faqs.org - Internet FAQ Archives

RFC 1140 - IAB official protocol standards


Or Display the document by number




Network Working Group                          Internet Activities Board
Request for Comments: 1140                             J. Postel, Editor
Obsoletes: RFCs 1130,                                           May 1990
          1100, 1083

                    IAB 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 Activities Board (IAB).
   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Table of Contents

   Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
   1.  The Standardization Process  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
   2.  The Request for Comments Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   3.  Other Reference Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   3.1.  Assigned Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   3.2.  Annotated Internet Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   3.3.  Gateway Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   3.4.  Host Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   3.5.  The MIL-STD Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   4.  Explanation of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   4.1.  Definitions of Protocol State  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   4.1.1.  Standard Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   4.1.2.  Draft Standard Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   4.1.3.  Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   4.1.4.  Experimental Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   4.1.5.  Historic Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   4.2.  Definitions of Protocol Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   4.2.1.  Required Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.1.  The RFC Processing Decision Table  . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.2.  The Standards Track Diagram  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  The Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.1.  Recent Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.1.1.  New RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.1.2.  Other Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   6.2.  Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18

   6.3.  Network-Specific Standard Protocols  . . . . . . . . . .  19
   6.4.  Draft Standard Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   6.5.  Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   6.6.  Experimental Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   6.7.  Historic Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   7.  Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   7.1.  IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   7.1.1.  Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact  . . . . . . .  23
   7.1.2.  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . .  23
   7.1.3.  Internet Research  Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . .  24
   7.2.  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . .  24
   7.3.  Request for Comments Editor Contact  . . . . . . . . . .  25
   7.4.  Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   7.5.  Other Sources for Requests for Comments  . . . . . . . .  26
   7.5.1.  NSF Network Service Center (NNSC)  . . . . . . . . . .  26
   7.5.2.  NSF Network Information Service (NIS)  . . . . . . . .  26
   7.5.3.  CSNET Coordination and Information Center (CIC)  . . .  26
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   9.  Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27

Introduction

   Discussion of the standardization process and the RFC document series
   is presented first, then the explanation of the terms is presented,
   the lists of protocols in each stage of standardization follows and
   finally come pointers to references and contacts for further
   information.

   This memo is issued quarterly, please be sure the copy you are
   reading is dated within the last three months.  Current copies may be
   obtained from the Network Information Center or from the Internet
   Assigned Numbers Authority (see the contact information at the end of
   this memo).  Do not use this edition after 31-Aug-90.

   See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes.

1.  The Standardization Process

   The Internet Activities Board maintains this list of documents that
   define standards for the Internet protocol suite (see RFC-1120 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)).  The IAB provides 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 majority of Internet protocol development and standardization

   activity takes place in the working groups of the Internet
   Engineering Task Force.

   Protocols which are to become standards in the Internet go through a
   series of states (proposed standard, draft standard, and standard)
   involving increasing amounts of scrutiny and experimental testing.
   At each step, the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) of the
   IETF must make a recommendation for advancement of the protocol and
   the IAB must ratify it.  If a recommendation is not ratified, the
   protocol is remanded to the IETF for further work.

   To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react to
   standardization proposals, the IAB imposes a minimum delay of 4
   months before a proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard
   and 6 months before a draft standard can be promoted to standard.

   It is general IAB 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 the IAB may convene a special review committee
   consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB with the
   purpose of recommending an explicit action to the IAB.

   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 the IAB believes 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.

   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
   IAB encourages the documentation of such experimental work in the RFC
   series, 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, and the IAB has approved
   this step.

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

   In addition to a state (like "proposed standard") a protocol is also
   assigned a status, or requirement level.  A protocol can be required,
   meaning that all systems in the Internet must implement it.  For
   example, the Internet Protocol (IP) is required.  A protocol may be
   recommended, meaning that systems should implement this protocol.  A
   protocol may be elective, meaning that systems may implement this
   protocol; that is, if (and only if) the functionality of this
   protocol is needed or useful for a system it must use this protocol
   to provide the functionality.  A protocol may be termed limited use
   or even not recommended if it is not intended to be generally
   implemented; for example, experimental or historic protocols.

   When a protocol is on the standards track, that is in the proposed
   standard, draft standard, or standard state (see Section 5), the
   status is the current status.  However, the IAB will also endeavor to
   indicate the eventual status this protocol will have when the
   standardization is completed.

   The IAB realizes that a one word label is not sufficient to
   characterize the implementation requirements for a protocol in all
   situations.  In many cases, an additional paragraph about the status
   will be provided, and in some cases reference will be made to
   separate requirements documents.

   Few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems.  This is
   because there is such a variety of possible systems; for example,
   gateways, terminal servers, workstations, multi-user hosts.  It is
   not necessary for a gateway to implement TCP or the protocols that

   use TCP (though it may be useful).  It is expected that general
   purpose hosts will implement at least IP (including ICMP and IGMP),
   TCP and UDP, Telnet, FTP, NTP, SMTP, Mail, and the Domain Name System
   (DNS).

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).

   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 such as
   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 both the IESG and the IAB.  For documents describing
   experimental work, the RFC Editor will typically request review
   comments from the relevant IETF working group or IRTF research group
   and provide those comments to the author prior to committing to
   publication.  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 "IAB Official Protocol Standards" memo is
   the reference for determining the correct RFC to refer to for the
   current specification of each protocol.

   The RFCs are available from the Network Information Center at SRI

   International, 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 four other reference documents of interest in checking the
   current status of protocol specifications and standardization.  These
   are the Assigned Numbers, the Annotated Internet Protocols, 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 3.5.

3.1.  Assigned Numbers

   This 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-1060.

   Another document, Internet Numbers, lists the assigned IP network
   numbers, and the autonomous system numbers.  Internet Numbers was
   most recently issued as RFC-1117.

3.2.  Annotated Internet Protocols

   This document lists the protocols and describes any known problems
   and ongoing experiments.  This document was most recently issued as
   RFC-1011 under the title "Official Internet Protocols".

3.3.  Gateway Requirements

   This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways and
   supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities.  Gateway
   Requirements is RFC-1009.  A working group of the IETF is actively
   preparing a revision.

3.4.  Host Requirements

   This pair of documents reviews the specifications that apply to hosts
   and supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities.  Host
   Requirements was recently issued as RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.

3.5.  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 DCA and to
   the IAB.  The RFCs and the MIL-STDs for IP and TCP differ in style
   and level of detail.  It is strongly advised that the two sets of
   documents be used together.

   The IAB and the DoD MIL-STD specifications for the FTP, SMTP, and
   Telnet protocols are essentially the same documents (RFCs 765, 821,
   854).  The MIL-STD versions have been edited slightly.  Note that the
   current Internet specification for FTP is RFC-959.

          Internet Protocol (IP)                      MIL-STD-1777
          Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)         MIL-STD-1778
          File Transfer Protocol (FTP)                MIL-STD-1780
          Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)        MIL-STD-1781
          Telnet Protocol and Options (TELNET)        MIL-STD-1782

   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.  These five documents are included in the 1985 DDN Protocol
   Handbook (available from the Network Information Center, see Section
   7.4).

          Naval Publications and Forms Center, Code 3015
          5801 Tabor Ave
          Philadelphia, PA 19120
          Phone: 1-215-697-3321 (order tape)
                 1-215-697-4834 (conversation)

4.  Explanation of Terms

   There are two independent categorization of protocols.  The first is
   the STATE of standardization which is one of "standard", "draft
   standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic".  The
   second is the STATUS of this protocol which is one of "required",
   "recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".

   The IAB notes that 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 should be
   consulted.

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

   it is labeled with a current status and when possible, the IAB also
   notes the status that that protocol is expected to have when it
   reaches the standard state.

   At any given time a protocol is 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, not recommended) cell.

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

   There are two independent categorizations of protocols.  The first is
   the STATE of standardization, which is one of "standard", "draft
   standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic".

   4.1.1.  Standard Protocol

      The IAB has established this as an official standard protocol for
      the Internet.  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 IAB 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
      IAB.  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 IAB 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.  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

      There are two independent categorizations of protocols.  The
      second is the STATUS of this protocol which 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 IAB 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 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       |          |          |  or RG   |          |
      +==========================================================+
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      | Full or      |  Publish |  Vote    |  Bogus   |  Bogus   |
      | Draft        |   (1)    |   (3)    |   (2)    |   (2)    |
      | Standard     |          |          |          |          |
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      |              |  Publish |  Vote    |  Refer   |  Refer   |
      | Proposed     |   (1)    |   (3)    |   (4)    |   (4)    |
      | Standard     |          |          |          |          |
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      |              |  Publish |  Notify  |  Notify  |  Notify  |
      | Experimental |   (1)    |   (5)    |   (5)    |   (5)    |
      | Protocol     |          |          |          |          |
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      | Information  |  Publish |Discretion|Discretion|Discretion|
      | or Opinion   |   (1)    |   (6)    |   (6)    |   (6)    |
      | Paper        |          |          |          |          |
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      +==========================================================+

      (1) Publish.

      (2) Bogus.  Inform the source of the rules.  RFCs specifying
          Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IAB, only.

      (3) Vote by the IAB.  If approved then do Publish (1), else do
          Refer (4).

      (4) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG.  Expect to see
          the document again only after approval by the IESG and the
          IAB.

      (5) Notify both the IESG and IRSG.  If no protest in 1 week then
          do Discretion (6), else do undefined.

      (6) 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 Greg Vaudreuil as its agent for forwarding
   documents with IESG approval and for registering protest in response
   to notifications (5) 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 be changed 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 four months for proposed standard, minimum
   six 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 by action of the IAB; and may move from one state to
   another along the track only on the recommendation of the IESG and by
   action of the IAB.  That is, it takes both the IESG and the IAB 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 (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 IAB on the recommendation of the IESG and
   only after the protocol has been proposed standard (1) for at least
   four months.

   The transition from draft standard (2) to standard (3) can only be by
   action of the IAB on the recommendation of the IESG and only after
   the protocol has been draft standard (2) for at least six 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
   IAB action.

   Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus becomes
   historic, 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

   This section lists the standards in groups by protocol state.

6.1.  Recent Changes

6.1.1.  New RFCs:

      1157 - Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)

             Advanced to Recommended Standard protocol.  Replaces 1098.

      1156 - Management Information Base (MIB)

             Advanced to Recommended Standard protocol.  Replaces 1066.

      1155 - Structure of Management Information (SMI)

             Advanced to Recommended Standard protocol.  Replaces 1065.

      1154 - Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages

             This is a new Elective Experimental protocol.

      1153 - Digest Message Format

             This is a new Elective Experimental protocol.

      1152 - Workshop Report: Internet Research Steering Group Workshop
             on Very-High-Speed Networks

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1151 - Version 2 of the Reliable Data Protocol (RDP)

             This is an update to a Not-recommended Experimental
             protocol.

      1150 - FYI on FYI

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1149 - A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian
             Carriers

             This describes an implementation technique, and does not

             specify any level of standard.

      1148 - Mapping between X.400(88) and RFC 822

             This is a new Elective Experimental protocol (corrects
             editing errors in 1138).

      1147 - FYI on a Network Management Tool Catalog

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1146 - TCP Alternative Checksum Options

             This is a new Not-recommended Experimental protocol
             (corrects editing errors in 1145).

      1145 - TCP Alternate Checksum Options

             This is a new Not-recommended Experimental protocol.

      1144 - Compressing TCP/IP Headers for Low-Speed Serial Links

             This is a new Elective Proposed Standard protocol.

      1143 - The Q Method of Implementing TELNET Option Negotiation

             This describes an implementation technique.

      1142 - < not issued yet >

      1141 - Incremental Updating of the Internet Checksum

             This describes an implementation technique.

      1140 - IAB Official Protocol Standards

             This memo.

      1139 - An Echo Function for ISO 8473

             This is a new Elective Proposed Standard protocol.

      1138 - Mapping between X.400(88) and RFC 822

             This is a new Elective Experimental protocol (replaced by
             1148).

      1137 - Mapping Between Full RFC 822 and RFC 822 with Restricted
             Encoding

             This is a new Elective Experimental protocol.

      1136 - Administrative Domains and Routing Domains: A Model for
             Routing in the Internet

             This is a discussion document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1135 - The Helminthiasis of the Internet

             This is a discussion document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1134 - The Point-to-Point Protocol: A Proposal for Multi-Protocol
             Transmission of Datagrams Over Point-to-Point Links

             This is a new Elective Proposed Standard protocol.

      1133 - Routing between the NSFNET and the DDN

             This is a discussion document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1132 - A Standard for the Transmission of 802.2 Packets over IPX
             Networks

             This is a new Elective Network-Specific Standard protocol,
             that is, a full Standard for a network-specific situation.

      1131 - The OSPF Specification

             This is a new Elective Proposed Standard protocol.

      1060 - Assigned Numbers

             The status report on assigned numbers and protocol
             parameters.

6.1.2.  Other Changes:

   The following are changes to protocols listed in the previous
   edition.

      1058 - Routing Information Protocol (RIP)

             Advanced to Elective Draft Standard protocol.

      1045 - Versatile Message Transaction Protocol (VMTP)

             Moved to Elective Experimental protocol.

      1006 - ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP (TP-TCP)

             Advanced to Elective Draft Standard protocol.

       996 - Statistics Server (STATSRV)

             Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.

       954 - WhoIs Protocol (NICNAME)

             Advanced to Elective Draft Standard protocol.

       937 - Post Office Protocol, Version 2 (POP2)

             Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.

       916 - Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol (RATP)

             Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.

       914 - Thinwire Protocol (THINWIRE)

             Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.

       818 - Remote Telnet Service (RTELNET)

             Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.

       569 - Network Standard Text Editor (NETED)

             Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.

       407 - Remote Job Entry (RJE)

             Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.

6.2.  Standard Protocols

Protocol   Name                                      Status          RFC
========   =====================================     ============== ====
--------   Assigned Numbers                          Required       1060
--------   Gateway Requirements                      Required       1009
--------   Host Requirements - Communications        Required       1122
--------   Host Requirements - Applications          Required       1123
IP         Internet Protocol                         Required        791
            as amended by:
--------     IP Subnet Extension                     Required        950
--------     IP Broadcast Datagrams                  Required        919
--------     IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets     Required        922
ICMP       Internet Control Message Protocol         Required        792
IGMP       Internet Group Multicast Protocol         Recommended    1112
UDP        User Datagram Protocol                    Recommended     768
TCP        Transmission Control Protocol             Recommended     793
SMI        Structure of Management Information       Recommended    1155
MIB        Management Information Base               Recommended    1156
SNMP       Simple Network Management Protocol        Recommended    1157
DOMAIN     Domain Name System                     Recommended  1034,1035
TELNET     Telnet Protocol                           Recommended     854
FTP        File Transfer Protocol                    Recommended     959
SMTP       Simple Mail Transfer Protocol             Recommended     821
MAIL       Format of Electronic Mail Messages        Recommended     822
CONTENT    Content Type Header Field                 Recommended    1049
EGP        Exterior Gateway Protocol                 Recommended     904
ECHO       Echo Protocol                             Recommended     862
NTP        Network Time Protocol                     Recommended    1119
NETBIOS    NetBIOS Service Protocols                 Elective  1001,1002
DISCARD    Discard Protocol                          Elective        863
CHARGEN    Character Generator Protocol              Elective        864
QUOTE      Quote of the Day Protocol                 Elective        865
USERS      Active Users Protocol                     Elective        866
DAYTIME    Daytime Protocol                          Elective        867
TIME       Time Server Protocol                      Elective        868

Notes:

   IGMP -- The Internet Activities 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, SNMP -- The Internet Activities Board recommends that all
   IP and TCP implementations be network manageable.  This implies
   implementation of the Internet MIB (RFC-1156) and at least one of the
   two recommended management protocols SNMP (RFC-1157) or CMOT (RFC-
   1095).  It should be noted that, at this time, SNMP is a full
   Internet standard and CMOT is a draft standard.  See also the Host
   and Gateway Requirements RFCs for more specific information on the
   applicability of this standard.

6.3.  Network-Specific Standard Protocols

Protocol   Name                                     Status           RFC
========   =====================================    =============== ====
ARP        Address Resolution Protocol              Elective         826
RARP       A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol    Elective         903
IP-ARPA    Internet Protocol on ARPANET             Elective    BBN 1822
IP-WB      Internet Protocol on Wideband Network    Elective         907
IP-X25     Internet Protocol on X.25 Networks       Elective         877
IP-E       Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks   Elective         894
IP-EE      Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets  Elective         895
IP-IEEE    Internet Protocol on IEEE 802            Elective        1042
IP-DC      Internet Protocol on DC Networks         Elective         891
IP-HC      Internet Protocol on Hyperchannel        Elective        1044
IP-ARC     Internet Protocol on ARCNET              Elective        1051
IP-SLIP    Transmission of IP over Serial Lines     Elective        1055
IP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS          Elective        1088
IP-FDDI    Transmission of IP over FDDI             Elective        1103
IP-IPX     Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks  Elective        1132

Notes:

   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
========   =====================================    =============== ====
--------   Mail Privacy: Procedures                 Elective        1113
--------   Mail Privacy: Key Management             Elective        1114
--------   Mail Privacy: Algorithms                 Elective        1115
CMOT       Common Management Information Services   Recommended     1095
           and Protocol over TCP/IP
BOOTP      Bootstrap Protocol                  Recommended 951,1048,1084
RIP        Routing Information Protocol             Elective        1058
TP-TCP     ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP  Elective        1006
NICNAME    WhoIs Protocol                           Elective         954
TFTP       Trivial File Transfer Protocol           Elective         783

Notes:

   CMOT -- The Internet Activities Board recommends that all IP and TCP
   implementations be network manageable.  This implies implementation
   of the Internet MIB (RFC-1156) and at least one of the two
   recommended management protocols SNMP (RFC-1157) or CMOT (RFC-1095).
   It should be noted that, at this time, SNMP is a full Internet
   standard and CMOT is a draft standard.  See also the Host and Router
   Requirements RFCs for more specific information on the applicability
   of this standard.

   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 developing 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".

6.5.  Proposed Standard Protocols

Protocol   Name                                     Status           RFC
========   =====================================    =============== ====
MIB-II     MIB-II                                   Elective        xxxx
IP-CMPRS   Compressing TCP/IP Headers               Elective        1144
--------   Echo for ISO-8473                        Elective        1139
PPP        Point to Point Protocol                  Elective        1134
OSPF       Open Shortest Path First Routing         Elective        1131
SUN-NFS    Network File System Protocol             Elective        1094
POP3       Post Office Protocol, Version 3          Elective   1081,1082
SUN-RPC    Remote Procedure Call Protocol           Elective        1057
PCMAIL     Pcmail Transport Protocol                Elective        1056
NFILE      A File Access Protocol                   Elective        1037
--------   Mapping between X.400(84) and RFC-822    Elective    987,1026
NNTP       Network News Transfer Protocol           Elective         977
HOSTNAME   HOSTNAME Protocol                        Elective         953
SFTP       Simple File Transfer Protocol            Elective         913
RLP        Resource Location Protocol               Elective         887
FINGER     Finger Protocol                          Elective         742
SUPDUP     SUPDUP Protocol                          Elective         734

Notes:

   This section is being reviewed by the IESG, which will recommend that
   some of these protocols be moved to either the draft standard, or the
   experimental or historic categories.

   MIB-II -- This memo defines a mandatory extension to the base MIB
   (RFC-1156) and is a Proposed Standard for the Internet community.
   The extensions described here are currently Elective, but when they
   become a standard, they will have the same status as RFC-1156, that
   is, Recommended.  The Internet Activities Board recommends that all
   IP and TCP implementations be network manageable.  This implies
   implementation of the Internet MIB (RFC-1156 and the extensions in
   RFC-xxxx) and at least one of the two recommended management
   protocols SNMP (RFC-1157) or CMOT (RFC-1095).

   PPP -- Point to Point Protocol is a method of sending IP over serial
   lines, which are a type of physical network.  It is expected that a
   system will support one or more physical networks and for each
   physical network supported the appropriate protocols from the
   network-specific standard protocols (Section 6.3) 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
   listed.  It is anticipated that PPP will be advanced to the network-
   specific standard protocol state in the future.

6.6.  Experimental Protocols

Protocol   Name                                     Status           RFC
========   =====================================    =============== ====
EHF-MAIL   Encoding Header Field for Mail           Elective        1154
DMF-MAIL   Digest Message Format for Mail           Elective        1153
RDP        Reliable Data Protocol                  Limited Use  908,1151
--------   Mapping between X.400(88) and RFC-822    Elective        1148
TCP-ACO    TCP Alternate Checksum Option            Not Recommended 1146
--------   Mapping full 822 to Restricted 822       Elective        1137
BGP        Border Gateway Protocol                  Limited Use     1105
IP-DVMRP   IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing     Not Recommended 1075
TCP-LDP    TCP Extensions for Long Delay Paths      Limited Use     1072
IMAP2      Interactive Mail Access Protocol         Limited Use     1064
IP-MTU     IP MTU Discovery Options                 Not Recommended 1063
VMTP       Versatile Message Transaction Protocol   Elective        1045
COOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme                    Not Recommended 1004
NETBLT     Bulk Data Transfer Protocol              Not Recommended  998
IRTP       Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol   Not Recommended  938
AUTH       Authentication Service                   Not Recommended  931
LDP        Loader Debugger Protocol                 Not Recommended  909
ST         Stream Protocol                          Limited Use  IEN-119
NVP-II     Network Voice Protocol                   Limited Use ISI-memo
PVP        Packet Video Protocol                    Limited Use ISI-memo

6.7.  Historic Protocols

Protocol   Name                                     Status           RFC
=======    =====================================    =============== ====
SGMP       Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol       Not Recommended 1028
HEMS       High Level Entity Management Protocol    Not Recommended 1021
STATSRV    Statistics Server                        Not Recommended  996
POP2       Post Office Protocol, Version 2          Not Recommended  937
RATP       Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol  Not Recommended  916
THINWIRE   Thinwire Protocol                        Not Recommended  914
HMP        Host Monitoring Protocol                 Not Recommended  869
GGP        Gateway Gateway Protocol                 Not Recommended  823
RTELNET    Remote Telnet Service                    Not Recommended  818
CLOCK      DCNET Time Server Protocol               Not Recommended  778
MPM        Internet Message Protocol                Not Recommended  759
NETRJS     Remote Job Service                       Not Recommended  740
NETED      Network Standard Text Editor             Not Recommended  569
RJE        Remote Job Entry                         Not Recommended  407
XNET       Cross Net Debugger                    Not Recommended IEN-158
NAMESERVER Host Name Server Protocol             Not Recommended IEN-116
MUX        Multiplexing Protocol                  Not Recommended IEN-90
GRAPHICS   Graphics Protocol                   Not Recommended NIC-24308

7.  Contacts

7.1.  IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts

   7.1.1.  Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact

      Contact:

         Bob Braden
         Executive Director of the IAB
         USC/Information Sciences Institute
         4676 Admiralty Way
         Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695

         1-213-822-1511

         Braden@ISI.EDU

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

   7.1.2.  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact

      Contact:

         Phill Gross
         Chair of the IETF
         Corporation for National Research Initiatives (NRI)
         1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
         Reston, VA 22091

         1-703-620-8990

         PGross@NRI.RESTON.VA.US

   7.1.3.  Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact

      Contact:

         David D. Clark
         Chair of the IRTF
         Massachusetts Institute of Technology
         Laboratory for Computer Science
         545 Main Street
         Cambridge, MA 02139

         1-617-253-6003

         ddc@LCS.MIT.EDU

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

         1-213-822-1511

         IANA@ISI.EDU

   The protocol standards are managed for the IAB by the Internet
   Assigned Numbers Authority.

   Please refer to the documents "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1060) and
   "Official Internet Protocols" (RFC-1011) 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 "Gateway
   Requirements" (RFC-1009).

      How to obtain the most recent edition of this "IAB Official
      Protocol Standards" memo:

         The file "in-notes/iab-standards.txt" may be copied via FTP
         from the VENERA.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

         1-213-822-1511

         Postel@ISI.EDU

   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

      Contact:

         DDN Network Information Center
         SRI International
         Room EJ291
         333 Ravenswood Avenue
         Menlo Park, CA  94025

         1-800-235-3155
         1-415-859-3695

         NIC@NIC.DDN.MIL

   The Network Information Center (NIC) provides many information
   services for the Internet community.  Among them is maintaining the
   Requests for Comments (RFC) library.

   RFCs can be obtained via FTP from NIC.DDN.MIL, with the pathname
   RFC:RFCnnnn.TXT where "nnnn" refers to the number of the RFC.  A list
   of all RFCs may be obtained by copying the file RFC:RFC-INDEX.TXT.
   Log in with FTP username ANONYMOUS and password GUEST.

   The NIC also provides an automatic mail service for those sites which
   cannot use FTP.  Address the request to SERVICE@NIC.DDN.MIL and in
   the subject field of the message indicate the file name, as in

   "Subject: SEND RFC:RFCnnnn.TXT".

   Some RFCs are now available in PostScript, these may be obtained from
   the NIC in a similar fashion by substituting ".PS" for ".TXT".

      How to obtain the most recent edition of this "IAB Official
      Protocol Standards" memo:

         The file RFC:IAB-STANDARDS.TXT may be copied via FTP from the
         NIC.DDN.MIL computer following the same procedures used to
         obtain RFCs.

7.5.  Other Sources for Requests for Comments

   7.5.1.  NSF Network Service Center (NNSC)

         NSF Network Service Center (NNSC)
         BBN Laboratories, Inc.
         10 Moulton St.
         Cambridge, MA 02238

         617-873-3400

         NNSC@NNSC.NSF.NET

   7.5.2.  NSF Network Information Service (NIS)

         NSF Network Information Service
         Merit Computer Network
         University of Michigan
         1075 Beal Avenue
         Ann Arbor, MI 48109

         313-763-4897

         INFO@NIS.NSF.NET

   7.5.3.  CSNET Coordination and Information Center (CIC)

         CSNET Coordination and Information Center
         BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation
         10 Moulton Street
         Cambridge, MA 02238

         617-873-2777

         INFO@SH.CS.NET

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: (213) 822-1511

   Email: Postel@ISI.EDU

 

User Contributions:

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

CAPTCHA