.

Long Term Issues:

The ICCB also considers communication problems related to the

Internet more abstractly. The ICCB suggests to DARPA possible
research topics and experiments. The ICCB may act as a
sounding board for ideas suggested by others.

DARPA has delegated some aspects of the management of the Internet

Program and operation of the (experimental) ARPA-Internet for the
DARPA research community to the ICCB.

The members of ICCB were chosen to represent a spectrum of interests

and viewpoints. The ICCB members are from different organizations,
their individual backgrounds specialize in different operating
systems and their viewpoints on computer communication issues are
diverse.

The chairman of the ICCB is also the "Internet Architect", and the
assistant chairman is the "Deputy Internet Architect". The ICCB
currently has 12 members. The Internet Architect is Dave Clark of
MIT, and the Deputy Internet Architect is Jon Postel of ISI.

The DDN World

The DDN is a communication system for DoD operational use. It

integrates many networks and communication systems now used and
planned within the DoD. One part of the DDN system is networks that
are also part of the Internet, specifically MILNET and the networks
connected to it.

The DDN is managed by the DDN Program Management Office (DDN-PMO).

The DDN-PMO sets policy for the use of DDN facilities and enforces
protocol standards established for use in the DDN networks.
RFC 902 July 1984
DARPA Internet Protocol Policy

Within the DoD, there are three protocol committees: the Protocol
Standard Steering Group (PSSG), the Protocol Standard Technical Panel
(PSTP), and the Protocol Configuration Control Board (PCCB). These
committees have members that represent most elements of the DoD.
Generally, they develop and recommend guidelines for protocol
standardization and usage to the DDN-PMO, and to all of the DoD. The
PSSG is a policy setting committee for all of DoD on matters of
protocols standards.

The Relationship between the DARPA World and the DDN World

There is cooperation between DDN-PMO and DARPA about the Internet. A

few people serve on both the DoD committees (PSSG, PSTP, or PCCB) and
the DARPA committee (ICCB). There are good working relationships
between the key people in the DARPA office and the DDN-PMO, and
between the technical people in both worlds at lower levels.

For example, the ICCB may decide that a certain protocol is to be

used in the ARPA-Internet, and develop an implementation plan and
schedule. The DDN-PMO would separately consider the issue. It may
decide to require that protocol to be implemented in DDN on the same
schedule, or it may decide to wait for some results from the DARPA
experiment with that protocol before committing to a schedule, or it
may decide that that protocol is not required in the DDN.

There are two documents that specify TCP. RFC-793 is the official
specification of the DARPA research community. Military Standard
1778 is the official specification of the DDN community. The two
documents specify the same protocol.

Organizations that are connected to the Internet through authority

derived from DARPA follow the rules set by the ICCB and DARPA.

Organizations that are connected to the Internet through authority

derived from DDN-PMO follow the rules set by the DDN-PMO.

DARPA Official Protocol Designation

Official protocols for the ARPA-Internet and DARPA research community

are specified in RFCs and should have that designation indicated in
the first few paragraphs of the defining RFC. That is, the RFC
defining an official protocol should have a policy statement that
says,

"This RFC specifies a standard for the DARPA community. Hosts on

the ARPA-Internet are expected to adopt and implement this
standard.",

RFC 902 July 1984

DARPA Internet Protocol Policy

or something quite similar.

 Also, there is a memo titled "Official Protocols". This document is
issued occasionally as an RFC that describes all the official
protocols of the ARPA-Internet. This document provides information
on each protocol; its status (experimental, required, etc.),
specification, additional comments, other references, dependencies,
and the person to contact. The most recent issue is RFC-901.

RFCs are coordinated by the RFC Editor and distributed by the Network
Information Center (NIC). The RFC documents are stored as online
files in the NIC's computer. Announcements of new RFCs are sent to a
mailing list of interested people. The RFC Editor is Jon Postel.

The Normal Development of an DARPA Protocol Standard

There probably never has been a "normal" case. In most instances

some exception or another has been made to the following procedure.

The Typical Chain of Events

The development of a protocol starts with some discussion with

random people in messages and meetings over an idea of a new
protocol and the form it ought to take.

Someone writes a draft and proposes this draft to a group of

people who are interested in the problem. They suggest revisions
and iterate the discussion. Eventually, they may decide that they
have a reasonable definition of the new protocol and then pass
this definition on to the RFC Editor.

The next step is that the RFC Editor sends a draft to other people
who might also be interested in the problem. These people can
number just a few, or be part of a large mailing list. Depending
upon the results from this selected informal group, the draft can
be revised and rewritten several times.

When this process stabilizes, the protocol draft is sent out as an

RFC, identified as a draft proposal of a protocol that may become
an official protocol. The RFC is sent to the ARPA-Internet world
at large.

After a certain amount of time, if only a few comments are sent

back, some people may try to implement the draft protocol.

Test implementation of a protocol is a difficult management issue.

RFC 902 July 1984

DARPA Internet Protocol Policy

Experiments must be done with a small number of participants due

to the difficulty in changing many implementations at the same
time if changes in the protocol are necessary.

In cases where the ICCB deems it necessary, a set of test

implementations will be done. A few participants are picked
(typically 5 or fewer) for such experiments. This may lead to
 revision of the protocol before further implementations are
encouraged or before the protocol is made official.

If no problems arise, a new RFC is issued containing the complete

definition of the protocol, and that the protocol is an official
protocol of the ARPA-Internet and DARPA research community.

In general, lower level protocols are more critically judged than

higher level protocols (for example, a protocol like TCP would be
subject to more careful study than an application like the DAYTIME
protocol).

The Bottom Line

For the ARPA-Internet and the DARPA research community, DARPA is in

charge. DARPA delegates the authority for protocol standards to the
ICCB. The ICCB delegates the actual administration of the protocol
standards to the Deputy Internet Architect.

For the DoD in general, the PSSG is in charge. The PSSG delegates
the authority for the day to day management of protocol standards in
the DDN to the DDN-PMO.

User Contributions:
Comment about this RFC, ask questions, or add new information about this topic:

add /rfcs/rfc902.html

Name:
E-mail:
Display email publicly
Security Code:
.*4

Comment:  (50-4000 characters)

Send
 Next: RFC 903 - A Reverse Address
Previous: RFC 901 - Official ARPA-  
Resolution Protocol
Internet protocols
 

[ RFC Index | Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | Cities ]

Website © 2010 Advameg, Inc.  |   Terms of Use

partner-pub-0950 FORID:10

Home Cloud IPMC Standards Web Services Bookshelf Labs About Us Contact Us

RFC 1800 - Internet Official Protocol Display RFC

Standards RFC Number

1
(Formats: TXT)

(Obsoleted By: RFC 1880) Display

Network Working Group Internet

Architecture Board
Request for Comments: 1800 J.
Postel, Editor
Obsoletes: RFCs 1780, 1720, 1610, 1600,
July 1995
1540, 1500, 1410, 1360, 1280, 1250,
1200, 1140, 1130, 1100, 1083
STD: 1
Category: Standards Track

INTERNET OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS

Status of this Memo

This memo describes the state of standardization of

protocols used in
the Internet as determined by the Internet Architecture
Board (IAB).
This memo is an Internet Standard. Distribution of
this memo is
unlimited.

Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 2
1. The Standardization
Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The Request for Comments
Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Other Reference
Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Assigned
Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Gateway
Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Host
Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. The MIL-STD
Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Explanation of
Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Definitions of Protocol State (Maturity
Level) . . . . . . 9
4.1.1. Standard
Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.2. Draft Standard
Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.3. Proposed Standard
Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.4. Experimental
Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.5. Informational
Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.6. Historic
Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status (Requirement
Level) . . . 10
4.2.1. Required
Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.2. Recommended
Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.3. Elective
Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.4. Limited Use
Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.5. Not Recommended
Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. The Standards
Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. The RFC Processing Decision
Table . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. The Standards Track
Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. The
Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1. Recent
Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 1]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

6.1.1. New
RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.2. Other
Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2. Standard
Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.3. Network-Specific Standard
Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.4. Draft Standard
Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.5. Proposed Standard
Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.6. Telnet
Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.7. Experimental
Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.8. Informational
Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.9. Historic
Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.10 Obsolete
Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7.
Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF
Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.1.1. Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
Contact . . . . . . 32
7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Contact . . . . 32
 7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)
Contact . . . . . 33
7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Contact . . . 34
7.3. Request for Comments Editor
Contact . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.4. Network Information Center
Contact . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.5. Sources for Requests for
Comments . . . . . . . . . . . 36
8. Security
Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
9. Author's
Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Introduction

A discussion of the standardization process and the RFC

document
series is presented first, followed by an explanation
of the terms.
Sections 6.2 - 6.10 contain the lists of protocols in
each stage of
standardization. Finally are pointers to references
and contacts for
further information.

This memo is intended to be issued approximately

quarterly; please be
sure the copy you are reading is current. Current
copies may be
obtained from the Network Information Center (INTERNIC)
or from the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (see the
contact
information at the end of this memo). Do not use this
edition after
31-Oct-95.

See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes.

In the official
lists in sections 6.2 - 6.10, an asterisk (*) next to a
protocol
denotes that it is new to this document or has been
moved from one
protocol level to another, or differs from the previous
edition of
this document.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 2]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

1. The Standardization Process

The Internet Architecture Board maintains this list of

documents that
define standards for the Internet protocol suite. See
RFC-1601 for
the charter of the IAB and RFC-1160 for an explanation
of the role
and organization of the IAB and its subsidiary groups,
the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research
Task Force
(IRTF). Each of these groups has a steering group
called the IESG
and IRSG, respectively. The IETF develops these
standards with the
goal of co-ordinating the evolution of the Internet
protocols; this
co-ordination has become quite important as the
Internet protocols
are increasingly in general commercial use. The
definitive
description of the Internet standards process is found
in RFC-1602.

The majority of Internet protocol development and

standardization
activity takes place in the working groups of the IETF.

Protocols which are to become standards in the Internet

go through a
series of states or maturity levels (proposed standard,
draft
standard, and standard) involving increasing amounts of
scrutiny and
testing. When a protocol completes this process it is
assigned a STD
number (see RFC-1311). At each step, the Internet
Engineering
Steering Group (IESG) of the IETF must make a
recommendation for
advancement of the protocol.

To allow time for the Internet community to consider

and react to
 standardization proposals, a minimum delay of 6 months
before a
proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard
and 4 months
before a draft standard can be promoted to standard.

It is general practice that no proposed standard can be

promoted to
draft standard without at least two independent
implementations (and
the recommendation of the IESG). Promotion from draft
standard to
standard generally requires operational experience and
demonstrated
interoperability of two or more implementations (and
the
recommendation of the IESG).

In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper

decision
concerning a protocol a special review committee may be
appointed
consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB
with the
purpose of recommending an explicit action.

Advancement of a protocol to proposed standard is an

important step
since it marks a protocol as a candidate for eventual
standardization
(it puts the protocol "on the standards track").
Advancement to
draft standard is a major step which warns the
community that, unless
major objections are raised or flaws are discovered,
the protocol is
likely to be advanced to standard in six months.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 3]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or

are otherwise
unused. Such protocols are still documented in this
memorandum with
the designation "historic".
 Because it is useful to document the results of early
protocol
research and development work, some of the RFCs
document protocols
which are still in an experimental condition. The
protocols are
designated "experimental" in this memorandum. They
appear in this
report as a convenience to the community and not as
evidence of their
standardization.

Other protocols, such as those developed by other

standards
organizations, or by particular vendors, may be of
interest or may be
recommended for use in the Internet. The
specifications of such
protocols may be published as RFCs for the convenience
of the
Internet community. These protocols are labeled
"informational" in
this memorandum.

In addition to the working groups of the IETF, protocol

development
and experimentation may take place as a result of the
work of the
research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or
the work of
other individuals interested in Internet protocol
development. The
the documentation of such experimental work in the RFC
series is
encouraged, but none of this work is considered to be
on the track
for standardization until the IESG has made a
recommendation to
advance the protocol to the proposed standard state.

A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation

without the
approval of the IESG. For example, some vendor
protocols have become
very important to the Internet community even though
they have not
been recommended by the IESG. However, the IAB
strongly recommends
that the standards process be used in the evolution of
the protocol
 suite to maximize interoperability (and to prevent
incompatible
protocol requirements from arising). The use of the
terms
"standard", "draft standard", and "proposed standard"
are reserved in
any RFC or other publication of Internet protocols to
only those
protocols which the IESG has approved.

In addition to a state (like "Proposed Standard"), a

protocol is also
assigned a status, or requirement level, in this
document. The
possible requirement levels ("Required", "Recommended",
"Elective",
"Limited Use", and "Not Recommended") are defined in
Section 4.2.
When a protocol is on the standards track, that is in
the proposed
standard, draft standard, or standard state (see
Section 5), the
status shown in Section 6 is the current status.

Few protocols are required to be implemented in all

systems; this is
because there is such a variety of possible systems,
for example,

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 4]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

gateways, routers, terminal servers, workstations, and

multi-user
hosts. The requirement level shown in this document is
only a one
word label, which may not be sufficient to characterize
the
implementation requirements for a protocol in all
situations. For
some protocols, this document contains an additional
status paragraph
(an applicability statement). In addition, more
detailed status
information may be contained in separate requirements
documents (see
 Section 3).

2. The Request for Comments Documents

The documents called Request for Comments (or RFCs) are

the working
notes of the "Network Working Group", that is the
Internet research
and development community. A document in this series
may be on
essentially any topic related to computer
communication, and may be
anything from a meeting report to the specification of
a standard.

Notice:

All standards are published as RFCs, but not all

RFCs specify
standards.

Anyone can submit a document for publication as an RFC.

Submissions
must be made via electronic mail to the RFC Editor (see
the contact
information at the end of this memo, and see RFC 1543).

While RFCs are not refereed publications, they do

receive technical
review from the task forces, individual technical
experts, or the RFC
Editor, as appropriate.

The RFC series comprises a wide range of documents,

ranging from
informational documents of general interests to
specifications of
standard Internet protocols. In cases where submission
is intended
to document a proposed standard, draft standard, or
standard
protocol, the RFC Editor will publish the document only
with the
approval of the IESG. For documents describing
experimental work,
the RFC Editor will notify the IESG before publication,
allowing for
the possibility of review by the relevant IETF working
group or IRTF
research group and provide those comments to the
author. See Section
 5.1 for more detail.

Once a document is assigned an RFC number and

published, that RFC is
never revised or re-issued with the same number. There
is never a
question of having the most recent version of a
particular RFC.
However, a protocol (such as File Transfer Protocol
(FTP)) may be
improved and re-documented many times in several
different RFCs. It
is important to verify that you have the most recent
RFC on a
particular protocol. This "Internet Official Protocol
Standards"

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 5]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

memo is the reference for determining the correct RFC

for the current
specification of each protocol.

The RFCs are available from the INTERNIC, and a number

of other
sites. For more information about obtaining RFCs, see
Sections 7.4
and 7.5.

3. Other Reference Documents

There are three other reference documents of interest

in checking the
current status of protocol specifications and
standardization. These
are the Assigned Numbers, the Gateway Requirements, and
the Host
Requirements. Note that these documents are revised
and updated at
different times; in case of differences between these
documents, the
most recent must prevail.

Also, one should be aware of the MIL-STD publications

on IP, TCP,
 Telnet, FTP, and SMTP. These are described in Section
3.4.

3.1. Assigned Numbers

The "Assigned Numbers" document lists the assigned

values of the
parameters used in the various protocols. For example,
IP protocol
codes, TCP port numbers, Telnet Option Codes, ARP
hardware types, and
Terminal Type names. Assigned Numbers was most
recently issued as
RFC-1700.

3.2. Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers

This document reviews the specifications that apply to

gateways and
supplies guidance and clarification for any
ambiguities.
Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers is RFC-1812.

3.3. Host Requirements

This pair of documents reviews and updates the

specifications that
apply to hosts, and it supplies guidance and
clarification for any
ambiguities. Host Requirements was issued as RFC-1122
and RFC-1123.

3.4. The MIL-STD Documents

The Internet community specifications for IP (RFC-791)

and TCP (RFC-
793) and the DoD MIL-STD specifications are intended to
describe
exactly the same protocols. Any difference in the
protocols
specified by these sets of documents should be reported
to DISA and
to the IESG. It is strongly advised that the two sets
of documents
be used together, along with RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 6]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

Note that these MIL-STD are now somewhat out of date.

The
Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers (RFC-1812) and
Host
Requirements (RFC-1122, RFC-1123) take precedence over
both earlier
RFCs and the MIL-STDs.

2045-13501 Internet Routing between Autonomous

Systems

2045-14502-01 Internet Transport Profile for DoD

Communications, Part 1: Transport and Internet
Services

2045-14502-04 Internet Transport Profile for DoD

Communications, Part 4: LAN Media-Independent
Requirements

2045-14503 Internet Transport Service Supporting

OSI
Applications

2045-44500 Tactical Communications

2045-17503-01 Internet Message Transfer Profile

for DoD
Communications Part 1: Simple Mail Transfer
Protocol

2045-17503-02 Internet Message Transfer Profile

for DoD
Communications Part 2: Format of Text Messages

2045-17504 Internet File Transfer Profile for

DoD
Communications

2045-17505 Internet Domain Name Service (DNS)

Profile for DoD
Communications

2045-17506 Internet Remote Login (RLOGIN)

Profile for DoD
Communications

2045-17507 Internet Network Management Profile

for DoD
 Communications

2045-38000 DoD Network Management for DoD

Communications

These documents are available from the Naval

Publications and Forms
Center. Requests can be initiated by telephone,
telegraph, or mail;
however, it is preferred that private industry use form
DD1425, if
possible.

Naval Publications and Forms Center, Code 3015

5801 Tabor Ave
Philadelphia, PA 19120
Phone: 1-215-697-3321
begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              1-215-697-
3321      end_of_the_skype_highlighting (order tape)
1-215-697-4834
begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              1-215-697-
4834      end_of_the_skype_highlighting (conversation)

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 7]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

4. Explanation of Terms

There are two independent categorization of protocols.

The first is
the "maturity level" or STATE of standardization, one
of "standard",
"draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental",
"informational" or "historic". The second is the
"requirement level"
or STATUS of this protocol, one of "required",
"recommended",
"elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".

The status or requirement level is difficult to portray

in a one word
label. These status labels should be considered only
as an
indication, and a further description, or applicability
statement,
should be consulted.
 When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or
draft standard,
it is labeled with a current status.

At any given time a protocol occupies a cell of the

following matrix.
Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the
following
proportions (indicated by the relative number of Xs).
A new protocol
is most likely to start in the (proposed standard,
elective) cell, or
the (experimental, limited use) cell.

S T A T U S
Req Rec Ele Lim Not
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Std | X | XXX | XXX | | |
S +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Draft | X | X | XXX | | |
T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Prop | | X | XXX | | |
A +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Info | | | | | |
T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Expr | | | | XXX | |
E +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Hist | | | | | XXX |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

What is a "system"?

Some protocols are particular to hosts and some to

gateways; a few
protocols are used in both. The definitions of the
terms below
will refer to a "system" which is either a host or a
gateway (or
both). It should be clear from the context of the
particular
protocol which types of systems are intended.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 8]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995
4.1. Definitions of Protocol State

Every protocol listed in this document is assigned to a

"maturity
level" or STATE of standardization: "standard", "draft
standard",
"proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic".

4.1.1. Standard Protocol

The IESG has established this as an official

standard protocol for
the Internet. These protocols are assigned STD
numbers (see RFC-
1311). These are separated into two groups: (1) IP
protocol and
above, protocols that apply to the whole Internet;
and (2)
network-specific protocols, generally specifications
of how to do
IP on particular types of networks.

4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol

The IESG is actively considering this protocol as a

possible
Standard Protocol. Substantial and widespread
testing and comment
are desired. Comments and test results should be
submitted to the
IESG. There is a possibility that changes will be
made in a Draft
Standard Protocol before it becomes a Standard
Protocol.

4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol

These are protocol proposals that may be considered

by the IESG
for standardization in the future. Implementation
and testing by
several groups is desirable. Revision of the
protocol
specification is likely.

4.1.4. Experimental Protocol

A system should not implement an experimental

protocol unless it
is participating in the experiment and has
coordinated its use of
 the protocol with the developer of the protocol.

Typically, experimental protocols are those that are

developed as
part of an ongoing research project not related to
an operational
service offering. While they may be proposed as a
service
protocol at a later stage, and thus become proposed
standard,
draft standard, and then standard protocols, the
designation of a
protocol as experimental may sometimes be meant to
suggest that
the protocol, although perhaps mature, is not
intended for
operational use.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 9]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

4.1.5. Informational Protocol

Protocols developed by other standard organizations,

or vendors,
or that are for other reasons outside the purview of
the IESG, may
be published as RFCs for the convenience of the
Internet community
as informational protocols.

4.1.6. Historic Protocol

These are protocols that are unlikely to ever become

standards in
the Internet either because they have been
superseded by later
developments or due to lack of interest.

4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status

This document lists a "requirement level" or STATUS

for each
protocol. The status is one of "required",
"recommended",
"elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".
 4.2.1. Required Protocol

A system must implement the required protocols.

4.2.2. Recommended Protocol

A system should implement the recommended protocols.

4.2.3. Elective Protocol

A system may or may not implement an elective

protocol. The
general notion is that if you are going to do
something like this,
you must do exactly this. There may be several
elective protocols
in a general area, for example, there are several
electronic mail
protocols, and several routing protocols.

4.2.4. Limited Use Protocol

These protocols are for use in limited

circumstances. This may be
because of their experimental state, specialized
nature, limited
functionality, or historic state.

4.2.5. Not Recommended Protocol

These protocols are not recommended for general use.

This may be
because of their limited functionality, specialized
nature, or
experimental or historic state.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 10]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

5. The Standards Track

This section discusses in more detail the procedures

used by the RFC
Editor and the IESG in making decisions about the
labeling and
 publishing of protocols as standards.

5.1. The RFC Processing Decision Table

Here is the current decision table for processing

submissions by the
RFC Editor. The processing depends on who submitted
it, and the
status they want it to have.

+=========================================================
=+
|**************| S O U R C E
|

+=========================================================
=+
| Desired | IAB | IESG | IRSG |
Other |
| Status | | | |
|

+=========================================================
=+
| | | | |
|
| Standard | Bogus | Publish | Bogus |
Bogus |
| or | (2) | (1) | (2) |
(2) |
| Draft | | | |
|
| Standard | | | |
|
+--------------+----------+----------+----------
+----------+
| | | | |
|
| | Refer | Publish | Refer |
Refer |
| Proposed | (3) | (1) | (3) |
(3) |
| Standard | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
+--------------+----------+----------+----------
+----------+
| | | | |
|
 | | Notify | Publish | Notify |
Notify |
| Experimental | (4) | (1) | (4) |
(4) |
| Protocol | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
+--------------+----------+----------+----------
+----------+
| | | | |
|
| Information | Publish | Publish |Discretion|
Discretion|
| or Opinion | (1) | (1) | (5) |
(5) |
| Paper | | | |
|
| | | | |
|

+=========================================================
=+

(1) Publish.

(2) Bogus. Inform the source of the rules. RFCs

specifying
Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the
IESG, only.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 11]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

(3) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG.

Expect to see
the document again only after approval by the
IESG.

(4) Notify both the IESG and IRSG. If no concerns

are raised in
two weeks then do Discretion (5), else RFC
Editor to resolve
the concerns or do Refer (3).

(5) RFC Editor's discretion. The RFC Editor decides

if a review
is needed and if so by whom. RFC Editor decides
to publish or
not.

Of course, in all cases the RFC Editor can request or

make minor
changes for style, format, and presentation purposes.

The IESG has designated the IESG Secretary as its agent

for
forwarding documents with IESG approval and for
registering concerns
in response to notifications (4) to the RFC Editor.
Documents from
Area Directors or Working Group Chairs may be
considered in the same
way as documents from "other".

5.2. The Standards Track Diagram

There is a part of the STATUS and STATE categorization

that is called
the standards track. Actually, only the changes of
state are
significant to the progression along the standards
track, though the
status assignments may change as well.

The states illustrated by single line boxes are

temporary states,
those illustrated by double line boxes are long term
states. A
protocol will normally be expected to remain in a
temporary state for
several months (minimum six months for proposed
standard, minimum
four months for draft standard). A protocol may be in
a long term
state for many years.

A protocol may enter the standards track only on the

recommendation
of the IESG; and may move from one state to another
along the track
only on the recommendation of the IESG. That is, it
takes action by
the IESG to either start a protocol on the track or to
move it along.

Generally, as the protocol enters the standards track a

decision is
made as to the eventual STATUS, requirement level or
applicability
(elective, recommended, or required) the protocol will
have, although
a somewhat less stringent current status may be
assigned, and it then
is placed in the the proposed standard STATE with that
status. So
the initial placement of a protocol is into state 1.
At any time the
STATUS decision may be revisited.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 12]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

|
+<----------------------------------------------+
| ^
V 0 |
4
+-----------+
+===========+
| enter |-->----------------+-------------->|
experiment |
+-----------+ |
+=====+=====+
| |
V 1 |
+-----------+ V
| proposed |-------------->+
+--->+-----+-----+ |
| | |
| V 2 |
+<---+-----+-----+ V
| draft std |-------------->+
+--->+-----+-----+ |
| | |
| V 3 |
+<---+=====+=====+ V
| standard |-------------->+
+=====+=====+ |
|
V
5
+=====+=====+
|
historic |

+===========+

The transition from proposed standard (1) to draft

standard (2) can
only be by action of the IESG and only after the
protocol has been
proposed standard (1) for at least six months.

The transition from draft standard (2) to standard (3)

can only be by
action of the IESG and only after the protocol has been
draft
standard (2) for at least four months.

Occasionally, the decision may be that the protocol is

not ready for
standardization and will be assigned to the
experimental state (4).
This is off the standards track, and the protocol may
be resubmitted
to enter the standards track after further work. There
are other
paths into the experimental and historic states that do
not involve
IESG action.

Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus

becomes
historic, or it may happen that a protocol on the
standards track is
in a sense overtaken by another protocol (or other
events) and
becomes historic (state 5).

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 13]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

6. The Protocols

Subsection 6.1 lists recent RFCs and other changes.

Subsections 6.2
- 6.10 list the standards in groups by protocol state.
6.1. Recent Changes

6.1.1. New RFCs:

1814 - Unique Addresses are Good

This is an information document and does not

specify any
level of standard.

1813 - NFS Version 3 Protocol Specification

This is an information document and does not

specify any
level of standard.

1812 - Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1811 - U.S. Government Internet Domain Names

This is an information document and does not

specify any
level of standard.

1810 - Report on MD5 Performance

This is an information document and does not

specify any
level of standard.

1809 - Using the Flow Label Field in IPv6

This is an information document and does not

specify any
level of standard.

1808 - Relative Uniform Resource Locators

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1807 - A Format for Bibliographic Records

This is an information document and does not

specify any
level of standard.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 14]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

1806 - Communicating Presentation Information in

Internet
Messages: The Content-Disposition Header

An Experimental protocol.

1805 - Location-Independent Data/Software Integrity

Protocol

This is an information document and does not

specify any
level of standard.

1804 - Schema Publishing in X.500 Directory

An Experimental protocol.

1803 - Recommendations for an X.500 Production

Directory Service

This is an information document and does not

specify any
level of standard.

1802 - Introducing Project Long Bud: Internet Pilot

Project for
the Deployment of X.500 Directory Information
in Support of
X.400 Routing

This is an information document and does not

specify any
level of standard.

1801 - X.400-MHS use of the X.500 Directory to

support X.400-MHS
Routing

An Experimental protocol.

1800 - Internet Official Protocol Standards

This memo.

1799 - Not yet issued.

 1798 - Connection-less Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1797 - Class A Subnet Experiment

An Experimental protocol.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 15]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

1796 - Not All RFCs are Standards

This is an information document and does not

specify any
level of standard.

1795 - Data Link Switching: Switch-to-Switch

Protocol AIW DLSw
RIG: DLSw Closed Pages, DLSw Standard Version
1

This is an information document and does not

specify any
level of standard.

1794 - DNS Support for Load Balancing

This is an information document and does not

specify any
level of standard.

1793 - Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1792 - TCP/IPX Connection Mib Specification

An Experimental protocol.

1791 - TCP And UDP Over IPX Networks With Fixed Path
MTU

An Experimental protocol.
 1790 - An Agreement between the Internet Society and
Sun
Microsystems, Inc. in the Matter of ONC RPC
and XDR
Protocols

This is an information document and does not

specify any
level of standard.

1789 - INETPhone: Telephone Services and Servers on

Internet

This is an information document and does not

specify any
level of standard.

1788 - ICMP Domain Name Messages

An Experimental protocol.

1787 - Routing in a Multi-provider Internet

This is an information document and does not

specify any
level of standard.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 16]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

1776 - The Address is the Message

This is an information document and does not

specify any
level of standard.

6.1.2. Other Changes:

The following are changes to protocols listed in the

previous
edition.

1268 - Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in

the Internet
 Moved to Historic.

1267 - A Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3)

Moved to Historic.

1209 - The Transmission of IP Datagrams over the

SMDS Service

Elevated to Standard.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 17]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

6.2. Standard Protocols

Protocol Name
Status RFC STD *
======== =====================================
======== ==== === =
-------- Internet Official Protocol Standards Req
1800 1
-------- Assigned Numbers Req
1700 2
-------- Host Requirements - Communications Req
1122 3
-------- Host Requirements - Applications Req
1123 3
IP Internet Protocol Req
791 5
as amended by:--------
-------- IP Subnet Extension Req
950 5
-------- IP Broadcast Datagrams Req
919 5
-------- IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets Req
922 5
ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol Req
792 5
IGMP Internet Group Multicast Protocol Rec
1112 5
UDP User Datagram Protocol Rec
768 6
TCP Transmission Control Protocol Rec
793 7
TELNET Telnet Protocol Rec
854,855 8
FTP File Transfer Protocol Rec
959 9
SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol Rec
821 10
MAIL Format of Electronic Mail Messages Rec
822 11
CONTENT Content Type Header Field Rec
1049 11
NTPV2 Network Time Protocol (Version 2) Rec
1119 12
DOMAIN Domain Name System Rec
1034,1035 13
DNS-MX Mail Routing and the Domain System Rec
974 14
SNMP Simple Network Management Protocol Rec
1157 15
SMI Structure of Management Information Rec
1155 16
Concise-MIB Concise MIB Definitions Rec
1212 16
MIB-II Management Information Base-II Rec
1213 17
NETBIOS NetBIOS Service Protocols Ele
1001,1002 19
ECHO Echo Protocol Rec
862 20
DISCARD Discard Protocol Ele
863 21
CHARGEN Character Generator Protocol Ele
864 22
QUOTE Quote of the Day Protocol Ele
865 23
USERS Active Users Protocol Ele
866 24
DAYTIME Daytime Protocol Ele
867 25
TIME Time Server Protocol Ele
868 26
TFTP Trivial File Transfer Protocol Ele
1350 33
RIP Routing Information Protocol Ele
1058 34
TP-TCP ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP Ele
1006 35
ETHER-MIB Ethernet MIB Ele
1643 50
PPP Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Ele
1661 51
PPP-HDLC PPP in HDLC Framing Ele
1662 51
[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change
from the
previous edition of this document.]

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 18]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

Applicability Statements:

IGMP -- The Internet Architecture Board intends to move

towards
general adoption of IP multicasting, as a more
efficient solution
than broadcasting for many applications. The host
interface has been
standardized in RFC-1112; however, multicast-routing
gateways are in
the experimental stage and are not widely available.
An Internet
host should support all of RFC-1112, except for the
IGMP protocol
itself which is optional; see RFC-1122 for more
details. Even
without IGMP, implementation of RFC-1112 will provide
an important
advance: IP-layer access to local network multicast
addressing. It
is expected that IGMP will become recommended for all
hosts and
gateways at some future date.

SMI, MIB-II SNMP -- The Internet Architecture Board

recommends that
all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable.
At the current
time, this implies implementation of the Internet MIB-
II (RFC-1213),
and at least the recommended management protocol SNMP
(RFC-1157).

RIP -- The Routing Information Protocol (RIP) is widely

implemented
and used in the Internet. However, both implementors
and users
should be aware that RIP has some serious technical
limitations as a
routing protocol. The IETF is currently devpeloping
several
candidates for a new standard "open" routing protocol
with better
properties than RIP. The IAB urges the Internet
community to track
these developments, and to implement the new protocol
when it is
standardized; improved Internet service will result for
many users.

TP-TCP -- As OSI protocols become more widely

implemented and used,
there will be an increasing need to support
interoperation with the
TCP/IP protocols. The Internet Engineering Task Force
is formulating
strategies for interoperation. RFC-1006 provides one
interoperation
mode, in which TCP/IP is used to emulate TP0 in order
to support OSI
applications. Hosts that wish to run OSI connection-
oriented
applications in this mode should use the procedure
described in RFC-
1006. In the future, the IAB expects that a major
portion of the
Internet will support both TCP/IP and OSI
(inter-)network protocols
in parallel, and it will then be possible to run OSI
applications
across the Internet using full OSI protocol "stacks".

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 19]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols

All Network-Specific Standards have Elective status.

Protocol Name State

RFC STD *
======== ===================================== =====
===== === =
IP-ATM Classical IP and ARP over ATM Prop
1577
IP-FR Multiprotocol over Frame Relay Draft
1490
ATM-ENCAP Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Prop
1483
IP-TR-MC IP Multicast over Token-Ring LANs Prop
1469
IP-FDDI Transmission of IP and ARP over FDDI Net Std
1390 36
IP-HIPPI IP and ARP on HIPPI Prop
1374
IP-X.25 X.25 and ISDN in the Packet Mode Draft
1356
IP-FDDI Internet Protocol on FDDI Networks Draft
1188
ARP Address Resolution Protocol Std
826 37
RARP A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol Std
903 38
IP-ARPA Internet Protocol on ARPANET Std
BBN1822 39
IP-WB Internet Protocol on Wideband Network Std
907 40
IP-E Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks Std
894 41
IP-EE Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets Std
895 42
IP-IEEE Internet Protocol on IEEE 802 Std
1042 43
IP-DC Internet Protocol on DC Networks Std
891 44
IP-HC Internet Protocol on Hyperchannel Std
1044 45
IP-ARC Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Nets Std
1201 46
IP-SLIP Transmission of IP over Serial Lines Std
1055 47
IP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS Std
1088 48
IP-IPX Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks Std
1132 49
IP-SMDS IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service Std
1209 52*

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change

from the
previous edition of this document.]

Applicability Statements:

It is expected that a system will support one or more

physical
networks and for each physical network supported the
appropriate
protocols from the above list must be supported. That
is, it is
elective to support any particular type of physical
network, and for
the physical networks actually supported it is required
that they be
supported exactly according to the protocols in the
above list. See
also the Host and Gateway Requirements RFCs for more
specific
information on network-specific ("link layer")
protocols.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 20]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

6.4. Draft Standard Protocols

Protocol Name Status

RFC
======== =====================================
============== =====
STR-REP String Representation ...
Elective 1779
X.500syn X.500 String Representation ...
Elective 1778
X.500lite X.500 Lightweight ...
Elective 1777
BGP-4-APP Application of BGP-4
Elective 1772
BGP-4 Border Gateway Protocol 4
Elective 1771
PPP-DNCP PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol
Elective 1762
RMON-MIB Remote Network Monitoring MIB
Elective 1757
802.5-MIB IEEE 802.5 Token Ring MIB
Elective 1748
BGP-4-MIB BGP-4 MIB
Elective 1657
POP3 Post Office Protocol, Version 3
Elective 1725
RIP2-MIB RIP Version 2 MIB Extension
Elective 1724
RIP2 RIP Version 2-Carrying Additional Info.
Elective 1723
RIP2-APP RIP Version 2 Protocol App. Statement
Elective 1722
SIP-MIB SIP Interface Type MIB
Elective 1694
------- Def Man Objs Parallel-printer-like
Elective 1660
------- Def Man Objs RS-232-like
Elective 1659
------- Def Man Objs Character Stream
Elective 1658
SMTP-SIZE SMTP Service Ext for Message Size
Elective 1653
SMTP-8BIT SMTP Service Ext or 8bit-MIMEtransport
Elective 1652
SMTP-EXT SMTP Service Extensions
Elective 1651
OSI-NSAP Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation
Elective 1629
OSPF2 Open Shortest Path First Routing V2
Elective 1583
ISO-TS-ECHO Echo for ISO-8473
Elective 1575
DECNET-MIB DECNET MIB
Elective 1559
------- Message Header Ext. of Non-ASCII Text
Elective 1522
MIME Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
Elective 1521
802.3-MIB IEEE 802.3 Repeater MIB
Elective 1516
BRIDGE-MIB BRIDGE-MIB
Elective 1493
NTPV3 Network Time Protocol (Version 3)
Elective 1305
IP-MTU Path MTU Discovery
Elective 1191
FINGER Finger Protocol
Elective 1288
BOOTP Bootstrap Protocol
Recommended 951,1497
NICNAME WhoIs Protocol
Elective 954

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change

from the
previous edition of this document.]

Applicability Statements:
 PPP -- Point to Point Protocol is a method of sending
IP over serial
lines, which are a type of physical network. It is
anticipated that
PPP will be advanced to the network-specifics standard
protocol state
in the future.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 21]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols

Protocol Name Status

RFC
======== =====================================
============== =====
RREQ Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers
Elective 1812*
URL Relative Uniform Resource Locators
Elective 1808*
CLDAP Connection-less LDAP
Elective 1798*
OSPF-DC Ext. OSPF to Support Demand Circuits
Elective 1793*
TMUX Transport Multiplexing Protocol
Elective 1692*
TFTP-Opt TFTP Options
Elective 1784
TFTP-Blk TFTP Blocksize Option
Elective 1783
TFTP-Ext TFTP Option Extension
Elective 1782
OSI-Dir OSI User Friendly Naming ...
Elective 1781
MIME-EDI MIME Encapsulation of EDI Objects
Elective 1767
Lang-Tag Tags for Identification of Languages
Elective 1766
XNSCP PPP XNS IDP Control Protocol
Elective 1764
BVCP PPP Banyan Vines Control Protocol
Elective 1763
Print-MIB Printer MIB
Elective 1759
ATM-SIG ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM
Elective 1755
IPNG Recommendation for IP Next Generation
Elective 1752
802.5-SSR 802.5 SSR MIB using SMIv2
Elective 1749
SDLCSMIv2 SNADLC SDLC MIB using SMIv2
Elective 1747
BGP4/IDRP BGP4/IDRP for IP/OSPF Interaction
Elective 1745
AT-MIB Appletalk MIB
Elective 1742
MacMIME MIME Encapsulation of Macintosh files
Elective 1740
URL Uniform Resource Locators
Elective 1738
POP3-AUTH POP3 AUTHentication command
Elective 1734
IMAP4-AUTH IMAP4 Authentication Mechanisms
Elective 1731
IMAP4 Internet Message Access Protocol V4
Elective 1730
PPP-MP PPP Multilink Protocol
Elective 1717
RDBMS-MIB RDMS MIB - using SMIv2
Elective 1697
MODEM-MIB Modem MIB - using SMIv2
Elective 1696
ATM-MIB ATM Management Version 8.0 using SMIv2
Elective 1695
SNANAU-MIB SNA NAUs MIB using SMIv2
Elective 1665
PPP-TRANS PPP Reliable Transmission
Elective 1663
BGP-4-IMP BGP-4 Roadmap and Implementation
Elective 1656
-------- Postmaster Convention X.400 Operations
Elective 1648
TN3270-En TN3270 Enhancements
Elective 1647
PPP-BCP PPP Bridging Control Protocol
Elective 1638
UPS-MIB UPS Management Information Base
Elective 1628
AAL5-MTU Default IP MTU for use over ATM AAL5
Elective 1626
PPP-SONET PPP over SONET/SDH
Elective 1619
PPP-ISDN PPP over ISDN
Elective 1618
DNS-R-MIB DNS Resolver MIB Extensions
Elective 1612
DNS-S-MIB DNS Server MIB Extensions
Elective 1611
FR-MIB Frame Relay Service MIB
Elective 1604
PPP-X25 PPP in X.25
Elective 1598
OSPF-NSSA The OSPF NSSA Option
Elective 1587

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 22]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

OSPF-Multi Multicast Extensions to OSPF

Elective 1584
SONET-MIB MIB SONET/SDH Interface Type
Elective 1595
RIP-DC Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Cir.
Elective 1582
-------- Evolution of the Interfaces Group of MIB-II
Elective 1573
PPP-LCP PPP LCP Extensions
Elective 1570
X500-MIB X.500 Directory Monitoring MIB
Elective 1567
MAIL-MIB Mail Monitoring MIB
Elective 1566
NSM-MIB Network Services Monitoring MIB
Elective 1565
CIPX Compressing IPX Headers Over WAM Media
Elective 1553
IPXCP PPP Internetworking Packet Exchange Control
Elective 1552
CON-MD5 Content-MD5 Header Field
Elective 1544
DHCP-BOOTP Interoperation Between DHCP and BOOTP
Elective 1534
DHCP-BOOTP DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor Extensions
Elective 1533
BOOTP Clarifications and Extensions BOOTP
Elective 1532
DHCP Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
Elective 1541*
SRB-MIB Source Routing Bridge MIB
Elective 1525
CIDR-STRA CIDR Address Assignment...
Elective 1519
CIDR-ARCH CIDR Architecture...
Elective 1518
CIDR-APP CIDR Applicability Statement
Elective 1517
-------- 802.3 MAU MIB
Elective 1515
HOST-MIB Host Resources MIB
Elective 1514
-------- Token Ring Extensions to RMON MIB
Elective 1513
FDDI-MIB FDDI Management Information Base
Elective 1512
KERBEROS Kerberos Network Authentication Ser (V5)
Elective 1510
GSSAPI Generic Security Service API: C-bindings
Elective 1509
GSSAPI Generic Security Service Application...
Elective 1508
DASS Distributed Authentication Security...
Elective 1507
-------- X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets
Elective 1502
HARPOON Rules for Downgrading Messages...
Elective 1496
Mapping MHS/RFC-822 Message Body Mapping
Elective 1495
Equiv X.400/MIME Body Equivalences
Elective 1494
IDPR Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol
Elective 1479
IDPR-ARCH Architecture for IDPR
Elective 1478
PPP/Bridge MIB Bridge PPP MIB
Elective 1474
PPP/IP MIB IP Network Control Protocol of PPP MIB
Elective 1473
PPP/SEC MIB Security Protocols of PPP MIB
Elective 1472
PPP/LCP MIB Link Control Protocol of PPP MIB
Elective 1471
X25-MIB Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 MIB
Elective 1461
SNMPv2 Coexistence between SNMPv1 and SNMPv2
Elective 1452
SNMPv2 Manager-to-Manager MIB
Elective 1451
SNMPv2 Management Information Base for SNMPv2
Elective 1450
SNMPv2 Transport Mappings for SNMPv2
Elective 1449
SNMPv2 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2
Elective 1448
SNMPv2 Party MIB for SNMPv2
Elective 1447
SNMPv2 Security Protocols for SNMPv2
Elective 1446
SNMPv2 Administrative Model for SNMPv2
Elective 1445
SNMPv2 Conformance Statements for SNMPv2
Elective 1444
SNMPv2 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2
Elective 1443

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 23]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

SNMPv2 SMI for SNMPv2

Elective 1442
SNMPv2 Introduction to SNMPv2
Elective 1441
PEM-KEY PEM - Key Certification
Elective 1424
PEM-ALG PEM - Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers
Elective 1423
PEM-CKM PEM - Certificate-Based Key Management
Elective 1422
PEM-ENC PEM - Message Encryption and Auth
Elective 1421
SNMP-IPX SNMP over IPX
Elective 1420
SNMP-AT SNMP over AppleTalk
Elective 1419
SNMP-OSI SNMP over OSI
Elective 1418
FTP-FTAM FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification
Elective 1415
IDENT-MIB Identification MIB
Elective 1414
IDENT Identification Protocol
Elective 1413
DS3/E3-MIB DS3/E3 Interface Type
Elective 1407
DS1/E1-MIB DS1/E1 Interface Type
Elective 1406
BGP-OSPF BGP OSPF Interaction
Elective 1403
-------- Route Advertisement In BGP2 And BGP3
Elective 1397
SNMP-X.25 SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 Packet Layer
Elective 1382
SNMP-LAPB SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 LAPB
Elective 1381
PPP-ATCP PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol
Elective 1378
PPP-OSINLCP PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol
Elective 1377
TABLE-MIB IP Forwarding Table MIB
Elective 1354
SNMP-PARTY-MIB Administration of SNMP
Elective 1353
SNMP-SEC SNMP Security Protocols
Elective 1352
SNMP-ADMIN SNMP Administrative Model
Elective 1351
TOS Type of Service in the Internet
Elective 1349
PPP-AUTH PPP Authentication
Elective 1334
PPP-LINK PPP Link Quality Monitoring
Elective 1333
PPP-IPCP PPP Control Protocol
Elective 1332
------- X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading
Elective 1328
------- Mapping between X.400(1988)
Elective 1327
TCP-EXT TCP Extensions for High Performance
Elective 1323
FRAME-MIB Management Information Base for Frame
Elective 1315
NETFAX File Format for the Exchange of Images
Elective 1314
IARP Inverse Address Resolution Protocol
Elective 1293
FDDI-MIB FDDI-MIB
Elective 1285
------- Encoding Network Addresses
Elective 1277
------- Replication and Distributed Operations
Elective 1276
------- COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema
Elective 1274
BGP-MIB Border Gateway Protocol MIB (Version 3)
Elective 1269
ICMP-ROUT ICMP Router Discovery Messages
Elective 1256
OSPF-MIB OSPF Version 2 MIB
Elective 1253
IPSO DoD Security Options for IP
Elective 1108
OSI-UDP OSI TS on UDP
Elective 1240
STD-MIBs Reassignment of Exp MIBs to Std MIBs
Elective 1239
IPX-IP Tunneling IPX Traffic through IP Nets
Elective 1234
GINT-MIB Extensions to the Generic-Interface MIB
Elective 1229
IS-IS OSI IS-IS for TCP/IP Dual Environments
Elective 1195
IP-CMPRS Compressing TCP/IP Headers
Elective 1144

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 24]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

NNTP Network News Transfer Protocol

Elective 977

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change

from the
previous edition of this document.]

Applicability Statements:

OSPF - RFC 1370 is an applicability statement for OSPF.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 25]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

6.6. Telnet Options

For convenience, all the Telnet Options are collected here

with both
their state and status.

Protocol Name Number State

Status RFC STD
======== ===================================== =====
====== ==== ===
TOPT-BIN Binary Transmission 0 Std
Rec 856 27
TOPT-ECHO Echo 1 Std
Rec 857 28
TOPT-RECN Reconnection 2 Prop
Ele ...
TOPT-SUPP Suppress Go Ahead 3 Std
Rec 858 29
TOPT-APRX Approx Message Size Negotiation 4 Prop
Ele ...
TOPT-STAT Status 5 Std
Rec 859 30
TOPT-TIM Timing Mark 6 Std
Rec 860 31
TOPT-REM Remote Controlled Trans and Echo 7 Prop
Ele 726
TOPT-OLW Output Line Width 8 Prop
Ele ...
TOPT-OPS Output Page Size 9 Prop
Ele ...
TOPT-OCRD Output Carriage-Return Disposition 10 Prop
Ele 652
TOPT-OHT Output Horizontal Tabstops 11 Prop
Ele 653
TOPT-OHTD Output Horizontal Tab Disposition 12 Prop
Ele 654
TOPT-OFD Output Formfeed Disposition 13 Prop
Ele 655
TOPT-OVT Output Vertical Tabstops 14 Prop
Ele 656
TOPT-OVTD Output Vertical Tab Disposition 15 Prop
Ele 657
TOPT-OLD Output Linefeed Disposition 16 Prop
Ele 658
TOPT-EXT Extended ASCII 17 Prop
Ele 698
TOPT-LOGO Logout 18 Prop
Ele 727
TOPT-BYTE Byte Macro 19 Prop
Ele 735
TOPT-DATA Data Entry Terminal 20 Prop
Ele 1043
TOPT-SUP SUPDUP 21 Prop
Ele 736
TOPT-SUPO SUPDUP Output 22 Prop
Ele 749
TOPT-SNDL Send Location 23 Prop
Ele 779
TOPT-TERM Terminal Type 24 Prop
Ele 1091
TOPT-EOR End of Record 25 Prop
Ele 885
TOPT-TACACS TACACS User Identification 26 Prop
Ele 927
TOPT-OM Output Marking 27 Prop
Ele 933
TOPT-TLN Terminal Location Number 28 Prop
Ele 946
TOPT-3270 Telnet 3270 Regime 29 Prop
Ele 1041
TOPT-X.3 X.3 PAD 30 Prop
Ele 1053
TOPT-NAWS Negotiate About Window Size 31 Prop
Ele 1073
TOPT-TS Terminal Speed 32 Prop
Ele 1079
TOPT-RFC Remote Flow Control 33 Prop
Ele 1372
TOPT-LINE Linemode 34 Draft
Ele 1184
TOPT-XDL X Display Location 35 Prop
Ele 1096
TOPT-ENVIR Telnet Environment Option 36 Hist
Not 1408
TOPT-AUTH Telnet Authentication Option 37 Exp
Ele 1416
TOPT-ENVIR Telnet Environment Option 39 Prop
Ele 1572
TOPT-EXTOP Extended-Options-List 255 Std
Rec 861 32

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 26]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change

from the
previous edition of this document.]

6.7. Experimental Protocols

All Experimental protocols have the Limited Use status.

Protocol Name
RFC
======== =====================================
=====
------- Content-Disposition Header
1806*
------- Schema Publishing in X.500 Directory
1804*
------- X.400-MHS use X.500 to support X.400-MHS
Routing 1801*
------- Class A Subnet Experiment
1797*
TCP/IPXMIB TCP/IPX Connection Mib Specification
1792*
------- TCP And UDP Over IPX Networks With Fixed Path
MTU 1791*
ICMP-DM ICMP Domain Name Messages
1788*
CLNP-MULT Host Group Extensions for CLNP Multicasting
1768
OSPF-OVFL OSPF Database Overflow
1765
RWP Remote Write ProtocolL - Version 1.0
1756
NARP NBMA Address Resolution Protocol
1735
DNS-DEBUG Tools for DNS debugging
1713
DNS-ENCODE DNS Encoding of Geographical Location
1712
TCP-POS An Extension to TCP: Partial Order Service
1693
------- DNS to Distribute RFC1327 Mail Address Mapping
Tables 1664
T/TCP TCP Extensions for Transactions
1644
UTF-7 A Mail-Safe Transformation Format of Unicode
1642
MIME-UNI Using Unicode with MIME
1641
FOOBAR FTP Operation Over Big Address Records
1639
X500-CHART Charting Networks in the X.500 Directory
1609
X500-DIR Representing IP Information in the X.500
Directory 1608
SNMP-DPI SNMP Distributed Protocol Interface
1592
CLNP-TUBA Use of ISO CLNP in TUBA Environments
1561
REM-PRINT TPC.INT Subdomain Remote Printing - Technical
1528
EHF-MAIL Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages
1505
REM-PRT An Experiment in Remote Printing
1486
RAP Internet Route Access Protocol
1476
TP/IX TP/IX: The Next Internet
1475
X400 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services
1465
DNS Storing Arbitrary Attributes in DNS
1464
IRCP Internet Relay Chat Protocol
1459
TOS-LS Link Security TOS
1455
SIFT/UFT Sender-Initiated/Unsolicited File Transfer
1440
DIR-ARP Directed ARP
1433
TEL-SPX Telnet Authentication: SPX
1412
TEL-KER Telnet Authentication: Kerberos V4
1411
MAP-MAIL X.400 Mapping and Mail-11
1405
TRACE-IP Traceroute Using an IP Option
1393
DNS-IP Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing
1383

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 27]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

RMCP Remote Mail Checking Protocol

1339
TCP-HIPER TCP Extensions for High Performance
1323
MSP2 Message Send Protocol 2
1312
DSLCP Dynamically Switched Link Control
1307
-------- X.500 and Domains
1279
IN-ENCAP Internet Encapsulation Protocol
1241
CLNS-MIB CLNS-MIB
1238
CFDP Coherent File Distribution Protocol
1235
SNMP-DPI SNMP Distributed Program Interface
1228
IP-AX.25 IP Encapsulation of AX.25 Frames
1226
ALERTS Managing Asynchronously Generated Alerts
1224
MPP Message Posting Protocol
1204
ST-II Stream Protocol
1190
SNMP-BULK Bulk Table Retrieval with the SNMP
1187
DNS-RR New DNS RR Definitions
1183
IMAP2 Interactive Mail Access Protocol
1176
NTP-OSI NTP over OSI Remote Operations
1165
DMF-MAIL Digest Message Format for Mail
1153
RDP Reliable Data Protocol
908,1151
TCP-ACO TCP Alternate Checksum Option
1146
-------- Mapping full 822 to Restricted 822
1137
IP-DVMRP IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing
1075
VMTP Versatile Message Transaction Protocol
1045
COOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme
1004
NETBLT Bulk Data Transfer Protocol
998
IRTP Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol
938
LDP Loader Debugger Protocol
909
RLP Resource Location Protocol
887
NVP-II Network Voice Protocol
ISI-memo
PVP Packet Video Protocol
ISI-memo

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change

from the
previous edition of this document.]
Internet Architecture Board
[Page 28]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

6.8. Informational Protocols

Information protocols have no status.

Protocol Name
RFC
======= ====================================
=====
NFSV3 NFS Version 3 Protocol Specification
1813*
-------- A Format for Bibliographic Records
1807*
SDMD IPv4 Option for Sender Directed MD Delivery
1770
SNTP Simple Network Time Protocol
1769
SNOOP Snoop Version 2 Packet Capture File Format
1761
BINHEX MIME Content Type for BinHex Encoded Files
1741
RWHOIS Referral Whois Protocol
1714
DNS-NSAP DNS NSAP Resource Records
1706
RADIO-PAGE TPC.INT Subdomain: Radio Paging -- Technical
Procedures 1703
GRE-IPv4 Generic Routing Encapsulation over IPv4
1702
GRE Generic Routing Encapsulatio
1701
SNPP Simple Network Paging Protocol - Version 2
1645
IPXWAN Novell IPX Over Various WAN Media
1634
ADSNA-IP Advanced SNA/IP: A Simple SNA Transport
Protocol 1538
AUBR Appletalk Update-Based Routing Protocol...
1504
TACACS Terminal Access Control Protocol
1492
SUN-NFS Network File System Protocol
1094
SUN-RPC Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2
1057
GOPHER The Internet Gopher Protocol
1436
------- Data Link Switching: Switch-to-Switch Protocol
1434
LISTSERV Listserv Distribute Protocol
1429
------- Replication Requirements
1275
PCMAIL Pcmail Transport Protocol
1056
MTP Multicast Transport Protocol
1301
BSD Login BSD Login
1282
DIXIE DIXIE Protocol Specification
1249
IP-X.121 IP to X.121 Address Mapping for DDN
1236
OSI-HYPER OSI and LLC1 on HYPERchannel
1223
HAP2 Host Access Protocol
1221
SUBNETASGN On the Assignment of Subnet Numbers
1219
SNMP-TRAPS Defining Traps for use with SNMP
1215
DAS Directory Assistance Service
1202
MD4 MD4 Message Digest Algorithm
1186
LPDP Line Printer Daemon Protocol
1179

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change

from the
previous edition of this document.]

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 29]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

6.9. Historic Protocols

All Historic protocols have Not Recommended status.

Protocol Name
RFC STD
======== =====================================
===== ===
BGP3 Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3)
1267,1268 *
-------- Gateway Requirements Req
1009 4
EGP Exterior Gateway Protocol Rec
904 18
SNMP-MUX SNMP MUX Protocol and MIB
1227
OIM-MIB-II OSI Internet Management: MIB-II
1214
IMAP3 Interactive Mail Access Protocol Version 3
1203
SUN-RPC Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 1
1050
802.4-MIP IEEE 802.4 Token Bus MIB
1230
CMOT Common Management Information Services
1189
-------- Mail Privacy: Procedures
1113
-------- Mail Privacy: Key Management
1114
-------- Mail Privacy: Algorithms
1115
NFILE A File Access Protocol
1037
HOSTNAME HOSTNAME Protocol
953
SFTP Simple File Transfer Protocol
913
SUPDUP SUPDUP Protocol
734
BGP Border Gateway Protocol
1163,1164
MIB-I MIB-I
1156
SGMP Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol
1028
HEMS High Level Entity Management Protocol
1021
STATSRV Statistics Server
996
POP2 Post Office Protocol, Version 2
937
RATP Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol
916
HFEP Host - Front End Protocol
929
THINWIRE Thinwire Protocol
914
HMP Host Monitoring Protocol
869
GGP Gateway Gateway Protocol
823
RTELNET Remote Telnet Service
818
CLOCK DCNET Time Server Protocol
778
MPM Internet Message Protocol
759
NETRJS Remote Job Service
740
NETED Network Standard Text Editor
569
RJE Remote Job Entry
407
XNET Cross Net Debugger
IEN-158
NAMESERVER Host Name Server Protocol
IEN-116
MUX Multiplexing Protocol
IEN-90
GRAPHICS Graphics Protocol
NIC-24308

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change

from the
previous edition of this document.]

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 30]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

6.10. Obsolete Protocols

Some of the protocols listed in this memo are described in

RFCs that are
obsoleted by newer RFCs. "Obsolete" or "obsoleted" is not
an official
state or status of protocols. This subsection is for
information only.

While it may seem to be obviously wrong to have an

obsoleted RFC in the
list of standards, there may be cases when an older
standard is in the
process of being replaced. This process may take a year
or two.

For example, the Network Time Protocol (NTP) [RFC 1119] is

in its
version 2 a full Standard, and in its version 3 is a Draft
Standard [RFC
1305]. Once version 3 is a full Standard, version 2 will
be made
Historic.

Many obsoleted protocols are of little interest and are

dropped from
this memo altogether. Some obsoleted protocols have
received enough
recognition that it seems appropriate to list them under
their current
status and with the following reference to their current
replacement.

RFC RFC Status Title

*
==== ==== =========
=================================== =
1661 obsoletes 1548 Draft /Ele The Point to Point
Protocol (PPP) *
1305 obsoletes 1119 Std /Rec Network Time Protocol
(Version 2)
1533 obsoletes 1497 Draft/Rec Bootstrap Protocol
1574 obsoletes 1139 Prop /Ele Echo for ISO-8473
1573 obsoletes 1229 Prop /Ele Extensions to the Generic-
IF MIB
1559 obsoletes 1289 Prop /Ele DECNET MIB
1541 obsoletes 1531 Prop /Ele Dynamic Host Configuration
Protocol
1592 obsoletes 1228 Exper/Lim SNMP Distributed Program
Interface
1528 obsoletes 1486 Exper/Lim An Experiment in Remote
Printing
1320 obsoletes 1186 Info / MD4 Message Digest
Algorithm
1057 obsoletes 1050 Hist /Not Remote Procedure Call
Version 1
1421 obsoletes 1113 Hist /Not Mail Privacy: Procedures
1422 obsoletes 1114 Hist /Not Mail Privacy: Key
Management
1423 obsoletes 1115 Hist /Not Mail Privacy: Algorithms
1267 obsoletes 1163 Hist /Not Border Gateway Protocol
1268 obsoletes 1164 Hist /Not Border Gateway Protocol
Thanks to Lynn Wheeler of Britton Lee for compiling the
information in
this subsection.

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change

from the
previous edition of this document.]

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 31]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

7. Contacts

7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts

7.1.1. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact

Please send your comments about this list of protocols

and especially
about the Draft Standard Protocols to the Internet
Architecture Board
care of Abel Winerib, IAB Executive Director.

Contacts:

Abel Winerib
Executive Director of the IAB
Intel, JF2-64
2111 NE 25th Avenue
Hillsboro, OR 97124

1-503-696-8972

[email protected]

Christian Huitema
Chair of the IAB
INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis
2004 Route des Lucioles
BP 109
F-06561 Valbonne Cedex
France

+33 93 65 77 15
 [email protected]

7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact

Contacts:

Paul Mockapetris
Chair of the IETF
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695

1-310-822-1511

[email protected]

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 32]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

Steve Coya
IESG Secretary
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
Reston, VA 22091

1-703-620-8990

[email protected]

Steve Coya
Executive Director of the IETF
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
Reston, VA 22091

1-703-620-8990

[email protected]

7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact

Contact:

Abel Winerib
Chair of the IRTF
 Intel, JF2-64
2111 NE 25th Avenue
Hillsboro, OR 97124

1-503-696-8972

[email protected]

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 33]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Contact

Contact:

Joyce K. Reynolds
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695

1-310-822-1511
begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              310-822-1511  
    end_of_the_skype_highlighting

[email protected]

The protocol standards are managed by the Internet

Assigned Numbers
Authority.

Please refer to the document "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-

1700) for
further information about the status of protocol
documents. There
are two documents that summarize the requirements for
host and
gateways in the Internet, "Host Requirements" (RFC-1122
and RFC-1123)
and "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers" (RFC-1812).

How to obtain the most recent edition of this

"Internet Official
Protocol Standards" memo:

The file "in-notes/std/std1.txt" may be copied

via FTP from the
FTP.ISI.EDU computer using the FTP username
"anonymous" and FTP
password "guest".

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 34]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact

Contact:

Jon Postel
RFC Editor
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695

1-310-822-1511

[email protected]

Documents may be submitted via electronic mail to the

RFC Editor for
consideration for publication as RFC. If you are not
familiar with
the format or style requirements please request the
"Instructions for
RFC Authors". In general, the style of any recent RFC
may be used as
a guide.

7.4. The Network Information Center and

Requests for Comments Distribution Contact

RFC's may be obtained from DS.INTERNIC.NET via FTP,

WAIS, and
electronic mail. Through FTP, RFC's are stored as
rfc/rfcnnnn.txt
or rfc/rfcnnnn.ps where 'nnnn' is the RFC number.
Login as
"anonymous" and provide your e-mail address as the
password.
Through WAIS, you may use either your local WAIS
client or telnet
to DS.INTERNIC.NET and login as "wais" (no password
required) to
access a WAIS client. Help information and a
tutorial for using
WAIS are available online. The WAIS database to
search is "rfcs".

Directory and Database Services also provides a mail

server
interface. Send a mail message to
[email protected] and
include any of the following commands in the message
body:

document-by-name rfcnnnn where 'nnnn' is the

RFC number
The text version is
sent.

file /ftp/rfc/rfcnnnn.yyy where 'nnnn' is the

RFC number.
and 'yyy' is 'txt'
or 'ps'.

help to get information

on how to use
the mailserver.

The InterNIC directory and database services

collection of
resource listings, internet documents such as RFCs,
FYIs, STDs,
and Internet Drafts, and publicly accessible
databases are also

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 35]

RFC 1800 Internet Standards

July 1995

now available via Gopher. All our collections are

WAIS indexed
and can be searched from the Gopher menu.

To access the InterNIC Gopher Servers, please

connect to
"internic.net" port 70.

Contact: [email protected]
7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments

Details on many sources of RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be

obtained by
sending an EMAIL message to "[email protected]" with the
message body
"help: ways_to_get_rfcs". For example:

To: [email protected]
Subject: getting rfcs

help: ways_to_get_rfcs

8. Security Considerations

Security issues are not addressed in this memo.

9. Author's Address

Jon Postel
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292

Phone: 310-822-1511
Fax: 310-823-6714

Email: [email protected]

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 36]
Copyright © 2011 • Packetizer, Inc.