Network Working Group Internet Architecture Board Request for Comments: 1720 J. Postel, Editor Obsoletes: RFCs 1610, 1600, 1540, 1500, November 1994 1410, 1360, 1280, 1250, 1100, 1083, 1130, 1140, 1200 STD: 1 Category: Standards Track INTERNET OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS Status of this Memo This memo describes the state of standardization of protocols used in the Internet as determined by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). This memo is an Internet Standard. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Table of Contents 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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) . . . 9 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 Internet Architecture Board [Page 1] RFC 1720 Internet Standards November 1994 6.1.1. New RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.1.2. Other Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6.2. Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.4. Draft Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.6. Telnet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6.7. Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 6.8. Informational Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6.9. Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6.10 Obsolete Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 7. Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 7.1.1. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact . . . . . . 37 7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . 38 7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact . . . . . 39 7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . . 39 7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact . . . . . . . . . . 40 7.4. Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . . 40 7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments . . . . . . . . . . . 41 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 9. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Introduction A discussion of the standardization process and the RFC document series is presented first, followed by an explanation of the terms. Sections 6.2 - 6.10 contain the lists of protocols in each stage of standardization. Finally are pointers to references and contacts for further information. This memo is intended to be issued approximately quarterly; please be sure the copy you are reading is current. Current copies may be obtained from the Network Information Center (INTERNIC) or from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (see the contact information at the end of this memo). Do not use this edition after 1-Mar-95. See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes. In the official lists in sections 6.2 - 6.10, an asterisk (*) next to a protocol denotes that it is new to this document or has been moved from one protocol level to another, or differs from the previous edition of this document. Internet Architecture Board [Page 2] RFC 1720 Internet Standards November 1994 1. The Standardization Process The Internet Architecture Board maintains this list of documents that define standards for the Internet protocol suite. See RFC-1601 for the charter of the IAB and RFC-1160 for an explanation of the role and organization of the IAB and its subsidiary groups, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). Each of these groups has a steering group called the IESG and IRSG, respectively. The IETF develops these standards with the goal of co-ordinating the evolution of the Internet protocols; this co-ordination has become quite important as the Internet protocols are increasingly in general commercial use. The definitive description of the Internet standards process is found in RFC-1602. The majority of Internet protocol development and standardization activity takes place in the working groups of the IETF. Protocols which are to become standards in the Internet go through a series of states or maturity levels (proposed standard, draft standard, and standard) involving increasing amounts of scrutiny and testing. When a protocol completes this process it is assigned a STD number (see RFC-1311). At each step, the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) of the IETF must make a recommendation for advancement of the protocol. To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react to standardization proposals, a minimum delay of 6 months before a proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard and 4 months before a draft standard can be promoted to standard. It is general practice that no proposed standard can be promoted to draft standard without at least two independent implementations (and the recommendation of the IESG). Promotion from draft standard to standard generally requires operational experience and demonstrated interoperability of two or more implementations (and the recommendation of the IESG). In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper decision concerning a protocol a special review committee may be appointed consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB with the purpose of recommending an explicit action. Advancement of a protocol to proposed standard is an important step since it marks a protocol as a candidate for eventual standardization (it puts the protocol "on the standards track"). Advancement to draft standard is a major step which warns the community that, unless major objections are raised or flaws are discovered, the protocol is likely to be advanced to standard in six months. Internet Architecture Board [Page 3] RFC 1720 Internet Standards November 1994 Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are otherwise unused. Such protocols are still documented in this memorandum with the designation "historic". Because it is useful to document the results of early protocol research and development work, some of the RFCs document protocols which are still in an experimental condition. The protocols are designated "experimental" in this memorandum. They appear in this report as a convenience to the community and not as evidence of their standardization. Other protocols, such as those developed by other standards organizations, or by particular vendors, may be of interest or may be recommended for use in the Internet. The specifications of such protocols may be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community. These protocols are labeled "informational" in this memorandum. In addition to the working groups of the IETF, protocol development and experimentation may take place as a result of the work of the research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or the work of other individuals interested in Internet protocol development. The the documentation of such experimental work in the RFC series is encouraged, but none of this work is considered to be on the track for standardization until the IESG has made a recommendation to advance the protocol to the proposed standard state. A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without the approval of the IESG. For example, some vendor protocols have become very important to the Internet community even though they have not been recommended by the IESG. However, the IAB strongly recommends that the standards process be used in the evolution of the protocol suite to maximize interoperability (and to prevent incompatible protocol requirements from arising). The use of the terms "standard", "draft standard", and "proposed standard" are reserved in any RFC or other publication of Internet protocols to only those protocols which the IESG has approved. In addition to a state (like "Proposed Standard"), a protocol is also assigned a status, or requirement level, in this document. The 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 proposed standard, draft standard, or standard state (see Section 5), the status shown in Section 6 is the current status. Few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems; this is because there is such a variety of possible systems, for example, Internet Architecture Board [Page 4] RFC 1720 Internet Standards November 1994 gateways, routers, terminal servers, workstations, and multi-user hosts. The requirement level shown in this document is only a one word label, which may not be sufficient to characterize the implementation requirements for a protocol in all situations. For some protocols, this document contains an additional status paragraph (an applicability statement). In addition, more detailed status information may be contained in separate requirements documents (see Section 3). 2. The Request for Comments Documents The documents called Request for Comments (or RFCs) are the working notes of the "Network Working Group", that is the Internet research and development community. A document in this series may be on essentially any topic related to computer communication, and may be anything from a meeting report to the specification of a standard. Notice: All standards are published as RFCs, but not all RFCs specify standards. Anyone can submit a document for publication as an RFC. Submissions must be made via electronic mail to the RFC Editor (see the contact information at the end of this memo, and see RFC 1543). While RFCs are not refereed publications, they do receive technical review from the task forces, individual technical experts, or the RFC Editor, as appropriate. The RFC series comprises a wide range of documents, ranging from informational documents of general interests to specifications of standard Internet protocols. In cases where submission is intended to document a proposed standard, draft standard, or standard protocol, the RFC Editor will publish the document only with the approval of the IESG. For documents describing experimental work, the RFC Editor will notify the IESG before publication, allowing for the possibility of review by the relevant IETF working group or IRTF research group and provide those comments to the author. See Section 5.1 for more detail. Once a document is assigned an RFC number and published, that RFC is never revised or re-issued with the same number. There is never a question of having the most recent version of a particular RFC. However, a protocol (such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP)) may be improved and re-documented many times in several different RFCs. It is important to verify that you have the most recent RFC on a particular protocol. This "Internet Official Protocol Standards" Internet Architecture Board [Page 5] RFC 1720 Internet Standards November 1994 memo is the reference for determining the correct RFC for the current specification of each protocol. The RFCs are available from the INTERNIC, and a number of other sites. For more information about obtaining RFCs, see Sections 7.4 and 7.5. 3. Other Reference Documents There are three other reference documents of interest in checking the current status of protocol specifications and standardization. These are the Assigned Numbers, the Gateway Requirements, and the Host Requirements. Note that these documents are revised and updated at different times; in case of differences between these documents, the most recent must prevail. Also, one should be aware of the MIL-STD publications on IP, TCP, Telnet, FTP, and SMTP. These are described in Section 3.4. 3.1. Assigned Numbers The "Assigned Numbers" document lists the assigned values of the parameters used in the 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-1700. 3.2. Gateway Requirements This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways and supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities. Gateway Requirements is RFC-1009. A working group of the IETF is actively preparing a revision. 3.3. Host Requirements This pair of documents reviews and updates the specifications that apply to hosts, and it supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities. Host Requirements was issued as RFC-1122 and RFC-1123. 3.4. The MIL-STD Documents The Internet community specifications for IP (RFC-791) and TCP (RFC- 793) and the DoD MIL-STD specifications are intended to describe exactly the same protocols. Any difference in the protocols specified by these sets of documents should be reported to DISA and to the IESG. The RFCs and the MIL-STDs for IP and TCP differ in style and level of detail. It is strongly advised that the two sets Internet Architecture Board [Page 6] RFC 1720 Internet Standards November 1994 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. Note that the current Internet specification for FTP is RFC-959 (as modified by RFC-1123). Note that these MIL-STD are now somewhat out of date. The Gateway 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 Forms Center. Requests can be initiated by telephone, telegraph, or mail; however, it is preferred that private industry use form DD1425, if possible. Naval Publications and Forms Center, Code 3015 5801 Tabor Ave Philadelphia, PA 19120 Phone: 1-215-697-3321 (order tape) 1-215-697-4834 (conversation) 4. Explanation of Terms There are two independent categorization of protocols. The first is 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 word label. These status labels should be considered only as an 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. Internet Architecture Board [Page 7] RFC 1720 Internet Standards November 1994 At any given time a protocol occupies a cell of the following matrix. Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the following proportions (indicated by the relative number of Xs). A new protocol is most likely to start in the (proposed standard, elective) cell, or the (experimental, not recommended) cell. S T A T U S Req Rec Ele Lim Not +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ 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 few protocols are used in both. The definitions of the terms below will refer to a "system" which is either a host or a gateway (or both). It should be clear from the context of the particular protocol which types of systems are intended. 4.1. Definitions of Protocol State Every protocol listed in this document is assigned to a "maturity level" or STATE of standardization: "standard", "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic". 4.1.1. Standard Protocol The IESG has established this as an official standard protocol for the Internet. These protocols are assigned STD numbers (see RFC- 1311). These are separated into two groups: (1) IP protocol and above, protocols that apply to the whole Internet; and (2) network-specific protocols, generally specifications of how to do IP on particular types of networks. Internet Architecture Board [Page 8] RFC 1720 Internet Standards November 1994 4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol The IESG is actively considering this protocol as a possible Standard Protocol. Substantial and widespread testing and comment are desired. Comments and test results should be submitted to the IESG. There is a possibility that changes will be made in a Draft Standard Protocol before it becomes a Standard Protocol. 4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol These are protocol proposals that may be considered by the IESG for standardization in the future. Implementation and testing by several groups is desirable. Revision of the protocol specification is likely. 4.1.4. Experimental Protocol A system should not implement an experimental protocol unless it is participating in the experiment and has coordinated its use of the protocol with the developer of the protocol. Typically, experimental protocols are those that are developed as part of an ongoing research project not related to an operational service offering. While they may be proposed as a service protocol at a later stage, and thus become proposed standard, draft standard, and then standard protocols, the designation of a protocol as experimental may sometimes be meant to suggest that the protocol, although perhaps mature, is not intended for operational use. 4.1.5. Informational Protocol Protocols developed by other standard organizations, or vendors, or that are for other reasons outside the purview of the IESG, may be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community as informational protocols. 4.1.6. Historic Protocol These are protocols that are unlikely to ever become standards in the Internet either because they have been superseded by later developments or due to lack of interest. 4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status This document lists a "requirement level" or STATUS for each protocol. The status is one of "required", "recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended". Internet Architecture Board [Page 9] RFC 1720 Internet Standards November 1994 4.2.1. Required Protocol A system must implement the required protocols. 4.2.2. Recommended Protocol A system should implement the recommended protocols. 4.2.3. Elective Protocol A system may or may not implement an elective protocol. The general notion is that if you are going to do something like this, you must do exactly this. There may be several elective protocols in a general area, for example, there are several electronic mail protocols, and several routing protocols. 4.2.4. Limited Use Protocol These protocols are for use in limited circumstances. This may be because of their experimental state, specialized nature, limited functionality, or historic state. 4.2.5. Not Recommended Protocol These protocols are not recommended for general use. This may be because of their limited functionality, specialized nature, or experimental or historic state. 5. The Standards Track This section discusses in more detail the procedures used by the RFC Editor and the IESG in making decisions about the labeling and publishing of protocols as standards. 5.1. The RFC Processing Decision Table Here is the current decision table for processing submissions by the RFC Editor. The processing depends on who submitted it, and the status they want it to have. Internet Architecture Board [Page 10] RFC 1720 Internet Standards November 1994 +==========================================================+ |**************| 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 specifying Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IESG, only. (3) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG. Expect to see the document again only after approval by the IESG. (4) Notify both the IESG and IRSG. If no concerns are raised in two weeks then do Discretion (5), else RFC Editor to resolve the concerns or do Refer (3). (5) RFC Editor's discretion. The RFC Editor decides if a review is needed and if so by whom. RFC Editor decides to publish or not. Internet Architecture Board [Page 11] RFC 1720 Internet Standards November 1994 Of course, in all cases the RFC Editor can request or make minor changes for style, format, and presentation purposes. The IESG has designated the IESG Secretary as its agent for forwarding documents with IESG approval and for registering concerns in response to notifications (4) to the RFC Editor. Documents from Area Directors or Working Group Chairs may be considered in the same way as documents from "other". 5.2. The Standards Track Diagram There is a part of the STATUS and STATE categorization that is called the standards track. Actually, only the changes of state are significant to the progression along the standards track, though the 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. A protocol will normally be expected to remain in a temporary state for several months (minimum six months for proposed standard, minimum four months for draft standard). A protocol may be in a long term state for many years. A protocol may enter the standards track only on the recommendation of the IESG; and may move from one state to another along the track only on the recommendation of the IESG. That is, it takes action by 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 is made as to the eventual STATUS, requirement level or applicability (elective, recommended, or required) the protocol will have, although a somewhat less stringent current status may be assigned, and it then is placed in the the proposed standard STATE with that status. So the initial placement of a protocol is into state 1. At any time the STATUS decision may be revisited. Internet Architecture Board [Page 12] RFC 1720 Internet Standards November 1994 | +<----------------------------------------------+ | ^ V 0 | 4 +-----------+ +===========+ | enter |-->----------------+-------------->|experiment | +-----------+ | +=====+=====+ | | V 1 | +-----------+ V | proposed |-------------->+ +--->+-----+-----+ | | | | | V 2 | +<---+-----+-----+ V | draft std |-------------->+ +--->+-----+-----+ | | | | | V 3 | +<---+=====+=====+ V | standard |-------------->+ +=====+=====+ | | V 5 +=====+=====+ | historic | +===========+ The transition from proposed standard (1) to draft standard (2) can only be by action of the IESG and only after the protocol has been proposed standard (1) for at least six months. The transition from draft standard (2) to standard (3) can only be by action of the IESG and only after the protocol has been draft standard (2) for at least four months. Occasionally, the decision may be that the protocol is not ready for standardization and will be assigned to the experimental state (4). This is off the standards track, and the protocol may be resubmitted to enter the standards track after further work. There are other paths into the experimental and historic states that do not involve IESG action. Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus becomes historic, or it may happen that a protocol on the standards track is in a sense overtaken by another protocol (or other events) and becomes historic (state 5). Internet Architecture Board [Page 13] RFC 1720 Internet Standards November 1994 6. The Protocols 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 Changes 6.1.1. New RFCs: 1725 - Post Office Protocol - Version 3 A Draft Standard protocol. 1724 - RIP Version 2 MIB Extension A Draft Standard protocol. 1723 - RIP Version 2 - Carrying Additional Information A Draft Standard protocol. 1722 - RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement A Draft Standard protocol. 1721 - RIP Version 2 Protocol Analysis This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1720 - Internet Official Protocol Standards This memo. 1719 - Not yet issued. 1718 - The Tao of IETF - A Guide for New Attendees of the Internet Engineering Task Force This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1717 - The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP) A Proposed Standard protocol. Internet Architecture Board [Page 14] RFC 1720 Internet Standards November 1994 1716 - Towards Requirements for IP Routers This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1715 - The H Ratio for Address Assignment Efficiency This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1714 - Referral Whois Protocol (RWhois) This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1713 - Tools for DNS debugging This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1712 - DNS Encoding of Geographical Location An Experimental protocol. 1711 - Classifications in E-mail Routing This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1710 - Simple Internet Protocol Plus White Paper This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1709 - K-12 Internetworking Guidelines This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1708 - NTP PICS PROFORMA - For the Network Time Protocol Version 3 This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1707 - CATNIP: Common Architecture for the Internet This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. Internet Architecture Board [Page 15] RFC 1720 Internet Standards November 1994 1706 - DNS NSAP Resource Records This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1705 - Six Virtual Inches to the Left: The Problem with IPng This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1704 - On Internet Authentication This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1703 - Principles of Operation for the TPC.INT Subdomain: Radio Paging -- Technical Procedures This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1702 - Generic Routing Encapsulation over IPv4 networks This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1701 - Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1700 - Assigned Numbers A status report on the parameters (i.e., numbers and keywords) used in protocols in the Internet community. 1699 - Not yet issued. 1698 - Octet Sequences for Upper-Layer OSI to Support Basic Communications Applications This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1697 - Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) Management Information Base (MIB) using SMIv2 A Proposed Standard protocol. Internet Architecture Board [Page 16] RFC 1720 Internet Standards November 1994 1696 - Modem Management Information Base (MIB) using SMIv2 A Proposed Standard protocol. 1695 - Definitions of Managed Objects for ATM Management Version 8.0 using SMIv2 A Proposed Standard protocol. 1694 - Definitions of Managed Objects for SMDS Interfaces using SMIv2 A Draft Standard protocol. 1693 - An Extension to TCP : Partial Order Service An Experimental protocol. 1692 - Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux) This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1691 - The Document Architecture for the Cornell Digital Library This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1690 - Introducing the Internet Engineering and Planning Group (IEPG) This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1689 - A Status Report on Networked Information Retrieval: Tools and Groups This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1688 - IPng Mobility Considerations This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. Internet Architecture Board [Page 17] RFC 1720 Internet Standards November 1994 1687 - A Large Corporate User's View of IPng This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1686 - IPng Requirements: A Cable Television Industry Viewpoint This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1685 - Writing X.400 O/R Names This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1684 - Introduction to White Pages Services based on X.500 This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1683 - Multiprotocol Interoperability In IPng This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1682 - IPng BSD Host Implementation Analysis This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1681 - On Many Addresses per Host This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1680 - IPng Support for ATM Services This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1679 - HPN Working Group Input to the IPng Requirements Solicitation This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. Internet Architecture Board [Page 18] RFC 1720 Internet Standards November 1994 1678 - IPng Requirements of Large Corporate Networks This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1677 - Tactical Radio Frequency Communication Requirments for IPng This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1676 - INFN Requirements for an IPng This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1675 - Security Concerns for IPng This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1674 - Electric Power Research Institute Comments on IPng This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1673 - Electric Power Research Institute Comments on IPng This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1672 - Accounting Requirements for IPng This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1671 - IPng White Paper on Transition and Other Considerations This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1670 - Input to IPng Engineering Considerations This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. Internet Architecture Board [Page 19] RFC 1720 Internet Standards November 1994 1669 - Market Viability as a IPng Criteria This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1668 - Unified Routing Requirements for IPng This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1667 - Modeling and Simulation Requirements for IPng This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1666 - Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA NAUs using SMIv2 A Proposed Standard protocol. 1665 - Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA NAUs using SMIv2 A Proposed Standard protocol. 1664 - Using the Internet DNS to Distribute RFC1327 Mail Address Mapping Tables An Experimental protocol. 1663 - PPP Reliable Transmission A Proposed Standard protocol. 1662 - The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) A Standard protocol. 1661 - The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) A Standard protocol. 1660 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Parallel-printer-like Hardware Devices using SMIv2 A Draft Standard protocol. Internet Architecture Board [Page 20] RFC 1720 Internet Standards November 1994 1659 - Definitions of Managed Objects for RS-232-like Hardware Devices using SMIv2 A Draft Standard protocol. 1658 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Character Stream Devices using SMIv2 A Draft Standard protocol. 1657 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the Fourth Version of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4) using SMIv2 A Proposed Standard protocol. 1656 - BGP-4 Protocol Document Roadmap and Implementation Experience This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1655 - Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet A Proposed Standard protocol. 1654 - A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) A Proposed Standard protocol. 1653 - SMTP Service Extension for Message Size Declaration A Draft Standard protocol. 1652 - SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport A Draft Standard protocol. 1651 - SMTP Service Extensions A Draft Standard protocol. 1650 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-like Interface Types using SMIv2 A Proposed Standard protocol. Internet Architecture Board [Page 21] RFC 1720 Internet Standards November 1994 1649 - Operational Requirements for X.400 Management Domains in the GO-MHS Community This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1648 - Postmaster Convention for X.400 Operations A Proposed Standard protocol. 1647 - TN3270 Enhancements A Proposed Standard protocol. 1646 - TN3270 Extensions for LUname and Printer Selection This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1645 - Simple Network Paging Protocol - Version 2 This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1644 - T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions Functional Specification An Experimental protocol. 1643 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-like Interface Type A Standard protocol. 1642 - UTF-7 - A Mail-Safe Transformation Format of Unicode An Experimental protocol. 1641 - Using Unicode with MIME An Experimental protocol. Internet Architecture Board [Page 22] RFC 1720 Internet Standards November 1994 6.1.2. Other Changes: The following are changes to protocols listed in the previous edition. 904 - Exterior Gateway Protocol Moved to Historic. Internet Architecture Board [Page 23] RFC 1720 Internet Standards November 1994 6.2. Standard Protocols Protocol Name Status RFC STD * ======== ===================================== ======== ==== === = -------- Internet Official Protocol Standards Req 1720 1 -------- Assigned Numbers Req 1700 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 NETBIOS NetBIOS Service Protocols Ele 1001,1002 19 ECHO Echo Protocol Rec 862 20 DISCARD Discard Protocol Ele 863 21 CHARGEN Character Generator Protocol Ele 864 22 QUOTE Quote of the Day Protocol Ele 865 23 USERS Active Users Protocol Ele 866 24 DAYTIME Daytime Protocol Ele 867 25 TIME Time Server Protocol Ele 868 26 TFTP Trivial File Transfer Protocol Ele 1350 33 RIP Routing Information Protocol Ele 1058 34 TP-TCP ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP Ele 1006 35 ETHER-MIB Ethernet MIB Ele 1643 50* PPP Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Ele 1661 51* PPP-HDLC PPP in HDLC Framing Ele 1662 51* [Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.] Internet Architecture Board [Page 24] RFC 1720 Internet Standards November 1994 Applicability Statements: IGMP -- The Internet Architecture Board intends to move towards general adoption of IP multicasting, as a more efficient soluti