RFCs in HTML Format


RFC 1920

                  INTERNET OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS



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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   4.1.  Definitions of Protocol State (Maturity Level) . . . . . . 9
   4.1.1.  Standard Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   4.1.2.  Draft Standard Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   4.1.3.  Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   4.1.4.  Experimental Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   4.1.5.  Informational Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.1.6.  Historic Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.2.  Definitions of Protocol Status (Requirement Level) . . .  10
   4.2.1.  Required Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.1.  The RFC Processing Decision Table  . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.2.  The Standards Track Diagram  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  The Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.1.  Recent Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14



Internet Architecture Board Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996 6.1.1. New RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.1.2. Other Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6.2. Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 22 6.4. Draft Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6.6. Telnet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.7. Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6.8. Informational Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 6.9. Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6.10 Obsolete Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 7. Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 7.1.1. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact . . . . . . 36 7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . 36 7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact . . . . . 37 7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . . 38 7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact . . . . . . . . . . 39 7.4. Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . . 39 7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments . . . . . . . . . . . 40 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 9. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 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 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 15-July-96. 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. Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996 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 in six months. Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996 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, Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996 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 1543). 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" Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996 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. 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 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. It is strongly advised that the two sets of documents be used together, along with RFC 1122 and RFC 1123. Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996 Note that these MIL-STD are now somewhat out of date. The Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers (RFC 1812) and Host Requirements (RFC 1122, RFC 1123) take precedence over both earlier RFCs and the MIL-STDs. 2045-13501 Internet Routing between Autonomous Systems 2045-14502-01 Internet Transport Profile for DoD Communications, Part 1: Transport and Internet Services 2045-14502-04 Internet Transport Profile for DoD Communications, Part 4: LAN Media-Independent Requirements 2045-14503 Internet Transport Service Supporting OSI Applications 2045-44500 Tactical Communications 2045-17503-01 Internet Message Transfer Profile for DoD Communications Part 1: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol 2045-17503-02 Internet Message Transfer Profile for DoD Communications Part 2: Format of Text Messages 2045-17504 Internet File Transfer Profile for DoD Communications 2045-17505 Internet Domain Name Service (DNS) Profile for DoD Communications 2045-17506 Internet Remote Login (RLOGIN) Profile for DoD Communications 2045-17507 Internet Network Management Profile for DoD Communications 2045-38000 DoD Network Management for DoD Communications 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) Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996 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. Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996 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. Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996 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. Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996 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. Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996 (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. Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996 | +<----------------------------------------------+ | ^ 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 Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996 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: 1920 - Internet Official Protocol Standards This memo. 1918 - Address Allocation for Private Internets This is a Best Current Practices document and does not specify any level of standard. 1917 - An Appeal to the Internet Community to Return Unused IP Networks (Prefixes) to the IANA This is a Best Current Practices document and does not specify any level of standard. 1916 - Enterprise Renumbering: Experience and Information Solicitation This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1915 - Variance for The PPP Connection Control Protocol and The PPP Encryption Control Protocol This is a Best Current Practices document and does not specify any level of standard. 1914 - How to Interact with a Whois++ Mesh A Proposed Standard protocol. 1913 - Architecture of the Whois++ Index Service A Proposed Standard protocol. 1912 - Common DNS Operational and Configuration Errors This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996 1911 - Voice Profile for Internet Mail An Experimental protocol. 1910 - User-based Security Model for SNMPv2 An Experimental protocol. 1909 - An Administrative Infrastructure for SNMPv2 An Experimental protocol. 1908 - Coexistence between Version 1 and Version 2 of the Internet-standard Network Management Framework A Draft Standard protocol. 1907 - Management Information Base for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2) A Draft Standard protocol. 1906 - Transport Mappings for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2) A Draft Standard protocol. 1905 - Protocol Operations for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2) A Draft Standard protocol. 1904 - Conformance Statements for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2) A Draft Standard protocol. 1903 - Textual Conventions for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2) A Draft Standard protocol. 1902 - Structure of Management Information for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2) A Draft Standard protocol. Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996
RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996 SNMP-PARTY-MIB Administration of SNMP Elective 1353 SNMP-SEC SNMP Security Protocols Elective 1352 SNMP-ADMIN SNMP Administrative Model Elective 1351 TOS Type of Service in the Internet Elective 1349 PPP-AUTH PPP Authentication Elective 1334 PPP-LINK PPP Link Quality Monitoring Elective 1333 PPP-IPCP PPP Control Protocol Elective 1332 ------- X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading Elective 1328 ------- Mapping between X.400(1988) Elective 1327 TCP-EXT TCP Extensions for High Performance Elective 1323 FRAME-MIB Management Information Base for Frame Elective 1315 NETFAX File Format for the Exchange of Images Elective 1314 IARP Inverse Address Resolution Protocol Elective 1293 FDDI-MIB FDDI-MIB Elective 1285 ------- Encoding Network Addresses Elective 1277 ------- Replication and Distributed Operations Elective 1276 ------- COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema Elective 1274 BGP-MIB Border Gateway Protocol MIB (Version 3) Elective 1269 ICMP-ROUT ICMP Router Discovery Messages Elective 1256 IPSO DoD Security Options for IP Elective 1108 OSI-UDP OSI TS on UDP Elective 1240 STD-MIBs Reassignment of Exp MIBs to Std MIBs Elective 1239 IPX-IP Tunneling IPX Traffic through IP Nets Elective 1234 GINT-MIB Extensions to the Generic-Interface MIB Elective 1229 IS-IS OSI IS-IS for TCP/IP Dual Environments Elective 1195 IP-CMPRS Compressing TCP/IP Headers Elective 1144 NNTP Network News Transfer Protocol Elective 977 [Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.] [Note: Ele/Req indicates elective for use with IPv4 and required for use with IPv6.] Applicability Statements: OSPF - RFC 1370 is an applicability statement for OSPF. Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996 6.6. Telnet Options For convenience, all the Telnet Options are collected here with both their state and status. Protocol Name Number State Status RFC STD ======== ===================================== ===== ====== ==== === TOPT-BIN Binary Transmission 0 Std Rec 856 27 TOPT-ECHO Echo 1 Std Rec 857 28 TOPT-RECN Reconnection 2 Prop Ele ... TOPT-SUPP Suppress Go Ahead 3 Std Rec 858 29 TOPT-APRX Approx Message Size Negotiation 4 Prop Ele ... TOPT-STAT Status 5 Std Rec 859 30 TOPT-TIM Timing Mark 6 Std Rec 860 31 TOPT-REM Remote Controlled Trans and Echo 7 Prop Ele 726 TOPT-OLW Output Line Width 8 Prop Ele ... TOPT-OPS Output Page Size 9 Prop Ele ... TOPT-OCRD Output Carriage-Return Disposition 10 Prop Ele 652 TOPT-OHT Output Horizontal Tabstops 11 Prop Ele 653 TOPT-OHTD Output Horizontal Tab Disposition 12 Prop Ele 654 TOPT-OFD Output Formfeed Disposition 13 Prop Ele 655 TOPT-OVT Output Vertical Tabstops 14 Prop Ele 656 TOPT-OVTD Output Vertical Tab Disposition 15 Prop Ele 657 TOPT-OLD Output Linefeed Disposition 16 Prop Ele 658 TOPT-EXT Extended ASCII 17 Prop Ele 698 TOPT-LOGO Logout 18 Prop Ele 727 TOPT-BYTE Byte Macro 19 Prop Ele 735 TOPT-DATA Data Entry Terminal 20 Prop Ele 1043 TOPT-SUP SUPDUP 21 Prop Ele 736 TOPT-SUPO SUPDUP Output 22 Prop Ele 749 TOPT-SNDL Send Location 23 Prop Ele 779 TOPT-TERM Terminal Type 24 Prop Ele 1091 TOPT-EOR End of Record 25 Prop Ele 885 TOPT-TACACS TACACS User Identification 26 Prop Ele 927 TOPT-OM Output Marking 27 Prop Ele 933 TOPT-TLN Terminal Location Number 28 Prop Ele 946 TOPT-3270 Telnet 3270 Regime 29 Prop Ele 1041 TOPT-X.3 X.3 PAD 30 Prop Ele 1053 TOPT-NAWS Negotiate About Window Size 31 Prop Ele 1073 TOPT-TS Terminal Speed 32 Prop Ele 1079 TOPT-RFC Remote Flow Control 33 Prop Ele 1372 TOPT-LINE Linemode 34 Draft Ele 1184 TOPT-XDL X Display Location 35 Prop Ele 1096 TOPT-ENVIR Telnet Environment Option 36 Hist Not 1408 TOPT-AUTH Telnet Authentication Option 37 Exp Ele 1416 TOPT-ENVIR Telnet Environment Option 39 Prop Ele 1572 TOPT-EXTOP Extended-Options-List 255 Std Rec 861 32 Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996 [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 ======== ===================================== ===== MIME-VP Voice Profile for Internet Mail 1911* SNMPV2SM User-based Security Model for SNMPv2 1910* SNMPV2AI SNMPv2 Administrative Infrastructure 1909* SNMPV2CB Introduction to Community-based SNMPv2 1901* ------- IPv6 Testing Address Allocation 1897* DNS-LOC Location Information in the DNS 1876* SGML-MT SGML Media Types 1874* CONT-MT Access Type Content-ID 1873* RELAT-MT Multipart/Related 1872* UNARP ARP Extension - UNARP 1868 ------- Form-based File Upload in HTML 1867 ------- BGP/IDRP Route Server Alternative 1863 ------- IP Authentication using Keyed SHA 1852 ESP3DES ESP Triple DES Transform 1851 ------- SMTP 521 Reply Code 1846 ------- SMTP Serv. Ext. for Checkpoint/Restart 1845 ------- X.500 Mapping X.400 and RFC 822 Addresses 1838 ------- Tables and Subtrees in the X.500 Directory 1837 ------- O/R Address hierarchy in X.500 1836 ------- SMTP Serv. Ext. Large and Binary MIME Msgs. 1830 ST2 Stream Protocol Version 2 1819 ------- Content-Disposition Header 1806 ------- Schema Publishing in X.500 Directory 1804 ------- X.400-MHS use X.500 to support X.400-MHS Routing 1801 ------- Class A Subnet Experiment 1797 TCP/IPXMIB TCP/IPX Connection Mib Specification 1792 ------- TCP And UDP Over IPX Networks With Fixed Path MTU 1791 ICMP-DM ICMP Domain Name Messages 1788 CLNP-MULT Host Group Extensions for CLNP Multicasting 1768 OSPF-OVFL OSPF Database Overflow 1765 RWP Remote Write ProtocolL - Version 1.0 1756 NARP NBMA Address Resolution Protocol 1735 DNS-DEBUG Tools for DNS debugging 1713 DNS-ENCODE DNS Encoding of Geographical Location 1712 TCP-POS An Extension to TCP: Partial Order Service 1693 ------- DNS to Distribute RFC1327 Mail Address Mapping Tables 1664 T/TCP TCP Extensions for Transactions 1644 UTF-7 A Mail-Safe Transformation Format of Unicode 1642 MIME-UNI Using Unicode with MIME 1641 Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 29]
RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996 FOOBAR FTP Operation Over Big Address Records 1639 X500-CHART Charting Networks in the X.500 Directory 1609 X500-DIR Representing IP Information in the X.500 Directory 1608 SNMP-DPI SNMP Distributed Protocol Interface 1592 CLNP-TUBA Use of ISO CLNP in TUBA Environments 1561 REM-PRINT TPC.INT Subdomain Remote Printing - Technical 1528 EHF-MAIL Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages 1505 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 RMCP Remote Mail Checking Protocol 1339 TCP-HIPER TCP Extensions for High Performance 1323 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 IP-AX.25 IP Encapsulation of AX.25 Frames 1226 ALERTS Managing Asynchronously Generated Alerts 1224 MPP Message Posting Protocol 1204 SNMP-BULK Bulk Table Retrieval with the SNMP 1187 DNS-RR New DNS RR Definitions 1183 IMAP2 Interactive Mail Access Protocol 1176 NTP-OSI NTP over OSI Remote Operations 1165 DMF-MAIL Digest Message Format for Mail 1153 RDP Reliable Data Protocol 908,1151 TCP-ACO TCP Alternate Checksum Option 1146 IP-DVMRP IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing 1075 VMTP Versatile Message Transaction Protocol 1045 COOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme 1004 NETBLT Bulk Data Transfer Protocol 998 IRTP Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol 938 LDP Loader Debugger Protocol 909 RLP Resource Location Protocol 887 NVP-II Network Voice Protocol ISI-memo Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 30]
RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996 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.] Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 31]
RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996 6.8. Informational Protocols Information protocols have no status. Protocol Name RFC ======= ==================================== ===== CYBERCASH CyberCash Credit Card Protocol Version 0.8 1898* -------- text/enriched MIME Content-type 1896* -------- Application/CALS-1840 Content-type 1895* -------- PPP IPCP Extensions for Name Server Addresses 1877* SNPP Simple Network Paging Protocol - Version 2 1861 -------- ISO Transport Class 2 Non-use Explicit Flow Control 1859 over TCP RFC1006 extension -------- IP in IP Tunneling 1853 -------- PPP Network Control Protocol for LAN Extension 1841 TESS The Exponential Security System 1824 NFSV3 NFS Version 3 Protocol Specification 1813 -------- A Format for Bibliographic Records 1807 SDMD IPv4 Option for Sender Directed MD Delivery 1770 SNTP Simple Network Time Protocol 1769 SNOOP Snoop Version 2 Packet Capture File Format 1761 BINHEX MIME Content Type for BinHex Encoded Files 1741 RWHOIS Referral Whois Protocol 1714 DNS-NSAP DNS NSAP Resource Records 1706 RADIO-PAGE TPC.INT Subdomain: Radio Paging -- Technical Procedures 1703 GRE-IPv4 Generic Routing Encapsulation over IPv4 1702 GRE Generic Routing Encapsulatio 1701 IPXWAN Novell IPX Over Various WAN Media 1634 ADSNA-IP Advanced SNA/IP: A Simple SNA Transport Protocol 1538 AUBR Appletalk Update-Based Routing Protocol... 1504 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 SNMP-TRAPS Defining Traps for use with SNMP 1215 DAS Directory Assistance Service 1202 MD4 MD4 Message Digest Algorithm 1186 Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 32]
RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996 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 STD ======== ===================================== ===== === SNMPv2 Manager-to-Manager MIB Elective 1451 * SNMPv2 Party MIB for SNMPv2 Elective 1447 * SNMPv2 Security Protocols for SNMPv2 Elective 1446 * SNMPv2 Administrative Model for SNMPv2 Elective 1445 * RIP Routing Information Protocol Ele 1058 34 * -------- Mapping full 822 to Restricted 822 1137 BGP3 Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3) 1267,1268 -------- Gateway Requirements Req 1009 4 EGP Exterior Gateway Protocol Rec 904 18 SNMP-MUX SNMP MUX Protocol and MIB 1227 OIM-MIB-II OSI Internet Management: MIB-II 1214 IMAP3 Interactive Mail Access Protocol Version 3 1203 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 -------- 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 Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 33]
RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996 NETRJS Remote Job Service 740 NETED Network Standard Text Editor 569 RJE Remote Job Entry 407 XNET Cross Net Debugger IEN-158 NAMESERVER Host Name Server Protocol IEN-116 MUX Multiplexing Protocol IEN-90 GRAPHICS Graphics Protocol NIC-24308 [Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.] Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 34]
RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996 6.10. Obsolete Protocols Some of the protocols listed in this memo are described in RFCs that are obsoleted by newer RFCs. "Obsolete" or "obsoleted" is not an official state or status of protocols. This subsection is for information only. While it may seem to be obviously wrong to have an obsoleted RFC in the list of standards, there may be cases when an older standard is in the process of being replaced. This process may take a year or two. Many obsoleted protocols are of little interest and are dropped from this memo altogether. Some obsoleted protocols have received enough recognition that it seems appropriate to list them under their current status and with the following reference to their current replacement. RFC RFC Status Title * ==== ==== ========= =================================== = 1305 obsoletes 1119 Stan/Rec Network Time Protocol version 2 1390 obsoletes 1188 Draf/Elec Transmission of IP and ARP over FDDI* 1533 obsoletes 1497 Draf/Rec BOOTP Vendor Information Extensions 1542 obsoletes 1532 Prop/Elec Extensions for Bootstrap Protocol * 1573 obsoletes 1229 Prop/Elec Ext. to the Generic-Interface MIB 1773 obsoletes 1656 Prop/Elec BGP-4 Protocol Document * 1902 obsoletes 1442 Prop/Elec SMI for SNMPv2 * 1903 obsoletes 1443 Prop/Elec Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 * 1904 obsoletes 1444 Prop/Elec Conformance Statements for SNMPv2 * 1905 obsoletes 1448 Prop/Elec Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 * 1906 obsoletes 1449 Prop/Elec Transport Mappings for SNMPv2 * 1907 obsoletes 1450 Prop/Elec MIB for SNMPv2 * 1908 obsoletes 1452 Prop/Elec Coexistence between SNMPv1 & SNMPv2 * 1320 obsoletes 1186 Info/ The MD4 Message Digest Algorithm 1529 obsoletes 1486 Expe/Limi An Experiment in Remote Printing * 1592 obsoletes 1228 Expe/Limi SNMP Distributed Protocol Interface * 1057 obsoletes 1050 Hist/Not RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol 1158 obsoletes 1156 Hist/Not Management Information Base - I * 1267 obsoletes 1163 Hist/Not A Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) 1268 obsoletes 1164 Hist/Not Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3) 1421 obsoletes 1113 Hist/Not PEM - Part I 1422 obsoletes 1114 Hist/Not PEM - Part II 1423 obsoletes 1115 Hist/Not PEM - Part III 1655 obsoletes 1268 Hist/Not Application of the BGP * 1716 obsoletes 1009 Hist/Not Towards Requirements for IP Routers * Thanks to Lynn Wheeler for compiling the information in this subsection. [Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.] Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 35]
RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996 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 Abel Winerib, IAB Executive Director. Contacts: Abel Winerib Executive Director of the IAB Intel, JF2-64 2111 NE 25th Avenue Hillsboro, OR 97124 1-503-696-8972 AWeinrib@ibeam.jf.intel.com Brian E. Carpenter Chair of the IAB CERN European Laboratory for Particle Physics 1211 Geneva 23 Switzerland +41 22 767-4967 brian@dxcoms.cern.ch 7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact Contacts: Fred Baker Chair of the IETF cisco Systems, Inc. 519 Lado Drive Santa Barbara, CA 93111 1-805-681-0115 fred@cisco.com Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 36]
RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996 Steve Coya IESG Secretary Corporation for National Research Initiatives 1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100 Reston, VA 22091 1-703-620-8990 scoya@CNRI.RESTON.VA.US Steve Coya Executive Director of the IETF Corporation for National Research Initiatives 1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100 Reston, VA 22091 1-703-620-8990 scoya@CNRI.RESTON.VA.US 7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact Contact: Abel Winerib Chair of the IRTF Intel, JF2-64 2111 NE 25th Avenue Hillsboro, OR 97124 1-503-696-8972 AWeinrib@ibeam.jf.intel.com Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 37]
RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996 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 1700) 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 "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers" (RFC 1812). How to obtain the most recent edition of this "Internet Official Protocol Standards" memo: The file "in-notes/std/std1.txt" may be copied via FTP from the FTP.ISI.EDU computer using the FTP username "anonymous" and FTP password "guest". Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 38]
RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996 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 Standards Track [Page 39]
RFC 1920 Internet Standards March 1996 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



Back to RFC index

 

Associates:

 



Sponsered-Sites:

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

 

 

""