As per Relevance of the word document, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group Internet Architecture
Request for Comments: 1500 J. Postel,
Obsoletes: RFCs 1410, 1360, 1280, August 1993
1250, 1100, 1083, 1130, 1140, 1200
STD: 1
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).
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
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) . . . 9
4.2.1. Required Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.2. Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.2. Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Internet Architecture Board [Page 1]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993
6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.4. Draft Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.6. Telnet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.7. Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.8. Informational Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.9. Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7. Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.1.1. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact . . . . . . 32
7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . 33
7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact . . . . . 34
7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . . 34
7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.4. Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments . . . . . . . . . . . 36
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
9. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
A discussion of the standardization process and the RFC
series 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 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
31-October-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 1500 Internet Standards August 1993
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-1310.
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
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
Internet Architecture Board [Page 3]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993
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
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 (
Internet Architecture Board [Page 4]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993
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 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
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.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 5]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993
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-1340.
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
specified by these sets of documents should be reported to DISA
to the IESG. The RFCs and the MIL-STDs for IP and TCP differ
style and level of detail. It is strongly advised that the two
of documents be used together, along with RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.
The Internet and the DoD MIL-STD specifications for the FTP, SMTP
and Telnet protocols are essentially the same documents (RFCs 765,
821, 854). The MIL-STD versions have been edited slightly.
that the current Internet specification for FTP is RFC-959 (
modified by RFC-1123).
Internet Architecture Board [Page 6]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993
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
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
Internet Architecture Board [Page 7]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993
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
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
Internet Architecture Board [Page 8]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993
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
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
Internet Architecture Board [Page 9]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993
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 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
Internet Architecture Board [Page 10]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993
+==========================================================+
|**************| 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
(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
Internet Architecture Board [Page 11]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993
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 [Page 12]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993
|
+<----------------------------------------------+
| ^
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 [Page 13]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993
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
1501 - OS/2 User
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1500 - This memo
1499 - Not yet issued
1498 - On the Naming and Binding of Network
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1497 - BOOTP Vendor Information
This memo is a status report on BOOTP types and is a
of the BOOTP specification which is currently a
Standard
1496 - Rules for Downgrading Messages from X.400/88 to X.400/84
When MIME Content-Types are Present in the
A Proposed Standard protocol
1495 - Mapping between X.400 and RFC-822 Message
A Proposed Standard protocol
1494 - Equivalences between 1988 X.400 and RFC-822 Message
A Proposed Standard protocol
1493 - Definitions of Managed Objects for
A Draft Standard protocol
Internet Architecture Board [Page 14]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993
1492 - An Access Control Protocol, Sometimes Called
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1491 - A Survey of Advanced Usages of X.500
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1490 - Multiprotocol Interconnect over Frame
A Draft Standard protocol
1489 - Registration of a Cyrillic Character
This document defines a character set, and is referenced
"Assigned Numbers" (STD 2).
1488 - The X.500 String Representation of
Attribute
A Proposed Standard protocol
1487 - X.500 Lightweight Directory Access
A Proposed Standard protocol
1486 - An Experiment in Remote
An Experimental protocol
1485 - A String Representation of Distinguished Names (OSI-DS 23
(v5))
A Proposed Standard protocol
1484 - Using the OSI Directory to achieve User
Naming (OSI-DS 24 (v1.2))
An Experimental protocol
1483 - Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Adaptation Layer 5
A Proposed Standard protocol
Internet Architecture Board [Page 15]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993
1482 - Aggregation Support in the NSFNET Policy-Based
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1481 - IAB Recommendation for an Intermediate Strategy to
the Issue of
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1480 - The US
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1479 - Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Specification
Version-1
A Proposed Standard protocol
1478 - An Architecture for Inter-Domain Policy
A Proposed Standard protocol
1477 - IDPR as a Proposed
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1476 - RAP: Internet Route Access
An Experimental protocol
1475 - TP/IX: The Next
An Experimental protocol
1474 - The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Bridge
Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point
A Proposed Standard protocol
1473 - The Definitions of Managed Objects for the IP
Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point
A Proposed Standard protocol
Internet Architecture Board [Page 16]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993
1472 - The Definitions of Managed Objects for the
Protocols of the Point-to-Point
A Proposed Standard protocol
1471 - The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Link
Protocol of the Point-to-Point
A Proposed Standard protocol
1470 - FYI on a Network Management Tool Catalog: Tools
Monitoring and Debugging TCP/IP Internets
Interconnected
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1469 - IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area
A Proposed Standard protocol
1468 - Japanese Character Encoding for Internet
This document defines a character set, and is referenced
"Assigned Numbers" (STD 2).
1467 - Status of CIDR Deployment in the
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1466 - Guidelines for Management of IP Address
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1465 - Routing Coordination for X.400 MHS Services Within a
Protocol / Multi Network Environment Table Format V3
Static
An Experimental protocol
1464 - Using the Domain Name System To Store Arbitrary
An Experimental protocol
Internet Architecture Board [Page 17]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993
1463 - FYI on Introducing the Internet-- A Short Bibliography
Introductory Internetworking
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1462 - FYI on "What is the Internet?"
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1461 - SNMP MIB extension for Multiprotocol Interconnect over X.25
A Proposed Standard protocol
1460 - Post Office Protocol - Version-3
A Draft Standard protocol
1459 - Internet Relay Chat
An Experimental protocol
1458 - Requirements for Multicast
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1457 - Security Label Framework for the
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1456 - Conventions for Encoding the Vietnamese Language - VISCII
VIetnamese Standard Code for Information Interchange -
VIQR: VIetnamese Quoted-Readable
This document defines a character set, and is referenced
"Assigned Numbers" (STD 2).
1455 - Physical Link Security Type of
An Experimental protocol
1454 - Comparison of Proposals for Next Version of
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
Internet Architecture Board [Page 18]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993
1453 - A Comment on Packet Video Remote Conferencing and
Transport/Network
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1452 - Coexistence between version-1 and version-2 of
Internet-standard Network Management
A Proposed Standard protocol
1451 - Manager-to-Manager Management Information
A Proposed Standard protocol
1450 - Management Information Base for version-2 of the
Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
A Proposed Standard protocol
1449 - Transport Mappings for version-2 of the Simple
Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
A Proposed Standard protocol
1448 - Protocol Operations for version-2 of the Simple
Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
A Proposed Standard protocol
1447 - Party MIB for version-2 of the Simple Network
Protocol (SNMPv2)
A Proposed Standard protocol
1446 - Security Protocols for version-2 of the Simple
Management Protocol (SNMPv
A Proposed Standard protocol
1445 - Administrative Model for version-2 of the Simple
Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
A Proposed Standard protocol
1444 - Conformance Statements for version-2 of the Simple
Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
Internet Architecture Board [Page 19]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993
A Proposed Standard protocol
1443 - Textual Conventions for version-2 of the Simple
Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
A Proposed Standard protocol
1442 - Structure of Management Information for version-2 of
Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
A Proposed Standard protocol
1441 - Introduction to version-2 of the Internet-standard
Management
A Proposed Standard protocol
1440 - SIFT/UFT: Sender-Initiated/Unsolicited File
An Experimental protocol
1439 - The Uniqueness of Unique
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1438 - Internet Engineering Task Force Statements Of
(SOBs
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1437 - The Extension of MIME Content-Types to a New
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
1298 - SNMP over
Obsoleted by 1420.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 20]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993
1284 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-
Interface
Moved to Historic
1283 - SNMP over
Obsoleted by 1418.
1214 - "OSI Internet Management: Management Information
Moved to Historic
1203 - Interactive Mail Access Protocol - Version-3
Moved to Historic
1201 - Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET
Moved to Historic
1094 - NFS: Network File System Protocol
Moved to Informational
1057 - RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version-2
Moved to Informational
RFC 1050 - RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol
Moved to Historic
Internet Architecture Board [Page 21]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993
6.2. Standard
Protocol Name Status RFC STD *
======== ===================================== ======== ==== === =
-------- Internet Official Protocol Standards Req 1500 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
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
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
TP-TCP ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP Ele 1006 35
[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from
previous edition of this document.]
Internet Architecture Board [Page 22]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993
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 developing
candidates for a new standard "open" routing protocol with
properties than RIP. The IAB urges the Internet community to
these developments, and to implement the new protocol when it
standardized; improved Internet service will result for many users
TP-TCP -- As OSI protocols become more widely implemented and used
there will be an increasing need to support interoperation with
TCP/IP protocols. The Internet Engineering Task Force is
strategies for interoperation. RFC-1006 provides one
mode, in which TCP/IP is used to emulate TP0 in order to support
applications. Hosts that wish to run OSI connection-
applications in this mode should use the procedure described in RFC
1006. In the future, the IAB expects that a major portion of
Internet will support both TCP/IP and OSI (inter-)network
in parallel, and it will then be possible to run OSI
across the Internet using full OSI protocol "stacks".
Internet Architecture Board [Page 23]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993
6.3. Network-Specific Standard
All Network-Specific Standards have Elective status
Protocol Name State RFC STD *
======== ===================================== ===== ===== === =
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 Prop 1356
IP-SMDS IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service Prop 1209
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 Internet Protocol on ARCNET Std 1051 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 [Page 24]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993
6.4. Draft Standard
Protocol Name Status
======== ===================================== ============== =====
BRIDGE-MIB BRIDGE-MIB Elective 1493*
IP-FR Multiprotocol over Frame Relay Prop 1490*
ETHER-MIB Ethernet MIB Elective 1398
NTPV3 Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Elective 1305
IP-MTU Path MTU Discovery Elective 1191
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 1460*
IP-FDDI Internet Protocol on FDDI Networks Elective 1188
PPP Point to Point Protocol Elective 1171
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 [Page 25]
RFC 1500 Internet Standards August 1993
6.5. Proposed Standard
Protocol Name Status
======== ===================================== ============== =====
HARPOON Rules for Downgrading Messages... Elective 1496*
Mapping MHS/RFC-822 Message Body Mapping Elective 1495*
Equiv X.400/MIME Body Equivalences Elective 1494*
X.500syn X.500 String Representation ... Elective 1488*
X.500lite X.500 Lightweight ... Elective 1487*
STR-REP String Representation ... Elective 1485*
OSI-Dir OSI User Friendly Naming ... Elective 1484*
ATM-ENCAP Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Elective 1483*
IDPR Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Elective 1479*
IDPR-ARCH Architecture for IDPR Elective 1478*
PPP/Bridge MIB Bridge PPP MIB Elective 1474*
PPP/IP MIB IP Network Control Protocol of PPP MIB Elective 1473*
PPP/SEC MIB Security Protocols of PPP MIB Elective 1472*
PPP/LCP MIB Link Control Protocol of PPP MIB Elective 1471*
IP-TR-MC IP Multicast over Token-Ring LANs Elective 1469*
X25-MIB Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 MIB Elective 1461*
SNMPv2 Coexistence between SNMPv1 and SNMPv2 Elective 1452*
SNMPv2 Manager-to-Manager MIB Elective 1451*
SNMPv2 Management Information Base for SNMPv2 Elective 1450*
SNMPv2 Transport Mappings for SNMPv2 Elective 1449*
SNMPv2 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 Elective 1448*
SNMPv2 Party MIB for SNMPv2 Elective 1447*
SNMPv2 Security Protocols for SNMPv2 Elective 1446*
SNMPv2 Administrative Model for SNMPv2 Elective 1445*
SNMPv2 Conformance Statements for SNMPv2 Elective 1444*
SNMPv2 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 Elective 1443*
SNMPv2 SMI for SNMPv2 Elective 1442*
SNMPv2 Introduction to SNMPv2 Elective 1441*
SMTP-SIZE SMTP Service Ext for Message Size Elective 1427
SMTP-8BIT SMTP Service Ext or 8bit-MIMEtransport Elective 1426
SMTP-EXT SMTP Service Extensions Elective 1425
PEM-KEY PEM - Key Certification Elective 1424
PEM-ALG PEM - Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers Elective 1423
PEM-CKM PEM - Certificate-Based Key Management Elective 1422
PEM-ENC PEM - Message Encryption and Auth Elective 1421
SNMP-IPX SNMP over IPX Elective 1420
SNMP-AT SNMP over AppleTalk Elective 1419
SNMP-OSI SNMP over OSI Elective 1418
FTP-FTAM FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification Elective 1415
IDENT-MIB Identification MIB Elective 1414
IDENT Identification Protocol Elective 1413
DS3/E3-MIB DS3/E3 