As per Relevance of the word internet, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group J.
Request for Comments: 840
April 1983
Official
This RFC identifies the documents specifying the official protocols
in the Internet. Annotations identify any revisions or changes planned
To first order, the official protocols are those in the
Protocol Transition Workbook (IPTW) dated March 1982. There are
protocols in use that are not in the IPTW. A few of the protocols
the IPTW have been revised these are noted here. In particular,
mail protocols have been revised and issued as a volume titled "
Mail Protocols" dated November 1982. There is a volume of
related information called the Internet Protocol Implementers
(IPIG) dated August 1982. A few of the protocols (in particular
Telnet Options) have not been revised for many years, these are found
the old ARPANET Protocol Handbook (APH) dated January 1978.
This document is organized as a sketchy outline. The entries
protocols (e.g., Transmission Control Protocol). In each entry
are notes on status, specification, comments, other references
dependencies, and contact
The status is one of: required, recommended, elective,
experimental
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 expand
the protocol
The dependencies indicate what other protocols are called upon
this protocol
The contact indicates a person who can answer questions about
protocol
Postel [Page 1]
RFC 840 April 1983
Official
In particular, the status may need some further clarification
- 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 protocol
they are participating in the experiment and have
their use of this protocol with the contact person,
- this is not a protocol
Catenet
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: IEN 48 (in IPTW
COMMENTS
Gives an overview of the organization and principles of
Internet
Could be revised and expanded
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Postel [Page 2]
RFC 840 April 1983
Official
Network
Internet Protocol (IP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 791 (in IPTW
COMMENTS
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.
Another important point is the alternate reassembly
suggested in RFC 815.
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 815 (in IPIG) - IP Datagram Reassembly
RFC 814 (in IPIG) - Names, Addresses, Ports, and
RFC 816 (in IPIG) - Fault Isolation and
RFC 817 (in IPIG) - Modularity and Efficiency in
DEPENDENCIES
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Postel [Page 3]
RFC 840 April 1983
Official
Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 792 (in IPTW
COMMENTS
A few minor errors in the document have been noted
Suggestions have been made for additional types of
message and additional destination unreachable messages
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Host
User Datagram Protocol (UDP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 768 (in IPTW
COMMENTS
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@USC-
Postel [Page 4]
RFC 840 April 1983
Official
Transmission Control Protocol (TCP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 793 (in IPTW
COMMENTS
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
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 default should be established more clearly. The default
based on the default maximum Internet Datagram size which
576 octets counting the IP and TCP headers. The option
only the segment data. For each of IP and TCP the
header is 20 octets and the maximum header is 60 octets. So
default maximum data segment is could be anywhere from 456
536 octets. The current proposal is to set it at 536
octets
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
Postel [Page 5]
RFC 840 April 1983
Official
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
OTHER REFERENCES
RFC 813 (in IPIG) - Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in
RFC 814 (in IPIG) - Names, Addresses, Ports, and
RFC 816 (in IPIG) - Fault Isolation and
RFC 817 (in IPIG) - Modularity and Efficiency in
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Host Monitoring Protocol (HMP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: IEN 197
COMMENTS
This is a good tool for debuging protocol implementations
small remotely located computers
This protocol is used to monitor Internet gateways and
TACs
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: Hinden@BBN-
Postel [Page 6]
RFC 840 April 1983
Official
Cross Net Debugger (XNET
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: IEN 158
COMMENTS
This specification should be updated and reissued as an RFC
OTHER REFERENCES
RFC 643
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 827
COMMENTS
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Postel [Page 7]
RFC 840 April 1983
Official
Gateway Gateway Protocol (GGP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 823
COMMENTS
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Internet
CONTACT: Brescia@BBN-
Multiplexing
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: IEN 90
COMMENTS
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@USC-
Postel [Page 8]
RFC 840 April 1983
Official
Stream Protocol (ST
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: IEN 119
COMMENTS
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: Forgie@
Network Voice Protocol (NVP-II
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC
COMMENTS
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
DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol, Stream
CONTACT: Casner@USC-
Postel [Page 9]
RFC 840 April 1983
Official
Application
Telnet Protocol (TELNET
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 764 (in IPTW
COMMENTS
A few minor typographical errors should be corrected and
clarification of the SYNCH mechanism should be made
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Telnet Options (TELNET
Number Name RFC NIC APH
------ ------------------------------------ --- ----- --- ---
0 Binary Transmission ... 15389 yes
1 Echo ... 15390 yes
2 Reconnection ... 15391 yes
3 Suppress Go Ahead ... 15392 yes
4 Approximate Message Size Negotiation ... 15393 yes
5 Status 651 31154 yes
6 Timing Mark ... 16238 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 no
23 Send Location 779 ----- no
255 Extended-Options-List ... 16239 yes
Postel [Page 10]
RFC 840 April 1983
Official
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: (in APH
COMMENTS
There is an open question about some of these. Most of
options are implemented by so few hosts that perhaps
should be eliminated. These should all be studied and
useful ones reissued as RFCs
The last column (USE) of the table above indicates
options are in general use
The following are recommended: Binary Transmission, Echo
Suppress Go Ahead, Status, Timing Mark, and Extended
List
Many of these must be revised for use with TCP
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES:
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
File Transfer Protocol (FTP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 765 (in IPTW
COMMENTS
There are a number of minor corrections to be made. A
change is the deletion of the mail commands, and a
clarification is needed in the discussion of the management
the data connection. Also, a suggestion has been made
include some directory manipulation commands (RFC 775).
Eventhough the MAIL features are defined in this document,
are not to be used. The SMTP protocol is to be used for
mail service in the Internet
Data Connection Management
a. Default Data Connection Ports: All FTP
must support use of the default data connection ports,
only the User-PI may initiate the use of non-default ports
Postel [Page 11]
RFC 840 April 1983
Official
b. Negotiating Non-Default Data Ports: The User-PI
specify a non-default user side data port with the
command. The User-PI may request the server side
identify a non-default server side data port with the
command. Since a connection is defined by the pair
addresses, either of these actions is enough to get
different data connection, still it is permitted to do
commands to use new ports on both ends of the
connection
c. Reuse of the Data Connection: When using the
mode of data transfer the end of the file must be
by closing the connection. This causes a problem
multiple files are to be transfered in the session, due
need for TCP to hold the connection record for a time
period to guarantee the reliable communication. Thus
connection can not be reopened at once
There are two solutions to this problem. The first is
negotiate a non-default port (as in (b) above).
second is to use another transfer mode
A comment on transfer modes. The stream transfer mode
inherently unreliable, since one can not determine if
connection closed prematurely or not. The other
modes (Block, Compressed) do not close the connection
indicate the end of file. They have enough FTP
that the data connection can be parsed to determine
end of the file. Thus using these modes one can
the data connection open for multiple file transfers
Why this was not a problem with the old NCP FTP
The NCP was designed with only the ARPANET in mind
The ARPANET provides very reliable service, and
NCP counted on it. If any packet of data from an
connection were lost or damaged by the network the
could not recover. It is a tribute to the
designers that the NCP FTP worked so well
The TCP is designed to provide reliable
over many different types of networks
interconnections of networks. TCP must cope with
set of networks that can not promise to work as
as the ARPANET. TCP must make its own provisions
end-to-end recovery from lost or damaged packets
This leads to the need for the connection phase-
time-out. The NCP never had to deal
acknowledgements or retransmissions or many
Postel [Page 12]
RFC 840 April 1983
Official
things the TCP must do to make connection reliable
a more complex world
LIST and NLST
There is some confusion about the LIST an NLST commands,
what is appropriate to return. Some clarification
motivation for these commands should be added to
specification
OTHER REFERENCES
RFC 678 - Document File Format
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 783 (in IPTW
COMMENTS
No known problems with this specification. This is in use
several local networks
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 821
COMMENTS
This has been revised since the IPTW, it is in the "
Mail Protocols" volume of November 1982. RFC 788 (in IPTW)
obsolete
There have been many misunderstandings and errors in the
Postel [Page 13]
RFC 840 April 1983
Official
implementations. Some documentation of these problems can
found in the file [ISIF]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
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Remote Job Entry (RJE
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 407 (in APH
COMMENTS
Some changes needed for use with TCP
No known active implementations
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: File Transfer
Transmission Control
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Postel [Page 14]
RFC 840 April 1983
Official
Remote Job Service (NETRJS
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 740 (in APH
COMMENTS
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@USC-
Remote Telnet
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 818
COMMENTS
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Telnet, Transmission Control
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Graphics
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: NIC 24308 (in APH
COMMENTS
Very minor changes needed for use with TCP
No known active implementations
OTHER REFERENCES
Postel [Page 15]
RFC 840 April 1983
Official
DEPENDENCIES: Telnet, Transmission Control
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Echo
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 347
COMMENTS
This specification should be revised for use with TCP
reissued
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
or User Datagram
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Discard
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 348
COMMENTS
This specification should be revised for use with TCP
reissued
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
or User Datagram
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Postel [Page 16]
RFC 840 April 1983
Official
Character Generator
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 429
COMMENTS
This specification should be revised for use with TCP
reissued
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
or User Datagram
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Quote of the Day
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC
COMMENTS
Open a connection to this server, it sends you a quote (as
character string), and closes the connection. This should
described in an RFC
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
or User Datagram
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Active Users
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC
COMMENTS
Open a connection to this server, it sends you a list of
currently logged in users (as a character string), and
the connection. This should be described in an RFC
Postel [Page 17]
RFC 840 April 1983
Official
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
or User Datagram
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Finger
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 742 (in APH
COMMENTS
Some extensions have been suggested
Some changes are are needed for TCP
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
NICNAME
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 812 (in IPTW
COMMENTS
Accesses the ARPANET Directory database
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Feinler@SRI-
Postel [Page 18]
RFC 840 April 1983
Official
HOSTNAME
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 811 (in IPTW
COMMENTS
Accesses the Registered Internet Hosts database (HOSTS.TXT).
OTHER REFERENCES
RFC 810 - Host Table
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Feinler@SRI-
Host Name Server
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: IEN 116 (in IPTW
COMMENTS
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
Work is in progress on a significant revision.
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@USC-
Postel [Page 19]
RFC 840 April 1983
Official
CSNET Mailbox Name Server
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: CS-DN-2
COMMENTS
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Solomon@
Daytime
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC
COMMENTS
Open a connection to this server, it sends you the date
time (as a character string), and closes the connection.
should be described in an RFC
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
or User Datagram
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Time Server
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: IEN 142
COMMENTS
Open a connection to this server, it sends you the date
time (as a 32-bit number), and closes the connection. Or
a user datagram and it send back a datagram containing the
and time (as a 32-bit number).
Postel [Page 20]
RFC 840 April 1983
Official
No known problems. Specification should be reissued as an RFC
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
or User Datagram
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
DCNET Time Server Protocol (Internet Clock Service
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 778
COMMENTS
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Internet Control Message
CONTACT: Mills@LINKABIT-DCN
SUPDUP
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 734 (in APH
COMMENTS
OTHER REFERENCES
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Admin.MRC@SU-
Internet Message Protocol (MPM
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 753
COMMENTS
This is an experimental multimedia mail transfer protocol.
implementation is called a Message Processing Module or MPM
Postel [Page 21]
RFC 840 April 1983
Official
Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of
protocol with the contact
OTHER REFERENCES
RFC 767 - Structured Document
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Assigned
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 820
COMMENTS
Describes the fields of various protocols that are
specific values for actual use, and lists the
assigned values
Issued January 1983, replaces RFC 790 in IPTW
OTHER REFERENCES
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Pre-
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 794 (in IPTW
COMMENTS
Describes how to do pre-emption of TCP connections
OTHER REFERENCES
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Postel [Page 22]
RFC 840 April 1983
Official
Service
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 795 (in IPTW
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@USC-
Address
STATUS:
SPECIFICATION: RFC 796 (in IPTW
COMMENTS
Describes the mapping of the IP address field onto the
field of some specific networks
Out of date, needs revision
OTHER REFERENCES
CONTACT: Postel@USC-
Postel [Page 23]
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
