The Internet Architecture Board maintains this list of documents that
define standards for the Internet protocol suite. See RFC-1358 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 IAB provides these standards with the
Internet Architecture Board [Page 2]
RFC 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
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-1310.
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 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 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 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 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
Internet Architecture Board [Page 3]
RFC 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
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
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, 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. For a proposed or
draft standard, however, the IAB will also endeavor to indicate the
eventual status this protocol will have after adoption as a standard.
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, and multi-user hosts. The
Internet Architecture Board [Page 4]
RFC 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
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 is contained in separate requirements documents (see
Section 3).
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 1111).
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 both the IESG and the IAB. 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 "IAB Official Protocol Standards" memo is
the reference for determining the correct RFC for the current
Internet Architecture Board [Page 5]
RFC 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
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.
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.
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-1340.
Another document, Internet Numbers, lists the assigned IP network
numbers, and the autonomous system numbers. Internet Numbers was
most recently issued as RFC-1166.
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.
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.
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
Internet Architecture Board [Page 6]
RFC 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
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, along with RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.
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 (as modified by
RFC-1123).
Note that these MIL-STD are now somewhat out of date. The Gateway
Requirements (RFC-1009) and Host Requirements (RFC-1122, RFC-1123)
take precedence over both earlier RFCs and the MIL-STDs.
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.
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)
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 and when possible, the IAB also
notes the status that the protocol is expected to have when it
Internet Architecture Board [Page 7]
RFC 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
reaches the standard state.
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, not recommended) 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.
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 IAB 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.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 8]
RFC 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
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. Informational Protocol
Protocols developed by other standard organizations, or vendors,
or that are for other reasons outside the purview of the IAB, 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.
This document lists a "requirement level" or STATUS for each
protocol. The status is one of "required", "recommended",
"elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".
Internet Architecture Board [Page 9]
RFC 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
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.
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.
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.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 10]
RFC 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
+==========================================================+
|**************| S O U R C E |
+==========================================================+
| Desired | IAB | IESG | IRSG | Other |
| Status | | | | |
+==========================================================+
| | | | | |
| Standard | Publish | Vote | Bogus | Bogus |
| or | (1) | (3) | (2) | (2) |
| Draft | | | | |
| 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 concerns are raised in
two weeks then do Discretion (6), else RFC Editor to resolve
the concerns or do Refer (4).
(6) RFC Editor's discretion. The RFC Editor decides if a review
Internet Architecture Board [Page 11]
RFC 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
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 (5) to the RFC Editor. Documents from
Area Directors or Working Group Chairs may be considered in the same
way as documents from "other".
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 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 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, 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 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
|
+<----------------------------------------------+
| ^
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
six 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 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
IAB 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 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
1436 - The Internet Gopher Protocol
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1435 - IESG Advice from Experience with Path MTU Discovery
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1434 - Data Link Switching: Switch-to-Switch Protocol
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1433 - Directed ARP
An Experimental protocol.
1432 - Recent Internet Books
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1431 - DUA Metrics
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1430 - A Strategic Plan for Deploying an Internet X.500 Directory
Service
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1429 - Listserv Distribute Protocol
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 14]
RFC 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
1428 - Transition of Internet Mail from Just-Send-8 to 8bit-
SMTP/MIME
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1427 - SMTP Service Extension for Message Size Declaration
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1426 - SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1425 - SMTP Service Extensions
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1424 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part IV:
Key Certification and Related Services
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1423 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part III:
Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1422 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part II:
Certificate-Based Key Management
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1421 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part I:
Message Encryption and Authentication Procedures
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1420 - SNMP over IPX
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1419 - SNMP over AppleTalk
A Proposed Standard protocol.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 15]
RFC 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
1418 - SNMP over OSI
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1417 - NADF Standing Documents: A Brief Overview
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1416 - Telnet Authentication Option
An Experimental protocol.
1415 - FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1414 - Identification MIB
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1413 - Identification Protocol
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1412 - Telnet Authentication: SPX
An Experimental protocol.
1411 - Telnet Authentication: Kerberos Version 4
An Experimental protocol.
1410 - This memo.
1409 - Telnet Authentication Option
An Experimental protocol.
1408 - Telnet Environment Option
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1407 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the DS3/E3 Interface
Type
A Proposed Standard protocol.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 16]
RFC 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
1406 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the DS1 and E1 Interface
Types
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1405 - Mapping between X.400(1984/1988) and Mail-11 (DECnet mail)
An Experimental protocol.
1404 - A Model for Common Operational Statistics
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1403 - BGP OSPF Interaction
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1402 - There's Gold in them thar Networks! or Searching for
Treasure in all the Wrong Places
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1401 - Correspondence between the IAB and DISA on the use of DNS
throughout the Internet
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1400 - Not yet issued.
1399 - Not yet issued.
1398 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-like
Interface Types
A Draft Standard protocol.
1397 - Default Route Advertisement In BGP2 And BGP3 Versions Of
The Border Gateway Protocol
A Proposed Standard protocol.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 17]
RFC 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
1396 - The Process for Organization of Internet Standards Working
Group (POISED), Steve Crocker, Chair
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1395 - BOOTP Vendor Information Extensions
This is a status report.
1394 - Relationship of Telex Answerback Codes to Internet Domains
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1393 - Traceroute Using an IP Option
An Experimental protocol.
1392 - Internet Users' Glossary
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1391 - The Tao of IETF - A Guide for New Attendees of the Internet
Engineering Task Force
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1390 - Transmission of IP and ARP over FDDI Networks
A full Standard protocol.
1389 - RIP Version 2 MIB Extension
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1388 - RIP Version 2 - Carrying Additional Information
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1387 - RIP Version 2 Protocol Analysis
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 18]
RFC 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
1386 - The US Domain
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1385 - EIP: The Extended Internet Protocol A Framework for
Maintaining Backward Compatibility
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1384 - Naming Guidelines for Directory Pilots
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1383 - An Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing
An Experimental protocol.
1382 - SNMP MIB Extension for the X.25 Packet Layer
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1381 - SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 LAPB
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1380 - IESG Deliberations on Routing and Addressing
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1379 - Extending TCP for Transactions -- Concepts
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1378 - The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1377 - The PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol (OSINLCP)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 19]
RFC 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
1376 - The PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol (DNCP)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1375 - Suggestion for New Classes of IP Addresses
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1374 - IP and ARP on HIPPI
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1373 - PORTABLE DUAs
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1372 - Telnet Remote Flow Control Option
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1371 - Choosing a "Common IGP" for the IP Internet (The IESG's
Recommendation to the IAB)
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1370 - Applicability Statement for OSPF
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1369 - Implementation Notes and Experience for The Internet
Ethernet MIB
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1368 - Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.3 Repeater
Devices
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1367 - Schedule for IP Address Space Management Guidelines
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 20]
RFC 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
1366 - Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1365 - An IP Address Extension Proposal
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1364 - BGP OSPF Interaction
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1363 - A Proposed Flow Specification
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1362 - Novell IPX Over Various WAN Media (IPXWAN)
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1334 - PPP Authentication Protocols
A Proposed Standard protocol.
The following are changes to protocols listed in the previous
edition.
1305 - Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Specification,
Implementation and Analysis
Elevated to Draft Standard.
1230 - IEEE 802.4 Token Bus MIB
Moved to Historic.
1212 - Concise MIB Definitions
Elevated to full Standard.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 21]
RFC 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
1191 - Path MTU Discovery
Elevated to Draft Standard.
1189 - The Common Management Information Services and Protocols
for the Internet (CMOT and CMIP)
Moved to Historic.
Protocol Name Status RFC STD *
======== ===================================== ======== ==== === =
-------- IAB Official Protocol Standards Req 1360 1
-------- Assigned Numbers Req 1340 2
-------- Host Requirements - Communications Req 1122 3
-------- Host Requirements - Applications Req 1123 3
-------- Gateway Requirements Req 1009 4
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
EGP Exterior Gateway Protocol Rec 904 18
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
Internet Architecture Board [Page 22]
RFC 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
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 *
[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 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".
Internet Architecture Board [Page 23]
RFC 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
All Network-Specific Standards have Elective status.
Protocol Name State RFC STD *
======== ===================================== ===== ===== === =
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 Prop 1356
IP-FR Multiprotocol over Frame Relay Prop 1294
IP-SMDS IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service Prop 1209
IP-ARCNET Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Nets Prop 1201
ARP Address Resolution Protocol Std 826 37
RARP A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol Std 903 38
IP-ARPA Internet Protocol on ARPANET Std BBN1822
IP-WB Internet Protocol on Wideband Network Std 907
IP-E Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks Std 894
IP-EE Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets Std 895
IP-IEEE Internet Protocol on IEEE 802 Std 1042
IP-DC Internet Protocol on DC Networks Std 891
IP-HC Internet Protocol on Hyperchannel Std 1044
IP-ARC Internet Protocol on ARCNET Std 1051
IP-SLIP Transmission of IP over Serial Lines Std 1055
IP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS Std 1088
IP-IPX Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks Std 1132
[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 24]
RFC 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
Protocol Name Status RFC
======== ===================================== ============== =====
ETHER-MIB Ethernet MIB Elective 1398*
NTPV3 Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Elective 1305*
IP-MTU Path MTU Discovery Elective 1191*
FINGER Finger Protocol Elective 1288
BGP3 Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3) Elective 1267,1268
OSPF2 Open Shortest Path First Routing V2 Elective 1247
POP3 Post Office Protocol, Version 3 Elective 1225
IP-FDDI Internet Protocol on FDDI Networks Elective 1188
PPP Point to Point Protocol Elective 1171
BOOTP Bootstrap Protocol Recommended 951,1395*
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.
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
Internet Architecture Board [Page 27]
RFC 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
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 Prop Ele 1408*
TOPT-AUTH Telnet Authentication Option 37 Exp Ele 1416*
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.]
All Experimental protocols have the Limited Use status.
Protocol Name RFC
======== ===================================== =====
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*
DNS NSAP DNS NSAP RRs 1348
RMCP Remote Mail Checking Protocol 1339
MSP2 Message Send Protocol 2 1312
DSLCP Dynamically Switched Link Control 1307
-------- X.500 and Domains 1279
SNMP-OSI SNMP over OSI 1283
IN-ENCAP Internet Encapsulation Protocol 1241
CLNS-MIB CLNS-MIB 1238
CFDP Coherent File Distribution Protocol 1235
SNMP-DPI SNMP Distributed Program Interface 1228
SNMP-MUX SNMP MUX Protocol and MIB 1227
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
Internet Architecture Board [Page 28]
RFC 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
SNMP-BULK Bulk Table Retrieval with the SNMP 1187
DNS-RR New DNS RR Definitions 1183
NTP-OSI NTP over OSI Remote Operations 1165
EHF-MAIL Encoding Header Field for Mail 1154
DMF-MAIL Digest Message Format for Mail 1153
RDP Reliable Data Protocol 908,1151
-------- Mapping between X.400(88) and RFC-822 1148
TCP-ACO TCP Alternate Checksum Option 1146
-------- Mapping full 822 to Restricted 822 1137
IP-DVMRP IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing 1075
TCP-LDP TCP Extensions for Long Delay Paths 1072
IMAP2 Interactive Mail Access Protocol 1176,1064
IMAP3 Interactive Mail Access Protocol 1203
VMTP Versatile Message Transaction Protocol 1045
COOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme 1004
NETBLT Bulk Data Transfer Protocol 998
IRTP Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol 938
AUTH Authentication Service 931
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.]
Information protocols have no status.
Protocol Name RFC
======= ==================================== =====
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
SNMP-IPX SNMP over IPX 1298
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
Internet Architecture Board [Page 29]
RFC 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
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.]
All Historic protocols have Not Recommended status.
Protocol Name RFC
======= ===================================== =====
802.4-MIP IEEE 802.4 Token Bus MIB 1230*
CMOT Common Management Information Services 1189*
PPP-INIT PPP Initial Configuration Options 1172
MSP Message Send Protocol 1159
-------- 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 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
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 Bob Braden, IAB Executive Director.
Contacts:
Bob Braden
Executive Director of the IAB
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-310-822-1511
Braden@ISI.EDU
A. Lyman Chapin
Chair of the IAB
Bolt, Beranek & Newman
Mail Stop 20/5b
150 Cambridge Park Drive
Cambridge, MA 02140
1-617-873-3133
Lyman@BBN.COM
7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact
Contacts:
Phill Gross
Chair of the IETF
Advanced Network and Services
100 Clearbrook Road
Elmsford, NY 10523
1-914-789-5300
PGross@ANS.NET
Internet Architecture Board [Page 31]
RFC 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
Greg Vaudreuil
IESG Secretary
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
Reston, VA 22091
1-703-620-8990
gvaudre@CNRI.RESTON.VA.US
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
scoya@CNRI.RESTON.VA.US
7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact
Contact:
Jon Postel
Chair of the IRTF
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-310-822-1511
Postel@ISI.EDU
Internet Architecture Board [Page 32]
RFC 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
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
IANA@ISI.EDU
The protocol standards are managed for the IAB by the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority.
Please refer to the document "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1340) 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".
Internet Architecture Board [Page 33]
RFC 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
Contact:
Jon Postel
RFC Editor
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-310-822-1511
RFC-Editor@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.
Requests for Comments Distribution Contact
Contact:
Network Solutions
Attn: Network Information Center
14200 Park Meadow Drive
Suite 200
Chantilly, VA 22021
Help Desk Hours of Operation: 7:00 am to 7:00 pm Eastern Time
1-800-365-3642 (1-800-365-DNIC)
1-703-802-4535
Fax Number: 1-703-802-8376
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.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 34]
RFC 1410 IAB Standards March 1993
Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending
an EMAIL message to "rfc-info@ISI.EDU" with the message body "help:
ways_to_get_rfcs". For example:
To: rfc-info@ISI.EDU
Subject: getting rfcs
help: ways_to_get_rfcs
Jon Postel
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Phone: 310-822-1511
Fax: 310-823-6714
Email: Postel@ISI.EDU
Internet Architecture Board [Page 35]