tech-invite   World Map     

IETF     RFCs     Groups     SIP     ABNFs    |    3GPP     Specs     Glossaries     Architecture     IMS     UICC    |    search

RFC 2300


Pages: 59
Top     in Index     Prev     Next
 

Internet Official Protocol Standards

Part 1 of 2, p. 1 to 29
None       Next RFC Part

Obsoleted by:    2400
Obsoletes:    2200


Top       ToC       Page 1 
Network Working Group                        Internet Architecture Board
Request for Comments: 2300                             J. Postel, Editor
Obsoletes: 2200, 2000, 1920, 1880, 1800,                        May 1998
1780, 1720, 1610, 1600, 1540, 1500, 1410,
1360, 1280, 1250, 1200, 1140, 1130, 1100, 1083
STD: 1
Category: Standards Track


                  INTERNET OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS


Status of this Memo

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

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998).  All Rights Reserved.

Table of Contents

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

Top      ToC       Page 2 
   5.1.  The RFC Processing Decision Table  . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.2.  The Standards Track Diagram  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  The Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.1.  Recent Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.1.1.  New RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.1.2.  Other Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
   6.2.  Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   6.3.  Network-Specific Standard Protocols  . . . . . . . . . .  36
   6.4.  Draft Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
   6.5.  Proposed Standard Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
   6.6.  Telnet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  46
   6.7.  Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  47
   6.8.  Informational Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50
   6.9.  Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  52
   6.10  Obsolete Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  53
   7.  Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  54
   7.1.  IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  54
   7.1.1.  Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact  . . . . . .  54
   7.1.2.  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . .  54
   7.1.3.  Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact  . . . . .  55
   7.2.  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . .  56
   7.3.  Request for Comments Editor Contact  . . . . . . . . . .  57
   7.4.  Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . .  57
   7.5.  Sources for Requests for Comments  . . . . . . . . . . .  58
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  58
   9.  Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  58
   10. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  59

Introduction

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

   This memo is intended to be issued every one hundred RFCs; please be
   sure the copy you are reading is current.  Current copies may be
   obtained from the Requests for Comments Editor (RFC-EDITOR) or from
   the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (see the contact
   information at the end of this memo).

   See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes.  In the official
   lists in sections 6.2 - 6.10, an asterisk (*) next to a protocol
   denotes that it is new to this document or has been moved from one
   protocol level to another, or differs from the previous edition of
   this document.

Top      ToC       Page 3 
1.  The Standardization Process

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

   The majority of Internet protocol development and standardization
   activity takes place in the working groups of the IETF.

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

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

   It is general practice that no proposed standard can be promoted to
   draft standard without at least two independent implementations (and
   the recommendation of the IESG).  Promotion from draft standard to
   standard generally requires operational experience and demonstrated
   interoperability of two or more implementations (and the
   recommendation of the IESG).

   In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper decision
   concerning a protocol a special review committee may be appointed
   consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB with the
   purpose of recommending an explicit action.

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

Top      ToC       Page 4 
   Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are otherwise
   unused.  Such protocols are still documented in this memorandum with
   the designation "historic".

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

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

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

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

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

   Few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems; this is
   because there is such a variety of possible systems, for example,

Top      ToC       Page 5 
   gateways, routers, terminal servers, workstations, and multi-user
   hosts.  The requirement level shown in this document is only a one
   word label, which may not be sufficient to characterize the
   implementation requirements for a protocol in all situations.  For
   some protocols, this document contains an additional status paragraph
   (an applicability statement).  In addition, more detailed status
   information may be contained in separate requirements documents (see
   Section 3).

2.  The Request for Comments Documents

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

   Notice:

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

   Anyone can submit a document for publication as an RFC.  Submissions
   must be made via electronic mail to the RFC Editor (see the contact
   information at the end of this memo, and see RFC 2223).

   While RFCs are not refereed publications, they do receive technical
   review from the task forces, individual technical experts, or the RFC
   Editor, as appropriate.

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

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

Top      ToC       Page 6 
   memo is the reference for determining the correct RFC for the current
   specification of each protocol.

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

3.  Other Reference Documents

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

   Also, one should be aware of the MIL-STD publications on IP, TCP,
   Telnet, FTP, and SMTP.  These are described in Section 3.4.

3.1.  Assigned Numbers

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

3.2.  Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers

   This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways and
   supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities.
   Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers is RFC-1812.

3.3.  Host Requirements

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

3.4.  The MIL-STD Documents

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

Top      ToC       Page 7 
4.  Explanation of Terms

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

   The status or requirement level is difficult to portray in a one word
   label.  These status labels should be considered only as an
   indication, and a further description, or applicability statement,
   should be consulted.

   When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard,
   it is labeled with a current status.

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

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

   What is a "system"?

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

Top      ToC       Page 8 
4.1.  Definitions of Protocol State

   Every protocol listed in this document is assigned to a "maturity
   level" or STATE of standardization: "standard", "draft standard",
   "proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic".

   4.1.1.  Standard Protocol

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

   4.1.2.  Draft Standard Protocol

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

   4.1.3.  Proposed Standard Protocol

      These are protocol proposals that may be considered by the IESG
      for standardization in the future.  Implementation and testing by
      several groups is desirable.  Revision of the protocol
      specification is likely.

   4.1.4.  Experimental Protocol

      A system should not implement an experimental protocol unless it
      is participating in the experiment and has coordinated its use of
      the protocol with the developer of the protocol.

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

Top      ToC       Page 9 
   4.1.5.  Informational Protocol

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

   4.1.6.  Historic Protocol

      These are protocols that are unlikely to ever become standards in
      the Internet either because they have been superseded by later
      developments or due to lack of interest.

4.2.  Definitions of Protocol Status

      This document lists a "requirement level" or STATUS for each
      protocol.  The status is one of "required", "recommended",
      "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".

   4.2.1.  Required Protocol

      A system must implement the required protocols.

   4.2.2.  Recommended Protocol

      A system should implement the recommended protocols.

   4.2.3.  Elective Protocol

      A system may or may not implement an elective protocol. The
      general notion is that if you are going to do something like this,
      you must do exactly this.  There may be several elective protocols
      in a general area, for example, there are several electronic mail
      protocols, and several routing protocols.

   4.2.4.  Limited Use Protocol

      These protocols are for use in limited circumstances.  This may be
      because of their experimental state, specialized nature, limited
      functionality, or historic state.

   4.2.5.  Not Recommended Protocol

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

Top      ToC       Page 10 
5.  The Standards Track

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

5.1.  The RFC Processing Decision Table

   Here is the current decision table for processing submissions by the
   RFC Editor.  The processing depends on who submitted it, and the
   status they want it to have.

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

      (1) Publish.

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

Top      ToC       Page 11 
      (3) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG.  Expect to see
          the document again only after approval by the IESG.

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

      (5) RFC Editor's discretion.  The RFC Editor decides if a review
          is needed and if so by whom.  RFC Editor decides to publish or
          not.

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

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

5.2.  The Standards Track Diagram

   There is a part of the STATUS and STATE categorization that is called
   the standards track.  Actually, only the changes of state are
   significant to the progression along the standards track, though the
   status assignments may change as well.

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

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

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

Top      ToC       Page 12 
         |
         +<----------------------------------------------+
         |                                               ^
         V    0                                          |    4
   +-----------+                                   +===========+
   |   enter   |-->----------------+-------------->|experiment |
   +-----------+                   |               +=====+=====+
                                   |                     |
                                   V    1                |
                             +-----------+               V
                             | proposed  |-------------->+
                        +--->+-----+-----+               |
                        |          |                     |
                        |          V    2                |
                        +<---+-----+-----+               V
                             | draft std |-------------->+
                        +--->+-----+-----+               |
                        |          |                     |
                        |          V    3                |
                        +<---+=====+=====+               V
                             | standard  |-------------->+
                             +=====+=====+               |
                                                         |
                                                         V    5
                                                   +=====+=====+
                                                   | historic  |
                                                   +===========+

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

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

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

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

Top      ToC       Page 13 
6.  The Protocols

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

6.1.  Recent Changes

6.1.1.  New RFCs:

      2352 - A Convention For Using Legal Names as Domain Names

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

      2351 - Mapping of Airline Reservation, Ticketing, and Messaging
             Traffic over IP

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

      2350 - Not yet issued.

      2349 - TFTP Timeout Interval and Transfer Size Options

             A Draft Standard protocol.

      2348 - TFTP Blocksize Option

             A Draft Standard protocol.

      2347 - TFTP Option Extension

             A Draft Standard protocol.

      2346 - Making Postscript and PDF International

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

      2345 - Domain Names and Company Name Retrieval

             An Experimental protocol.

      2344 - Reverse Tunneling for Mobile IP

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

Top      ToC       Page 14 
      2343 - RTP Payload Format for Bundled MPEG

             An Experimental protocol.

      2342 - IMAP4 Namespace

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2341 - Cisco Layer Two Forwarding (Protocol) "L2F"

             A Historic protocol.

      2340 - Not yet issued.

      2339 - An Agreement Between the Internet Society, the IETF, and
             Sun Microsystems, Inc.  in the matter of NFS V.4 Protocols

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

      2338 - Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2337 - Intra-LIS IP multicast among routers over ATM using Sparse
             Mode PIM

             An Experimental protocol.

      2336 - Not yet issued.

      2335 - A Distributed NHRP Service Using SCSP

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2334 - Server Cache Synchronization Protocol (SCSP)

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2333 - NHRP Protocol Applicability Statement

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2332 - NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP)

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

Top      ToC       Page 15 
      2331 - ATM Signalling Support for IP over ATM - UNI Signalling 4.0
             Update

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2330 - Framework for IP Performance Metrics

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

      2329 - OSPF Standardization Report

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

      2328 - OSPF Version 2

             A Standard protocol.

      2327 - SDP: Session Description Protocol

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2326 - Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP)

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2325 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Drip-Type Heated
             Beverage Hardware Devices using SMIv2

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

      2324 - Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol (HTCPCP/1.0)

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

      2323 - IETF Identification and Security Guidelines

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

      2322 - Management of IP numbers by peg-dhcp

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

Top      ToC       Page 16 
      2321 - RITA -- The Reliable Internetwork Troubleshooting Agent

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

      2320 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Classical IP and ARP
             Over ATM Using SMIv2 (IPOA-MIB)

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2319 - Ukrainian Character Set KOI8-U

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

      2318 - The text/css Media Type

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

      2317 - Classless IN-ADDR.ARPA delegation

             This is a Best Current Practices document and does not
             specify any level of standard.

      2316 - Report of the IAB Security Architecture Workshop

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

      2315 - PKCS #7: Cryptographic Message Syntax Version 1.5

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

      2314 - PKCS #10: Certification Request Syntax Version 1.5

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

      2313 - PKCS #1: RSA Encryption Version 1.5

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

Top      ToC       Page 17 
      2312 - S/MIME Version 2 Certificate Handling

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

      2311 - S/MIME Version 2 Message Specification

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

      2310 - The Safe Response Header Field

             An Experimental protocol.

      2309 - Recommendations on Queue Management and Congestion
             Avoidance in the Internet

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

      2308 - Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS NCACHE)

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2307 - An Approach for Using LDAP as a Network Information Service

             An Experimental protocol.

      2306 - Tag Image File Format (TIFF) - F Profile for Facsimile

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

      2305 - A Simple Mode of Facsimile Using Internet Mail

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2304 - Minimal FAX address format in Internet Mail

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2303 - Minimal PSTN address format in Internet Mail

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

Top      ToC       Page 18 
      2302 - Tag Image File Format (TIFF) - image/tiff MIME Sub-type
             Registration

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2301 - File Format for Internet Fax

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2300 - This memo.

      2299 - Not yet issued.

      2298 - An Extensible Message Format for Message Disposition
             Notifications

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2297 - Ipsilon's General Switch Management Protocol Specification
             Version 2.0

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

      2296 - HTTP Remote Variant Selection Algorithm -- RVSA/1.0

             An Experimental protocol.

      2295 - Transparent Content Negotiation in HTTP

             An Experimental protocol.

      2294 - Representing the O/R Address hierarchy in the X.500
             Directory Information Tree

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2293 - Representing Tables and Subtrees in the X.500 Directory

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2292 - Advanced Sockets API for IPv6

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

Top      ToC       Page 19 
      2291 - Requirements for a Distributed Authoring and Versioning
             Protocol for the World Wide Web

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

      2290 - Mobile-IPv4 Configuration Option for PPP IPCP

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2289 - A One-Time Password System

             A Draft Standard protocol.

      2288 - Using Existing Bibliographic Identifiers as Uniform
             Resource Names

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

      2287 - Definitions of System-Level Managed Objects for
             Applications

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2286 - Test Cases for HMAC-RIPEMD160 and HMAC-RIPEMD128

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

      2285 - Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching Devices

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

      2284 - PPP Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2283 - Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2282 - IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process:
             Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees

             This is a Best Current Practices document and does not
             specify any level of standard.

Top      ToC       Page 20 
      2281 - Cisco Hot Standby Router Protocol (HSRP)

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

      2280 - Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL)

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2279 - UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2278 - IANA Charset Registration Procedures

             This is a Best Current Practices document and does not
             specify any level of standard.

      2277 - IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages

             This is a Best Current Practices document and does not
             specify any level of standard.

      2276 - Architectural Principles of Uniform Resource Name
             Resolution

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

      2275 - View-based Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple
             Network Management Protocol (SNMP)

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2274 - User-based Security Model (USM) for version 3 of the Simple
             Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3)

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2273 - SNMPv3 Applications

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2272 - Message Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network
             Management Protocol (SNMP)

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

Top      ToC       Page 21 
      2271 - An Architecture for Describing SNMP Management Frameworks

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2270 - Using a Dedicated AS for Sites Homed to a Single Provider

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

      2269 - Using the MARS Model in non-ATM NBMA Networks

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

      2268 - A Description of the RC2(r) Encryption Algorithm

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

      2267 - Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating Denial of Service
             Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing

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

      2266 - Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.12 Repeater
             Devices

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2265 - View-based Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple
             Network Management Protocol (SNMP)

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2264 - User-based Security Model (USM) for version 3 of the Simple
             Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3)

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2263 - SNMPv3 Applications

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2262 - Message Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network
             Management Protocol (SNMP)

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

Top      ToC       Page 22 
      2261 - An Architecture for Describing SNMP Management Frameworks

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2260 - Scalable Support for Multi-homed Multi-provider
             Connectivity

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

      2259 - Simple Nomenclator Query Protocol (SNQP)

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

      2258 - Internet Nomenclator Project

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

      2257 - Agent Extensibility (AgentX) Protocol Version 1

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2256 - A Summary of the X.500(96) User Schema for use with LDAPv3

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2255 - The LDAP URL Format

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2254 - The String Representation of LDAP Search Filters

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2253 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): UTF-8 String
             Representation of Distinguished Names

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2252 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): Attribute
             Syntax Definitions

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

Top      ToC       Page 23 
      2251 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3)

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2250 - RTP Payload Format for MPEG1/MPEG2 Video

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2249 - Mail Monitoring MIB

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2248 - Network Services Monitoring MIB

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2247 - Using Domains in LDAP/X.500 Distinguished Names

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2246 - Not yet issued.

      2245 - Anonymous SASL Mechanism

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2244 - ACAP -- Application Configuration Access Protocol

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2243 - OTP Extended Responses

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2242 - NetWare/IP Domain Name and Information

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2241 - DHCP Options for Novell Directory Services

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2240 - A Legal Basis for Domain Name Allocation

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

Top      ToC       Page 24 
      2239 - Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.3 Medium
             Attachment Units (MAUs) using SMIv2

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2238 - Definitions of Managed Objects for HPR using SMIv2

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2237 - Japanese Character Encoding for Internet Messages

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

      2236 - Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2235 - Hobbes' Internet Timeline

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

      2234 - Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2233 - The Interfaces Group MIB using SMIv2

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2232 - Definitions of Managed Objects for DLUR using SMIv2

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2231 - MIME Parameter Value and Encoded Word Extensions: Character
             Sets, Languages, and Continuations

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2230 - Key Exchange Delegation Record for the DNS

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

Top      ToC       Page 25 
      2229 - A Dictionary Server Protocol

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

      2228 - FTP Security Extensions

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2227 - Simple Hit-Metering and Usage-Limiting for HTTP

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2226 - IP Broadcast over ATM Networks

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2225 - Classical IP and ARP over ATM

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2224 - NFS URL Scheme

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

      2223 - Instructions to RFC Authors

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

      2222 - Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2221 - IMAP4 Login Referrals

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2220 - The Application/MARC Content-type

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

      2219 - Use of DNS Aliases for Network Services

             This is a Best Current Practices document and does not
             specify any level of standard.

Top      ToC       Page 26 
      2218 - A Common Schema for the Internet White Pages Service

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2217 - Telnet Com Port Control Option

             An Experimental protocol.

      2216 - Network Element Service Specification Template

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

      2215 - General Characterization Parameters for Integrated Service
             Network Elements

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2214 - Integrated Services Management Information Base Guaranteed
             Service Extensions using SMIv2

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2213 - Integrated Services Management Information Base using SMIv2

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2212 - Specification of Guaranteed Quality of Service

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2211 - Specification of the Controlled-Load Network Element
             Service

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2210 - The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2209 - Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Message
             Processing Rules

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

Top      ToC       Page 27 
      2208 - Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
             Applicability Statement Some Guidelines on Deployment

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2207 - RSVP Extensions for IPSEC Data Flows

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2206 - RSVP Management Information Base using SMIv2

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2205 - Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
             Functional Specification

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2204 - ODETTE File Transfer Protocol

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

      2203 - RPCSEC_GSS Protocol Specification

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2202 - Test Cases for HMAC-MD5 and HMAC-SHA-1

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

      2201 - Core Based Trees (CBT) Multicast Routing Architecture

             An Experimental protocol.

      2200 - Internet Official Protocol Standards

             A Standard protocol.

      2199 - Request for Comments Summary - RFC Numbers 2100-2199

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

      2198 - RTP Payload for Redundant Audio Data

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

Top      ToC       Page 28 
      2197 - SMTP Service Extension for Command Pipelining

             A Draft Standard protocol.

      2196 - Site Security Handbook

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

      2195 - IMAP/POP AUTHorize Extension for Simple Challenge/Response

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2194 - Review of Roaming Implementations

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

      2193 - IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2192 - IMAP URL Scheme

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2191 - VENUS - Very Extensive Non-Unicast Service

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

      2190 - RTP Payload Format for H.263 Video Streams

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2189 - Core Based Trees (CBT version 2) Multicast Routing

             An Experimental protocol.

      2188 - AT&T/Neda's Efficient Short Remote Operations (ESRO)
             Protocol Specification Version 1.

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

Top      ToC       Page 29 
      2187 - Application of Internet Cache Protocol (ICP), version 2

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

      2186 - Internet Cache Protocol (ICP), version 2

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

      2185 - Routing Aspects of IPv6 Transition

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

      2184 - MIME Parameter Value and Encoded Word Extensions: Character
             Sets, Languages, and Continuations

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2183 - Communicating Presentation Information in Internet
             Messages: The Content-Disposition Header Field

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2182 - Selection and Operation of Secondary DNS Servers

             This is a Best Current Practices document and does not
             specify any level of standard.

      2181 - Clarifications to the DNS Specification

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      2180 - IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice

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

      2179 - Network Security For Trade Shows

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

      2178 - OSPF Version 2

             A Draft Standard protocol.


Next RFC Part