Network Working Group Internet Architecture Board
Request for Comments: 1600 J. Postel, Editor
Obsoletes: RFCs 1540, 1500, 1410, 1360, March 1994
1280, 1250, 1100, 1083, 1130, 1140, 1200
STD: 1
Category: Standards Track
INTERNET OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS
Status of this Memo
This memo describes the state of standardization of protocols used in
the Internet as determined by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB).
This memo is an Internet Standard. Distribution of this memo is
unlimited.
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1. The Standardization Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The Request for Comments Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Other Reference Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Assigned Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Gateway Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Host Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. The MIL-STD Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Explanation of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Definitions of Protocol State (Maturity Level) . . . . . . 8
4.1.1. Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
Internet Architecture Board [Page 1]RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
6.1.2. Other Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.7. Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.8. Informational Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.9. Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.10 Obsolete 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 . . . . 32
7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact . . . . . 33
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 - 6.10 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
31-May-94.
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 [Page 2]
RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
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
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.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 3]
RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
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 [Page 4]RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
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 [Page 5]RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
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-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
Internet Architecture Board [Page 6]
RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
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).
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.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 7]RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
At any given time a protocol occupies a cell of the following matrix.
Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the following
proportions (indicated by the relative number of Xs). A new protocol
is most likely to start in the (proposed standard, elective) cell, or
the (experimental, not recommended) cell.
S T A T U S
Req Rec Ele Lim Not
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Std | X | XXX | XXX | | |
S +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Draft | X | X | XXX | | |
T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Prop | | X | XXX | | |
A +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Info | | | | | |
T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Expr | | | | XXX | |
E +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Hist | | | | | XXX |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
What is a "system"?
Some protocols are particular to hosts and some to gateways; a few
protocols are used in both. The definitions of the terms below
will refer to a "system" which is either a host or a gateway (or
both). It should be clear from the context of the particular
protocol which types of systems are intended.
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.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 8]RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
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.
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".
Internet Architecture Board [Page 9]RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
4.2.1. Required Protocol
A system must implement the required protocols.
4.2.2. Recommended Protocol
A system should implement the recommended protocols.
4.2.3. Elective Protocol
A system may or may not implement an elective protocol. The
general notion is that if you are going to do something like this,
you must do exactly this. There may be several elective protocols
in a general area, for example, there are several electronic mail
protocols, and several routing protocols.
4.2.4. Limited Use Protocol
These protocols are for use in limited circumstances. This may be
because of their experimental state, specialized nature, limited
functionality, or historic state.
4.2.5. Not Recommended Protocol
These protocols are not recommended for general use. This may be
because of their limited functionality, specialized nature, or
experimental or historic state.
5. The Standards Track
This section discusses in more detail the procedures used by the RFC
Editor and the 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 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
+==========================================================+
|**************| 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.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 11]RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
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 [Page 12]
RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
|
+<----------------------------------------------+
| ^
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 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
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:
1600 - This memo.
1595 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the SONET/SDH Interface
Type
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1594 - FYI on Questions and Answers - Answers to Commonly asked
"New Internet User" Questions
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1593 - SNA APPN Node MIB
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1592 - Simple Network Management Protocol Distributed Protocol
Interface Version 2.0
An Experimental protocol.
1591 - Domain Name System Structure and Delegation
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1590 - Media Type Registration Procedure
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1589 - A Kernel Model for Precision Timekeeping
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 14]RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
1588 - White Pages Meeting Report
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1587 - Not yet issued.
1586 - Not yet issued.
1585 - Not yet issued.
1584 - not yet issued.
1583 - Not yet issued.
1582 - Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1581 - Protocol Analysis for Extensions to RIP to Support Demand
Circuits
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1580 - Not yet issued.
1579 - Firewall-Friendly FTP
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1578 - FYI on Questions and Answers - Answers to Commonly Asked
"Primary and Secondary School Internet User" Questions
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1577 - Classical IP and ARP over ATM
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1576 - TN3270 Current Practices
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 15]RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
1575 - An Echo Function for CLNP (ISO 8473)
A Draft Standard protocol.
1574 - Essential Tools for the OSI Internet
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1573 - Evolution of the Interfaces Group of MIB-II
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1572 - Telnet Environment Option
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1571 - Telnet Environment Option Interoperability Issues
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1570 - PPP LCP Extensions
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1569 - Principles of Operation for the TPC.INT Subdomain: Radio
Paging -- Technical Procedures
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1568 - Simple Network Paging Protocol - Version 1(b)
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1567 - X.500 Directory Monitoring MIB
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1566 - Mail Monitoring MIB
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1565 - Network Services Monitoring MIB
A Proposed Standard protocol.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 16]RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
1564 - DSA Metrics (OSI-DS 34 (v3))
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1563 - The text/enriched MIME Content-type
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1562 - Naming Guidelines for the AARNet X.500 Directory Service
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1561 - Use of ISO CLNP in TUBA Environments
An Experimental protocol.
1560 - The MultiProtocol Internet
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1559 - DECnet Phase IV MIB Extensions
A Draft Standard protocol.
1558 - A String Representation of LDAP Search Filters
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1557 - Korean Character Encoding for Internet Messages
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1556 - Handling of Bi-directional Texts in MIME
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1555 - Hebrew Character Encoding for Internet Messages
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 17]RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
1554 - ISO-2022-JP-2: Multilingual Extension of ISO-2022-JP
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1553 - Compressing IPX Headers Over WAM Media (CIPX)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1552 - The PPP Internetworking Packet Exchange Control Protocol
(IPXCP)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1551 - Novell IPX Over Various WAN Media (IPXWAN)
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1550 - IP: Next Generation (IPng) White Paper Solicitation
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1549 - PPP in HDLC Framing
A Draft Standard protocol.
1548 - The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)
A Draft Standard protocol.
1547 - Requirements for an Internet Standard Point-to-Point
Protocol
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1546 - Host Anycasting Service
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1545 - FTP Operation Over Big Address Records (FOOBAR)
An Experimental protocol.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 18]RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
1544 - The Content-MD5 Header Field
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1543 - Instructions to RFC Authors
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1542 - Clarifications and Extensions for the Bootstrap Protocol
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1541 - Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
A Proposed Standard protocol.
6.1.2. Other Changes:
The following are changes to protocols listed in the previous
edition.
1356 - Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 and ISDN in the Packet
Mode
Moved to Draft Standard.
1408 - Telnet Environment Option
Moved to Historic.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 19]RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
6.2. Standard Protocols
Protocol Name Status RFC STD *
======== ===================================== ======== ==== === =
-------- Internet Official Protocol Standards Req 1600 1
-------- Assigned Numbers Req 1340 2
-------- Host Requirements - Communications Req 1122 3
-------- Host Requirements - Applications Req 1123 3
-------- Gateway Requirements Req 1009 4
IP Internet Protocol Req 791 5
as amended by:--------
-------- IP Subnet Extension Req 950 5
-------- IP Broadcast Datagrams Req 919 5
-------- IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets Req 922 5
ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol Req 792 5
IGMP Internet Group Multicast Protocol Rec 1112 5
UDP User Datagram Protocol Rec 768 6
TCP Transmission Control Protocol Rec 793 7
TELNET Telnet Protocol Rec 854,855 8
FTP File Transfer Protocol Rec 959 9
SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol Rec 821 10
MAIL Format of Electronic Mail Messages Rec 822 11
CONTENT Content Type Header Field Rec 1049 11
NTPV2 Network Time Protocol (Version 2) Rec 1119 12
DOMAIN Domain Name System Rec 1034,1035 13
DNS-MX Mail Routing and the Domain System Rec 974 14
SNMP Simple Network Management Protocol Rec 1157 15
SMI Structure of Management Information Rec 1155 16
Concise-MIB Concise MIB Definitions Rec 1212 16
MIB-II Management Information Base-II Rec 1213 17
EGP Exterior Gateway Protocol Rec 904 18
NETBIOS NetBIOS Service Protocols Ele 1001,1002 19
ECHO Echo Protocol Rec 862 20
DISCARD Discard Protocol Ele 863 21
CHARGEN Character Generator Protocol Ele 864 22
QUOTE Quote of the Day Protocol Ele 865 23
USERS Active Users Protocol Ele 866 24
DAYTIME Daytime Protocol Ele 867 25
TIME Time Server Protocol Ele 868 26
TFTP Trivial File Transfer Protocol Ele 1350 33
RIP Routing Information Protocol Ele 1058 34
TP-TCP ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP Ele 1006 35
[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the
previous edition of this document.]
Internet Architecture Board [Page 20]RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
Applicability Statements:
IGMP -- The Internet Architecture Board intends to move towards
general adoption of IP multicasting, as a more efficient solution
than broadcasting for many applications. The host interface has been
standardized in RFC-1112; however, multicast-routing gateways are in
the experimental stage and are not widely available. An Internet
host should support all of RFC-1112, except for the IGMP protocol
itself which is optional; see RFC-1122 for more details. Even
without IGMP, implementation of RFC-1112 will provide an important
advance: IP-layer access to local network multicast addressing. It
is expected that IGMP will become recommended for all hosts and
gateways at some future date.
SMI, MIB-II SNMP -- The Internet Architecture Board recommends that
all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable. At the current
time, this implies implementation of the Internet MIB-II (RFC-1213),
and at least the recommended management protocol SNMP (RFC-1157).
RIP -- The Routing Information Protocol (RIP) is widely implemented
and used in the Internet. However, both implementors and users
should be aware that RIP has some serious technical limitations as a
routing protocol. The IETF is currently developing several
candidates for a new standard "open" routing protocol with better
properties than RIP. The IAB urges the Internet community to track
these developments, and to implement the new protocol when it is
standardized; improved Internet service will result for many users.
TP-TCP -- As OSI protocols become more widely implemented and used,
there will be an increasing need to support interoperation with the
TCP/IP protocols. The Internet Engineering Task Force is formulating
strategies for interoperation. RFC-1006 provides one interoperation
mode, in which TCP/IP is used to emulate TP0 in order to support OSI
applications. Hosts that wish to run OSI connection-oriented
applications in this mode should use the procedure described in RFC-
1006. In the future, the IAB expects that a major portion of the
Internet will support both TCP/IP and OSI (inter-)network protocols
in parallel, and it will then be possible to run OSI applications
across the Internet using full OSI protocol "stacks".
Internet Architecture Board [Page 21]
RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols
All Network-Specific Standards have Elective status.
Protocol Name State RFC STD *
======== ===================================== ===== ===== === =
IP-ATM Classical IP and ARP over ATM Prop 1577 *
IP-FR Multiprotocol over Frame Relay Draft 1490
ATM-ENCAP Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Prop 1483
IP-TR-MC IP Multicast over Token-Ring LANs Prop 1469
IP-FDDI Transmission of IP and ARP over FDDI Net Std 1390 36
IP-HIPPI IP and ARP on HIPPI Prop 1374
IP-X.25 X.25 and ISDN in the Packet Mode Draft 1356 *
IP-SMDS IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service Prop 1209
IP-FDDI Internet Protocol on FDDI Networks Draft 1188
ARP Address Resolution Protocol Std 826 37
RARP A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol Std 903 38
IP-ARPA Internet Protocol on ARPANET Std BBN1822 39
IP-WB Internet Protocol on Wideband Network Std 907 40
IP-E Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks Std 894 41
IP-EE Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets Std 895 42
IP-IEEE Internet Protocol on IEEE 802 Std 1042 43
IP-DC Internet Protocol on DC Networks Std 891 44
IP-HC Internet Protocol on Hyperchannel Std 1044 45
IP-ARC Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Nets Std 1201 46
IP-SLIP Transmission of IP over Serial Lines Std 1055 47
IP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS Std 1088 48
IP-IPX Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks Std 1132 49
[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the
previous edition of this document.]
Applicability Statements:
It is expected that a system will support one or more physical
networks and for each physical network supported the appropriate
protocols from the above list must be supported. That is, it is
elective to support any particular type of physical network, and for
the physical networks actually supported it is required that they be
supported exactly according to the protocols in the above list. See
also the Host and Gateway Requirements RFCs for more specific
information on network-specific ("link layer") protocols.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 22]RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
6.4. Draft Standard Protocols
Protocol Name Status RFC
======== ===================================== ============== =====
ISO-TS-ECHO Echo for ISO-8473 Elective 1575*
DECNET-MIB DECNET MIB Elective 1559*
PPP_HDLC PPP in HDLC Framing Elective 1549*
PPP Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Elective 1548*
------- Message Header Ext. of Non-ASCII Text Elective 1522
MIME Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions Elective 1521
802.3-MIB IEEE 802.3 Repeater MIB Elective 1516
BRIDGE-MIB BRIDGE-MIB Elective 1493
ETHER-MIB Ethernet MIB Elective 1398
NTPV3 Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Elective 1305
IP-MTU Path MTU Discovery Elective 1191
FINGER Finger Protocol Elective 1288
BGP3 Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3) Elective 1267,1268
OSPF2 Open Shortest Path First Routing V2 Elective 1247
POP3 Post Office Protocol, Version 3 Elective 1460
BOOTP Bootstrap Protocol Recommended 951,1497
NICNAME WhoIs Protocol Elective 954
[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the
previous edition of this document.]
Applicability Statements:
PPP -- Point to Point Protocol is a method of sending IP over serial
lines, which are a type of physical network. It is anticipated that
PPP will be advanced to the network-specifics standard protocol state
in the future.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 23]
RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols
Protocol Name Status RFC
======== ===================================== ============== =====
SONET-MIB MIB SONET/SDH Interface Type Elective 1595*
RIP-DC Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Cir. Elective 1582*
-------- Evolution of the Interfaces Group of MIB-II Elective 1573*
PPP-LCP PPP LCP Extensions Elective 1570*
X500-MIB X.500 Directory Monitoring MIB Elective 1567*
MAIL-MIB Mail Monitoring MIB Elective 1566*
NSM-MIB Network Services Monitoring MIB Elective 1565*
CIPX Compressing IPX Headers Over WAM Media Elective 1553*
IPXCP PPP Internetworking Packet Exchange Control Elective 1552*
CON-MD5 Content-MD5 Header Field Elective 1544*
DHCP-BOOTP Interoperation Between DHCP and BOOTP Elective 1534
DHCP-BOOTP DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor Extensions Elective 1533
BOOTP Clarifications and Extensions BOOTP Elective 1532
DHCP Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Elective 1531
SRB-MIB Source Routing Bridge MIB Elective 1525
CIDR-STRA CIDR Address Assignment... Elective 1519
CIDR-ARCH CIDR Architecture... Elective 1518
CIDR-APP CIDR Applicability Statement Elective 1517
-------- 802.3 MAU MIB Elective 1515
HOST-MIB Host Resources MIB Elective 1514
-------- Token Ring Extensions to RMON MIB Elective 1513
FDDI-MIB FDDI Management Information Base Elective 1512
KERBEROS Kerberos Network Authentication Ser (V5) Elective 1510
GSSAPI Generic Security Service API: C-bindings Elective 1509
GSSAPI Generic Security Service Application... Elective 1508
DASS Distributed Authentication Security... Elective 1507
-------- X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets Elective 1502
HARPOON Rules for Downgrading Messages... Elective 1496
Mapping MHS/RFC-822 Message Body Mapping Elective 1495
Equiv X.400/MIME Body Equivalences Elective 1494
X.500syn X.500 String Representation ... Elective 1488
X.500lite X.500 Lightweight ... Elective 1487
STR-REP String Representation ... Elective 1485
OSI-Dir OSI User Friendly Naming ... Elective 1484
IDPR Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Elective 1479
IDPR-ARCH Architecture for IDPR Elective 1478
PPP/Bridge MIB Bridge PPP MIB Elective 1474
PPP/IP MIB IP Network Control Protocol of PPP MIB Elective 1473
PPP/SEC MIB Security Protocols of PPP MIB Elective 1472
PPP/LCP MIB Link Control Protocol of PPP MIB Elective 1471
X25-MIB Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 MIB Elective 1461
SNMPv2 Coexistence between SNMPv1 and SNMPv2 Elective 1452
SNMPv2 Manager-to-Manager MIB Elective 1451
SNMPv2 Management Information Base for SNMPv2 Elective 1450
Internet Architecture Board [Page 24]
RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
SNMPv2 Transport Mappings for SNMPv2 Elective 1449
SNMPv2 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 Elective 1448
SNMPv2 Party MIB for SNMPv2 Elective 1447
SNMPv2 Security Protocols for SNMPv2 Elective 1446
SNMPv2 Administrative Model for SNMPv2 Elective 1445
SNMPv2 Conformance Statements for SNMPv2 Elective 1444
SNMPv2 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 Elective 1443
SNMPv2 SMI for SNMPv2 Elective 1442
SNMPv2 Introduction to SNMPv2 Elective 1441
SMTP-SIZE SMTP Service Ext for Message Size Elective 1427
SMTP-8BIT SMTP Service Ext or 8bit-MIMEtransport Elective 1426
SMTP-EXT SMTP Service Extensions Elective 1425
PEM-KEY PEM - Key Certification Elective 1424
PEM-ALG PEM - Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers Elective 1423
PEM-CKM PEM - Certificate-Based Key Management Elective 1422
PEM-ENC PEM - Message Encryption and Auth Elective 1421
SNMP-IPX SNMP over IPX Elective 1420
SNMP-AT SNMP over AppleTalk Elective 1419
SNMP-OSI SNMP over OSI Elective 1418
FTP-FTAM FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification Elective 1415
IDENT-MIB Identification MIB Elective 1414
IDENT Identification Protocol Elective 1413
DS3/E3-MIB DS3/E3 Interface Type Elective 1407
DS1/E1-MIB DS1/E1 Interface Type Elective 1406
BGP-OSPF BGP OSPF Interaction Elective 1403
-------- Route Advertisement In BGP2 And BGP3 Elective 1397
RIP2-MIB RIP Version 2 MIB Extension Elective 1389
RIP2 RIP Version 2-Carrying Additional Info. Elective 1388
SNMP-X.25 SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 Packet Layer Elective 1382
SNMP-LAPB SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 LAPB Elective 1381
PPP-ATCP PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol Elective 1378
PPP-OSINLCP PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol Elective 1377
PPP-DNCP PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol Elective 1376
TABLE-MIB IP Forwarding Table MIB Elective 1354
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
------- Def. Man. Objs Parallel-printer-like Elective 1318
------- Def. Man Objs RS-232-like Elective 1317
------- Def. Man. Objs. Character Stream Elective 1316
FRAME-MIB Management Information Base for Frame Elective 1315
Internet Architecture Board [Page 25]
RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
NETFAX File Format for the Exchange of Images Elective 1314
SIP-MIB SIP Interface Type MIB Elective 1304
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
RMON-MIB Remote Network Monitoring MIB Elective 1271
BGP-MIB Border Gateway Protocol MIB (Version 3) Elective 1269
ICMP-ROUT ICMP Router Discovery Messages Elective 1256
OSPF-MIB OSPF Version 2 MIB Elective 1253
IPSO DoD Security Options for IP Elective 1108
AT-MIB Appletalk MIB Elective 1243
OSI-UDP OSI TS on UDP Elective 1240
STD-MIBs Reassignment of Exp MIBs to Std MIBs Elective 1239
OSI-NSAP Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation Elective 1237
IPX-IP Tunneling IPX Traffic through IP Nets Elective 1234
802.5-MIB IEEE 802.5 Token Ring MIB Elective 1231
GINT-MIB Extensions to the Generic-Interface MIB Elective 1229
PPP-EXT PPP Extensions for Bridging Elective 1220
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.]
Applicability Statements:
OSPF - RFC 1370 is an applicability statement for OSPF.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 26]
RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
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 [Page 27]
RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
[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
======== ===================================== =====
SNMP-DPI SNMP Distributed Protocol Interface 1592*
CLNP-TUBA Use of ISO CLNP in TUBA Environments 1561*
FOOBAR FTP Operation Over Big Address Records 1545*
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
DNS NSAP DNS NSAP RRs 1348
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
ST-II Stream Protocol 1190
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
Internet Architecture Board [Page 28]
RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
TCP-ACO TCP Alternate Checksum Option 1146
-------- Mapping full 822 to Restricted 822 1137
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
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
======= ==================================== =====
SNPP Simple Network Paging Protocol - Version 1(b) 1568*
IPXWAN Novell IPX Over Various WAN Media 1551*
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
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.]
Internet Architecture Board [Page 29]
RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
6.9. Historic Protocols
All Historic protocols have Not Recommended status.
Protocol Name RFC
======= ===================================== =====
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
NETRJS Remote Job Service 740
NETED Network Standard Text Editor 569
RJE Remote Job Entry 407
XNET Cross Net Debugger IEN-158
NAMESERVER Host Name Server Protocol IEN-116
MUX Multiplexing Protocol IEN-90
GRAPHICS Graphics Protocol NIC-24308
[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the
previous edition of this document.]
Internet Architecture Board [Page 30]
RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
6.10. Obsolete Protocols
Some of the protcols 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.
For example, the Network Time Protocol (NTP) [RFC 1119] is in its
version 2 a full Standard, and in its version 3 is a Draft Standard [RFC
1305]. Once version 3 is a full Standard, version 2 will be made
Historic.
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 Std /Rec Network Time Protocol (Version 2) *
1533 obsoletes 1497 Draft/Rec Bootstrap Protocol *
1331 obsoletes 1171 Draft/Ele Point to Point Protocol *
1574 obsoletes 1139 Prop /Ele Echo for ISO-8473 *
1573 obsoletes 1229 Prop /Ele Extensions to the Generic-IF MIB *
1559 obsoletes 1289 Prop /Ele DECNET MIB *
1548 obsoletes 1331 Prop /Ele Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) *
1541 obsoletes 1531 Prop /Ele Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol *
1592 obsoletes 1228 Exper/Lim SNMP Distributed Program Interface *
1528 obsoletes 1486 Exper/Lim An Experiment in Remote Printing *
1320 obsoletes 1186 Info / MD4 Message Digest Algorithm *
1057 obsoletes 1050 Hist /Not Remote Procedure Call Version 1 *
1421 obsoletes 1113 Hist /Not Mail Privacy: Procedures *
1422 obsoletes 1114 Hist /Not Mail Privacy: Key Management *
1423 obsoletes 1115 Hist /Not Mail Privacy: Algorithms *
1267 obsoletes 1163 Hist /Not Border Gateway Protocol *
1268 obsoletes 1164 Hist /Not Border Gateway Protocol *
Thanks to Lynn Wheeler of Britton Lee 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 [Page 31]
RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
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
7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact
Contacts:
Phill Gross
Chair of the IETF
Advanced Network and Services
100 Clearbrook Road
Elmsford, NY 10523
1-914-789-5300
PGross@ANS.NET
Internet Architecture Board [Page 32]RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
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
7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact
Contact:
Jon Postel
Chair of the IRTF
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-310-822-1511
Postel@ISI.EDU
Internet Architecture Board [Page 33]RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
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/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 [Page 34]RFC 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
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 1600 Internet Standards March 1994
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
8. Security Considerations
Security issues are not addressed in this memo.
9. Author's Address
Jon Postel
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Phone: 310-822-1511
Fax: 310-823-6714
Email: Postel@ISI.EDU
Internet Architecture Board [Page 36]
