As per Relevance of the word standard, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group Internet Activities
Request for Comments: 1140 J. Postel,
Obsoletes: RFCs 1130, May 1990
1100, 1083
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
Table of
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1. The Standardization Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. The Request for Comments Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Other Reference Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Assigned Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Annotated Internet Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Gateway Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Host Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5. The MIL-STD Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Explanation of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Definitions of Protocol State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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. Historic Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.1. Required Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
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
6.1.2. Other Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2. Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Internet Activities Board [Page 1]
RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.4. Draft Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.5. Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.6. Experimental Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.7. Historic Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7. Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.1.1. Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact . . . . . . . 23
7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . 23
7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . . 24
7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . . 24
7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.4. Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.5. Other Sources for Requests for Comments . . . . . . . . 26
7.5.1. NSF Network Service Center (NNSC) . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.5.2. NSF Network Information Service (NIS) . . . . . . . . 26
7.5.3. CSNET Coordination and Information Center (CIC) . . . 26
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Discussion of the standardization process and the RFC document
is presented first, then the explanation of the terms is presented
the lists of protocols in each stage of standardization follows
finally come pointers to references and contacts for
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 edition after 31-Aug-90.
See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes
1. The Standardization
The Internet Activities Board maintains this list of documents
define standards for the Internet protocol suite (see RFC-1120 for
explanation of the role and organization of the IAB and
subsidiary groups, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and
Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)). The IAB provides
standards with the goal of co-ordinating the evolution of
Internet protocols; this co-ordination has become quite important
the Internet protocols are increasingly in general commercial use
The majority of Internet protocol development and
Internet Activities Board [Page 2]
RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
activity takes place in the working groups of the
Engineering Task Force
Protocols which are to become standards in the Internet go through
series of states (proposed standard, draft standard, and standard
involving increasing amounts of scrutiny and experimental testing
At each step, the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) of
IETF must make a recommendation for advancement of the protocol
the IAB must ratify it. If a recommendation is not ratified,
protocol is remanded to the IETF for further work
To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react
standardization proposals, the IAB imposes a minimum delay of 4
months before a proposed standard can be advanced to a draft
and 6 months before a draft standard can be promoted to standard
It is general IAB practice that no proposed standard can be
to draft standard without at least two independent
(and the recommendation of the IESG). Promotion from draft
to standard generally requires operational experience
demonstrated interoperability of two or more implementations (and
recommendation of the IESG).
In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper
concerning a protocol the IAB may convene a special review
consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB with
purpose of recommending an explicit action to the IAB
Advancement of a protocol to proposed standard is an important
since it marks a protocol as a candidate for eventual
(it puts the protocol "on the standards track"). Advancement
draft standard is a major step which warns the community that,
major objections are raised or flaws are discovered, the protocol
likely to be advanced to standard in six months
Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are
unused. Such protocols are still documented in this memorandum
the designation "historic".
Because the IAB believes it is useful to document the results
early protocol research and development work, some of the
document protocols which are still in an experimental condition.
protocols are designated "experimental" in this memorandum.
appear in this report as a convenience to the community and not
evidence of their standardization
In addition to the working groups of the IETF, protocol
and experimentation may take place as a result of the work of
Internet Activities Board [Page 3]
RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or the work
other individuals interested in Internet protocol development.
IAB encourages the documentation of such experimental work in the
series, but none of this work is considered to be on the track
standardization until the IESG has made a recommendation to
the protocol to the proposed standard state, and the IAB has
this step
A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without
approval of the IESG and the IAB. For example, some vendor
have become very important to the Internet community even though
have not been recommended by the IESG or ratified by the IAB
However, the IAB strongly recommends that the IAB standards
be used in the evolution of the protocol suite to
interoperability (and to prevent incompatible protocol
from arising). The IAB reserves the use of the terms "standard",
"draft standard", and "proposed standard" in any RFC or
publication of Internet protocols to only those protocols which
IAB has approved
In addition to a state (like "proposed standard") a protocol is
assigned a status, or requirement level. A protocol can be required
meaning that all systems in the Internet must implement it.
example, the Internet Protocol (IP) is required. A protocol may
recommended, meaning that systems should implement this protocol.
protocol may be elective, meaning that systems may implement
protocol; that is, if (and only if) the functionality of
protocol is needed or useful for a system it must use this
to provide the functionality. A protocol may be termed limited
or even not recommended if it is not intended to be
implemented; for example, experimental or historic protocols
When a protocol is on the standards track, that is in the
standard, draft standard, or standard state (see Section 5),
status is the current status. However, the IAB will also endeavor
indicate the eventual status this protocol will have when
standardization is completed
The IAB realizes that a one word label is not sufficient
characterize the implementation requirements for a protocol in
situations. In many cases, an additional paragraph about the
will be provided, and in some cases reference will be made
separate requirements documents
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 or the protocols
Internet Activities Board [Page 4]
RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
use TCP (though it may be useful). It is expected that
purpose hosts will implement at least IP (including ICMP and IGMP),
TCP and UDP, Telnet, FTP, NTP, SMTP, Mail, and the Domain Name
(DNS).
2. The Request for Comments
The documents called Request for Comments (or RFCs) are the
notes of the "Network Working Group", that is the Internet
and development community. A document in this series may be
essentially any topic related to computer communication, and may
anything from a meeting report to the specification of a standard
Notice
All standards are published as RFCs, but not all RFCs
standards
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
The RFC series comprises a wide range of documents such
informational documents of general interests to specifications
standard Internet protocols. In cases where submission is
to document a proposed standard, draft standard, or
protocol, the RFC Editor will publish the document only with
approval of both the IESG and the IAB. For documents
experimental work, the RFC Editor will typically request
comments from the relevant IETF working group or IRTF research
and provide those comments to the author prior to committing
publication. See Section 5.1 for more detail
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
Internet Activities Board [Page 5]
RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
International, and a number of other sites. For more
about obtaining RFCs, see Sections 7.4 and 7.5.
3. Other Reference
There are four other reference documents of interest in checking
current status of protocol specifications and standardization.
are the Assigned Numbers, the Annotated Internet Protocols,
Gateway Requirements, and the Host Requirements. Note that
documents are revised and updated at different times; in case
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 3.5.
3.1. 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-1060.
Another document, Internet Numbers, lists the assigned IP
numbers, and the autonomous system numbers. Internet Numbers
most recently issued as RFC-1117.
3.2. Annotated Internet
This document lists the protocols and describes any known
and ongoing experiments. This document was most recently issued
RFC-1011 under the title "Official Internet Protocols".
3.3. Gateway
This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways
supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities.
Requirements is RFC-1009. A working group of the IETF is
preparing a revision
3.4. Host
This pair of documents reviews the specifications that apply to
and supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities.
Requirements was recently issued as RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.
Internet Activities Board [Page 6]
RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
3.5. 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
These documents are available from the Naval Publications and
Center. Requests can be initiated by telephone, telegraph, or mail
however, it is preferred that private industry use form DD1425,
possible. These five documents are included in the 1985 DDN
Handbook (available from the Network Information Center, see
7.4).
Naval Publications and Forms Center, Code 3015
5801 Tabor
Philadelphia, PA 19120
Phone: 1-215-697-3321 (order tape
1-215-697-4834 (conversation
4. Explanation of
There are two independent categorization of protocols. The first
the STATE of standardization which is one of "standard", "
standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic".
second is the STATUS of this protocol which is one of "required",
"recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".
The IAB notes that the status or requirement level is difficult
portray in a one word label. These status labels should
considered only as an indication, and a further description should
consulted
When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard
Internet Activities Board [Page 7]
RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
it is labeled with a current status and when possible, the IAB
notes the status that that protocol is expected to have when
reaches the standard state
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 relative number of Xs). A new
is most likely to start in the (proposed standard, elective) cell,
the (experimental, not recommended) cell
S T A T U
Req Rec Ele Lim
S +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Std | X | XXX | XXX | | |
T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Draft | X | X | XXX | | |
A +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Prop | | X | XXX | X | |
T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Expr | | | X | XXX | X |
E +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Hist | | | | X | XXX |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
What is a "system"?
Some protocols are particular to hosts and some to gateways; a
protocols are used in both. The definitions of the terms
will refer to a "system" which is either a host or a gateway (
both). It should be clear from the context of the
protocol which types of systems are intended
4.1. Definitions of Protocol
There are two independent categorizations of protocols. The first
the STATE of standardization, which is one of "standard", "
standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic".
4.1.1. 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
Internet Activities Board [Page 8]
RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
4.1.2. Draft Standard
The IAB is actively considering this protocol as a
Standard Protocol. Substantial and widespread testing and
are 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
4.1.3. Proposed Standard
These are protocol proposals that may be considered by the IAB
standardization in the future. Implementation and testing
several groups is desirable. Revision of the
specification is likely
4.1.4. 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 an ongoing research project not related to an
service offering. While they may be proposed as a
protocol at a later stage, and thus become proposed standard
draft standard, and then standard protocols, the designation of
protocol as experimental may sometimes be meant to suggest
the protocol, although perhaps mature, is not intended
operational use
4.1.5. 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
4.2. Definitions of Protocol
There are two independent categorizations of protocols.
second is the STATUS of this protocol which is one of "required",
"recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".
4.2.1. Required
A system must implement the required protocols
Internet Activities Board [Page 9]
RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
4.2.2. Recommended
A system should implement the recommended protocols
4.2.3. 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. There may be several elective
in a general area, for example, there are several electronic
protocols, and several routing protocols
4.2.4. Limited Use
These protocols are for use in limited circumstances. This may
because of their experimental state, specialized nature,
functionality, or historic state
4.2.5. Not Recommended
These protocols are not recommended for general use. This may
because of their limited functionality, specialized nature,
experimental or historic state
5. The Standards
This section discusses in more detail the procedures used by the
Editor and the IAB in making decisions about the labeling
publishing of protocols as standards
5.1. The RFC Processing Decision
Here is the current decision table for processing submissions by
Editor. The processing depends on who submitted it, and the
they want it to have
Internet Activities Board [Page 10]
RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
+==========================================================+
|++++++++++++++| S O U R C E |
+==========================================================+
| Desired | IAB | IESG | IRSG | Other |
| Status | | | or RG | |
+==========================================================+
| | | | | |
| Full or | Publish | Vote | Bogus | Bogus |
| Draft | (1) | (3) | (2) | (2) |
| Standard | | | | |
| | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| | Publish | Vote | Refer | Refer |
| Proposed | (1) | (3) | (4) | (4) |
| Standard | | | | |
| | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| | Publish | Notify | Notify | Notify |
| Experimental | (1) | (5) | (5) | (5) |
| Protocol | | | | |
| | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| Information | Publish |Discretion|Discretion|Discretion
| or Opinion | (1) | (6) | (6) | (6) |
| Paper | | | | |
| | | | | |
+==========================================================+
(1) Publish
(2) Bogus. Inform the source of the rules. RFCs
Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IAB, only
(3) Vote by the IAB. If approved then do Publish (1), else
Refer (4).
(4) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG. Expect to
the document again only after approval by the IESG and
IAB
(5) Notify both the IESG and IRSG. If no protest in 1 week
do Discretion (6), else do undefined
(6) RFC Editor's discretion. The RFC Editor decides if a
is needed and if so by whom. RFC Editor decides to publish
Internet Activities Board [Page 11]
RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
not
Of course, in all cases the RFC Editor can request or make
changes for style, format, and presentation purposes
The IESG has designated Greg Vaudreuil as its agent for
documents with IESG approval and for registering protest in
to notifications (5) to the RFC Editor. Documents from
Directors or Working Group Chairs may be considered in the same
as documents from "other".
5.2. The Standards Track
There is a part of the STATUS and STATE categorization that is
the standards track. Actually, only the changes of state
significant to the progression along the standards track, though
status assignments may be changed as well
The states illustrated by single line boxes are temporary states
those illustrated by double line boxes are long term states.
protocol will normally be expected to remain in a temporary state
several months (minimum four months for proposed standard,
six months for draft standard). A protocol may be in a long
state for many years
A protocol may enter the standards track only on the
of the IESG and by action of the IAB; and may move from one state
another along the track only on the recommendation of the IESG and
action of the IAB. That is, it takes both the IESG and the IAB
either start a protocol on the track or to move it along
Generally, as the protocol enters the standards track a decision
made as to the eventual STATUS (elective, recommended, or required
the protocol will have, although a somewhat less stringent
status may be assigned, and it then is placed in the the
standard STATE with that status. So the initial placement of
protocol is into state 1. At any time the STATUS decision may
revisited
Internet Activities Board [Page 12]
RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
|
+<----------------------------------------------+
| ^
V 0 | 4
+-----------+ +===========+
| enter |-->----------------+-------------->|experiment |
+-----------+ | +=====+=====+
| |
V 1 |
+-----------+
| proposed |-------------->+
+--->+-----+-----+ |
| | |
| V 2 |
+<---+-----+-----+
| draft std |-------------->+
+--->+-----+-----+ |
| | |
| V 3 |
+<---+=====+=====+
| standard |-------------->+
+=====+=====+ |
|
V 5
+=====+=====+
| historic |
+===========+
The transition from proposed standard (1) to draft standard (2)
only be by action of the IAB on the recommendation of the IESG
only after the protocol has been proposed standard (1) for at
four months
The transition from draft standard (2) to standard (3) can only be
action of the IAB on the recommendation of the IESG and only
the protocol has been draft standard (2) for at least six months
Occasionally, the decision may be that the protocol is not ready
standardization and will be assigned to the experimental state (4).
This is off the standards track, and the protocol may be
to enter the standards track after further work. There are
paths into the experimental and historic states that do not
IAB action
Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus
historic, it may happen that a protocol on the standards track is
a sense overtaken by another protocol (or other events) and
historic (state 5).
Internet Activities Board [Page 13]
RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
6. The
This section lists the standards in groups by protocol state
6.1. Recent
6.1.1. New RFCs
1157 - Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP
Advanced to Recommended Standard protocol. Replaces 1098.
1156 - Management Information Base (MIB
Advanced to Recommended Standard protocol. Replaces 1066.
1155 - Structure of Management Information (SMI
Advanced to Recommended Standard protocol. Replaces 1065.
1154 - Encoding Header Field for Internet
This is a new Elective Experimental protocol
1153 - Digest Message
This is a new Elective Experimental protocol
1152 - Workshop Report: Internet Research Steering Group
on Very-High-Speed
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1151 - Version 2 of the Reliable Data Protocol (RDP
This is an update to a Not-recommended
protocol
1150 - FYI on
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1149 - A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on
This describes an implementation technique, and does
Internet Activities Board [Page 14]
RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
specify any level of standard
1148 - Mapping between X.400(88) and RFC 822
This is a new Elective Experimental protocol (
editing errors in 1138).
1147 - FYI on a Network Management Tool
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1146 - TCP Alternative Checksum
This is a new Not-recommended Experimental
(corrects editing errors in 1145).
1145 - TCP Alternate Checksum
This is a new Not-recommended Experimental protocol
1144 - Compressing TCP/IP Headers for Low-Speed Serial
This is a new Elective Proposed Standard protocol
1143 - The Q Method of Implementing TELNET Option
This describes an implementation technique
1142 - < not issued yet >
1141 - Incremental Updating of the Internet
This describes an implementation technique
1140 - IAB Official Protocol
This memo
1139 - An Echo Function for ISO 8473
This is a new Elective Proposed Standard protocol
1138 - Mapping between X.400(88) and RFC 822
This is a new Elective Experimental protocol (replaced
1148).
Internet Activities Board [Page 15]
RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
1137 - Mapping Between Full RFC 822 and RFC 822 with
This is a new Elective Experimental protocol
1136 - Administrative Domains and Routing Domains: A Model
Routing in the
This is a discussion document and does not specify
level of standard
1135 - The Helminthiasis of the
This is a discussion document and does not specify
level of standard
1134 - The Point-to-Point Protocol: A Proposal for Multi-
Transmission of Datagrams Over Point-to-Point
This is a new Elective Proposed Standard protocol
1133 - Routing between the NSFNET and the
This is a discussion document and does not specify
level of standard
1132 - A Standard for the Transmission of 802.2 Packets over
This is a new Elective Network-Specific Standard protocol
that is, a full Standard for a network-specific situation
1131 - The OSPF
This is a new Elective Proposed Standard protocol
1060 - Assigned
The status report on assigned numbers and
parameters
Internet Activities Board [Page 16]
RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
6.1.2. Other Changes
The following are changes to protocols listed in the
edition
1058 - Routing Information Protocol (RIP
Advanced to Elective Draft Standard protocol
1045 - Versatile Message Transaction Protocol (VMTP
Moved to Elective Experimental protocol
1006 - ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP (TP-TCP
Advanced to Elective Draft Standard protocol
996 - Statistics Server (STATSRV
Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol
954 - WhoIs Protocol (NICNAME
Advanced to Elective Draft Standard protocol
937 - Post Office Protocol, Version 2 (POP2)
Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol
916 - Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol (RATP
Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol
914 - Thinwire Protocol (THINWIRE
Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol
818 - Remote Telnet Service (RTELNET
Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol
569 - Network Standard Text Editor (NETED
Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol
407 - Remote Job Entry (RJE
Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol
Internet Activities Board [Page 17]
RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
6.2. Standard
Protocol Name Status
======== ===================================== ============== ====
-------- Assigned Numbers Required 1060
-------- 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 1112
UDP User Datagram Protocol Recommended 768
TCP Transmission Control Protocol Recommended 793
SMI Structure of Management Information Recommended 1155
MIB Management Information Base Recommended 1156
SNMP Simple Network Management Protocol Recommended 1157
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
Notes
IGMP -- The Internet Activities Board intends to move towards
adoption of IP multicasting, as a more efficient solution
broadcasting for many applications. The host interface has
standardized in RFC-1112; however, multicast-routing gateways are
the experimental stage and are not widely available. An
host should support all of RFC-1112, except for the IGMP
itself which is optional; see RFC-1122 for more details.
without IGMP, implementation of RFC-1112 will provide an
advance: IP-layer access to local network multicast addressing.
Internet Activities Board [Page 18]
RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
is expected that IGMP will become recommended for all hosts
gateways at some future date
SMI, MIB, SNMP -- The Internet Activities Board recommends that
IP and TCP implementations be network manageable. This
implementation of the Internet MIB (RFC-1156) and at least one of
two recommended management protocols SNMP (RFC-1157) or CMOT (RFC
1095). It should be noted that, at this time, SNMP is a
Internet standard and CMOT is a draft standard. See also the
and Gateway Requirements RFCs for more specific information on
applicability of this standard
6.3. Network-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 Hyperchannel 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
IP-IPX Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks Elective 1132
Notes
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
the physical networks actually supported it is required that they
supported exactly according to the protocols in the above list.
also the Host and Gateway Requirements RFCs for more
information on network-specific ("link layer") protocols
Internet Activities Board [Page 19]
RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
6.4. Draft Standard
Protocol Name Status
======== ===================================== =============== ====
-------- Mail Privacy: Procedures Elective 1113
-------- Mail Privacy: Key Management Elective 1114
-------- Mail Privacy: Algorithms Elective 1115
CMOT Common Management Information Services Recommended 1095
and Protocol over TCP/
BOOTP Bootstrap Protocol Recommended 951,1048,1084
RIP Routing Information Protocol Elective 1058
TP-TCP ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP Elective 1006
NICNAME WhoIs Protocol Elective 954
TFTP Trivial File Transfer Protocol Elective 783
Notes
CMOT -- The Internet Activities Board recommends that all IP and
implementations be network manageable. This implies
of the Internet MIB (RFC-1156) and at least one of the
recommended management protocols SNMP (RFC-1157) or CMOT (RFC-1095).
It should be noted that, at this time, SNMP is a full
standard and CMOT is a draft standard. See also the Host and
Requirements RFCs for more specific information on the
of this standard
RIP -- The Routing Information Protocol (RIP) is widely
and used in the Internet. However, both implementors and
should be aware that RIP has some serious technical limitations as
routing protocol. The IETF is currently developing
candidates for a new standard "open" routing protocol with
properties than RIP. The IAB urges the Internet community to
these developments, and to implement the new protocol when it
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
TCP/IP protocols. The Internet Engineering Task Force is
strategies for interoperation. RFC-1006 provides one
mode, in which TCP/IP is used to emulate TP0 in order to support
applications. Hosts that wish to run OSI connection-
applications in this mode should use the procedure described in RFC
1006. In the future, the IAB expects that a major portion of
Internet will support both TCP/IP and OSI (inter-)network
in parallel, and it will then be possible to run OSI
across the Internet using full OSI protocol "stacks".
Internet Activities Board [Page 20]
RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
6.5. Proposed Standard
Protocol Name Status
======== ===================================== =============== ====
MIB-II MIB-II Elective
IP-CMPRS Compressing TCP/IP Headers Elective 1144
-------- Echo for ISO-8473 Elective 1139
PPP Point to Point Protocol Elective 1134
OSPF Open Shortest Path First Routing Elective 1131
SUN-NFS Network File System Protocol Elective 1094
POP3 Post Office Protocol, Version 3 Elective 1081,1082
SUN-RPC Remote Procedure Call Protocol Elective 1057
PCMAIL Pcmail Transport Protocol Elective 1056
NFILE A File Access Protocol Elective 1037
-------- Mapping between X.400(84) and RFC-822 Elective 987,1026
NNTP Network News Transfer Protocol Elective 977
HOSTNAME HOSTNAME Protocol Elective 953
SFTP Simple File Transfer Protocol Elective 913
RLP Resource Location Protocol Elective 887
FINGER Finger Protocol Elective 742
SUPDUP SUPDUP Protocol Elective 734
Notes
This section is being reviewed by the IESG, which will recommend
some of these protocols be moved to either the draft standard, or
experimental or historic categories
MIB-II -- This memo defines a mandatory extension to the base
(RFC-1156) and is a Proposed Standard for the Internet community
The extensions described here are currently Elective, but when
become a standard, they will have the same status as RFC-1156,
is, Recommended. The Internet Activities Board recommends that
IP and TCP implementations be network manageable. This
implementation of the Internet MIB (RFC-1156 and the extensions
RFC-xxxx) and at least one of the two recommended
protocols SNMP (RFC-1157) or CMOT (RFC-1095).
PPP -- Point to Point Protocol is a method of sending IP over
lines, which are a type of physical network. It is expected that
system will support one or more physical networks and for
physical network supported the appropriate protocols from
network-specific standard protocols (Section 6.3) must be supported
That is, it is elective to support any particular type of
network, and for the physical networks actually supported it
required that they be supported exactly according to the
listed. It is anticipated that PPP will be advanced to the network
specific standard protocol state in the future
Internet Activities Board [Page 21]
RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
6.6. Experimental
Protocol Name Status
======== ===================================== =============== ====
EHF-MAIL Encoding Header Field for Mail Elective 1154
DMF-MAIL Digest Message Format for Mail Elective 1153
RDP Reliable Data Protocol Limited Use 908,1151
-------- Mapping between X.400(88) and RFC-822 Elective 1148
TCP-ACO TCP Alternate Checksum Option Not Recommended 1146
-------- Mapping full 822 to Restricted 822 Elective 1137
BGP Border Gateway Protocol Limited Use 1105
IP-DVMRP IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing Not Recommended 1075
TCP-LDP TCP Extensions for Long Delay Paths Limited Use 1072
IMAP2 Interactive Mail Access Protocol Limited Use 1064
IP-MTU IP MTU Discovery Options Not Recommended 1063
VMTP Versatile Message Transaction Protocol Elective 1045
COOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme Not Recommended 1004
NETBLT Bulk Data Transfer Protocol Not Recommended 998
IRTP Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol Not Recommended 938
AUTH Authentication Service Not Recommended 931
LDP Loader Debugger Protocol Not Recommended 909
ST Stream Protocol Limited Use IEN-119
NVP-II Network Voice Protocol Limited Use ISI-
PVP Packet Video Protocol Limited Use ISI-
6.7. Historic
Protocol Name Status
======= ===================================== =============== ====
SGMP Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol Not Recommended 1028
HEMS High Level Entity Management Protocol Not Recommended 1021
STATSRV Statistics Server Not Recommended 996
POP2 Post Office Protocol, Version 2 Not Recommended 937
RATP Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol Not Recommended 916
THINWIRE Thinwire Protocol Not Recommended 914
HMP Host Monitoring Protocol Not Recommended 869
GGP Gateway Gateway Protocol Not Recommended 823
RTELNET Remote Telnet Service Not Recommended 818
CLOCK DCNET Time Server Protocol Not Recommended 778
MPM Internet Message Protocol Not Recommended 759
NETRJS Remote Job Service Not Recommended 740
NETED Network Standard Text Editor Not Recommended 569
RJE Remote Job Entry Not Recommended 407
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
Internet Activities Board [Page 22]
RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
7.
7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF
7.1.1. Internet Activities Board (IAB)
Contact
Bob
Executive Director of the
USC/Information Sciences
4676 Admiralty
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-213-822-1511
Braden@ISI.
Please send your comments about this list of protocols and
about the Draft Standard Protocols to the Internet Activities
care of Bob Braden, IAB Executive Director
7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Contact
Phill
Chair of the
Corporation for National Research Initiatives (NRI
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
Reston, VA 22091
1-703-620-8990
PGross@NRI.RESTON.VA.
Internet Activities Board [Page 23]
RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)
Contact
David D.
Chair of the
Massachusetts Institute of
Laboratory for Computer
545 Main
Cambridge, MA 02139
1-617-253-6003
ddc@LCS.MIT.
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
IANA@ISI.
The protocol standards are managed for the IAB by the
Assigned Numbers Authority
Please refer to the documents "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1060)
"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".
Internet Activities Board [Page 24]
RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
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
7.4. The Network Information Center
Requests for Comments Distribution
Contact
DDN Network 