As per Relevance of the word internet, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group J.
Request for Comments: 1011 J.
Obsoletes: RFCs 991, 961, 943, 924, 901, 880, 840 May 1987
OFFICIAL INTERNET
STATUS OF THIS
This memo is an official status report on the protocols used in
Internet community. Distribution of this memo is unlimited
This RFC identifies the documents specifying the official
used in the Internet. Comments indicate any revisions or
planned
To first order, the official protocols are those specified in
"DDN Protocol Handbook" (DPH), dated December 1985 (this is a
volume set with a total thickness of about 5 inches).
Older collections that include many of these specifications are
"Internet Protocol Transition Workbook" (IPTW), dated March 1982;
"Internet Mail Protocols", dated November 1982; and the "
Telnet Protocols and Options", dated June 1983. There is also
volume of protocol related information called the "Internet
Implementers Guide" (IPIG) dated August 1982. An even
collection is the "ARPANET Protocol Handbook" (APH)
January 1978. Nearly all the relevant material from
collections has been reproduced in the current DPH
The following material is organized as a sketchy outline.
entries are protocols (e.g., Transmission Control Protocol). In
entry there are notes on status, specification, comments,
references, dependencies, and contact
The STATUS is one of: required, recommended, elective
experimental, or none
The SPECIFICATION identifies the protocol defining documents
The COMMENTS describe any differences from the specification
problems with the protocol
The OTHER REFERENCES identify documents that comment on or
on the protocol
Reynolds & Postel [Page 1]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
The DEPENDENCIES indicate what other protocols are called upon
this protocol
The CONTACT indicates a person who can answer questions about
protocol
In particular, the status may be
- all hosts must implement the required protocol
- all hosts are encouraged to implement the
protocol
- hosts may implement or not the elective protocol
- hosts should not implement the experimental
unless they are participating in the experiment and
coordinated their use of this protocol with the
person,
- this is not a protocol
For further information about protocols in general,
contact
Joyce K.
USC - Information Sciences
4676 Admiralty
Marina del Rey, California 90292-6695
Phone: (213) 822-1511
Electronic mail: JKREYNOLDS@ISI.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 2]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
Catenet Model ------------------------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: IEN 48 (in DPH
COMMENTS
Gives an overview of the organization and principles of
Internet
Could be revised and expanded
OTHER REFERENCES
Leiner, B., Cole R., Postel, J., and D. Mills, "The
Protocol Suite", IEEE INFOCOM 85, Washington, D.C., March 1985.
Also in IEEE Communications Magazine, and as ISI/RS-85-153,
March 1985.
Postel, J., "Internetwork Applications Using the DARPA
Suite", IEEE INFOCOM 85, Washington, D.C., March 1985. Also
IEEE Communications Magazine, and as ISI/RS-85-151, April 1985.
Padlipsky, M.A., "The Elements of Networking Style and
Essays and Animadversions on the Art of
Networking", Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1985.
RFC 871 - A Perspective on the ARPANET Reference
DEPENDENCIES
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 3]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
NETWORK
Internet Protocol --------------------------------------------- (IP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 791 (in DPH
COMMENTS
This is the universal protocol of the Internet. This
protocol provides the universal addressing of hosts in
Internet
A few minor problems have been noted in this document
The most serious is a bit of confusion in the route options
The route options have a pointer that indicates which octet
the route is the next to be used. The confusion is between
phrases "the pointer is relative to this option" and "
smallest legal value for the pointer is 4". If you
confused, forget about the relative part, the pointer
at 4. The MIL-STD description of source routing is wrong
some of the details
Another important point is the alternate reassembly
suggested in RFC 815.
Some changes are in the works for the security option
Note that ICMP is defined to be an integral part of IP.
have not completed an implementation of IP if it does
include ICMP
The subnet procedures defined in RFC 950 are now considered
essential part of the IP architecture and must be
by all hosts and gateways
OTHER REFERENCES
RFC 815 (in DPH) - IP Datagram Reassembly
RFC 814 (in DPH) - Names, Addresses, Ports, and
RFC 816 (in DPH) - Fault Isolation and
Reynolds & Postel [Page 4]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
RFC 817 (in DPH) - Modularity and Efficiency in
MIL-STD-1777 (in DPH) - Military Standard Internet
RFC 963 - Some Problems with the Specification of the
Standard Internet
DEPENDENCIES
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Internet Control Message Protocol --------------------------- (ICMP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 792 (in DPH
COMMENTS
The control messages and error reports that go with
Internet Protocol
A few minor errors in the document have been noted
Suggestions have been made for additional types of
message and additional destination unreachable messages
Two additional ICMP message types are defined in RFC 950
"Internet Subnets", Address Mask Request (A1=17), and
Mask Reply (A2=18).
Note that ICMP is defined to be an integral part of IP.
have not completed an implementation of IP if it does
include ICMP
OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 950
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 5]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
Internet Group Multicast Protocol --------------------------- (IGMP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 988
COMMENTS
This protocol specifies the extensions required of a
implementation of the Internet Protocol (IP) to
internetwork multicasting. This specification supersedes
given in RFC 966, and constitutes a proposed protocol
for IP multicasting in the Internet. Reference RFC 966 for
discussion of the motivation and rationale behind
multicasting extension specified here
OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 966
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: Deering@PESCADERO.STANFORD.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 6]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
HOST
User Datagram Protocol --------------------------------------- (UDP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 768 (in DPH
COMMENTS
Provides a datagram service to applications. Adds
addressing to the IP services
The only change noted for the UDP specification is a
clarification that if in computing the checksum a padding
is used for the computation it is not transmitted or counted
the length
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Transmission Control Protocol -------------------------------- (TCP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 793 (in DPH
COMMENTS
Provides reliable end-to-end data stream service
Many comments and corrections have been received for the
specification document. These are primarily document
rather than protocol bugs
Event Processing Section: There are many minor corrections
clarifications needed in this section
Push: There are still some phrases in the document that give
"record mark" flavor to the push. These should be
clarified. The push is not a record mark
Reynolds & Postel [Page 7]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
Urgent: Page 17 is wrong. The urgent pointer points to
last octet of urgent data (not to the first octet of non-
data).
Listening Servers: Several comments have been received
difficulties with contacting listening servers. There
be some discussion of implementation issues for servers,
some notes on alternative models of system and
organization for servers
Maximum Segment Size: The maximum segment size option
be generalized and clarified. It can be used to
increase or decrease the maximum segment size from the default
The TCP Maximum Segment Size is the IP Maximum Datagram
minus forty. The default IP Maximum Datagram Size is 576.
default TCP Maximum Segment Size is 536. For
discussion, see RFC 879.
Idle Connections: There have been questions
automatically closing idle connections. Idle connections
ok, and should not be closed. There are several cases
idle connections arise, for example, in Telnet when a user
thinking for a long time following a message from the
computer before his next input. There is no TCP "probe
mechanism, and none is needed
Queued Receive Data on Closing: There are several points
it is not clear from the description what to do about
received by the TCP but not yet passed to the user
particularly when the connection is being closed. In general
the data is to be kept to give to the user if he does a
call
Out of Order Segments: The description says that segments
arrive out of order, that is, are not exactly the next
to be processed, may be kept on hand. It should also point
that there is a very large performance penalty for not
so
User Time Out: This is the time out started on an open or
call. If this user time out occurs the user should
notified, but the connection should not be closed or the
deleted. The user should explicitly ABORT the connection if
wants to give up
Reynolds & Postel [Page 8]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
OTHER REFERENCES
RFC 813 (in DPH) - Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in
RFC 814 (in DPH) - Names, Addresses, Ports, and
RFC 816 (in DPH) - Fault Isolation and
RFC 817 (in DPH) - Modularity and Efficiency in
RFC 879 - TCP Maximum Segment
RFC 889 - Internet Delay
RFC 896 - TCP/IP Congestion
MIL-STD-1778 (in DPH) - Military Standard Transmission
RFC 964 - Some Problems with the Specification of the
Standard Transmission Control
Zhang, Lixia, "Why TCP Timers Don't Work Well",
Architectures and Protocols, ACM SIGCOMM Proceedings,
Communications Review, V.16, N.3, August 1986.
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Bulk Data Transfer Protocol ------------------------------- (NETBLT
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 998
COMMENTS
This is a revised RFC on the discussion of the Network
Transfer (NETBLT) protocol
NETBLT (NETwork BLock Transfer) is a transport level
intended for the rapid transfer of a large quantity of
between computers. It provides a transfer that is reliable
flow controlled, and is designed to provide maximum
over a wide variety of networks. Although NETBLT
Reynolds & Postel [Page 9]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
runs on top of the Internet Protocol (IP), it should be able
operate on top of any datagram protocol similar in function
IP
This document is published for discussion and comment, and
not constitute a standard. The proposal may change and
parts of the protocol have not yet been specified
implementation of this document is therefore not advised
OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 969
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol, User
CONTACT: markl@PTT.LCS.MIT.
Exterior Gateway Protocol ------------------------------------ (EGP
STATUS: Recommended for
SPECIFICATION: RFC 888, RFC 904 (in DPH), RFC 975, RFC 985
COMMENTS
The protocol used between gateways of different
to exchange routing information
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 827, RFC 890
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: Mills@UDEL.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 10]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
Gateway Gateway Protocol ------------------------------------- (GGP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 823 (in DPH
COMMENTS
The gateway protocol now used in the core gateways
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: Brescia@BBN.
Host Monitoring Protocol ------------------------------------- (HMP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 869 (in DPH
COMMENTS
This is a good tool for debugging protocol implementations
remotely located computers
This protocol is used to monitor Internet gateways and
TACs
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: Hinden@BBN.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 11]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
Reliable Data Protocol --------------------------------------- (RDP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 908 (in DPH
COMMENTS
This protocol is designed to efficiently support the
transfer of data for such host monitoring and
applications as loading/dumping and remote debugging.
protocol is intended to be simple to implement but still
efficient in environments where there may be long
delays and loss or non-sequential delivery of message segments
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: CWelles@BBN.
Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol ---------------------- (IRTP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 938
COMMENTS
This protocol is a transport level host to host
designed for an internet environment. While the
discussed may not be directly relevant to the research
of the Internet community, they may be interesting to a
of researchers and implementors
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: Trudy@ACC.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 12]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
Cross Net Debugger ------------------------------------------ (XNET
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: IEN 158 (in DPH
COMMENTS
A debugging protocol, allows debugger like access to
systems
This specification should be updated and reissued as an RFC
OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 643
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Multiplexing Protocol ---------------------------------------- (MUX
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: IEN 90 (in DPH
COMMENTS
Defines a capability to combine several segments from
higher level protocols in one IP datagram
No current experiment in progress. There is some question
to the extent to which the sharing this protocol envisions
actually take place. Also, there are some issues about
information captured in the multiplexing header being (a
insufficient, or (b) over specific
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 13]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
Stream Protocol ----------------------------------------------- (ST
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: IEN 119 (in DPH
COMMENTS
A gateway resource allocation protocol designed for use
multihost real time applications
The implementation of this protocol has evolved and may
longer be consistent with this specification. The
should be updated and issued as an RFC
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: jwf@LL-EN.
Network Voice Protocol ------------------------------------ (NVP-II
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: ISI Internal
COMMENTS
Defines the procedures for real time voice conferencing
The specification is an ISI Internal Memo which should
updated and issued as an RFC
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 741 (in DPH
DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol, Stream
CONTACT: Casner@ISI.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 14]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
APPLICATION
Telnet Protocol ------------------------------------------- (TELNET
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 854 (in DPH
COMMENTS
The protocol for remote terminal access
This has been revised since the IPTW. RFC 764 in IPTW is
obsolete
OTHER REFERENCES
MIL-STD-1782 (in DPH) - Telnet
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 15]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
Telnet Options ------------------------------------ (TELNET-OPTIONS
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: General description of options: RFC 855 (in DPH
Number Name RFC NIC DPH
------ --------------------------------- --- ----- --- ---
0 Binary Transmission 856 ----- yes
1 Echo 857 ----- yes
2 Reconnection ... 15391 yes
3 Suppress Go Ahead 858 ----- yes
4 Approx Message Size Negotiation ... 15393 yes
5 Status 859 ----- yes
6 Timing Mark 860 ----- yes
7 Remote Controlled Trans and Echo 726 39237 yes
8 Output Line Width ... 20196 yes
9 Output Page Size ... 20197 yes
10 Output Carriage-Return Disposition 652 31155 yes
11 Output Horizontal Tabstops 653 31156 yes
12 Output Horizontal Tab Disposition 654 31157 yes
13 Output Formfeed Disposition 655 31158 yes
14 Output Vertical Tabstops 656 31159 yes
15 Output Vertical Tab Disposition 657 31160 yes
16 Output Linefeed Disposition 658 31161 yes
17 Extended ASCII 698 32964 yes
18 Logout 727 40025 yes
19 Byte Macro 735 42083 yes
20 Data Entry Terminal 732 41762 yes
21 SUPDUP 734 736 42213 yes
22 SUPDUP Output 749 45449 yes
23 Send Location 779 ----- yes
24 Terminal Type 930 ----- yes
25 End of Record 885 ----- yes
26 TACACS User Identification 927 ----- yes
27 Output Marking 933 ----- yes
28 Terminal Location Number 946 ----- no
255 Extended-Options-List 861 ----- yes
The DHP column indicates if the specification is included in
DDN Protocol Handbook. The USE column of the table
indicates which options are in general use
COMMENTS
The Binary Transmission, Echo, Suppress Go Ahead, Status
Reynolds & Postel [Page 16]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
Timing Mark, and Extended Options List options have
recently updated and reissued. These are the most
implemented options
The remaining options should be reviewed and the useful
should be revised and reissued. The others should
eliminated
The following are recommended: Binary Transmission, Echo
Suppress Go Ahead, Status, Timing Mark, and Extended
List
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES:
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
SUPDUP Protocol ------------------------------------------- (SUPDUP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 734 (in DPH
COMMENTS
A special Telnet like protocol for display terminals
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Crispin@SU-SCORE.STANFORD.
File Transfer Protocol --------------------------------------- (FTP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 959 (in DPH
COMMENTS
The protocol for moving files between Internet hosts.
for access control and negotiation of file parameters
The following new optional commands are included in
edition of the specification: Change to Parent
Reynolds & Postel [Page 17]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
(CDUP), Structure Mount (SMNT), Store Unique (STOU),
Directory (RMD), Make Directory (MKD), Print Directory (PWD),
and System (SYST). Note that this specification is
with the previous edition (RFC 765).
A discrepancy has been found in the specification in
examples of Appendix II. On page 63, a response code of 200
shown as the response to a CWD command. Under the list
Command-Reply Sequences cited on page 50, CWD is shown to
accept a 250 response code. Therefore, if one would
a CWD command as being excluded from the File System
category, one may assume that the response code of 200
correct, since CDUP as a special case of CWD does use 200.
OTHER REFERENCES
RFC 678 (in DPH) - Document File Format
MIL-STD-1780 (in DPH) - File Transfer
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Trivial File Transfer Protocol ------------------------------ (TFTP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 783 (in IPTW
COMMENTS
A very simple file moving protocol, no access control
provided
This is in use in several local networks
Ambiguities in the interpretation of several of the
modes should be clarified, and additional transfer modes
be defined. Additional error codes could be defined to
clearly identify problems
Note: The DPH contains IEN-133, which is an obsolete version
this protocol
OTHER REFERENCES
Reynolds & Postel [Page 18]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Simple File Transfer Protocol ------------------------------- (SFTP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 913 (in DPH
COMMENTS
SFTP is a simple file transfer protocol. It fills the need
people wanting a protocol that is more useful than TFTP
easier to implement (and less powerful) than FTP.
supports user access control, file transfers,
listing, directory changing, file renaming and deleting
SFTP can be implemented with any reliable 8-bit byte
oriented protocol, this document describes its
specification. SFTP uses only one TCP connection; whereas
implements a connection over UDP, and FTP uses two
connections (one using the TELNET protocol).
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: MKL@SRI-NIC.
Simple Mail Transfer Protocol ------------------------------- (SMTP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 821 (in DPH
COMMENTS
The procedure for transmitting computer mail between hosts
This has been revised since the IPTW, it is in the "
Mail Protocols" volume of November 1982. RFC 788 (in IPTW)
obsolete
Reynolds & Postel [Page 19]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
There have been many misunderstandings and errors in the
implementations. Some documentation of these problems can
found in the file [C.ISI.EDU]MAIL.ERRORS
Some minor differences between RFC 821 and RFC 822 should
resolved
OTHER REFERENCES
RFC 822 - Mail Header Format
This has been revised since the IPTW, it is in the "
Mail Protocols" volume of November 1982. RFC 733 (in IPTW
is obsolete. Further revision of RFC 822 is needed
correct some minor errors in the details of
specification
Note: RFC 822 is not included in the DPH (an accident,
should have been).
MIL-STD-1781 (in DPH) - Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Network News Transfer Protocol ------------------------------ (NNTP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 977
COMMENTS
NNTP specifies a protocol for the distribution, inquiry
retrieval, and posting of news articles using a
stream-based transmission of news among the Internet community
NNTP is designed so that news articles are stored in a
database allowing a subscriber to select only those items
wishes to read. Indexing, cross-referencing, and expiration
aged messages are also provided
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES
Reynolds & Postel [Page 20]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: Brian@SDCSVAX.UCSD.
Post Office Protocol - Version 2 ---------------------------- (POP2)
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 937 (in DPH
COMMENTS
The intent of the Post Office Protocol - Version 2 (POP2) is
allow a user's workstation to access mail from a
server. It is expected that mail will be posted from
workstation to the mailbox server via the Simple Mail
Protocol (SMTP).
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES: Obsoletes RFC 918
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: JKReynolds@ISI.
NetBIOS Services Protocol -------------------------------- (NETBIOS
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 1001, 1002
COMMENTS
These documents define a proposed standard protocol to
NetBIOS services in a TCP/IP environment. Both local
and internet operation are supported. Various node types
defined to accomodate local and internet topologies and
allow operation with or without the use of IP
RFC 1001 describes the NetBIOS-over-TCP protocols in a
manner, with emphasis on the underlying ideas and techniques
RFC 1002 gives the detailed specifications of
NetBIOS-over-TCP packets, protocols, and defined constants
variables
Reynolds & Postel [Page 21]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol, User
CONTACT: Auerbach@CSL.SRI.
Bootstrap Protocol ----------------------------------------- (BOOTP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 951
COMMENTS
This proposed protocol provides an IP/UDP bootstrap
which allows a diskless client machine to discover its own
address, the address of a server host, and the name of a
to be loaded into memory and executed
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol, User Datagram
CONTACT: Croft@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.
Loader Debugger Protocol ------------------------------------- (LDP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 909
COMMENTS
Specifies a protocol for loading, dumping and debugging
machines from hosts in a network environment. It is
designed to accommodate a variety of target CPU types.
provides a powerful set of debugging services, while at
same time, it is structured so that a simple subset may
implemented in applications like boot loading where
and space are at a premium
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
Reynolds & Postel [Page 22]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Reliable Data
CONTACT: Hinden@BBN.
Resource Location Protocol ----------------------------------- (RLP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 887 (in DPH
COMMENTS
A resource location protocol for use in the Internet.
protocol utilizes the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) which
turn calls on the Internet Protocol to deliver its datagrams
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram
CONTACT: Accetta@A.CS.CMU.
Remote Job Entry --------------------------------------------- (RJE
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 407 (in DPH
COMMENTS
The general protocol for submitting batch jobs and
the results
Some changes needed for use with TCP
No known active implementations
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: File Transfer Protocol, Transmission
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 23]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
Remote Job Service ---------------------------------------- (NETRJS
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 740 (in DPH
COMMENTS
A special protocol for submitting batch jobs and retrieving
results used with the UCLA IBM OS system
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
Revision in progress
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Braden@ISI.
Remote Telnet Service ------------------------------------ (RTELNET
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 818 (in DPH
COMMENTS
Provides special access to user Telnet on a remote system
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Telnet, Transmission Control
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 24]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
Graphics Protocol --------------------------------------- (GRAPHICS
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: NIC 24308 (in DPH
COMMENTS
The protocol for vector graphics
Very minor changes needed for use with TCP
No known active implementations
Note: The DPH claims that this is RFC 493, but RFC 493
actually a different earlier specification
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Telnet, Transmission Control
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Echo Protocol ----------------------------------------------- (ECHO
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 862 (in DPH
COMMENTS
Debugging protocol, sends back whatever you send it
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
or User Datagram
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 25]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
Discard Protocol ----------------------------------------- (DISCARD
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 863 (in DPH
COMMENTS
Debugging protocol, throws away whatever you send it
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
or User Datagram
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Character Generator Protocol ----------------------------- (CHARGEN
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 864 (in DPH
COMMENTS
Debugging protocol, sends you ASCII data
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
or User Datagram
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 26]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
Quote of the Day Protocol ---------------------------------- (QUOTE
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 865 (in DPH
COMMENTS
Debugging protocol, sends you a short ASCII message
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
or User Datagram
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Statistics Server ---------------------------------------- (STATSRV
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 996
COMMENTS
This RFC specifies a standard for the Internet community
Hosts and gateways on the Internet that choose to implement
remote statistics monitoring facility may use this protocol
send statistics data upon request to a monitoring center
debugging host
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: Mills@UDEL.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 27]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
Active Users Protocol -------------------------------------- (USERS
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 866 (in DPH
COMMENTS
Lists the currently active users
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
or User Datagram
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Finger Protocol ------------------------------------------- (FINGER
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 742 (in DPH
COMMENTS
Provides information on the current or most recent activity
a user
Some extensions have been suggested
Some changes are are needed for TCP
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 28]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
WhoIs Protocol ------------------------------------------- (NICNAME
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 954 (in DPH
COMMENTS
Accesses the ARPANET Directory database. Provides a way
find out about people, their addresses, phone numbers
organizations, and mailboxes
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Feinler@SRI-NIC.
CSNET Mailbox Name Server Protocol ---------------------- (CSNET-NS
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: CS-DN-2 (in DPH
COMMENTS
Provides access to the CSNET data base of users to
information about users names, affiliations, and mailboxes
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Solomon@WISC.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 29]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
Domain Name Protocol -------------------------------------- (DOMAIN
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 881, RFC 882, RFC 883 (in DPH
COMMENTS
OTHER REFERENCES
RFC 920 - Domain
RFC 921 - Domain Name Implementation Schedule -
RFC 973 - Domain System Changes and
RFC 974 - Mail Routing and the Domain
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
or User Datagram
CONTACT: Mockapetris@ISI.
HOSTNAME Protocol --------------------------------------- (HOSTNAME
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 953 (in DPH
COMMENTS
Accesses the Registered Internet Hosts database (HOSTS.TXT).
Provides a way to find out about a host in the Internet,
Internet Address, and the protocols it implements
OTHER REFERENCES
RFC 952 - Host Table
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Feinler@SRI-NIC.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 30]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
Host Name Server Protocol ----------------------------- (NAMESERVER
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: IEN 116 (in DPH
COMMENTS
Provides machine oriented procedure for translating a host
to an Internet Address
This specification has significant problems: 1) The
syntax is out of date. 2) The protocol details are ambiguous
in particular, the length octet either does or doesn't
itself and the op code. 3) The extensions are not supported
any known implementation
This protocol is now abandoned in favor of the DOMAIN protocol
Further implementations of this protocol are not advised
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Daytime Protocol ----------------------------------------- (DAYTIME
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 867 (in DPH
COMMENTS
Provides the day and time in ASCII character string
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
or User Datagram
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 31]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
Network Time Protocol ---------------------------------------- (NTP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 958
COMMENTS
A proposed protocol for synchronizing a set of network
using a set of distributed clients and servers
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 778, RFC 891, RFC 956, and RFC 957.
DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram
CONTACT: Mills@UDEL.
Time Server Protocol ---------------------------------------- (TIME
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 868 (in DPH
COMMENTS
Provides the time as the number of seconds from a
reference time
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
or User Datagram
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 32]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
DCNET Time Server Protocol --------------------------------- (CLOCK
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 778
COMMENTS
Provides a mechanism for keeping synchronized clocks
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Internet Control Message
CONTACT: Mills@UDEL.
Authentication Service -------------------------------------- (AUTH
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 931
COMMENTS
This server provides a means to determine the identity of
user of a particular TCP connection. Given a TCP port
pair, it returns a character string which identifies the
of that connection on the server's system
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES: Supercedes RFC 912
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: StJohns@SRI-NIC.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 33]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
Authentication Scheme --------------------------------- (COOKIE-JAR
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 1004
COMMENTS
This RFC focuses its discussion on authentication problems
the Internet and possible methods of solution
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES
CONTACT: Mills@UDEL.
Internet Message Protocol ------------------------------------ (MPM
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 759 (in DPH
COMMENTS
This is an experimental multimedia mail transfer protocol.
implementation is called a Message Processing Module or MPM
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES
RFC 767 - Structured Document
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 34]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
Network Standard Text Editor ------------------------------- (NETED
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 569 (in DPH
COMMENTS
Describes a simple line editor which could be provided by
Internet host
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 35]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
Internet Numbers ---------------------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 997
COMMENTS
Describes the fields of network numbers and autonomous
numbers that are assigned specific values for actual use,
lists the currently assigned values
Issued March 1987, replaces RFC 990, RFC 790 in IPTW,
RFC 960.
OTHER REFERENCES
CONTACT: Hostmaster@SRI-NIC.
Assigned Numbers ---------------------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 1010
COMMENTS
Describes the fields of various protocols that are
specific values for actual use, and lists the
assigned values
Issued May 1987, replaces RFC 990, RFC 790 in IPTW,
RFC 960.
OTHER REFERENCES
CONTACT: JKREYNOLDS@ISI.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 36]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
Pre-emption --------------------------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 794 (in DPH
COMMENTS
Describes how to do pre-emption of TCP connections
OTHER REFERENCES
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Service Mappings ---------------------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 795 (in DPH
COMMENTS
Describes the mapping of the IP type of service field onto
parameters of some specific networks
Out of date, needs revision
OTHER REFERENCES
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Address Mappings ---------------------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 796 (in DPH
COMMENTS
Describes the mapping between Internet Addresses and
addresses of some specific networks
Out of date, needs revision
OTHER REFERENCES
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 37]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
Document Formats ---------------------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 678 (in DPH
COMMENTS
Describes standard format rules for several types of documents
OTHER REFERENCES
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Equations Representation -------------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 1003
COMMENTS
Identifies and explores issues in defining a standard for
exchange of mathematical equations
OTHER REFERENCES
CONTACT: Katz@ISI.
Bitmap Formats -----------------------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 797 (in DPH
COMMENTS
Describes a standard format for bitmap data
OTHER REFERENCES
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 38]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
Facsimile Formats --------------------------------------------------
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 804
COMMENTS
Describes a standard format for facsimile data
OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 769 (in DPH
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Host-Front End Protocol ------------------------------------- (HFEP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 929
COMMENTS
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 928
DEPENDENCIES
CONTACT: Padlipsky@ISI.
Internet Protocol on ARPANET ----------------------------- (IP-ARPA
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: BBN Report 1822
COMMENTS
Describes the interface between a Host and an IMP, and
implication the transmission of IP Datagrams over the ARPANET
OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 851, RFC 852, RFC 878 (in DPH), RFC 979,
RFC 1005
CONTACT: Malis@BBN.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 39]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
Internet Protocol on WBNET --------------------------------- (IP-WB
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 907 (in DPH
COMMENTS
Describes a standard for the transmission of IP Datagrams
the Wideband Net
This protocol specifies the network-access level
between an arbitrary computer, called a host, and
packet-switched satellite network, e.g., SATNET or WBNET
Note: Implementations of HAP should be performed
coordination with satellite network development and
personnel
OTHER REFERENCES
CONTACT: Blumenthal@BBN.
Internet Protocol on Wideband Network ---------------------- (IP-WB
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 907 (in DPH
COMMENTS
Describes a standard for the transmission of IP Datagrams
the WBNET
This protocol specifies the network-access level
between an arbitrary computer, called a host, and
packet-switched satellite network, e.g., SATNET or WBNET
Note: Implementations of HAP should be performed
coordination with satellite network development and
personnel
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES
CONTACT: Schoen@BBN.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 40]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
Internet Protocol on X.25 Networks ------------------------ (IP-X25)
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 877 (in DPH
COMMENTS
Describes a standard for the transmission of IP Datagrams
Public Data Networks
OTHER REFERENCES
CONTACT: jtk@PURDUE.
Internet Protocol on DC Networks --------------------------- (IP-DC
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 891 (in DPH
COMMENTS
OTHER REFERENCES
RFC 778 - DCNET Internet Clock
CONTACT: Mills@UDEL.
Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks ---------------------- (IP-E
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 894 (in DPH
COMMENTS
OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 893
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Reynolds & Postel [Page 41]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
Internet Protocol on Experimental Ethernet Networks -------- (IP-EE
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 895 (in DPH
COMMENTS
OTHER REFERENCES
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Internet Protocol on IEEE 802 ---------------------------- (IP-IEEE
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: see
COMMENTS
At an ad hoc special session on "IEEE 802 Networks and ARP
held during the TCP Vendors Workshop (August 1986), an
to a consistent way to sent DOD-IP datagrams and other
related protocols on 802 networks was developed
Due to some evolution of the IEEE 802.2 standards and the
to provide for a standard way to do additional DOD-IP
protocols (such as Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)) on
802 networks, the following new policy is established,
will replace the current policy (see RFC-990 section on
802 Numbers of Interest, and RFC-948).
The policy is for DDN and Internet community to use IEEE 802.2
encapsulation on 802.3, 802.4, and 802.5 networks by using
SNAP with an organization code indicating that the following 16
bits specify the Ethertype code (where IP = 2048 (0800 hex),
see RFC-1010 section on Ethernet Numbers of Interest).
...--------+--------+--------+
MAC Header| Length | 802.{3/4/5}
...--------+--------+--------+
+--------+--------+--------+
| Dsap=K1| Ssap=K1| control| 802.2
+--------+--------+--------+
Reynolds & Postel [Page 42]
RFC 1011 - Official Internet Protocols May 1987
+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
|protocol id or org code =K2| Ether Type | 802.2
+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
The total length of the SAP Header and the SNAP header
8-octets, making the 802.2 protocol overhead come out on a
boundary
K1 is 170. The IEEE like to talk about things in
transmission order and specifies this value as 01010101.
big-endian order, as used in Internet specifications,
becomes 10101010 binary, or AA hex, or 170 decimal
K2 is 0 (zero).
Note: The method described in RFC 948 (in DPH) is no longer
be used
OTHER REFERENCES
CONTACT: Postel@ISI.
Internet Subnet Protocol ---------------------------------- (IP-SUB
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 950
COMMENTS
This is a very important feature and must be included in all
implementations
