As per Relevance of the word standard, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group Internet Activities
Request for Comments: 1130 J. Postel,
Obsoletes: RFCs 1100, 1083 October 1989
IAB OFFICIAL PROTOCOL
Status of this
This memo describes the state of standardization of protocols used
the Internet as determined by the Internet Activities Board (IAB).
Distribution of this memo is unlimited
An overview of the standards procedures is presented first,
by discussions of the standardization process and the RFC
series, then the explanation of the terms is presented, the lists
protocols in each stage of standardization follows, and
pointers to references and contacts for further information
This memo is issued quarterly, please be sure the copy you
reading is dated within the last three months. Current copies may
obtained from the Network Information Center or from the
Assigned Numbers Authority (see the contact information at the end
this memo). Do not use this memo after 31-Jan-90.
See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes
1. Overview of Standards
The Internet Activities Board maintains a list of documents
define standards for the Internet protocol suite (see RFC-1120 for
explanation of the role and organization of the IAB). The
provides these standards with the goal of co-ordinating the
of the Internet protocols; this co-ordination has become
important as the Internet protocols are increasingly in
commercial use
Protocol standards may be suggested by anyone in the
community, by writing and submitting an RFC. In general,
suggested protocol will be reviewed or developed in the context
some Task Force of the IAB, or some research group or working
within that Task Force. The IAB will assign a suggested protocol
a working group or research group if official delegation
necessary
Internet Activities Board [Page 1]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
Given the important role of the Internet Engineering Task Force
the evolution of the Internet Architecture, all proposed
will be reviewed by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG
which is composed of the Technical Area Directors
The recommendation of the IESG and working group or research group
given major consideration in the decision by the IAB to assign
state and status to the protocol. The general policy is to
implementation experience with a protocol before considering
possible designation as an official standard
In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper
concerning a protocol, the IAB may convene a special review
consisting of interested parties from the working group and
of the IAB itself, with the purpose of recommending some
action to the IAB
A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without
approval of the IAB. For example, some vendor protocols have
very important to the Internet community even though they have
been proposed or reviewed by the IAB. However, the IAB
recommends that the IAB standards process be used in the evolution
the protocol suite to maximize interoperability (and to
incompatible protocol requirements from arising). The IAB
the use of the term "standard" in any RFC to only those
which the IAB has approved
2. The Standardization
Anyone can invent a protocol, document it, implement it, test it,
so on. The IAB believes that it is very useful to document
protocol at an early stage to promote suggestions from
interested in the functionality the of protocol and from
interested in protocol design. Once a protocol is implemented
tested it is useful to report the results. The RFC document
is the preferred place for publishing these protocol documents
testing results
The IAB encourages the documenting of every protocol developed in
Internet (that is, the publication of the protocol specification
an RFC), even if it is never intended that the protocol become
Internet standard. A protocol that is not intended to become
standard is called "experimental".
Protocols that are intended to become standards are first
as "proposed" protocols. It is expected that while in this state
protocol will be implemented and tested by several groups. It
likely that an improved version of the protocol will result from
Internet Activities Board [Page 2]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
activity
Once a proposed protocol has become stable and has a sponsor (
individual willing to speak for the protocol to the IAB) it
advance to the "draft standard" state. In this state, it should
reviewed by the entire Internet community. This draft standard
is essentially a warning to the community that unless an objection
raised or a flaw is found this protocol will become a "standard".
Once a protocol has been a draft standard for a sufficient
(usually 6 months) without serious objections the IAB may act
declare the protocol an official Internet standard
Some protocols have been superseded by better protocols or
otherwise unused. Such protocols are designated "historic".
In addition to a state (like proposed or standard) a protocol is
assigned a status. A protocol can be required, meaning that
systems in the Internet must implement it. For example, the
Protocol (IP) is required. A protocol may be recommended,
that systems should implement this protocol. A protocol may
elective, meaning that systems may implement this protocol; that is
if (and only if) the functionality of this protocol is needed
useful for a system it must use this protocol to provide
functionality. A protocol may be termed not recommended if it is
intended to be generally implemented; for example, experimental
historic protocols
Few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems. This
because there is such a variety of possible systems; for example
gateways, terminal servers, workstations, multi-user hosts. It
not necessary for a gateway to implement TCP and the protocols
use TCP (though it may be useful). It is expected that
purpose hosts will implement at least IP (including ICMP), TCP
UDP, Telnet, FTP, SMTP, Mail, and the Domain Name System (DNS).
3. The Request for Comments
The documents called Request for Comments (or RFCs) are the
notes of the Internet research and development community. A
in this series may be on essentially any topic related to
communication, and may be anything from a meeting report to
specification of a standard
Notice
All standards are published as RFCs, but not all RFCs
standards
Internet Activities Board [Page 3]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
Anyone can submit a document for publication as an RFC.
must be made via electronic mail to the RFC Editor (see the
information at the end of this memo).
While RFCs are not refereed publications, they do receive
review from the task forces, individual technical experts, or the
Editor, as appropriate
Once a document is assigned an RFC number and published, that RFC
never revised or re-issued with the same number. There is never
question of having the most recent version of a particular RFC
However, a protocol (such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP)) may
improved and re-documented many times in several different RFCs.
is important to verify that you have the most recent RFC on
particular protocol. This "IAB Official Protocol Standards" memo
the reference for determining the correct RFC to refer to for
current specification of each protocol
The RFCs are available from the Network Information Center at
International. For more information about obtaining RFCs see
contact information at the end of this memo
4. Other Reference
There are four other reference documents of interest in checking
current status of protocol specifications and standardization.
are the Assigned Numbers, the Official Protocols, the
Requirements, and the Host Requirements. Note that these
are revised and updated at different times; in case of
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 4.5.
4.1. Assigned
This document lists the assigned values of the parameters used in
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-1010.
Another document, Internet Numbers, lists the assigned IP
numbers, and the autonomous system numbers. Internet Numbers
most recently issued as RFC-1117.
4.2. Official
This document list the protocols and describes any known problems
Internet Activities Board [Page 4]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
ongoing experiments. Official Protocols was most recently issued
RFC-1011.
4.3. Gateway
This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways
supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities.
Requirements is RFC-1009.
4.4. Host
This pair of document reviews the specifications that apply to
and supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities.
Requirements was recently issued as RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.
4.5. The MIL-STD
The Internet community specifications for IP (RFC-791) and TCP (RFC
793) and the DoD MIL-STD specifications are intended to
exactly the same protocols. Any difference in the
specified by these sets of documents should be reported to DCA and
the IAB. The RFCs and the MIL-STDs for IP and TCP differ in
and level of detail. It is strongly advised that the two sets
documents be used together
The IAB and the DoD MIL-STD specifications for the FTP, SMTP,
Telnet protocols are essentially the same documents (RFCs 765, 821,
854). The MIL-STD versions have been edited slightly. Note that
current Internet specification for FTP is RFC-959.
Internet Protocol (IP) MIL-STD-1777
Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) MIL-STD-1778
File Transfer Protocol (FTP) MIL-STD-1780
Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) MIL-STD-1781
Telnet Protocol and Options (TELNET) MIL-STD-1782
5. Explanation of
There are two independent categorizations of protocols. The first
the state of standardization which is one of "standard", "
standard", "proposed", "experimental", or "historic". The second
the status of this protocol which is one of "required",
"recommended", "elective", or "not recommended". One could expect
particular protocol to move along the scale of status from
to required at the same time as it moves along the scale
standardization from proposed to standard
Internet Activities Board [Page 5]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
At any given time a protocol is a cell of the following matrix
Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the
proportions (indicated by the number of Xs). Most will be on
main diagonal. A new protocol is most likely to start in
(proposed, elective) cell, or the (experimental, not recommended
cell
Req Rec Ele
+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Std | XXX | XX | X | |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Draft | | X | XX | |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Prop | | | XXX | X |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Expr | | | X | XXX |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Hist | | | | XXX |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Some protocol are particular to hosts and some to gateways; a
protocols are used in both. The definitions of the terms below
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
types of systems are intended
5.1. Definitions of Protocol
5.1.1. Standard
The IAB has established this as an official standard protocol
the Internet. These are separated into two groups: (1)
protocol and above, protocols that apply to the whole Internet
and (2) network-specific protocols, generally specifications
how to do IP on particular types of networks
5.1.2. Draft Standard
The IAB is actively considering this protocol as a
Standard Protocol. Substantial and widespread testing and
is desired. Comments and test results should be submitted to
IAB. There is a possibility that changes will be made in a
Standard Protocol before it becomes a Standard Protocol
Internet Activities Board [Page 6]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
5.1.3. Proposed
These are protocol proposals that may be considered by the IAB
standardization in the future. Implementation and testing
several groups is desirable. Revisions of the
specification are likely
5.1.4. Experimental
A system should not implement an experimental protocol unless
is participating in the experiment and has coordinated its use
the protocol with the developer of the protocol
Typically, experimental protocols are those that are developed
part of a specific ongoing research project not related to
operational service offering. While they may be proposed as
service protocol at a later stage, and thus become proposed
draft, and then standard protocols, the designation of a
as experimental is meant to suggest that the protocol,
perhaps mature, is not intended for operational use
5.1.5. Historic
These are protocols that are unlikely to ever become standards
the Internet either because they have been superseded by
developments or due to lack of interest. These are protocols
are at an evolutionary dead end
5.2. Definitions of Protocol
5.2.1. Required
All systems must implement the required protocols
5.2.2. Recommended
All systems should implement the recommended protocols
5.2.3. Elective
A system may or may not implement an elective protocol.
general notion is that if you are going to do something like this
you must do exactly this
5.2.4. Not Recommended
These protocols are not recommended for general use. This may
because of their limited functionality, specialized nature,
Internet Activities Board [Page 7]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
experimental or historic state
6. The
This section list the standards in groups by protocol state
6.1. Recent Changes
The Host Requirements [RFC-1122, RFC-1123] is now a
Standard
The Network Time Protocol [RFC-1119] is now a Recommended Standard
The Internet Group Multicast Protocol [RFC-1112] is now a
Standard
The mail Content Type Header Field [RFC-1049] is now a
Standard
The "Internet Numbers" list was recently issued as RFC-1117.
The Telnet Linemode Option [RFC-1116] is now a Elective
standard
The mail Privacy procedures [RFC-1113, RFC-1114, and RFC-1115]
now Elective Draft Standards
The Border Gateway Protocol [RFC-1105] is a Not-
Experimental protocol
A procedure for sending IP over FDDI networks [RFC-1103] is now
Specific Standard
The Trivial File Transfer Protocol [RFC-783] is now a Elective
Standard
Internet Activities Board [Page 8]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
6.2. Standard
Protocol Name Status
-------- ---- ------ ---
Assigned Numbers Required 1010
Gateway Requirements Required 1009
Host Requirements - Communications Required 1122
Host Requirements - Applications Required 1123
IP Internet Protocol Required 791
as amended by
IP Subnet Extension Required 950
IP Broadcast Datagrams Required 919
IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets Required 922
ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol Required 792
IGMP Internet Group Multicast Protocol Recommended 1054
UDP User Datagram Protocol Recommended 768
TCP Transmission Control Protocol Recommended 793
DOMAIN Domain Name System Recommended 1034,1035
TELNET Telnet Protocol Recommended 854
FTP File Transfer Protocol Recommended 959
SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol Recommended 821
MAIL Format of Electronic Mail Messages Recommended 822
CONTENT Content Type Header Field Recommended 1049
EGP Exterior Gateway Protocol Recommended 904
ECHO Echo Protocol Recommended 862
NTP Network Time Protocol Recommended 1119
NETBIOS NetBIOS Service Protocols Elective 1001,1002
DISCARD Discard Protocol Elective 863
CHARGEN Character Generator Protocol Elective 864
QUOTE Quote of the Day Protocol Elective 865
USERS Active Users Protocol Elective 866
DAYTIME Daytime Protocol Elective 867
TIME Time Server Protocol Elective 868
Internet Activities Board [Page 9]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
6.3. Specific Standard
Protocol Name Status
-------- ---- ------ ---
ARP Address Resolution Protocol Elective 826
RARP A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol Elective 903
IP-ARPA Internet Protocol on ARPANET Elective BBN 1822
IP-WB Internet Protocol on Wideband Network Elective 907
IP-X25 Internet Protocol on X.25 Networks Elective 877
IP-E Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks Elective 894
IP-EE Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets Elective 895
IP-IEEE Internet Protocol on IEEE 802 Elective 1042
IP-DC Internet Protocol on DC Networks Elective 891
IP-HC Internet Protocol on Hyperchannnel Elective 1044
IP-ARC Internet Protocol on ARCNET Elective 1051
IP-SLIP Transmission of IP over Serial Lines Elective 1055
IP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS Elective 1088
IP-FDDI Transmission of IP over FDDI Elective 1103
Note: It is expected that a system will support one or more
networks and for each physical network supported the
protocols from the above list must be supported. That is, it
elective to support any particular type of physical network, and for
physical networks actually supported it is required that they
supported exactly according to the protocols in the above list
Internet Activities Board [Page 10]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
6.4. Draft Standard
Protocol Name Status
-------- ---- ------ ---
Mail Privacy: Procedures Elective 1113
Mail Privacy: Key Management Elective 1114
Mail Privacy: Algorithms Elective 1115
SNMP Simple Network Management Protocol Recommended 1098
CMOT Common Management Information Services Recommended 1095
and Protocol over TCP/
MIB Management Information Base Recommended 1066
SMI Structure of Management Information Recommended 1065
BOOTP Bootstrap Protocol Recommended 951,1048,1084
TFTP Trivial File Transfer Protocol Elective 783
The Internet Activities Board has designated two different
management protocols with the same status of "Draft Standard"
"Recommended". The two protocols are the Common Management
Services and Protocol over TCP/IP (CMOT) [RFC-1095] and the
Network Management Protocol (SNMP) [RFC-1098]. The IAB intends each
these two protocols to receive the attention of implementers
experimenters. The IAB seeks reports of experience with these
protocols from system builders and users. By this action, the
recommends that all IP and TCP implementations be network
(e.g., implement the Internet MIB [RFC-1066], and that
that are network manageable are expected to adopt and implement at
one of these two Internet Draft Standards. The motivation for
position is discussed in RFCs 1052 and 1109.
Internet Activities Board [Page 11]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
6.5. Proposed
Protocol Name Status
-------- ---- ------ ---
SUN-NFS Network File System Protocol Elective 1094
POP3 Post Office Protocol, Version 3 Elective 1081,1082
RIP Routing Information Protocol Elective 1058
SUN-RPC Remote Procedure Call Protocol Elective 1057
PCMAIL Pcmail Transport Protocol Elective 1056
VMTP Versatile Message Transaction Protocol Elective 1045
NFILE A File Access Protocol Elective 1037
Mapping between X.400 and RFC-822 Elective 987,1026
STATSRV Statistics Server Elective 996
NNTP Network News Transfer Protocol Elective 977
NICNAME WhoIs Protocol Elective 954
HOSTNAME HOSTNAME Protocol Elective 953
POP2 Post Office Protocol, Version 2 Elective 937
SFTP Simple File Transfer Protocol Elective 913
RLP Resource Location Protocol Elective 887
RTELNET Remote Telnet Service Elective 818
FINGER Finger Protocol Elective 742
SUPDUP SUPDUP Protocol Elective 734
NETED Network Standard Text Editor Elective 569
RJE Remote Job Entry Elective 407
6.6. Experimental
Protocol Name Status
-------- ---- ------ ---
BGP Border Gateway Protocol Not Recommended 1105
IP-DVMRP IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing Not Recommended 1075
TCP-LDP TCP Extensions for Long Delay Paths Not Recommended 1072
IP-MTU IP MTU Discovery Options Not Recommended 1063
NETBLT Bulk Data Transfer Protocol Not Recommended 998
IMAP2 Interactive Mail Access Protocol Not Recommended 1064
COOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme Not Recommended 1004
IRTP Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol Not Recommended 938
AUTH Authentication Service Not Recommended 931
RATP Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol Not Recommended 916
THINWIRE Thinwire Protocol Not Recommended 914
LDP Loader Debugger Protocol Not Recommended 909
RDP Reliable Data Protocol Not Recommended 908
ST Stream Protocol Not Recommended IEN 119
NVP-II Network Voice Protocol Not Recommended ISI
Internet Activities Board [Page 12]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
6.7. Historic
Protocol Name Status
-------- ---- ------ ---
SGMP Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol Not Recommended 1028
HEMS High Level Entity Management Protocol Not Recommended 1021
HMP Host Monitoring Protocol Not Recommended 869
GGP Gateway Gateway Protocol Not Recommended 823
CLOCK DCNET Time Server Protocol Not Recommended 778
MPM Internet Message Protocol Not Recommended 759
NETRJS Remote Job Service Not Recommended 740
XNET Cross Net Debugger Not Recommended IEN 158
NAMESERVER Host Name Server Protocol Not Recommended IEN 116
MUX Multiplexing Protocol Not Recommended IEN 90
GRAPHICS Graphics Protocol Not Recommended NIC 24308
7.
7.1. Internet Activities Board
Contact
Jon
USC Information Sciences
4676 Admiralty
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-213-822-1511
Postel@ISI.
Please send your comments about this list of protocols and
about the Draft Standard Protocols to the Internet Activities Board
7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
Contact
Joyce K.
Internet Assigned Numbers
USC Information Sciences
4676 Admiralty
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-213-822-1511
JKRey@ISI.
Internet Activities Board [Page 13]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
The protocol standards are managed for the IAB by the
Assigned Numbers Authority
Please refer to the documents "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1010)
"Official Internet Protocols" (RFC-1011) for further
about the status of protocol documents. There are two documents
summarize the requirements for host and gateways in the Internet
"Host Requirements" (RFC-1122 and RFC-1123) and "
Requirements" (RFC-1009).
How to obtain the most recent edition of this "IAB
Protocol Standards" memo
The file "in-notes/iab-standards.txt" may be copied via
from the VENERA.ISI.EDU computer using the FTP
"anonymous" and FTP password "guest".
7.3. Request for Comments Editor
Contact
Jon
RFC
USC Information Sciences
4676 Admiralty
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-213-822-1511
Postel@ISI.
Documents may be submitted via electronic mail to the RFC Editor
consideration for publication as RFC. If you are not familiar
the format or style requirements please request the "Instructions
RFC Authors". In general, the style of any recent RFC may be used
a guide
Internet Activities Board [Page 14]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
7.4. The Network Information Center
Requests for Comments Distribution
Contact
DDN Network Information
SRI
Room EJ291
333 Ravenswood
Menlo Park, CA 94025
1-800-235-3155
1-415-859-3695
NIC@NIC.DDN.
The Network Information Center (NIC) provides many
services for the Internet community. Among them is maintaining
Requests for Comments (RFC) library
RFCs can be obtained via FTP from NIC.DDN.MIL with the
RFC:RFCnnnn.TXT where "nnnn" refers to the number of the RFC. A
of all RFCs may be obtained by copying the file RFC:RFC-INDEX.TXT
Log in with FTP username ANONYMOUS and password GUEST
The NIC also provides an automatic mail service for those sites
cannot use FTP. Address the request to SERVICE@NIC.DDN.MIL and
the subject field of the message indicate the RFC number, as
"Subject: RFC nnnn".
How to obtain the most recent edition of this "IAB
Protocol Standards" memo
The file RFC:IAB-STANDARDS.TXT may be copied via FTP from
NIC.DDN.MIL computer following the same procedures used
obtain RFCs
Internet Activities Board [Page 15]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
7.5. Other Sources for Requests for
NSF Network Service Center (NNSC
NSF Network Service Center (NNSC
BBN Systems and Technology
10 Moulton St
Cambridge, MA 02238
617-873-3400
NNSC@NNSC.NSF.
NSF Network Information Service (NIS
NSF Network Information
Merit Inc
University of
1075 Beal
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
313-763-4897
INFO@NIS.NSF.
CSNET Coordination and Information Center (CIC
CSNET Coordination and Information
Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc
10 Moulton
Cambridge, MA 02238
617-873-2777
INFO@SH.CS.
8. Security Considerations
Security issues are not addressed in this memo
Internet Activities Board [Page 16]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
9. Author's Address
Jon
USC/Information Sciences
4676 Admiralty
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Phone: (213) 822-1511
Email: Postel@ISI.
Internet Activities Board [Page 17]
if you see any problems within the linking, don't worry be happy,
this is version 0.1 of the Relevance System and you gotta expect some crappy subroutines sometimes,
just be content we did not write this in Java, which would have made this "bigger and better" HAHAHHA.
RFC documents can be found at I.E.T.F.
Relevance System Copyright © 2002 Spectrum WorldResearch
other technical nosh by ServerMasters Corporation
collaboration of BobX
