As per Relevance of the word document, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group Internet Architecture
Request for Comments: 1880 J. Postel,
Obsoletes: 1800, 1780, 1720, 1610, November 1995
1600, 1540, 1500, 1410, 1360, 1280,
1250, 1200, 1140, 1130, 1100, 1083
STD: 1
Category: Standards
INTERNET OFFICIAL PROTOCOL
Status of this
This memo describes the state of standardization of protocols used
the Internet as determined by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB).
This memo is an Internet Standard. Distribution of this memo
unlimited
Table of
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1. The Standardization Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The Request for Comments Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Other Reference Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Assigned Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Gateway Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Host Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. The MIL-STD Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Explanation of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Definitions of Protocol State (Maturity Level) . . . . . . 9
4.1.1. Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.4. Experimental Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.5. Informational Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.6. Historic Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status (Requirement Level) . . . 10
4.2.1. Required Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.2. Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.3. Elective Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.4. Limited Use Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.5. Not Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. The Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. The RFC Processing Decision Table . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. The Standards Track Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. The Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1. Recent Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
6.1.1. New RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.2. Other Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2. Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.4. Draft Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.6. Telnet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.7. Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.8. Informational Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.9. Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.10 Obsolete Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7. Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7.1.1. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact . . . . . . 34
7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . 34
7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact . . . . . 35
7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . . 36
7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact . . . . . . . . . . 37
7.4. Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments . . . . . . . . . . . 38
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
9. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
A discussion of the standardization process and the RFC
series is presented first, followed by an explanation of the terms
Sections 6.2 - 6.10 contain the lists of protocols in each stage
standardization. Finally are pointers to references and contacts
further information
This memo is intended to be issued approximately quarterly; please
sure the copy you are reading is current. Current copies may
obtained from the Network Information Center (INTERNIC) or from
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (see the
information at the end of this memo). Do not use this edition
1-March-96.
See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes. In the
lists in sections 6.2 - 6.10, an asterisk (*) next to a
denotes that it is new to this document or has been moved from
protocol level to another, or differs from the previous edition
this document
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
1. The Standardization
The Internet Architecture Board maintains this list of documents
define standards for the Internet protocol suite. See RFC-1601
the charter of the IAB and RFC-1160 for an explanation of the
and organization of the IAB and its subsidiary groups, the
Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task
(IRTF). Each of these groups has a steering group called the
and IRSG, respectively. The IETF develops these standards with
goal of co-ordinating the evolution of the Internet protocols;
co-ordination has become quite important as the Internet
are increasingly in general commercial use. The
description of the Internet standards process is found in RFC-1602.
The majority of Internet protocol development and
activity takes place in the working groups of the IETF
Protocols which are to become standards in the Internet go through
series of states or maturity levels (proposed standard,
standard, and standard) involving increasing amounts of scrutiny
testing. When a protocol completes this process it is assigned a
number (see RFC-1311). At each step, the Internet
Steering Group (IESG) of the IETF must make a recommendation
advancement of the protocol
To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react
standardization proposals, a minimum delay of 6 months before
proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard and 4
before a draft standard can be promoted to standard
It is general practice that no proposed standard can be promoted
draft standard without at least two independent implementations (
the recommendation of the IESG). Promotion from draft standard
standard generally requires operational experience and
interoperability of two or more implementations (and
recommendation of the IESG).
In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper
concerning a protocol a special review committee may be
consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB with
purpose of recommending an explicit action
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
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are
unused. Such protocols are still documented in this memorandum
the designation "historic".
Because it is useful to document the results of early
research and development work, some of the RFCs document
which are still in an experimental condition. The protocols
designated "experimental" in this memorandum. They appear in
report as a convenience to the community and not as evidence of
standardization
Other protocols, such as those developed by other
organizations, or by particular vendors, may be of interest or may
recommended for use in the Internet. The specifications of
protocols may be published as RFCs for the convenience of
Internet community. These protocols are labeled "informational"
this memorandum
In addition to the working groups of the IETF, protocol
and experimentation may take place as a result of the work of
research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or the work
other individuals interested in Internet protocol development.
the documentation of such experimental work in the RFC series
encouraged, but none of this work is considered to be on the
for standardization until the IESG has made a recommendation
advance the protocol to the proposed standard state
A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without
approval of the IESG. For example, some vendor protocols have
very important to the Internet community even though they have
been recommended by the IESG. However, the IAB strongly
that the standards process be used in the evolution of the
suite to maximize interoperability (and to prevent
protocol requirements from arising). The use of the
"standard", "draft standard", and "proposed standard" are reserved
any RFC or other publication of Internet protocols to only
protocols which the IESG has approved
In addition to a state (like "Proposed Standard"), a protocol is
assigned a status, or requirement level, in this document.
possible requirement levels ("Required", "Recommended", "Elective",
"Limited Use", and "Not Recommended") are defined in Section 4.2.
When a protocol is on the standards track, that is in the
standard, draft standard, or standard state (see Section 5),
status shown in Section 6 is the current status
Few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems; this
because there is such a variety of possible systems, for example
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
gateways, routers, terminal servers, workstations, and multi-
hosts. The requirement level shown in this document is only a
word label, which may not be sufficient to characterize
implementation requirements for a protocol in all situations.
some protocols, this document contains an additional status
(an applicability statement). In addition, more detailed
information may be contained in separate requirements documents (
Section 3).
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, and see RFC 1543).
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, ranging
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 the IESG. For documents describing experimental work
the RFC Editor will notify the IESG before publication, allowing
the possibility of review by the relevant IETF working group or
research group and provide those comments to the author. See
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 "Internet Official Protocol Standards
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
memo is the reference for determining the correct RFC for the
specification of each protocol
The RFCs are available from the INTERNIC, and a number of
sites. For more information about obtaining RFCs, see Sections 7.4
and 7.5.
3. Other Reference
There are three other reference documents of interest in checking
current status of protocol specifications and standardization.
are the Assigned Numbers, the Gateway Requirements, and the
Requirements. Note that these documents are revised and updated
different times; in case of differences between these documents,
most recent must prevail
Also, one should be aware of the MIL-STD publications on IP, TCP
Telnet, FTP, and SMTP. These are described in Section 3.4.
3.1. Assigned
The "Assigned Numbers" document lists the assigned values of
parameters used in the various protocols. For example, IP
codes, TCP port numbers, Telnet Option Codes, ARP hardware types,
Terminal Type names. Assigned Numbers was most recently issued
RFC-1700.
3.2. Requirements for IP Version 4
This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways
supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities
Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers is RFC-1812.
3.3. Host
This pair of documents reviews and updates the specifications
apply to hosts, and it supplies guidance and clarification for
ambiguities. Host Requirements was issued as RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.
3.4. 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 DISA
to the IESG. It is strongly advised that the two sets of
be used together, along with RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
Note that these MIL-STD are now somewhat out of date.
Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers (RFC-1812) and
Requirements (RFC-1122, RFC-1123) take precedence over both
RFCs and the MIL-STDs
2045-13501 Internet Routing between Autonomous
2045-14502-01 Internet Transport Profile for
Communications, Part 1: Transport and Internet
2045-14502-04 Internet Transport Profile for
Communications, Part 4: LAN Media-Independent
2045-14503 Internet Transport Service Supporting
2045-44500 Tactical
2045-17503-01 Internet Message Transfer Profile for
Communications Part 1: Simple Mail Transfer
2045-17503-02 Internet Message Transfer Profile for
Communications Part 2: Format of Text
2045-17504 Internet File Transfer Profile for
2045-17505 Internet Domain Name Service (DNS) Profile for
2045-17506 Internet Remote Login (RLOGIN) Profile for
2045-17507 Internet Network Management Profile for
2045-38000 DoD Network Management for DoD
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
Naval Publications and Forms Center, Code 3015
5801 Tabor
Philadelphia, PA 19120
Phone: 1-215-697-3321 (order tape
1-215-697-4834 (conversation
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
4. Explanation of
There are two independent categorization of protocols. The first
the "maturity level" or STATE of standardization, one of "standard",
"draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental",
"informational" or "historic". The second is the "requirement level
or STATUS of this protocol, one of "required", "recommended",
"elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".
The status or requirement level is difficult to portray in a one
label. These status labels should be considered only as
indication, and a further description, or applicability statement
should be consulted
When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard
it is labeled with a current status
At any given time a protocol occupies 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, limited use) cell
S T A T U
Req Rec Ele Lim
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Std | X | XXX | XXX | | |
S +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Draft | X | X | XXX | | |
T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Prop | | X | XXX | | |
A +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Info | | | | | |
T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Expr | | | | XXX | |
E +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Hist | | | | | XXX |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
What is a "system"?
Some protocols are particular to hosts and some to gateways; a
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
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
4.1. Definitions of Protocol
Every protocol listed in this document is assigned to a "
level" or STATE of standardization: "standard", "draft standard",
"proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic".
4.1.1. Standard
The IESG has established this as an official standard protocol
the Internet. These protocols are assigned STD numbers (see RFC
1311). These are separated into two groups: (1) IP protocol
above, protocols that apply to the whole Internet; and (2)
network-specific protocols, generally specifications of how to
IP on particular types of networks
4.1.2. Draft Standard
The IESG is actively considering this protocol as a
Standard Protocol. Substantial and widespread testing and
are desired. Comments and test results should be submitted to
IESG. 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
for 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
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
4.1.5. Informational
Protocols developed by other standard organizations, or vendors
or that are for other reasons outside the purview of the IESG,
be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet
as informational protocols
4.1.6. 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
This document lists a "requirement level" or STATUS for
protocol. The status is one of "required", "recommended",
"elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".
4.2.1. Required
A system must implement the required protocols
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
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
5. The Standards
This section discusses in more detail the procedures used by the
Editor and the IESG 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
RFC Editor. The processing depends on who submitted it, and
status they want it to have
+==========================================================+
|**************| S O U R C E |
+==========================================================+
| Desired | IAB | IESG | IRSG | Other |
| Status | | | | |
+==========================================================+
| | | | | |
| Standard | Bogus | Publish | Bogus | Bogus |
| or | (2) | (1) | (2) | (2) |
| Draft | | | | |
| Standard | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| | Refer | Publish | Refer | Refer |
| Proposed | (3) | (1) | (3) | (3) |
| Standard | | | | |
| | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| | Notify | Publish | Notify | Notify |
| Experimental | (4) | (1) | (4) | (4) |
| Protocol | | | | |
| | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| Information | Publish | Publish |Discretion|Discretion
| or Opinion | (1) | (1) | (5) | (5) |
| Paper | | | | |
| | | | | |
+==========================================================+
(1) Publish
(2) Bogus. Inform the source of the rules. RFCs
Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IESG, only
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
(3) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG. Expect to
the document again only after approval by the IESG
(4) Notify both the IESG and IRSG. If no concerns are raised
two weeks then do Discretion (5), else RFC Editor to
the concerns or do Refer (3).
(5) RFC Editor's discretion. The RFC Editor decides if a
is needed and if so by whom. RFC Editor decides to publish
not
Of course, in all cases the RFC Editor can request or make
changes for style, format, and presentation purposes
The IESG has designated the IESG Secretary as its agent
forwarding documents with IESG approval and for registering
in response to notifications (4) to the RFC Editor. Documents
Area Directors or Working Group Chairs may be considered in the
way 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 change 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 six months for proposed standard,
four 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 may move from one state to another along the
only on the recommendation of the IESG. That is, it takes action
the IESG to either start a protocol on the track or to move it along
Generally, as the protocol enters the standards track a decision
made as to the eventual STATUS, requirement level or
(elective, recommended, or required) the protocol will have,
a somewhat less stringent current status may be assigned, and it
is placed in the the proposed standard STATE with that status.
the initial placement of a protocol is into state 1. At any time
STATUS decision may be revisited
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
|
+<----------------------------------------------+
| ^
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 IESG and only after the protocol has
proposed standard (1) for at least six months
The transition from draft standard (2) to standard (3) can only be
action of the IESG and only after the protocol has been
standard (2) for at least four 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
IESG action
Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus
historic, or it may happen that a protocol on the standards track
in a sense overtaken by another protocol (or other events)
becomes historic (state 5).
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
6. The
Subsection 6.1 lists recent RFCs and other changes. Subsections 6.2
- 6.10 list the standards in groups by protocol state
6.1. Recent
6.1.1. New RFCs
1880 - Internet Official Protocol
This memo
1871 - Addendum to RFC 1602 -- Variance
This is a Best Current Practices document and does
specify any level of standard
1870 - SMTP Service Extension for Message Size
A Standard protocol
1869 - SMTP Service
A Standard protocol
1868 - ARP Extension -
An Experimental protocol
1867 - Form-based File Upload in
An Experimental protocol
1866 - Hypertext Markup Language - 2.0
A Proposed Standard protocol
1865 - not yet issued
1864 - The Content-MD5 Header
A Draft Standard protocol
1863 - A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh
An Experimental protocol
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
1862 - Report of the IAB Workshop on Internet
Infrastructure, October 12-14, 1994
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1861 - Simple Network Paging Protocol - Version 3 - Two-
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1860 - Variable Length Subnet Table For IPv
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1859 - ISO Transport Class 2 Non-use of Explicit Flow Control
TCP RFC1006
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1858 - Security Considerations for IP Fragment
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1857 - A Model for Common Operational
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1856 - The Opstat Client-Server Model for Statistics
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1855 - Netiquette
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1854 - SMTP Service Extension for Command
A Proposed Standard protocol
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
1853 - IP in IP
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1852 - IP Authentication using Keyed
An Experimental protocol
1851 - The ESP Triple DES
An Experimental protocol
1850 - OSPF Version 2 Management Information
A Draft Standard protocol
1849 - not yet issued
1848 - MIME Object Security
A Proposed Standard protocol
1847 - Security Multiparts for MIME: Multipart/Signed
Multipart/
A Proposed Standard protocol
1846 - SMTP 521 Reply
An Experimental protocol
1845 - SMTP Service Extension for Checkpoint/
An Experimental protocol
1844 - Multimedia E-mail (MIME) User Agent
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1843 - ASCII Printable Characters-Based Chinese Character
for Internet
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
1842 - ASCII Printable Characters-Based Chinese Character
for Internet
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1841 - PPP Network Control Protocol for LAN
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1840 - not yet issued
1839 - not yet issued
1838 - Use of the X.500 Directory to support mapping between X.400
and RFC 822
An Experimental protocol
1837 - Representing Tables and Subtrees in the X.500
An Experimental protocol
1836 - Representing the O/R Address hierarchy in the X.500
Directory Information
An Experimental protocol
1835 - Architecture of the WHOIS++
A Proposed Standard protocol
1834 - Whois and Network Information Lookup Service, Whois++
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1833 - Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2
A Proposed Standard protocol
1832 - XDR: External Data Representation
A Proposed Standard protocol
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
1831 - RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version 2
A Proposed Standard protocol
1830 - SMTP Service Extensions for Transmission of Large
Binary MIME
An Experimental protocol
1829 - The ESP DES-CBC
A Proposed Standard protocol
1828 - IP Authentication using Keyed MD
A Proposed Standard protocol
1827 - IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP
A Proposed Standard protocol
1826 - IP Authentication
A Proposed Standard protocol
1825 - Security Architecture for the Internet
A Proposed Standard protocol
1824 - The Exponential Security System TESS: An Identity-
Cryptographic Protocol for Authenticated Key-
(E.I.S.S.-Report 1995/4)
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1823 - The LDAP Application Program
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1822 - A Grant of Rights to Use a Specific IBM patent
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
1821 - Integration of Real-time Services in an IP-ATM
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1820 - Multimedia E-mail (MIME) User Agent
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1819 - Internet Stream Protocol Version 2 (ST2)
Specification - Version ST2+
An Experimental protocol
1818 - Best Current
This defines the Best Current Practices subseries and
not specify any level of standard
1817 - CIDR and Classful
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1816 - U.S. Government Internet Domain
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1815 - Character Sets ISO-10646 and ISO-10646-J-1
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
6.1.2. Other Changes
The following are changes to protocols listed in the
edition
1137 - Mapping Between Full RFC 822 and RFC 822 with
Moved to Historic
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
6.2. Standard
Protocol Name Status RFC STD *
======== ===================================== ======== ==== === =
-------- Internet Official Protocol Standards Req 1880 1
-------- Assigned Numbers Req 1700 2
-------- Host Requirements - Communications Req 1122 3
-------- Host Requirements - Applications Req 1123 3
IP Internet Protocol Req 791 5
as amended by:--------
-------- IP Subnet Extension Req 950 5
-------- IP Broadcast Datagrams Req 919 5
-------- IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets Req 922 5
ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol Req 792 5
IGMP Internet Group Multicast Protocol Rec 1112 5
UDP User Datagram Protocol Rec 768 6
TCP Transmission Control Protocol Rec 793 7
TELNET Telnet Protocol Rec 854,855 8
FTP File Transfer Protocol Rec 959 9
SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol Rec 821 10
SMTP-SIZE SMTP Service Ext for Message Size Rec 1870 10 *
SMTP-EXT SMTP Service Extensions Rec 1869 10 *
MAIL Format of Electronic Mail Messages Rec 822 11
CONTENT Content Type Header Field Rec 1049 11
NTPV2 Network Time Protocol (Version 2) Rec 1119 12
DOMAIN Domain Name System Rec 1034,1035 13
DNS-MX Mail Routing and the Domain System Rec 974 14
SNMP Simple Network Management Protocol Rec 1157 15
SMI Structure of Management Information Rec 1155 16
Concise-MIB Concise MIB Definitions Rec 1212 16
MIB-II Management Information Base-II Rec 1213 17
NETBIOS NetBIOS Service Protocols Ele 1001,1002 19
ECHO Echo Protocol Rec 862 20
DISCARD Discard Protocol Ele 863 21
CHARGEN Character Generator Protocol Ele 864 22
QUOTE Quote of the Day Protocol Ele 865 23
USERS Active Users Protocol Ele 866 24
DAYTIME Daytime Protocol Ele 867 25
TIME Time Server Protocol Ele 868 26
TFTP Trivial File Transfer Protocol Ele 1350 33
RIP Routing Information Protocol Ele 1058 34
TP-TCP ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP Ele 1006 35
ETHER-MIB Ethernet MIB Ele 1643 50
PPP Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Ele 1661 51
PPP-HDLC PPP in HDLC Framing Ele 1662 51
IP-SMDS IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service Ele 1209 52
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from
previous edition of this document.]
Applicability Statements
IGMP -- The Internet Architecture Board intends to move
general adoption of IP multicasting, as a more efficient
than 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.
is expected that IGMP will become recommended for all hosts
gateways at some future date
SMI, MIB-II SNMP -- The Internet Architecture Board recommends
all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable. At the
time, this implies implementation of the Internet MIB-II (RFC-1213),
and at least the recommended management protocol SNMP (RFC-1157).
RIP -- The Routing Information Protocol (RIP) is widely
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 devpeloping
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 Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
6.3. Network-Specific Standard
All Network-Specific Standards have Elective status
Protocol Name State RFC STD *
======== ===================================== ===== ===== === =
IP-ATM Classical IP and ARP over ATM Prop 1577
IP-FR Multiprotocol over Frame Relay Draft 1490
ATM-ENCAP Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Prop 1483
IP-TR-MC IP Multicast over Token-Ring LANs Prop 1469
IP-FDDI Transmission of IP and ARP over FDDI Net Std 1390 36
IP-HIPPI IP and ARP on HIPPI Prop 1374
IP-X.25 X.25 and ISDN in the Packet Mode Draft 1356
IP-FDDI Internet Protocol on FDDI Networks Draft 1188
ARP Address Resolution Protocol Std 826 37
RARP A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol Std 903 38
IP-ARPA Internet Protocol on ARPANET Std BBN1822 39
IP-WB Internet Protocol on Wideband Network Std 907 40
IP-E Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks Std 894 41
IP-EE Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets Std 895 42
IP-IEEE Internet Protocol on IEEE 802 Std 1042 43
IP-DC Internet Protocol on DC Networks Std 891 44
IP-HC Internet Protocol on Hyperchannel Std 1044 45
IP-ARC Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Nets Std 1201 46
IP-SLIP Transmission of IP over Serial Lines Std 1055 47
IP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS Std 1088 48
IP-IPX Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks Std 1132 49
[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from
previous edition of this document.]
Applicability Statements
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 Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
6.4. Draft Standard
Protocol Name Status
======== ===================================== ============== =====
CON-MD5 Content-MD5 Header Field Elective 1864*
OSPF-MIB OSPF Version 2 MIB Elective 1850*
STR-REP String Representation ... Elective 1779
X.500syn X.500 String Representation ... Elective 1778
X.500lite X.500 Lightweight ... Elective 1777
BGP-4-APP Application of BGP-4 Elective 1772
BGP-4 Border Gateway Protocol 4 Elective 1771
PPP-DNCP PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol Elective 1762
RMON-MIB Remote Network Monitoring MIB Elective 1757
802.5-MIB IEEE 802.5 Token Ring MIB Elective 1748
BGP-4-MIB BGP-4 MIB Elective 1657
POP3 Post Office Protocol, Version 3 Elective 1725
RIP2-MIB RIP Version 2 MIB Extension Elective 1724
RIP2 RIP Version 2-Carrying Additional Info. Elective 1723
RIP2-APP RIP Version 2 Protocol App. Statement Elective 1722
SIP-MIB SIP Interface Type MIB Elective 1694
------- Def Man Objs Parallel-printer-like Elective 1660
------- Def Man Objs RS-232-like Elective 1659
------- Def Man Objs Character Stream Elective 1658
SMTP-8BIT SMTP Service Ext or 8bit-MIMEtransport Elective 1652
OSI-NSAP Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation Elective 1629
OSPF2 Open Shortest Path First Routing V2 Elective 1583
ISO-TS-ECHO Echo for ISO-8473 Elective 1575
DECNET-MIB DECNET MIB Elective 1559
------- Message Header Ext. of Non-ASCII Text Elective 1522
MIME Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions Elective 1521
802.3-MIB IEEE 802.3 Repeater MIB Elective 1516
BRIDGE-MIB BRIDGE-MIB Elective 1493
NTPV3 Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Elective 1305
IP-MTU Path MTU Discovery Elective 1191
FINGER Finger Protocol Elective 1288
BOOTP Bootstrap Protocol Recommended 951,1497
NICNAME WhoIs Protocol Elective 954
[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from
previous edition of this document.]
Applicability Statements
PPP -- Point to Point Protocol is a method of sending IP over
lines, which are a type of physical network. It is anticipated
PPP will be advanced to the network-specifics standard protocol
in the future
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
6.5. Proposed Standard
Protocol Name Status
======== ===================================== ============== =====
HTML Hypertext Markup Language - 2.0 Elective 1866*
SMTP-Pipe SMTP Serv. Ext. for Command Pipelining Elective 1854*
MIME-Sec MIME Object Security Services Elective 1848*
MIME-Encyp MIME: Signed and Encrypted Elective 1847*
WHOIS++ Architecture of the WHOIS++ service Elective 1835*
-------- Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2 Elective 1833*
XDR External Data Representation Standard Elective 1832*
RPC Remote Procedure Call Protocol V. 2 Elective 1831*
-------- ESP DES-CBC Transform Elective 1829*
-------- IP Authentication using Keyed MD5 Elective 1828*
ESP IP Encapsulating Security Payload Elective 1827*
-------- IP Authentication Header Elective 1826*
-------- Security Architecture for IP Elective 1825*
RREQ Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers Elective 1812
URL Relative Uniform Resource Locators Elective 1808
CLDAP Connection-less LDAP Elective 1798
OSPF-DC Ext. OSPF to Support Demand Circuits Elective 1793
TMUX Transport Multiplexing Protocol Elective 1692
TFTP-Opt TFTP Options Elective 1784
TFTP-Blk TFTP Blocksize Option Elective 1783
TFTP-Ext TFTP Option Extension Elective 1782
OSI-Dir OSI User Friendly Naming ... Elective 1781
MIME-EDI MIME Encapsulation of EDI Objects Elective 1767
Lang-Tag Tags for Identification of Languages Elective 1766
XNSCP PPP XNS IDP Control Protocol Elective 1764
BVCP PPP Banyan Vines Control Protocol Elective 1763
Print-MIB Printer MIB Elective 1759
ATM-SIG ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM Elective 1755
IPNG Recommendation for IP Next Generation Elective 1752
802.5-SSR 802.5 SSR MIB using SMIv2 Elective 1749
SDLCSMIv2 SNADLC SDLC MIB using SMIv2 Elective 1747
BGP4/IDRP BGP4/IDRP for IP/OSPF Interaction Elective 1745
AT-MIB Appletalk MIB Elective 1742
MacMIME MIME Encapsulation of Macintosh files Elective 1740
URL Uniform Resource Locators Elective 1738
POP3-AUTH POP3 AUTHentication command Elective 1734
IMAP4-AUTH IMAP4 Authentication Mechanisms Elective 1731
IMAP4 Internet Message Access Protocol V4 Elective 1730
PPP-MP PPP Multilink Protocol Elective 1717
RDBMS-MIB RDMS MIB - using SMIv2 Elective 1697
MODEM-MIB Modem MIB - using SMIv2 Elective 1696
ATM-MIB ATM Management Version 8.0 using SMIv2 Elective 1695
SNANAU-MIB SNA NAUs MIB using SMIv2 Elective 1665
PPP-TRANS PPP Reliable Transmission Elective 1663
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
BGP-4-IMP BGP-4 Roadmap and Implementation Elective 165