RFCs in HTML Format


RFC 1500

Network Working Group                        Internet Architecture Board
Request for Comments: 1500                             J. Postel, Editor
Obsoletes: RFCs 1410, 1360, 1280,                            August 1993
1250, 1100, 1083, 1130, 1140, 1200
STD: 1


                  INTERNET OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS
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.  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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   4.1.4.  Experimental Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   6.2.  Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22



Internet Architecture Board                                     [Page 1]

RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993 6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 24 6.4. Draft Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.6. Telnet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.7. Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6.8. Informational Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6.9. Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 7. Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7.1.1. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact . . . . . . 32 7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . 33 7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact . . . . . 34 7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . . 34 7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact . . . . . . . . . . 35 7.4. Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . . 35 7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments . . . . . . . . . . . 36 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 9. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Introduction A discussion of the standardization process and the RFC document series is presented first, followed by an explanation of the terms. Sections 6.2 - 6.9 contain the lists of protocols in each stage of standardization. Finally are pointers to references and contacts for further information. This memo is intended to be issued approximately quarterly; please be sure the copy you are reading is current. Current copies may be obtained from the Network Information Center (INTERNIC) or from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (see the contact information at the end of this memo). Do not use this edition after 31-October-93. See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes. In the official lists in sections 6.2 - 6.9, an asterisk (*) next to a protocol denotes that it is new to this document or has been moved from one protocol level to another, or differs from the previous edition of this document. 1. The Standardization Process The Internet Architecture Board maintains this list of documents that define standards for the Internet protocol suite. See RFC 1358 for the charter of the IAB and RFC 1160 for an explanation of the role and organization of the IAB and its subsidiary groups, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). Each of these groups has a steering group called the IESG Internet Architecture Board [Page 2]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993 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 1310. The majority of Internet protocol development and standardization activity takes place in the working groups of the IETF. Protocols which are to become standards in the Internet go through a series of states or maturity levels (proposed standard, draft standard, and standard) involving increasing amounts of scrutiny and testing. When a protocol completes this process it is assigned a STD number (see RFC 1311). At each step, the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) of the IETF must make a recommendation for advancement of the protocol. To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react to standardization proposals, a minimum delay of 6 months before a proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard and 4 months before a draft standard can be promoted to standard. It is general practice that no proposed standard can be promoted to draft standard without at least two independent implementations (and the recommendation of the IESG). Promotion from draft standard to standard generally requires operational experience and demonstrated interoperability of two or more implementations (and the recommendation of the IESG). In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper decision concerning a protocol a special review committee may be appointed consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB with the purpose of recommending an explicit action. Advancement of a protocol to proposed standard is an important step since it marks a protocol as a candidate for eventual standardization (it puts the protocol "on the standards track"). Advancement to draft standard is a major step which warns the community that, unless major objections are raised or flaws are discovered, the protocol is likely to be advanced to standard in six months. Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are otherwise unused. Such protocols are still documented in this memorandum with the designation "historic". Because it is useful to document the results of early protocol research and development work, some of the RFCs document protocols which are still in an experimental condition. The protocols are Internet Architecture Board [Page 3]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993 designated "experimental" in this memorandum. They appear in this report as a convenience to the community and not as evidence of their standardization. Other protocols, such as those developed by other standards organizations, or by particular vendors, may be of interest or may be recommended for use in the Internet. The specifications of such protocols may be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community. These protocols are labeled "informational" in this memorandum. In addition to the working groups of the IETF, protocol development and experimentation may take place as a result of the work of the research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or the work of other individuals interested in Internet protocol development. The the documentation of such experimental work in the RFC series is encouraged, but none of this work is considered to be on the track for standardization until the IESG has made a recommendation to advance the protocol to the proposed standard state. A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without the approval of the IESG. For example, some vendor protocols have become very important to the Internet community even though they have not been recommended by the IESG. However, the IAB strongly recommends that the standards process be used in the evolution of the protocol suite to maximize interoperability (and to prevent incompatible protocol requirements from arising). The use of the terms "standard", "draft standard", and "proposed standard" are reserved in any RFC or other publication of Internet protocols to only those protocols which the IESG has approved. In addition to a state (like "Proposed Standard"), a protocol is also assigned a status, or requirement level, in this document. The possible requirement levels ("Required", "Recommended", "Elective", "Limited Use", and "Not Recommended") are defined in Section 4.2. When a protocol is on the standards track, that is in the proposed standard, draft standard, or standard state (see Section 5), the status shown in Section 6 is the current status. Few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems; this is because there is such a variety of possible systems, for example, gateways, routers, terminal servers, workstations, and multi-user hosts. The requirement level shown in this document is only a one word label, which may not be sufficient to characterize the implementation requirements for a protocol in all situations. For some protocols, this document contains an additional status paragraph (an applicability statement). In addition, more detailed status information may be contained in separate requirements documents (see Internet Architecture Board [Page 4]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993 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 1111). While RFCs are not refereed publications, they do receive technical review from the task forces, individual technical experts, or the RFC Editor, as appropriate. The RFC series comprises a wide range of documents, ranging from informational documents of general interests to specifications of standard Internet protocols. In cases where submission is intended to document a proposed standard, draft standard, or standard protocol, the RFC Editor will publish the document only with the approval of the IESG. For documents describing experimental work, the RFC Editor will notify the IESG before publication, allowing for the possibility of review by the relevant IETF working group or IRTF research group and provide those comments to the author. See Section 5.1 for more detail. Once a document is assigned an RFC number and published, that RFC is never revised or re-issued with the same number. There is never a question of having the most recent version of a particular RFC. However, a protocol (such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP)) may be improved and re-documented many times in several different RFCs. It is important to verify that you have the most recent RFC on a particular protocol. This "Internet Official Protocol Standards" memo is the reference for determining the correct RFC for the current specification of each protocol. The RFCs are available from the INTERNIC, and a number of other sites. For more information about obtaining RFCs, see Sections 7.4 and 7.5. Internet Architecture Board [Page 5]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993 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 1340. 3.2. 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. 3.3. Host Requirements This pair of documents reviews and updates the specifications that apply to hosts, and it supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities. Host Requirements was issued as RFC 1122 and RFC 1123. 3.4. The MIL-STD Documents The Internet community specifications for IP (RFC 791) and TCP (RFC- 793) and the DoD MIL-STD specifications are intended to describe exactly the same protocols. Any difference in the protocols specified by these sets of documents should be reported to DISA and to the IESG. The RFCs and the MIL-STDs for IP and TCP differ in style and level of detail. It is strongly advised that the two sets of documents be used together, along with RFC 1122 and RFC 1123. The Internet and the DoD MIL-STD specifications for the FTP, SMTP, and Telnet protocols are essentially the same documents (RFCs 765, 821, 854). The MIL-STD versions have been edited slightly. Note that the current Internet specification for FTP is RFC 959 (as modified by RFC 1123). Internet Architecture Board [Page 6]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993 Note that these MIL-STD are now somewhat out of date. The Gateway Requirements (RFC 1009) and Host Requirements (RFC 1122, RFC 1123) take precedence over both earlier RFCs and the MIL-STDs. Internet Protocol (IP) MIL-STD-1777 Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) MIL-STD-1778 File Transfer Protocol (FTP) MIL-STD-1780 Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) MIL-STD-1781 Telnet Protocol and Options (TELNET) MIL-STD-1782 These documents are available from the Naval Publications and Forms Center. Requests can be initiated by telephone, telegraph, or mail; however, it is preferred that private industry use form DD1425, if possible. Naval Publications and Forms Center, Code 3015 5801 Tabor Ave Philadelphia, PA 19120 Phone: 1-215-697-3321 (order tape) 1-215-697-4834 (conversation) 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, not recommended) cell. Internet Architecture Board [Page 7]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993 S T A T U S Req Rec Ele Lim Not +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Std | X | XXX | XXX | | | S +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Draft | X | X | XXX | | | T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Prop | | X | XXX | | | A +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Info | | | | | | T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Expr | | | | XXX | | E +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Hist | | | | | XXX | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ What is a "system"? Some protocols are particular to hosts and some to gateways; a few protocols are used in both. The definitions of the terms below will refer to a "system" which is either a host or a gateway (or both). It should be clear from the context of the particular protocol which types of systems are intended. 4.1. Definitions of Protocol State Every protocol listed in this document is assigned to a "maturity level" or STATE of standardization: "standard", "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic". 4.1.1. Standard Protocol The IESG has established this as an official standard protocol for the Internet. These protocols are assigned STD numbers (see RFC- 1311). These are separated into two groups: (1) IP protocol and above, protocols that apply to the whole Internet; and (2) network-specific protocols, generally specifications of how to do IP on particular types of networks. 4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol The IESG is actively considering this protocol as a possible Standard Protocol. Substantial and widespread testing and comment are desired. Comments and test results should be submitted to the IESG. There is a possibility that changes will be made in a Draft Standard Protocol before it becomes a Standard Protocol. Internet Architecture Board [Page 8]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993 4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol These are protocol proposals that may be considered by the IESG for standardization in the future. Implementation and testing by several groups is desirable. Revision of the protocol specification is likely. 4.1.4. Experimental Protocol A system should not implement an experimental protocol unless it is participating in the experiment and has coordinated its use of the protocol with the developer of the protocol. Typically, experimental protocols are those that are developed as part of an ongoing research project not related to an operational service offering. While they may be proposed as a service protocol at a later stage, and thus become proposed standard, draft standard, and then standard protocols, the designation of a protocol as experimental may sometimes be meant to suggest that the protocol, although perhaps mature, is not intended for operational use. 4.1.5. Informational Protocol Protocols developed by other standard organizations, or vendors, or that are for other reasons outside the purview of the IESG, may be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community as informational protocols. 4.1.6. Historic Protocol These are protocols that are unlikely to ever become standards in the Internet either because they have been superseded by later developments or due to lack of interest. 4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status This document lists a "requirement level" or STATUS for each protocol. The status is one of "required", "recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended". 4.2.1. Required Protocol A system must implement the required protocols. 4.2.2. Recommended Protocol A system should implement the recommended protocols. Internet Architecture Board [Page 9]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993 4.2.3. Elective Protocol A system may or may not implement an elective protocol. The general notion is that if you are going to do something like this, you must do exactly this. There may be several elective protocols in a general area, for example, there are several electronic mail protocols, and several routing protocols. 4.2.4. Limited Use Protocol These protocols are for use in limited circumstances. This may be because of their experimental state, specialized nature, limited functionality, or historic state. 4.2.5. Not Recommended Protocol These protocols are not recommended for general use. This may be because of their limited functionality, specialized nature, or experimental or historic state. 5. The Standards Track This section discusses in more detail the procedures used by the RFC Editor and the IESG in making decisions about the labeling and publishing of protocols as standards. 5.1. The RFC Processing Decision Table Here is the current decision table for processing submissions by the RFC Editor. The processing depends on who submitted it, and the status they want it to have. Internet Architecture Board [Page 10]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993 +==========================================================+ |**************| S O U R C E | +==========================================================+ | Desired | IAB | IESG | IRSG | Other | | Status | | | | | +==========================================================+ | | | | | | | Standard | Bogus | Publish | Bogus | Bogus | | or | (2) | (1) | (2) | (2) | | Draft | | | | | | Standard | | | | | +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ | | | | | | | | Refer | Publish | Refer | Refer | | Proposed | (3) | (1) | (3) | (3) | | Standard | | | | | | | | | | | +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ | | | | | | | | Notify | Publish | Notify | Notify | | Experimental | (4) | (1) | (4) | (4) | | Protocol | | | | | | | | | | | +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ | | | | | | | Information | Publish | Publish |Discretion|Discretion| | or Opinion | (1) | (1) | (5) | (5) | | Paper | | | | | | | | | | | +==========================================================+ (1) Publish. (2) Bogus. Inform the source of the rules. RFCs specifying Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IESG, only. (3) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG. Expect to see the document again only after approval by the IESG. (4) Notify both the IESG and IRSG. If no concerns are raised in two weeks then do Discretion (5), else RFC Editor to resolve the concerns or do Refer (3). (5) RFC Editor's discretion. The RFC Editor decides if a review is needed and if so by whom. RFC Editor decides to publish or not. Of course, in all cases the RFC Editor can request or make minor Internet Architecture Board [Page 11]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993 changes for style, format, and presentation purposes. The IESG has designated the IESG Secretary as its agent for forwarding documents with IESG approval and for registering concerns in response to notifications (4) to the RFC Editor. Documents from Area Directors or Working Group Chairs may be considered in the same way as documents from "other". 5.2. The Standards Track Diagram There is a part of the STATUS and STATE categorization that is called the standards track. Actually, only the changes of state are significant to the progression along the standards track, though the status assignments may change as well. The states illustrated by single line boxes are temporary states, those illustrated by double line boxes are long term states. A protocol will normally be expected to remain in a temporary state for several months (minimum six months for proposed standard, minimum four months for draft standard). A protocol may be in a long term state for many years. A protocol may enter the standards track only on the recommendation of the IESG; and may move from one state to another along the track only on the recommendation of the IESG. That is, it takes action by the IESG to either start a protocol on the track or to move it along. Generally, as the protocol enters the standards track a decision is made as to the eventual STATUS, requirement level or applicability (elective, recommended, or required) the protocol will have, although a somewhat less stringent current status may be assigned, and it then is placed in the the proposed standard STATE with that status. So the initial placement of a protocol is into state 1. At any time the STATUS decision may be revisited. Internet Architecture Board [Page 12]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993 | +<----------------------------------------------+ | ^ V 0 | 4 +-----------+ +===========+ | enter |-->----------------+-------------->|experiment | +-----------+ | +=====+=====+ | | V 1 | +-----------+ V | proposed |-------------->+ +--->+-----+-----+ | | | | | V 2 | +<---+-----+-----+ V | draft std |-------------->+ +--->+-----+-----+ | | | | | V 3 | +<---+=====+=====+ V | standard |-------------->+ +=====+=====+ | | V 5 +=====+=====+ | historic | +===========+ The transition from proposed standard (1) to draft standard (2) can only be by action of the IESG and only after the protocol has been proposed standard (1) for at least six months. The transition from draft standard (2) to standard (3) can only be by action of the IESG and only after the protocol has been draft standard (2) for at least four months. Occasionally, the decision may be that the protocol is not ready for standardization and will be assigned to the experimental state (4). This is off the standards track, and the protocol may be resubmitted to enter the standards track after further work. There are other paths into the experimental and historic states that do not involve IESG action. Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus becomes historic, or it may happen that a protocol on the standards track is in a sense overtaken by another protocol (or other events) and becomes historic (state 5). Internet Architecture Board [Page 13]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993 6. The Protocols Subsection 6.1 lists recent RFCs and other changes. Subsections 6.2 - 6.9 list the standards in groups by protocol state. 6.1. Recent Changes 6.1.1. New RFCs: 1501 - OS/2 User Group This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1500 - This memo. 1499 - Not yet issued. 1498 - On the Naming and Binding of Network Destinations This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1497 - BOOTP Vendor Information Extensions This memo is a status report on BOOTP types and is a part of the BOOTP specification which is currently a Draft Standard. 1496 - Rules for Downgrading Messages from X.400/88 to X.400/84 When MIME Content-Types are Present in the Messages A Proposed Standard protocol. 1495 - Mapping between X.400 and RFC 822 Message Bodies A Proposed Standard protocol. 1494 - Equivalences between 1988 X.400 and RFC 822 Message Bodies A Proposed Standard protocol. 1493 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges A Draft Standard protocol. Internet Architecture Board [Page 14]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993 1492 - An Access Control Protocol, Sometimes Called TACACS This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1491 - A Survey of Advanced Usages of X.500 This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1490 - Multiprotocol Interconnect over Frame Relay A Draft Standard protocol. 1489 - Registration of a Cyrillic Character Set This document defines a character set, and is referenced by "Assigned Numbers" (STD 2). 1488 - The X.500 String Representation of Standard Attribute Syntaxes A Proposed Standard protocol. 1487 - X.500 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol A Proposed Standard protocol. 1486 - An Experiment in Remote Printing An Experimental protocol. 1485 - A String Representation of Distinguished Names (OSI-DS 23 (v5)) A Proposed Standard protocol. 1484 - Using the OSI Directory to achieve User Friendly Naming (OSI-DS 24 (v1.2)) An Experimental protocol. 1483 - Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Adaptation Layer 5 A Proposed Standard protocol. Internet Architecture Board [Page 15]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993 1482 - Aggregation Support in the NSFNET Policy-Based Routing Database This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1481 - IAB Recommendation for an Intermediate Strategy to Address the Issue of Scaling This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1480 - The US Domain This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1479 - Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Specification: Version-1 A Proposed Standard protocol. 1478 - An Architecture for Inter-Domain Policy Routing A Proposed Standard protocol. 1477 - IDPR as a Proposed Standard This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1476 - RAP: Internet Route Access Protocol An Experimental protocol. 1475 - TP/IX: The Next Internet An Experimental protocol. 1474 - The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Bridge Network Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol A Proposed Standard protocol. 1473 - The Definitions of Managed Objects for the IP Network Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol A Proposed Standard protocol. Internet Architecture Board [Page 16]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993 1472 - The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Security Protocols of the Point-to-Point Protocol A Proposed Standard protocol. 1471 - The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Link Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol A Proposed Standard protocol. 1470 - FYI on a Network Management Tool Catalog: Tools for Monitoring and Debugging TCP/IP Internets and Interconnected Devices This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1469 - IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks A Proposed Standard protocol. 1468 - Japanese Character Encoding for Internet Messages This document defines a character set, and is referenced by "Assigned Numbers" (STD 2). 1467 - Status of CIDR Deployment in the Internet This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1466 - Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1465 - Routing Coordination for X.400 MHS Services Within a Multi Protocol / Multi Network Environment Table Format V3 for Static Routing An Experimental protocol. 1464 - Using the Domain Name System To Store Arbitrary String Attributes An Experimental protocol. Internet Architecture Board [Page 17]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993 1463 - FYI on Introducing the Internet-- A Short Bibliography of Introductory Internetworking Readings This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1462 - FYI on "What is the Internet?" This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1461 - SNMP MIB extension for Multiprotocol Interconnect over X.25 A Proposed Standard protocol. 1460 - Post Office Protocol - Version-3 A Draft Standard protocol. 1459 - Internet Relay Chat Protocol An Experimental protocol. 1458 - Requirements for Multicast Protocols This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1457 - Security Label Framework for the Internet This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1456 - Conventions for Encoding the Vietnamese Language - VISCII: VIetnamese Standard Code for Information Interchange - VIQR: VIetnamese Quoted-Readable Specification This document defines a character set, and is referenced by "Assigned Numbers" (STD 2). 1455 - Physical Link Security Type of Service An Experimental protocol. 1454 - Comparison of Proposals for Next Version of IP This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. Internet Architecture Board [Page 18]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993 1453 - A Comment on Packet Video Remote Conferencing and the Transport/Network Layers This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1452 - Coexistence between version-1 and version-2 of the Internet-standard Network Management Framework A Proposed Standard protocol. 1451 - Manager-to-Manager Management Information Base A Proposed Standard protocol. 1450 - Management Information Base for version-2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2) A Proposed Standard protocol. 1449 - Transport Mappings for version-2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2) A Proposed Standard protocol. 1448 - Protocol Operations for version-2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2) A Proposed Standard protocol. 1447 - Party MIB for version-2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2) A Proposed Standard protocol. 1446 - Security Protocols for version-2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2 A Proposed Standard protocol. 1445 - Administrative Model for version-2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2) A Proposed Standard protocol. 1444 - Conformance Statements for version-2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2) Internet Architecture Board [Page 19]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993 Internet Architecture Board [Page 28]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993 TOPT-OM Output Marking 27 Prop Ele 933 TOPT-TLN Terminal Location Number 28 Prop Ele 946 TOPT-3270 Telnet 3270 Regime 29 Prop Ele 1041 TOPT-X.3 X.3 PAD 30 Prop Ele 1053 TOPT-NAWS Negotiate About Window Size 31 Prop Ele 1073 TOPT-TS Terminal Speed 32 Prop Ele 1079 TOPT-RFC Remote Flow Control 33 Prop Ele 1372 TOPT-LINE Linemode 34 Draft Ele 1184 TOPT-XDL X Display Location 35 Prop Ele 1096 TOPT-ENVIR Telnet Environment Option 36 Prop Ele 1408 TOPT-AUTH Telnet Authentication Option 37 Exp Ele 1416 TOPT-EXTOP Extended-Options-List 255 Std Rec 861 32 [Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.] 6.7. Experimental Protocols All Experimental protocols have the Limited Use status. Protocol Name RFC ======== ===================================== ===== REM-PRT An Experiment in Remote Printing 1486* RAP Internet Route Access Protocol 1476* TP/IX TP/IX: The Next Internet 1475* X400 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services 1465* DNS Storing Arbitrary Attributes in DNS 1464* IRCP Internet Relay Chat Protocol 1459* TOS-LS Link Security TOS 1455* SIFT/UFT Sender-Initiated/Unsolicited File Transfer 1440* DIR-ARP Directed ARP 1433 TEL-SPX Telnet Authentication: SPX 1412 TEL-KER Telnet Authentication: Kerberos V4 1411 MAP-MAIL X.400 Mapping and Mail-11 1405 TRACE-IP Traceroute Using an IP Option 1393 DNS-IP Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing 1383 DNS NSAP DNS NSAP RRs 1348 RMCP Remote Mail Checking Protocol 1339 MSP2 Message Send Protocol 2 1312 DSLCP Dynamically Switched Link Control 1307 -------- X.500 and Domains 1279 IN-ENCAP Internet Encapsulation Protocol 1241 CLNS-MIB CLNS-MIB 1238 CFDP Coherent File Distribution Protocol 1235 SNMP-DPI SNMP Distributed Program Interface 1228 SNMP-MUX SNMP MUX Protocol and MIB 1227 IP-AX.25 IP Encapsulation of AX.25 Frames 1226 ALERTS Managing Asynchronously Generated Alerts 1224 Internet Architecture Board [Page 29]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993 MPP Message Posting Protocol 1204 ST-II Stream Protocol 1190 SNMP-BULK Bulk Table Retrieval with the SNMP 1187 DNS-RR New DNS RR Definitions 1183 NTP-OSI NTP over OSI Remote Operations 1165 EHF-MAIL Encoding Header Field for Mail 1154 DMF-MAIL Digest Message Format for Mail 1153 RDP Reliable Data Protocol 908,1151 -------- Mapping between X.400(88) and RFC 822 1148 TCP-ACO TCP Alternate Checksum Option 1146 -------- Mapping full 822 to Restricted 822 1137 IP-DVMRP IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing 1075 TCP-LDP TCP Extensions for Long Delay Paths 1072 IMAP2 Interactive Mail Access Protocol 1176,1064 VMTP Versatile Message Transaction Protocol 1045 COOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme 1004 NETBLT Bulk Data Transfer Protocol 998 IRTP Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol 938 AUTH Authentication Service 931 LDP Loader Debugger Protocol 909 RLP Resource Location Protocol 887 NVP-II Network Voice Protocol ISI-memo PVP Packet Video Protocol ISI-memo [Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.] 6.8. Informational Protocols Information protocols have no status. Protocol Name RFC ======= ==================================== ===== TACACS Terminal Access Control Protocol 1492* SUN-NFS Network File System Protocol 1094* SUN-RPC Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 1057* GOPHER The Internet Gopher Protocol 1436 ------- Data Link Switching: Switch-to-Switch Protocol 1434 LISTSERV Listserv Distribute Protocol 1429 ------- Replication Requirements 1275 PCMAIL Pcmail Transport Protocol 1056 MTP Multicast Transport Protocol 1301 BSD Login BSD Login 1282 DIXIE DIXIE Protocol Specification 1249 IP-X.121 IP to X.121 Address Mapping for DDN 1236 OSI-HYPER OSI and LLC1 on HYPERchannel 1223 HAP2 Host Access Protocol 1221 SUBNETASGN On the Assignment of Subnet Numbers 1219 Internet Architecture Board [Page 30]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993 SNMP-TRAPS Defining Traps for use with SNMP 1215 DAS Directory Assistance Service 1202 MD4 MD4 Message Digest Algorithm 1186 LPDP Line Printer Daemon Protocol 1179 [Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.] 6.9. Historic Protocols All Historic protocols have Not Recommended status. Protocol Name RFC ======= ===================================== ===== OIM-MIB-II OSI Internet Management: MIB-II 1214* IMAP3 Interactive Mail Access Protocol Version 3 1203* IP-ARC Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Nets 1201* SUN-RPC Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 1 1050* 802.4-MIP IEEE 802.4 Token Bus MIB 1230 CMOT Common Management Information Services 1189 PPP-INIT PPP Initial Configuration Options 1172 MSP Message Send Protocol 1159 -------- Mail Privacy: Procedures 1113 -------- Mail Privacy: Key Management 1114 -------- Mail Privacy: Algorithms 1115 NFILE A File Access Protocol 1037 HOSTNAME HOSTNAME Protocol 953 SFTP Simple File Transfer Protocol 913 SUPDUP SUPDUP Protocol 734 BGP Border Gateway Protocol 1163,1164 MIB-I MIB-I 1156 SGMP Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol 1028 HEMS High Level Entity Management Protocol 1021 STATSRV Statistics Server 996 POP2 Post Office Protocol, Version 2 937 RATP Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol 916 HFEP Host - Front End Protocol 929 THINWIRE Thinwire Protocol 914 HMP Host Monitoring Protocol 869 GGP Gateway Gateway Protocol 823 RTELNET Remote Telnet Service 818 CLOCK DCNET Time Server Protocol 778 MPM Internet Message Protocol 759 NETRJS Remote Job Service 740 NETED Network Standard Text Editor 569 RJE Remote Job Entry 407 XNET Cross Net Debugger IEN-158 NAMESERVER Host Name Server Protocol IEN-116 Internet Architecture Board [Page 31]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993 MUX Multiplexing Protocol IEN-90 GRAPHICS Graphics Protocol NIC-24308 [Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.] 7. Contacts 7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts 7.1.1. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact Please send your comments about this list of protocols and especially about the Draft Standard Protocols to the Internet Architecture Board care of Bob Braden, IAB Executive Director. Contacts: Bob Braden Executive Director of the IAB USC/Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695 1-310-822-1511 Braden@ISI.EDU Christian Huitema Chair of the IAB INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis 2004 Route des Lucioles BP 109 F-06561 Valbonne Cedex France +33 93 65 77 15 Christian.Huitema@MIRSA.INRIA.FR Internet Architecture Board [Page 32]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993 7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact Contacts: Phill Gross Chair of the IETF Advanced Network and Services 100 Clearbrook Road Elmsford, NY 10523 1-914-789-5300 PGross@ANS.NET John Stewart IESG Secretary Corporation for National Research Initiatives 1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100 Reston, VA 22091 1-703-620-8990 jstewart@CNRI.RESTON.VA.US Steve Coya Executive Director of the IETF Corporation for National Research Initiatives 1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100 Reston, VA 22091 1-703-620-8990 scoya@CNRI.RESTON.VA.US Internet Architecture Board [Page 33]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993 7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact Contact: Jon Postel Chair of the IRTF USC/Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695 1-310-822-1511 Postel@ISI.EDU 7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Contact Contact: Joyce K. Reynolds Internet Assigned Numbers Authority USC/Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695 1-310-822-1511 IANA@ISI.EDU The protocol standards are managed by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. Please refer to the document "Assigned Numbers" (RFC 1340) for further information about the status of protocol documents. There are two documents that summarize the requirements for host and gateways in the Internet, "Host Requirements" (RFC 1122 and RFC 1123) and "Gateway Requirements" (RFC 1009). How to obtain the most recent edition of this "Internet Official Protocol Standards" memo: The file "in-notes/internet-standards.txt" may be copied via FTP from the VENERA.ISI.EDU computer using the FTP username "anonymous" and FTP password "guest". Internet Architecture Board [Page 34]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993 7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact Contact: Jon Postel RFC Editor USC/Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695 1-310-822-1511 RFC-Editor@ISI.EDU Documents may be submitted via electronic mail to the RFC Editor for consideration for publication as RFC. If you are not familiar with the format or style requirements please request the "Instructions for RFC Authors". In general, the style of any recent RFC may be used as a guide. 7.4. The Network Information Center and Requests for Comments Distribution Contact RFC's may be obtained from DS.INTERNIC.NET via FTP, WAIS, and electronic mail. Through FTP, RFC's are stored as rfc/rfcnnnn.txt or rfc/rfcnnnn.ps where 'nnnn' is the RFC number. Login as "anonymous" and provide your e-mail address as the password. Through WAIS, you may use either your local WAIS client or telnet to DS.INTERNIC.NET and login as "wais" (no password required) to access a WAIS client. Help information and a tutorial for using WAIS are available online. The WAIS database to search is "rfcs". Directory and Database Services also provides a mail server interface. Send a mail message to mailserv@ds.internic.net and include any of the following commands in the message body: document-by-name rfcnnnn where 'nnnn' is the RFC number The text version is sent. file /ftp/rfc/rfcnnnn.yyy where 'nnnn' is the RFC number. and 'yyy' is 'txt' or 'ps'. help to get information on how to use the mailserver. The InterNIC directory and database services collection of resource listings, internet documents such as RFCs, FYIs, STDs, and Internet Drafts, and publicly accessible databases are also Internet Architecture Board [Page 35]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993 now available via Gopher. All our collections are WAIS indexed and can be searched from the Gopher menu. To access the InterNIC Gopher Servers, please connect to "internic.net" port 70. Contact: admin@ds.internic.net 7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments Details on many sources of RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to "rfc-info@ISI.EDU" with the message body "help: ways_to_get_rfcs". For example: To: rfc-info@ISI.EDU Subject: getting rfcs help: ways_to_get_rfcs


Back to RFC index

 

Associates:

 



Sponsered-Sites:

Register domain name and transfer | Cheap webhosting service | Domain name registration

 

 

""