Network Working Group Internet Activities Board Request for Comments: 1140 J. Postel, Editor Obsoletes: RFCs 1130, May 1990 1100, 1083 IAB OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS Status of this Memo This memo describes the state of standardization of protocols used in the Internet as determined by the Internet Activities Board (IAB). Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Table of Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. The Standardization Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. The Request for Comments Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Other Reference Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Assigned Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Annotated Internet Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3. Gateway Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4. Host Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.5. The MIL-STD Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Explanation of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. Definitions of Protocol State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1.1. Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1.4. Experimental Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1.5. Historic Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2.1. Required Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2.2. Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2.3. Elective Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2.4. Limited Use Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2.5. Not Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. The Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.1. The RFC Processing Decision Table . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2. The Standards Track Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. The Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.1. Recent Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.1.1. New RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.1.2. Other Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.2. Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 19 6.4. Draft Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.5. Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6.6. Experimental Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6.7. Historic Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7. Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7.1.1. Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact . . . . . . . 23 7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . 23 7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . . 24 7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . . 24 7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact . . . . . . . . . . 25 7.4. Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7.5. Other Sources for Requests for Comments . . . . . . . . 26 7.5.1. NSF Network Service Center (NNSC) . . . . . . . . . . 26 7.5.2. NSF Network Information Service (NIS) . . . . . . . . 26 7.5.3. CSNET Coordination and Information Center (CIC) . . . 26 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 9. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Introduction Discussion of the standardization process and the RFC document series is presented first, then the explanation of the terms is presented, the lists of protocols in each stage of standardization follows and finally come pointers to references and contacts for further information. This memo is issued quarterly, please be sure the copy you are reading is dated within the last three months. Current copies may be obtained from the Network Information Center or from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (see the contact information at the end of this memo). Do not use this edition after 31-Aug-90. See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes. 1. The Standardization Process The Internet Activities Board maintains this list of documents that define standards for the Internet protocol suite (see RFC-1120 for an explanation of the role and organization of the IAB and its subsidiary groups, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)). The IAB provides these standards with the goal of co-ordinating the evolution of the Internet protocols; this co-ordination has become quite important as the Internet protocols are increasingly in general commercial use. The majority of Internet protocol development and standardization
activity takes place in the working groups of the Internet Engineering Task Force. Protocols which are to become standards in the Internet go through a series of states (proposed standard, draft standard, and standard) involving increasing amounts of scrutiny and experimental testing. At each step, the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) of the IETF must make a recommendation for advancement of the protocol and the IAB must ratify it. If a recommendation is not ratified, the protocol is remanded to the IETF for further work. To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react to standardization proposals, the IAB imposes a minimum delay of 4 months before a proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard and 6 months before a draft standard can be promoted to standard. It is general IAB practice that no proposed standard can be promoted to draft standard without at least two independent implementations (and the recommendation of the IESG). Promotion from draft standard to standard generally requires operational experience and demonstrated interoperability of two or more implementations (and the recommendation of the IESG). In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper decision concerning a protocol the IAB may convene a special review committee consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB with the purpose of recommending an explicit action to the IAB. Advancement of a protocol to proposed standard is an important step since it marks a protocol as a candidate for eventual standardization (it puts the protocol "on the standards track"). Advancement to draft standard is a major step which warns the community that, unless major objections are raised or flaws are discovered, the protocol is likely to be advanced to standard in six months. Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are otherwise unused. Such protocols are still documented in this memorandum with the designation "historic". Because the IAB believes it is useful to document the results of early protocol research and development work, some of the RFCs document protocols which are still in an experimental condition. The protocols are designated "experimental" in this memorandum. They appear in this report as a convenience to the community and not as evidence of their standardization. In addition to the working groups of the IETF, protocol development and experimentation may take place as a result of the work of the
research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or the work of other individuals interested in Internet protocol development. The IAB encourages the documentation of such experimental work in the RFC series, but none of this work is considered to be on the track for standardization until the IESG has made a recommendation to advance the protocol to the proposed standard state, and the IAB has approved this step. A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without the approval of the IESG and the IAB. For example, some vendor protocols have become very important to the Internet community even though they have not been recommended by the IESG or ratified by the IAB. However, the IAB strongly recommends that the IAB standards process be used in the evolution of the protocol suite to maximize interoperability (and to prevent incompatible protocol requirements from arising). The IAB reserves the use of the terms "standard", "draft standard", and "proposed standard" in any RFC or other publication of Internet protocols to only those protocols which the IAB has approved. In addition to a state (like "proposed standard") a protocol is also assigned a status, or requirement level. A protocol can be required, meaning that all systems in the Internet must implement it. For example, the Internet Protocol (IP) is required. A protocol may be recommended, meaning that systems should implement this protocol. A protocol may be elective, meaning that systems may implement this protocol; that is, if (and only if) the functionality of this protocol is needed or useful for a system it must use this protocol to provide the functionality. A protocol may be termed limited use or even not recommended if it is not intended to be generally implemented; for example, experimental or historic protocols. When a protocol is on the standards track, that is in the proposed standard, draft standard, or standard state (see Section 5), the status is the current status. However, the IAB will also endeavor to indicate the eventual status this protocol will have when the standardization is completed. The IAB realizes that a one word label is not sufficient to characterize the implementation requirements for a protocol in all situations. In many cases, an additional paragraph about the status will be provided, and in some cases reference will be made to separate requirements documents. Few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems. This is because there is such a variety of possible systems; for example, gateways, terminal servers, workstations, multi-user hosts. It is not necessary for a gateway to implement TCP or the protocols that
use TCP (though it may be useful). It is expected that general purpose hosts will implement at least IP (including ICMP and IGMP), TCP and UDP, Telnet, FTP, NTP, SMTP, Mail, and the Domain Name System (DNS). 2. The Request for Comments Documents The documents called Request for Comments (or RFCs) are the working notes of the "Network Working Group", that is the Internet research and development community. A document in this series may be on essentially any topic related to computer communication, and may be anything from a meeting report to the specification of a standard. Notice: All standards are published as RFCs, but not all RFCs specify standards. Anyone can submit a document for publication as an RFC. Submissions must be made via electronic mail to the RFC Editor (see the contact information at the end of this memo). While RFCs are not refereed publications, they do receive technical review from the task forces, individual technical experts, or the RFC Editor, as appropriate. The RFC series comprises a wide range of documents such as informational documents of general interests to specifications of standard Internet protocols. In cases where submission is intended to document a proposed standard, draft standard, or standard protocol, the RFC Editor will publish the document only with the approval of both the IESG and the IAB. For documents describing experimental work, the RFC Editor will typically request review comments from the relevant IETF working group or IRTF research group and provide those comments to the author prior to committing to publication. See Section 5.1 for more detail. Once a document is assigned an RFC number and published, that RFC is never revised or re-issued with the same number. There is never a question of having the most recent version of a particular RFC. However, a protocol (such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP)) may be improved and re-documented many times in several different RFCs. It is important to verify that you have the most recent RFC on a particular protocol. This "IAB Official Protocol Standards" memo is the reference for determining the correct RFC to refer to for the current specification of each protocol. The RFCs are available from the Network Information Center at SRI
International, and a number of other sites. For more information about obtaining RFCs, see Sections 7.4 and 7.5. 3. Other Reference Documents There are four other reference documents of interest in checking the current status of protocol specifications and standardization. These are the Assigned Numbers, the Annotated Internet Protocols, the Gateway Requirements, and the Host Requirements. Note that these documents are revised and updated at different times; in case of differences between these documents, the most recent must prevail. Also, one should be aware of the MIL-STD publications on IP, TCP, Telnet, FTP, and SMTP. These are described in Section 3.5. 3.1. Assigned Numbers This document lists the assigned values of the parameters used in the various protocols. For example, IP protocol codes, TCP port numbers, Telnet Option Codes, ARP hardware types, and Terminal Type names. Assigned Numbers was most recently issued as RFC-1060. Another document, Internet Numbers, lists the assigned IP network numbers, and the autonomous system numbers. Internet Numbers was most recently issued as RFC-1117. 3.2. Annotated Internet Protocols This document lists the protocols and describes any known problems and ongoing experiments. This document was most recently issued as RFC-1011 under the title "Official Internet Protocols". 3.3. Gateway Requirements This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways and supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities. Gateway Requirements is RFC-1009. A working group of the IETF is actively preparing a revision. 3.4. Host Requirements This pair of documents reviews the specifications that apply to hosts and supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities. Host Requirements was recently issued as RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.
3.5. The MIL-STD Documents The Internet community specifications for IP (RFC-791) and TCP (RFC- 793) and the DoD MIL-STD specifications are intended to describe exactly the same protocols. Any difference in the protocols specified by these sets of documents should be reported to DCA and to the IAB. The RFCs and the MIL-STDs for IP and TCP differ in style and level of detail. It is strongly advised that the two sets of documents be used together. The IAB and the DoD MIL-STD specifications for the FTP, SMTP, and Telnet protocols are essentially the same documents (RFCs 765, 821, 854). The MIL-STD versions have been edited slightly. Note that the current Internet specification for FTP is RFC-959. Internet Protocol (IP) MIL-STD-1777 Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) MIL-STD-1778 File Transfer Protocol (FTP) MIL-STD-1780 Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) MIL-STD-1781 Telnet Protocol and Options (TELNET) MIL-STD-1782 These documents are available from the Naval Publications and Forms Center. Requests can be initiated by telephone, telegraph, or mail; however, it is preferred that private industry use form DD1425, if possible. These five documents are included in the 1985 DDN Protocol Handbook (available from the Network Information Center, see Section 7.4). Naval Publications and Forms Center, Code 3015 5801 Tabor Ave Philadelphia, PA 19120 Phone: 1-215-697-3321 (order tape) 1-215-697-4834 (conversation) 4. Explanation of Terms There are two independent categorization of protocols. The first is the STATE of standardization which is one of "standard", "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic". The second is the STATUS of this protocol which is one of "required", "recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended". The IAB notes that the status or requirement level is difficult to portray in a one word label. These status labels should be considered only as an indication, and a further description should be consulted. When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard,
it is labeled with a current status and when possible, the IAB also notes the status that that protocol is expected to have when it reaches the standard state. At any given time a protocol is a cell of the following matrix. Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the following proportions (indicated by the relative number of Xs). A new protocol is most likely to start in the (proposed standard, elective) cell, or the (experimental, not recommended) cell. S T A T U S Req Rec Ele Lim Not S +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Std | X | XXX | XXX | | | T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Draft | X | X | XXX | | | A +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Prop | | X | XXX | X | | T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Expr | | | X | XXX | X | E +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Hist | | | | X | XXX | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ What is a "system"? Some protocols are particular to hosts and some to gateways; a few protocols are used in both. The definitions of the terms below will refer to a "system" which is either a host or a gateway (or both). It should be clear from the context of the particular protocol which types of systems are intended. 4.1. Definitions of Protocol State There are two independent categorizations of protocols. The first is the STATE of standardization, which is one of "standard", "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic". 4.1.1. Standard Protocol The IAB has established this as an official standard protocol for the Internet. These are separated into two groups: (1) IP protocol and above, protocols that apply to the whole Internet; and (2) network-specific protocols, generally specifications of how to do IP on particular types of networks.
4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol The IAB is actively considering this protocol as a possible Standard Protocol. Substantial and widespread testing and comment are desired. Comments and test results should be submitted to the IAB. There is a possibility that changes will be made in a Draft Standard Protocol before it becomes a Standard Protocol. 4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol These are protocol proposals that may be considered by the IAB for standardization in the future. Implementation and testing by several groups is desirable. Revision of the protocol specification is likely. 4.1.4. Experimental Protocol A system should not implement an experimental protocol unless it is participating in the experiment and has coordinated its use of the protocol with the developer of the protocol. Typically, experimental protocols are those that are developed as part of an ongoing research project not related to an operational service offering. While they may be proposed as a service protocol at a later stage, and thus become proposed standard, draft standard, and then standard protocols, the designation of a protocol as experimental may sometimes be meant to suggest that the protocol, although perhaps mature, is not intended for operational use. 4.1.5. Historic Protocol These are protocols that are unlikely to ever become standards in the Internet either because they have been superseded by later developments or due to lack of interest. 4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status There are two independent categorizations of protocols. The second is the STATUS of this protocol which is one of "required", "recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended". 4.2.1. Required Protocol A system must implement the required protocols.
4.2.2. Recommended Protocol A system should implement the recommended protocols. 4.2.3. Elective Protocol A system may or may not implement an elective protocol. The general notion is that if you are going to do something like this, you must do exactly this. There may be several elective protocols in a general area, for example, there are several electronic mail protocols, and several routing protocols. 4.2.4. Limited Use Protocol These protocols are for use in limited circumstances. This may be because of their experimental state, specialized nature, limited functionality, or historic state. 4.2.5. Not Recommended Protocol These protocols are not recommended for general use. This may be because of their limited functionality, specialized nature, or experimental or historic state. 5. The Standards Track This section discusses in more detail the procedures used by the RFC Editor and the IAB in making decisions about the labeling and publishing of protocols as standards. 5.1. The RFC Processing Decision Table Here is the current decision table for processing submissions by RFC Editor. The processing depends on who submitted it, and the status they want it to have.
+==========================================================+ |++++++++++++++| S O U R C E | +==========================================================+ | Desired | IAB | IESG | IRSG | Other | | Status | | | or RG | | +==========================================================+ | | | | | | | Full or | Publish | Vote | Bogus | Bogus | | Draft | (1) | (3) | (2) | (2) | | Standard | | | | | | | | | | | +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ | | | | | | | | Publish | Vote | Refer | Refer | | Proposed | (1) | (3) | (4) | (4) | | Standard | | | | | | | | | | | +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ | | | | | | | | Publish | Notify | Notify | Notify | | Experimental | (1) | (5) | (5) | (5) | | Protocol | | | | | | | | | | | +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ | | | | | | | Information | Publish |Discretion|Discretion|Discretion| | or Opinion | (1) | (6) | (6) | (6) | | Paper | | | | | | | | | | | +==========================================================+ (1) Publish. (2) Bogus. Inform the source of the rules. RFCs specifying Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IAB, only. (3) Vote by the IAB. If approved then do Publish (1), else do Refer (4). (4) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG. Expect to see the document again only after approval by the IESG and the IAB. (5) Notify both the IESG and IRSG. If no protest in 1 week then do Discretion (6), else do undefined. (6) RFC Editor's discretion. The RFC Editor decides if a review is needed and if so by whom. RFC Editor decides to publish or
not. Of course, in all cases the RFC Editor can request or make minor changes for style, format, and presentation purposes. The IESG has designated Greg Vaudreuil as its agent for forwarding documents with IESG approval and for registering protest in response to notifications (5) to the RFC Editor. Documents from Area Directors or Working Group Chairs may be considered in the same way as documents from "other". 5.2. The Standards Track Diagram There is a part of the STATUS and STATE categorization that is called the standards track. Actually, only the changes of state are significant to the progression along the standards track, though the status assignments may be changed as well. The states illustrated by single line boxes are temporary states, those illustrated by double line boxes are long term states. A protocol will normally be expected to remain in a temporary state for several months (minimum four months for proposed standard, minimum six months for draft standard). A protocol may be in a long term state for many years. A protocol may enter the standards track only on the recommendation of the IESG and by action of the IAB; and may move from one state to another along the track only on the recommendation of the IESG and by action of the IAB. That is, it takes both the IESG and the IAB to either start a protocol on the track or to move it along. Generally, as the protocol enters the standards track a decision is made as to the eventual STATUS (elective, recommended, or required) the protocol will have, although a somewhat less stringent current status may be assigned, and it then is placed in the the proposed standard STATE with that status. So the initial placement of a protocol is into state 1. At any time the STATUS decision may be revisited.
| +<----------------------------------------------+ | ^ V 0 | 4 +-----------+ +===========+ | enter |-->----------------+-------------->|experiment | +-----------+ | +=====+=====+ | | V 1 | +-----------+ V | proposed |-------------->+ +--->+-----+-----+ | | | | | V 2 | +<---+-----+-----+ V | draft std |-------------->+ +--->+-----+-----+ | | | | | V 3 | +<---+=====+=====+ V | standard |-------------->+ +=====+=====+ | | V 5 +=====+=====+ | historic | +===========+ The transition from proposed standard (1) to draft standard (2) can only be by action of the IAB on the recommendation of the IESG and only after the protocol has been proposed standard (1) for at least four months. The transition from draft standard (2) to standard (3) can only be by action of the IAB on the recommendation of the IESG and only after the protocol has been draft standard (2) for at least six months. Occasionally, the decision may be that the protocol is not ready for standardization and will be assigned to the experimental state (4). This is off the standards track, and the protocol may be resubmitted to enter the standards track after further work. There are other paths into the experimental and historic states that do not involve IAB action. Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus becomes historic, it may happen that a protocol on the standards track is in a sense overtaken by another protocol (or other events) and becomes historic (state 5).
6. The Protocols This section lists the standards in groups by protocol state. 6.1. Recent Changes 6.1.1. New RFCs: 1157 - Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Advanced to Recommended Standard protocol. Replaces 1098. 1156 - Management Information Base (MIB) Advanced to Recommended Standard protocol. Replaces 1066. 1155 - Structure of Management Information (SMI) Advanced to Recommended Standard protocol. Replaces 1065. 1154 - Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages This is a new Elective Experimental protocol. 1153 - Digest Message Format This is a new Elective Experimental protocol. 1152 - Workshop Report: Internet Research Steering Group Workshop on Very-High-Speed Networks This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1151 - Version 2 of the Reliable Data Protocol (RDP) This is an update to a Not-recommended Experimental protocol. 1150 - FYI on FYI This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1149 - A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers This describes an implementation technique, and does not
specify any level of standard. 1148 - Mapping between X.400(88) and RFC 822 This is a new Elective Experimental protocol (corrects editing errors in 1138). 1147 - FYI on a Network Management Tool Catalog This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1146 - TCP Alternative Checksum Options This is a new Not-recommended Experimental protocol (corrects editing errors in 1145). 1145 - TCP Alternate Checksum Options This is a new Not-recommended Experimental protocol. 1144 - Compressing TCP/IP Headers for Low-Speed Serial Links This is a new Elective Proposed Standard protocol. 1143 - The Q Method of Implementing TELNET Option Negotiation This describes an implementation technique. 1142 - < not issued yet > 1141 - Incremental Updating of the Internet Checksum This describes an implementation technique. 1140 - IAB Official Protocol Standards This memo. 1139 - An Echo Function for ISO 8473 This is a new Elective Proposed Standard protocol. 1138 - Mapping between X.400(88) and RFC 822 This is a new Elective Experimental protocol (replaced by 1148).
1137 - Mapping Between Full RFC 822 and RFC 822 with Restricted Encoding This is a new Elective Experimental protocol. 1136 - Administrative Domains and Routing Domains: A Model for Routing in the Internet This is a discussion document and does not specify any level of standard. 1135 - The Helminthiasis of the Internet This is a discussion document and does not specify any level of standard. 1134 - The Point-to-Point Protocol: A Proposal for Multi-Protocol Transmission of Datagrams Over Point-to-Point Links This is a new Elective Proposed Standard protocol. 1133 - Routing between the NSFNET and the DDN This is a discussion document and does not specify any level of standard. 1132 - A Standard for the Transmission of 802.2 Packets over IPX Networks This is a new Elective Network-Specific Standard protocol, that is, a full Standard for a network-specific situation. 1131 - The OSPF Specification This is a new Elective Proposed Standard protocol. 1060 - Assigned Numbers The status report on assigned numbers and protocol parameters.
6.1.2. Other Changes: The following are changes to protocols listed in the previous edition. 1058 - Routing Information Protocol (RIP) Advanced to Elective Draft Standard protocol. 1045 - Versatile Message Transaction Protocol (VMTP) Moved to Elective Experimental protocol. 1006 - ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP (TP-TCP) Advanced to Elective Draft Standard protocol. 996 - Statistics Server (STATSRV) Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol. 954 - WhoIs Protocol (NICNAME) Advanced to Elective Draft Standard protocol. 937 - Post Office Protocol, Version 2 (POP2) Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol. 916 - Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol (RATP) Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol. 914 - Thinwire Protocol (THINWIRE) Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol. 818 - Remote Telnet Service (RTELNET) Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol. 569 - Network Standard Text Editor (NETED) Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol. 407 - Remote Job Entry (RJE) Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.
6.2. Standard Protocols Protocol Name Status RFC ======== ===================================== ============== ==== -------- Assigned Numbers Required 1060 -------- Gateway Requirements Required 1009 -------- Host Requirements - Communications Required 1122 -------- Host Requirements - Applications Required 1123 IP Internet Protocol Required 791 as amended by: -------- IP Subnet Extension Required 950 -------- IP Broadcast Datagrams Required 919 -------- IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets Required 922 ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol Required 792 IGMP Internet Group Multicast Protocol Recommended 1112 UDP User Datagram Protocol Recommended 768 TCP Transmission Control Protocol Recommended 793 SMI Structure of Management Information Recommended 1155 MIB Management Information Base Recommended 1156 SNMP Simple Network Management Protocol Recommended 1157 DOMAIN Domain Name System Recommended 1034,1035 TELNET Telnet Protocol Recommended 854 FTP File Transfer Protocol Recommended 959 SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol Recommended 821 MAIL Format of Electronic Mail Messages Recommended 822 CONTENT Content Type Header Field Recommended 1049 EGP Exterior Gateway Protocol Recommended 904 ECHO Echo Protocol Recommended 862 NTP Network Time Protocol Recommended 1119 NETBIOS NetBIOS Service Protocols Elective 1001,1002 DISCARD Discard Protocol Elective 863 CHARGEN Character Generator Protocol Elective 864 QUOTE Quote of the Day Protocol Elective 865 USERS Active Users Protocol Elective 866 DAYTIME Daytime Protocol Elective 867 TIME Time Server Protocol Elective 868 Notes: IGMP -- The Internet Activities Board intends to move towards general adoption of IP multicasting, as a more efficient solution than broadcasting for many applications. The host interface has been standardized in RFC-1112; however, multicast-routing gateways are in the experimental stage and are not widely available. An Internet host should support all of RFC-1112, except for the IGMP protocol itself which is optional; see RFC-1122 for more details. Even without IGMP, implementation of RFC-1112 will provide an important advance: IP-layer access to local network multicast addressing. It
is expected that IGMP will become recommended for all hosts and gateways at some future date. SMI, MIB, SNMP -- The Internet Activities Board recommends that all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable. This implies implementation of the Internet MIB (RFC-1156) and at least one of the two recommended management protocols SNMP (RFC-1157) or CMOT (RFC- 1095). It should be noted that, at this time, SNMP is a full Internet standard and CMOT is a draft standard. See also the Host and Gateway Requirements RFCs for more specific information on the applicability of this standard. 6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols Protocol Name Status RFC ======== ===================================== =============== ==== ARP Address Resolution Protocol Elective 826 RARP A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol Elective 903 IP-ARPA Internet Protocol on ARPANET Elective BBN 1822 IP-WB Internet Protocol on Wideband Network Elective 907 IP-X25 Internet Protocol on X.25 Networks Elective 877 IP-E Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks Elective 894 IP-EE Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets Elective 895 IP-IEEE Internet Protocol on IEEE 802 Elective 1042 IP-DC Internet Protocol on DC Networks Elective 891 IP-HC Internet Protocol on Hyperchannel Elective 1044 IP-ARC Internet Protocol on ARCNET Elective 1051 IP-SLIP Transmission of IP over Serial Lines Elective 1055 IP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS Elective 1088 IP-FDDI Transmission of IP over FDDI Elective 1103 IP-IPX Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks Elective 1132 Notes: It is expected that a system will support one or more physical networks and for each physical network supported the appropriate protocols from the above list must be supported. That is, it is elective to support any particular type of physical network, and for the physical networks actually supported it is required that they be supported exactly according to the protocols in the above list. See also the Host and Gateway Requirements RFCs for more specific information on network-specific ("link layer") protocols.
6.4. Draft Standard Protocols Protocol Name Status RFC ======== ===================================== =============== ==== -------- Mail Privacy: Procedures Elective 1113 -------- Mail Privacy: Key Management Elective 1114 -------- Mail Privacy: Algorithms Elective 1115 CMOT Common Management Information Services Recommended 1095 and Protocol over TCP/IP BOOTP Bootstrap Protocol Recommended 951,1048,1084 RIP Routing Information Protocol Elective 1058 TP-TCP ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP Elective 1006 NICNAME WhoIs Protocol Elective 954 TFTP Trivial File Transfer Protocol Elective 783 Notes: CMOT -- The Internet Activities Board recommends that all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable. This implies implementation of the Internet MIB (RFC-1156) and at least one of the two recommended management protocols SNMP (RFC-1157) or CMOT (RFC-1095). It should be noted that, at this time, SNMP is a full Internet standard and CMOT is a draft standard. See also the Host and Router Requirements RFCs for more specific information on the applicability of this standard. RIP -- The Routing Information Protocol (RIP) is widely implemented and used in the Internet. However, both implementors and users should be aware that RIP has some serious technical limitations as a routing protocol. The IETF is currently developing several candidates for a new standard "open" routing protocol with better properties than RIP. The IAB urges the Internet community to track these developments, and to implement the new protocol when it is standardized; improved Internet service will result for many users. TP-TCP -- As OSI protocols become more widely implemented and used, there will be an increasing need to support interoperation with the TCP/IP protocols. The Internet Engineering Task Force is formulating strategies for interoperation. RFC-1006 provides one interoperation mode, in which TCP/IP is used to emulate TP0 in order to support OSI applications. Hosts that wish to run OSI connection-oriented applications in this mode should use the procedure described in RFC- 1006. In the future, the IAB expects that a major portion of the Internet will support both TCP/IP and OSI (inter-)network protocols in parallel, and it will then be possible to run OSI applications across the Internet using full OSI protocol "stacks".
6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols Protocol Name Status RFC ======== ===================================== =============== ==== MIB-II MIB-II Elective xxxx IP-CMPRS Compressing TCP/IP Headers Elective 1144 -------- Echo for ISO-8473 Elective 1139 PPP Point to Point Protocol Elective 1134 OSPF Open Shortest Path First Routing Elective 1131 SUN-NFS Network File System Protocol Elective 1094 POP3 Post Office Protocol, Version 3 Elective 1081,1082 SUN-RPC Remote Procedure Call Protocol Elective 1057 PCMAIL Pcmail Transport Protocol Elective 1056 NFILE A File Access Protocol Elective 1037 -------- Mapping between X.400(84) and RFC-822 Elective 987,1026 NNTP Network News Transfer Protocol Elective 977 HOSTNAME HOSTNAME Protocol Elective 953 SFTP Simple File Transfer Protocol Elective 913 RLP Resource Location Protocol Elective 887 FINGER Finger Protocol Elective 742 SUPDUP SUPDUP Protocol Elective 734 Notes: This section is being reviewed by the IESG, which will recommend that some of these protocols be moved to either the draft standard, or the experimental or historic categories. MIB-II -- This memo defines a mandatory extension to the base MIB (RFC-1156) and is a Proposed Standard for the Internet community. The extensions described here are currently Elective, but when they become a standard, they will have the same status as RFC-1156, that is, Recommended. The Internet Activities Board recommends that all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable. This implies implementation of the Internet MIB (RFC-1156 and the extensions in RFC-xxxx) and at least one of the two recommended management protocols SNMP (RFC-1157) or CMOT (RFC-1095). PPP -- Point to Point Protocol is a method of sending IP over serial lines, which are a type of physical network. It is expected that a system will support one or more physical networks and for each physical network supported the appropriate protocols from the network-specific standard protocols (Section 6.3) must be supported. That is, it is elective to support any particular type of physical network, and for the physical networks actually supported it is required that they be supported exactly according to the protocols listed. It is anticipated that PPP will be advanced to the network- specific standard protocol state in the future.
6.6. Experimental Protocols Protocol Name Status RFC ======== ===================================== =============== ==== EHF-MAIL Encoding Header Field for Mail Elective 1154 DMF-MAIL Digest Message Format for Mail Elective 1153 RDP Reliable Data Protocol Limited Use 908,1151 -------- Mapping between X.400(88) and RFC-822 Elective 1148 TCP-ACO TCP Alternate Checksum Option Not Recommended 1146 -------- Mapping full 822 to Restricted 822 Elective 1137 BGP Border Gateway Protocol Limited Use 1105 IP-DVMRP IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing Not Recommended 1075 TCP-LDP TCP Extensions for Long Delay Paths Limited Use 1072 IMAP2 Interactive Mail Access Protocol Limited Use 1064 IP-MTU IP MTU Discovery Options Not Recommended 1063 VMTP Versatile Message Transaction Protocol Elective 1045 COOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme Not Recommended 1004 NETBLT Bulk Data Transfer Protocol Not Recommended 998 IRTP Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol Not Recommended 938 AUTH Authentication Service Not Recommended 931 LDP Loader Debugger Protocol Not Recommended 909 ST Stream Protocol Limited Use IEN-119 NVP-II Network Voice Protocol Limited Use ISI-memo PVP Packet Video Protocol Limited Use ISI-memo 6.7. Historic Protocols Protocol Name Status RFC ======= ===================================== =============== ==== SGMP Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol Not Recommended 1028 HEMS High Level Entity Management Protocol Not Recommended 1021 STATSRV Statistics Server Not Recommended 996 POP2 Post Office Protocol, Version 2 Not Recommended 937 RATP Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol Not Recommended 916 THINWIRE Thinwire Protocol Not Recommended 914 HMP Host Monitoring Protocol Not Recommended 869 GGP Gateway Gateway Protocol Not Recommended 823 RTELNET Remote Telnet Service Not Recommended 818 CLOCK DCNET Time Server Protocol Not Recommended 778 MPM Internet Message Protocol Not Recommended 759 NETRJS Remote Job Service Not Recommended 740 NETED Network Standard Text Editor Not Recommended 569 RJE Remote Job Entry Not Recommended 407 XNET Cross Net Debugger Not Recommended IEN-158 NAMESERVER Host Name Server Protocol Not Recommended IEN-116 MUX Multiplexing Protocol Not Recommended IEN-90 GRAPHICS Graphics Protocol Not Recommended NIC-24308
7. Contacts 7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts 7.1.1. Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact Contact: Bob Braden Executive Director of the IAB USC/Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695 1-213-822-1511 Braden@ISI.EDU Please send your comments about this list of protocols and especially about the Draft Standard Protocols to the Internet Activities Board care of Bob Braden, IAB Executive Director. 7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact Contact: Phill Gross Chair of the IETF Corporation for National Research Initiatives (NRI) 1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100 Reston, VA 22091 1-703-620-8990 PGross@NRI.RESTON.VA.US
7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact Contact: David D. Clark Chair of the IRTF Massachusetts Institute of Technology Laboratory for Computer Science 545 Main Street Cambridge, MA 02139 1-617-253-6003 ddc@LCS.MIT.EDU 7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Contact Contact: Joyce K. Reynolds Internet Assigned Numbers Authority USC/Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695 1-213-822-1511 IANA@ISI.EDU The protocol standards are managed for the IAB by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. Please refer to the documents "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1060) and "Official Internet Protocols" (RFC-1011) for further information about the status of protocol documents. There are two documents that summarize the requirements for host and gateways in the Internet, "Host Requirements" (RFC-1122 and RFC-1123) and "Gateway Requirements" (RFC-1009). How to obtain the most recent edition of this "IAB Official Protocol Standards" memo: The file "in-notes/iab-standards.txt" may be copied via FTP from the VENERA.ISI.EDU computer using the FTP username "anonymous" and FTP password "guest".
7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact Contact: Jon Postel RFC Editor USC/Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695 1-213-822-1511 Postel@ISI.EDU Documents may be submitted via electronic mail to the RFC Editor for consideration for publication as RFC. If you are not familiar with the format or style requirements please request the "Instructions for RFC Authors". In general, the style of any recent RFC may be used as a guide. 7.4. The Network Information Center and Requests for Comments Distribution Contact Contact: DDN Network Information Center SRI International Room EJ291 333 Ravenswood Avenue Menlo Park, CA 94025 1-800-235-3155 1-415-859-3695 NIC@NIC.DDN.MIL The Network Information Center (NIC) provides many information services for the Internet community. Among them is maintaining the Requests for Comments (RFC) library. RFCs can be obtained via FTP from NIC.DDN.MIL, with the pathname RFC:RFCnnnn.TXT where "nnnn" refers to the number of the RFC. A list of all RFCs may be obtained by copying the file RFC:RFC-INDEX.TXT. Log in with FTP username ANONYMOUS and password GUEST. The NIC also provides an automatic mail service for those sites which cannot use FTP. Address the request to SERVICE@NIC.DDN.MIL and in the subject field of the message indicate the file name, as in
"Subject: SEND RFC:RFCnnnn.TXT". Some RFCs are now available in PostScript, these may be obtained from the NIC in a similar fashion by substituting ".PS" for ".TXT". How to obtain the most recent edition of this "IAB Official Protocol Standards" memo: The file RFC:IAB-STANDARDS.TXT may be copied via FTP from the NIC.DDN.MIL computer following the same procedures used to obtain RFCs. 7.5. Other Sources for Requests for Comments 7.5.1. NSF Network Service Center (NNSC) NSF Network Service Center (NNSC) BBN Laboratories, Inc. 10 Moulton St. Cambridge, MA 02238 617-873-3400 NNSC@NNSC.NSF.NET 7.5.2. NSF Network Information Service (NIS) NSF Network Information Service Merit Computer Network University of Michigan 1075 Beal Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48109 313-763-4897 INFO@NIS.NSF.NET 7.5.3. CSNET Coordination and Information Center (CIC) CSNET Coordination and Information Center BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation 10 Moulton Street Cambridge, MA 02238 617-873-2777 INFO@SH.CS.NET
8. Security Considerations Security issues are not addressed in this memo. 9. Author's Address Jon Postel USC/Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Phone: (213) 822-1511 Email: Postel@ISI.EDU