As per Relevance of the word document, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group Internet Architecture
Request for Comments: 1360 J. Postel,
Obsoletes: RFCs 1280, 1250, September 1992
1100, 1083, 1130, 1140, 1200
STD: 1
IAB 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).
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. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.4. Experimental Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.5. Informational Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.6. Historic Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Internet Architecture Board [Page 1]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
6.2. Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.4. Draft Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.6. Telnet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.7. Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.8. Informational Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.9. Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7. Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.1.1. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact . . . . . . 29
7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . 29
7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact . . . . . 30
7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . . 31
7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.4. Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
9. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Discussion of the standardization process and the RFC document
is presented first, followed by an explanation of the terms
Sections 6.2 - 6.9 contain the lists of protocols in each stage
standardization. Finally come pointers to references and
for 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 or from the
Assigned Numbers Authority (see the contact information at the end
this memo). Do not use this edition after 15-Jan-93.
See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes. In the
lists in sections 6.2 - 6.9, 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
1. The Standardization
The Internet Architecture Board maintains this list of documents
define standards for the Internet protocol suite. See RFC-1358
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
Internet Architecture Board [Page 2]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
and IRSG, respectively. The IAB provides 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-1310.
The majority of Internet protocol development and
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 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 and the IAB must ratify it. If
recommendation is not ratified, the protocol is remanded to the
for further work
To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react
standardization proposals, the IAB imposes a minimum delay of 6
months before a proposed standard can be advanced to a draft
and 4 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".
Internet Architecture Board [Page 3]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
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
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.
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, 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. For a proposed
draft standard, however, the IAB will also endeavor to indicate
eventual status this protocol will have after adoption as a standard
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 [Page 4]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
gateways, terminal servers, workstations, and multi-user hosts.
requirement level shown in this document is only a one word label
which may not be sufficient to characterize the
requirements for a protocol in all situations. For some protocols
this document contains an additional status paragraph (
applicability statement). In addition, more detailed
information is 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 1111).
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 both the IESG and the IAB. For documents
experimental work, the RFC Editor will notify the IESG
publication, allowing for the possibility of review by the
IETF working group or IRTF research group and provide those
to the author. 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
Internet Architecture Board [Page 5]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
the reference for determining the correct RFC for the
specification of each protocol
The RFCs are available from the Network Information Center at
International, and a number of other sites. For more
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
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-1340.
Another document, Internet Numbers, lists the assigned IP
numbers, and the autonomous system numbers. Internet Numbers
most recently issued as RFC-1166.
3.2. 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
3.3. 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
Internet Architecture Board [Page 6]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
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, along with RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.
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 (as modified
RFC-1123).
Note that these MIL-STD are now somewhat out of date. The
Requirements (RFC-1009) and Host Requirements (RFC-1122, RFC-1123)
take precedence over both earlier RFCs and the MIL-STDs
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
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 "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 and when possible, the IAB
Internet Architecture Board [Page 7]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
notes the status that the protocol is expected to have when
reaches the standard state
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, not recommended) 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 | | X | XXX | XX | X |
T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Expr | | | X | XXX | XX |
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
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 IAB 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
Internet Architecture Board [Page 8]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
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. Informational
Protocols developed by other standard organizations, or vendors
or that are for other reasons outside the purview of the IAB,
be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet
as informational protocols. Such protocols may in some cases
be recommended for use in the Internet by the IAB
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
Internet Architecture Board [Page 9]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
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
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
RFC Editor. The processing depends on who submitted it, and
status they want it to have
Internet Architecture Board [Page 10]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
+==========================================================+
|**************| S O U R C E |
+==========================================================+
| Desired | IAB | IESG | IRSG | Other |
| Status | | | | |
+==========================================================+
| | | | | |
| Standard | Publish | Vote | Bogus | Bogus |
| or | (1) | (3) | (2) | (2) |
| Draft | | | | |
| 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 concerns are raised
two weeks then do Discretion (6), else RFC Editor to
the concerns or do Refer (4).
(6) RFC Editor's discretion. The RFC Editor decides if a
Internet Architecture Board [Page 11]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
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 (5) 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 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 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 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, 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 [Page 12]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
|
+<----------------------------------------------+
| ^
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
six 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 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
IAB 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 [Page 13]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
6. The
Subsection 6.1 lists recent RFCs and other changes. Subsections 6.2
- 6.9 list the standards in groups by protocol state
6.1. Recent
6.1.1. New RFCs
1361 - Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1360 - This memo
1359 - Connecting to the Internet What Connecting
Should
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1358 - Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1357 - A Format for E-mailing Bibliographic
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1356 - Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 and ISDN in the
A Proposed Standard protocol
1355 - Privacy and Accuracy Issues in Network Information
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1354 - IP Forwarding Table
A Proposed Standard protocol
Internet Architecture Board [Page 14]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
1353 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Administration of
A Proposed Standard protocol
1352 - SNMP Security
A Proposed Standard protocol
1351 - SNMP Administrative
A Proposed Standard protocol
1350 - The TFTP Protocol (Revision 2)
A Standard protocol
1349 - Type of Service in the Internet Protocol
A Proposed Standard protocol
1348 - DNS NSAP
An Experimental protocol
1347 - TCP and UDP with Bigger Addresses (TUBA), A Simple
for Internet Addressing and
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1346 - Resource Allocation, Control, and Accounting for the Use
Network
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1345 - Character Mnemonics & Character
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1344 - Implications of MIME for Internet Mail
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
Internet Architecture Board [Page 15]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
1343 - A User Agent Configuration Mechanism For Multimedia
Format
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1342 - Representation of Non-ASCII Text in Internet
A Proposed Standard protocol
1341 - MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions):
for Specifying and Describing the Format of
Message
A Proposed Standard protocol
1340 - Assigned
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1339 - Remote Mail Checking
An Experimental protocol
1338 - Supernetting: an Address Assignment and
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1337 - TIME-WAIT Assassination Hazards in
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1336 - Who's Who in the Internet - Biographies of IAB, IESG
IRSG
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1335 - A Two-Tier Address Structure for the Internet: A
to the Problem of Address Space
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
Internet Architecture Board [Page 16]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
1334 - Not yet issued
1333 - PPP Link Quality
A Proposed Standard protocol
1332 - The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol (IPCP
A Proposed Standard protocol
1331 - The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) for the Transmission
Multi-protocol Datagrams over Point-to-Point
A Proposed Standard protocol
1330 - Recommendations for the Phase I Deployment of OSI
Services (X.500) and OSI Message Handling Services (X.400)
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1329 - Thoughts on Address Resolution for Dual MAC FDDI
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1328 - X.400 1988 to 1984
A Proposed Standard protocol
1327 - Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 and RFC 822
A Proposed Standard protocol
1326 - Mutual Encapsulation Considered
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1325 - FYI on Questions and Answers - Answers to Commonly
"New Internet User"
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
Internet Architecture Board [Page 17]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
1324 - A Discussion on Computer Network
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1323 - TCP Extensions for High
A Proposed Standard protocol
1322 - A Unified Approach to Inter-Domain
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1321 - The MD5 Message-Digest
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1320 - The MD4 Message-Digest
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1319 - The MD2 Message-Digest
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1318 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Parallel-printer-
Hardware
A Proposed Standard protocol
1317 - Definitions of Managed Objects RS-232-like Hardware
A Proposed Standard protocol
1316 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Character Stream
A Proposed Standard protocol
1315 - Management Information Base for Frame Relay
A Proposed Standard protocol
Internet Architecture Board [Page 18]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
1314 - A File Format for the Exchange of Images in the
A Proposed Standard protocol
1313 - Today's Programming for KRFC AM 1313 Internet Talk
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1312 - Message Send Protocol 2
An Experimental protocol
6.1.2. Other Changes
The following are changes to protocols listed in the
edition
1172 - The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Initial
Moved to Historic (obsoleted by RFC-1331).
1113 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part I --
Message Encipherment and Authentication
Moved to Historic
1114 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part
-- Certificate-Based Key
Moved to Historic
1115 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part
-- Algorithms, Modes, and
Moved to Historic
1056 - PCMAIL: A Distributed Mail System for Personal
Moved to Historic
1058 - Routing Information
Advanced to Standard protocol
Internet Architecture Board [Page 19]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
1037 - NFILE - A File Access
Moved to Historic
1026 - Addendum to RFC 987 (Mapping between X.400 and RFC-822)
Moved to Historic (obsoleted by RFC-1327).
987 - Mapping between X.400 and RFC-822
Moved to Historic (obsoleted by RFC-1327).
953 - Hostname
Moved to Historic
913 - Simple File Transfer
Moved to Historic
734 -
Moved to Historic
Internet Architecture Board [Page 20]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
6.2. Standard
Protocol Name Status RFC STD *
======== ===================================== ======== ==== === =
-------- IAB Official Protocol Standards Req 1360 1 *
-------- Assigned Numbers Req 1340 2 *
-------- Host Requirements - Communications Req 1122 3
-------- Host Requirements - Applications Req 1123 3
-------- Gateway Requirements Req 1009 4
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
MAIL Format of Electronic Mail Messages Rec 822 11
CONTENT Content Type Header Field Rec 1049 11
NTP Network Time Protocol 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
MIB-II Management Information Base-II Rec 1213 17
EGP Exterior Gateway Protocol Rec 904 18
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*
[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
Internet Architecture Board [Page 21]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
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).
6.3. Network-Specific Standard
Protocol Name State Status
======== ===================================== ======= ====== =====
IP-FR Multiprotocol over Frame Relay Prop Ele 1294
IP-SMDS Transmission of IP Datagrams over SMDS Prop Ele 1209
ARP Address Resolution Protocol Std Ele 826
RARP A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol Std Ele 903
IP-ARPA Internet Protocol on ARPANET Std Ele BBN1822
IP-WB Internet Protocol on Wideband Network Std Ele 907
IP-X25 Internet Protocol on X.25 Networks Std Ele 877
IP-E Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks Std Ele 894
IP-EE Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets Std Ele 895
IP-IEEE Internet Protocol on IEEE 802 Std Ele 1042
IP-DC Internet Protocol on DC Networks Std Ele 891
IP-HC Internet Protocol on Hyperchannel Std Ele 1044
IP-ARC Internet Protocol on ARCNET Std Ele 1051
IP-SLIP Transmission of IP over Serial Lines Std Ele 1055
IP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS Std Ele 1088
IP-IPX Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks Std Ele 1132
IP-FDDI Transmission of IP over FDDI Draft Ele 1188
[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.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 22]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
also the Host and Gateway Requirements RFCs for more
information on network-specific ("link layer") protocols
6.4. Draft Standard
Protocol Name Status
======== ===================================== ============== =====
FINGER Finger Protocol Elective 1288
BGP3 Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3) Elective 1267,1268
OSPF2 Open Shortest Path First Routing V2 Elective 1247
POP3 Post Office Protocol, Version 3 Elective 1225
Concise-MIB Concise MIB Definitions Elective 1212
IP-FDDI Internet Protocol on FDDI Networks Elective 1188
TOPT-LINE Telnet Linemode Option Elective 1184
PPP Point to Point Protocol Elective 1171
BOOTP Bootstrap Protocol Recommended 951,1084
TP-TCP ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP Elective 1006
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
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".
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
Internet Architecture Board [Page 23]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
in the future
6.5. Proposed Standard
Protocol Name Status
======== ===================================== ============== =====
X.25 and ISDN in the Packet Mode Elective 1356*
TABLE-MIB IP Forwarding Table MIB Elective 1354*
------- Administration of SNMP Elective 1353*
SNMP-SEC SNMP Security Protocols Elective 1352*
SNMP-ADMIN SNMP Administrative Model Elective 1351*
TOS Type of Service in the Internet... Elective 1349*
------- Representation of Non-ASCII Text... Elective 1342*
MIME Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions Elective 1341*
PPP-LINK PPP Link Quality Monitoring Elective 1333*
PPP Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Elective 1331*
------- X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading Elective 1328*
------- Mapping between X.400(1988)... Elective 1327*
TCP-EXT TCP Extensions for High Performance Elective 1323*
------- Def. Man. Objs Parallel-printer-like... Elective 1318*
------- Def. Man Objs RS-232-like... Elective 1317*
------- Def. Man. Objs. Character Stream... Elective 1316*
FRAME-MIB Management Information Base for Frame.. Elective 1315*
NETFAX File Format for the Exchange of Images.. Elective 1314*
SIP-MIB SIP Interface Type MIB Elective 1304
IARP Inverse Address Resolution Protocol Elective 1293
DECNET-MIB DECNET MIB Elective 1289
BRIDGE-MIB BRIDGE-MIB Elective 1286
FDDI-MIB FDDI-MIB Elective 1285
ETHER-MIB Ethernet MIB Elective 1284
------- Encoding Network Addresses... Elective 1277
------- Replication and Distributed Operations.. Elective 1276
------- COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema... Elective 1274
RMON-MIB Remote Network Monitoring MIB Elective 1271
BGP-MIB Border Gateway Protocol MIB (Version 3) Elective 1269
ICMP-ROUT ICMP Router Discovery Messages Elective 1256
OSPF-MIB OSPF Version 2 MIB Elective 1253
IPSO DoD Security Options for IP Elective 1108
AT-MIB Appletalk MIB Elective 1243
OSI-UDP OSI TS on UDP Elective 1240
STD-MIBs Reassignment of Exp MIBs to Std MIBs Elective 1239
OSI-NSAP Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation Elective 1237
IPX-IP Tunneling IPX Traffic through IP Nets Elective 1234
DS3-MIB DS3 Interface Objects Elective 1233
DS1-MIB DS1 Interface Objects Elective 1232
802.5-MIB IEEE 802.5 Token Ring MIB Elective 1231
802.4-MIP IEEE 802.4 Token Bus MIB Elective 1230
GINT-MIB Extensions to the Generic-Interface MIB Elective 1229
Internet Architecture Board [Page 24]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
PPP-EXT PPP Extensions for Bridging Elective 1220
OIM-MIB-II OSI Internet Management: MIB-II Elective 1214
IP-SMDS IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service Elective 1209
IP-ARCNET Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Nets Elective 1201
IS-IS OSI IS-IS for TCP/IP Dual Environments Elective 1195
IP-MTU Path MTU Discovery Elective 1191
CMOT Common Management Information Services.. Elective 1189
IP-CMPRS Compressing TCP/IP Headers Elective 1144
ISO-TS-ECHO Echo for ISO-8473 Elective 1139
SUN-NFS Network File System Protocol Elective 1094
SUN-RPC Remote Procedure Call Protocol Elective 1057
NNTP Network News Transfer Protocol Elective 977
RLP Resource Location Protocol Elective 887
[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from
previous edition of this document.]
Applicability Statements
IP-SMDS and IP-ARCNET -- These define methods of sending IP
particular network types. It is anticipated that these will
advanced to the network specific standard protocol state in
future
6.6. Telnet
For convenience, all the Telnet Options are collected here with
their state and status
Protocol Name Number State Status RFC
======== ===================================== ===== ====== ==== ====
TOPT-BIN Binary Transmission 0 Std Rec 856 27
TOPT-ECHO Echo 1 Std Rec 857 28
TOPT-RECN Reconnection 2 Prop Ele ...
TOPT-SUPP Suppress Go Ahead 3 Std Rec 858 29
TOPT-APRX Approx Message Size Negotiation 4 Prop Ele ...
TOPT-STAT Status 5 Std Rec 859 30
TOPT-TIM Timing Mark 6 Std Rec 860 31
TOPT-REM Remote Controlled Trans and Echo 7 Prop Ele 726
TOPT-OLW Output Line Width 8 Prop Ele ...
TOPT-OPS Output Page Size 9 Prop Ele ...
TOPT-OCRD Output Carriage-Return Disposition 10 Prop Ele 652
TOPT-OHT Output Horizontal Tabstops 11 Prop Ele 653
TOPT-OHTD Output Horizontal Tab Disposition 12 Prop Ele 654
TOPT-OFD Output Formfeed Disposition 13 Prop Ele 655
TOPT-OVT Output Vertical 