As per Relevance of the word document, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group Internet Architecture
Request for Comments: 2000 J. Postel,
Obsoletes: 1920, 1880, 1800, 1780, 1720, February 1997
1610, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Definitions of Protocol State (Maturity Level) . . . . . . 8
4.1.1. Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.4. Experimental Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.5. Informational Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.6. Historic Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status (Requirement Level) . . . 9
4.2.1. Required Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.2. Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.3. Elective Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.4. Limited Use Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.5. Not Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. The Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. The RFC Processing Decision Table . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. The Standards Track Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. The Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. Recent Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 2000 Internet Standards February 1997
6.1.1. New RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1.2. Other Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.2. Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 36
6.4. Draft Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.6. Telnet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
6.7. Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6.8. Informational Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
6.9. Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.10 Obsolete Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
7. Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
7.1.1. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact . . . . . . 52
7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . 53
7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact . . . . . 54
7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . . 54
7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact . . . . . . . . . . 55
7.4. Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . . 55
7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments . . . . . . . . . . . 56
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
9. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
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
16-Jun-97.
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 2000 Internet Standards February 1997
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 2000 Internet Standards February 1997
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 2000 Internet Standards February 1997
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 2000 Internet Standards February 1997
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 DoD MIL-STD Internet specifications are out of date and have
discontinued. The DoD's Joint Technical Architecture (JTA) lists
current set of IETF STDs and RFCs that the DoD intends to use in
new and upgraded Command, Control, Communications, Computers,
Intelligence (C4I) acquisitions. A copy of the JTA can be
from http://www-jta.itsi.disa.mil
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 2000 Internet Standards February 1997
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 7]
RFC 2000 Internet Standards February 1997
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 8]
RFC 2000 Internet Standards February 1997
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 9]
RFC 2000 Internet Standards February 1997
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 10]
RFC 2000 Internet Standards February 1997
(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 11]
RFC 2000 Internet Standards February 1997
|
+<----------------------------------------------+
| ^
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 12]
RFC 2000 Internet Standards February 1997
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
2109 - HTTP State Management
A Proposed Standard protocol
2108 - Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.3
Devices using SMIv
A Proposed Standard protocol
2107 - Ascend Tunnel Management Protocol -
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2106 - Data Link Switching Remote Access
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2105 - Cisco Systems' Tag Switching Architecture
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2103 - Mobility Support for Nimrod : Challenges and
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2102 - Multicast Support for Nimrod : Requirements and
This is an information document and does not specify
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 2000 Internet Standards February 1997
level of standard
2101 - IPv4 Address Behaviour
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2100 - not yet issued
2099 - not yet issued
2098 - Toshiba's Router Architecture Extensions for ATM :
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2097 - The PPP NetBIOS Frames Control Protocol (NBFCP
A Proposed Standard protocol
2096 - IP Forwarding Table
A Proposed Standard protocol
2095 - IMAP/POP AUTHorize Extension for Simple Challenge/
A Proposed Standard protocol
2094 - not yet issued
2093 - not yet issued
2092 - Protocol Analysis for Triggered
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2091 - Triggered Extensions to RIP to Support Demand
A Proposed Standard protocol
2090 - TFTP Multicast
An Experimental protocol
2089 - V2ToV1 Mapping SNMPv2 onto SNMPv1 within a bi-lingual
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 2000 Internet Standards February 1997
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2088 - IMAP4 non-synchronizing
A Proposed Standard protocol
2087 - IMAP4 QUOTA
A Proposed Standard protocol
2086 - IMAP4 ACL
A Proposed Standard protocol
2085 - HMAC-MD5 IP Authentication with Replay
A Proposed Standard protocol
2084 - Considerations for Web Transaction
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2083 - PNG (Portable Network Graphics) Specification Version 1.0
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2082 - RIP-2 MD5
A Proposed Standard protocol
2081 - RIPng Protocol Applicability
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2080 - RIPng for IPv
A Proposed Standard protocol
2079 - Definition of an X.500 Attribute Type and an Object
to Hold Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs
A Proposed Standard protocol
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 2000 Internet Standards February 1997
2078 - Generic Security Service Application Program Interface
Version 2
A Proposed Standard protocol
2077 - The Model Primary Content Type for Multipurpose
Mail
A Proposed Standard protocol
2076 - not yet issued
2075 - IP Echo Host
An Experimental protocol
2074 - Remote Network Monitoring MIB Protocol
A Proposed Standard protocol
2073 - An IPv6 Provider-Based Unicast Address
A Proposed Standard protocol
2072 - Router Renumbering
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2071 - Network Renumbering Overview: Why would I want it and
is it anyway
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2070 - Internationalization of the Hypertext Markup
A Proposed Standard protocol
2069 - An Extension to HTTP : Digest Access
A Proposed Standard protocol
2068 - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1
A Proposed Standard protocol
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 2000 Internet Standards February 1997
2067 - IP over
A Draft Standard protocol
2066 - TELNET CHARSET
An Experimental protocol
2065 - Domain Name System Security
A Proposed Standard protocol
2064 - Traffic Flow Measurement: Meter
An Experimental protocol
2063 - Traffic Flow Measurement:
An Experimental protocol
2062 - Internet Message Access Protocol - Obsolete
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2061 - IMAP4 Compatibility with IMAP2
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2060 - Internet Message Access Protocol - Version 4rev
A Proposed Standard protocol
2059 - RADIUS
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2058 - Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS
A Proposed Standard protocol
2057 - Source Directed Access Control on the
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 2000 Internet Standards February 1997
2056 - Uniform Resource Locators for Z39.50
A Proposed Standard protocol
2055 - WebNFS Server
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2054 - WebNFS Client
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2053 - The AM (Armenia)
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2052 - A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV
An Experimental protocol
2051 - Definitions of Managed Objects for APPC using SMIv
A Proposed Standard protocol
2050 - Internet Registry IP Allocation
This is a Best Current Practices document and does
specify any level of standard
2049 - Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Five
Conformance Criteria and
A Draft Standard protocol
2048 - Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four
Registration
This is a Best Current Practices document and does
specify any level of standard
2047 - MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part Three
Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII
A Draft Standard protocol
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 2000 Internet Standards February 1997
2046 - Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two
Media
A Draft Standard protocol
2045 - Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One
Format of Internet Message
A Draft Standard protocol
2044 - UTF-8, a transformation format of Unicode and ISO 10646
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2043 - The PPP SNA Control Protocol (SNACP
A Proposed Standard protocol
2042 - Registering New BGP Attribute
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2041 - Mobile Network
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2040 - The RC5, RC5-CBC, RC5-CBC-Pad, and RC5-CTS
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2039 - Applicablity of Standards Track MIBs to Management of
Wide Web
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2038 - RTP Payload Format for MPEG1/MPEG2
A Proposed Standard protocol
2037 - Entity MIB using SMIv
A Proposed Standard protocol
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 2000 Internet Standards February 1997
2036 - Observations on the use of Components of the Class
Address Space within the
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2035 - RTP Payload Format for JPEG-compressed
A Proposed Standard protocol
2034 - SMTP Service Extension for Returning Enhanced Error
A Proposed Standard protocol
2033 - Local Mail Transfer
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2032 - RTP Payload Format for H.261 Video
A Proposed Standard protocol
2031 - IETF-ISOC
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2030 - Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP) Version 4 for IPv4,
IPv6 and
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2029 - RTP Payload Format of Sun's CellB Video
A Proposed Standard protocol
2028 - The Organizations Involved in the IETF Standards
This is a Best Current Practices document and does
specify any level of standard
2027 - IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process
Operation of the Nominating and Recall
This is a Best Current Practices document and does
specify any level of standard
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 2000 Internet Standards February 1997
2026 - The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3
This is a Best Current Practices document and does
specify any level of standard
2025 - The Simple Public-Key GSS-API Mechanism (SPKM
A Proposed Standard protocol
2024 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Data Link
using SMIv
A Proposed Standard protocol
2023 - IP Version 6 over
A Proposed Standard protocol
2022 - Support for Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based ATM
A Proposed Standard protocol
2021 - Remote Network Monitoring Management Information
Version 2 using SMIv
A Proposed Standard protocol
2020 - IEEE 802.12 Interface
A Proposed Standard protocol
2019 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets Over
A Proposed Standard protocol
2018 - TCP Selective Acknowledgement
A Proposed Standard protocol
2017 - Definition of the URL MIME External-Body Access-
A Proposed Standard protocol
2016 - Uniform Resource Agents (URAs
An Experimental protocol
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 2000 Internet Standards February 1997
2015 - MIME Security with Pretty Good Privacy (PGP
A Proposed Standard protocol
2014 - IRTF Research Group Guidelines and
This is a Best Current Practices document and does
specify any level of standard
2013 - SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the User
Protocol using SMIv
A Proposed Standard protocol
2012 - SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the
Control Protocol using SMIv
A Proposed Standard protocol
2011 - SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the
Protocol using SMIv
A Proposed Standard protocol
2010 - Operational Criteria for Root Name
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2009 - GPS-Based Addressing and
An Experimental protocol
2008 - Implications of Various Address Allocation Policies
Internet
This is a Best Current Practices document and does
specify any level of standard
2007 - Catalogue of Network Training
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
2006 - The Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Mobility
using SMIv
A Proposed Standard protocol
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 2000 Internet Standards February 1997
2005 - Applicability Statement for IP Mobility
A Proposed Standard protocol
2004 - Minimal Encapsulation within
A Proposed Standard protocol
2003 - IP Encapsulation within
A Proposed Standard protocol
2002 - IP Mobility
A Proposed Standard protocol
2001 - TCP Slow Start, Congestion Avoidance, Fast Retransmit,
Fast Recovery
A Proposed Standard protocol
2000 - Internet Official Protocol
This memo
1999 - Request for Comments Summary RFC Numbers 1900-1999
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1998 - An Application of the BGP Community Attribute in Multi-
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1997 - BGP Communities
A Proposed Standard protocol
1996 - A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone Changes (
NOTIFY
A Proposed Standard protocol
1995 - Incremental Zone Transfer in
A Proposed Standard protocol
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 2000 Internet Standards February 1997
1994 - PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol (CHAP
A Draft Standard protocol
1993 - PPP Gandalf FZA Compression
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1992 - The Nimrod Routing
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1991 - PGP Message Exchange
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1990 - The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP
A Draft Standard protocol
1989 - PPP Link Quality
A Draft Standard protocol
1988 - Conditional Grant of Rights to Specific Hewlett-
Patents In Conjunction With the Internet Engineering
Force's Internet-Standard Network Management
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1987 - Ipsilon's General Switch Management Protocol
Version 1.1
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1986 - Experiments with a Simple File Transfer Protocol for
Links using Enhanced Trivial File Transfer Protocol (ETFTP
An Experimental protocol
1985 - SMTP Service Extension for Remote Message Queue
A Proposed Standard protocol
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 2000 Internet Standards February 1997
1984 - IAB and IESG Statement on Cryptographic Technology and
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1983 - Internet Users'
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1982 - Serial Number
A Proposed Standard protocol
1981 - Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6
A Proposed Standard protocol
1980 - A Proposed Extension to HTML : Client-Side Image
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1979 - PPP Deflate
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1978 - PPP Predictor Compression
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1977 - PPP BSD Compression
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1976 - PPP for Data Compression in Data Circuit-
Equipment (DCE
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1975 - PPP Magnalink Variable Resource
This is an information document and does not specify
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 2000 Internet Standards February 1997
level of standard
1974 - PPP Stac LZS Compression
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1973 - PPP in Frame
A Proposed Standard protocol
1972 - A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over
A Proposed Standard protocol
1971 - IPv6 Stateless Address
A Proposed Standard protocol
1970 - Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)
A Proposed Standard protocol
1969 - The PPP DES Encryption Protocol (DESE
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1968 - The PPP Encryption Control Protocol (ECP
A Proposed Standard protocol
1967 - PPP LZS-DCP Compression Protocol (LZS-DCP
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1966 - BGP Route Reflection An alternative to full mesh
An Experimental protocol
1965 - Autonomous System Confederations for
An Experimental protocol
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 2000 Internet Standards February 1997
1964 - The Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API
A Proposed Standard protocol
1963 - PPP Serial Data Transport Protocol (SDTP
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1962 - The PPP Compression Control Protocol (CCP
A Proposed Standard protocol
1961 - GSS-API Authentication Method for SOCKS Version 5
A Proposed Standard protocol
1960 - A String Representation of LDAP Search
A Proposed Standard protocol
1959 - An LDAP URL
A Proposed Standard protocol
1958 - Architectural Principles of the
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1957 - Some Observations on Implementations of the Post
Protocol (POP3)
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1956 - Registration in the MIL
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1955 - New Scheme for Internet Routing and Addressing (ENCAPS)
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
Internet Architecture Board 