💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc1360.txt captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:15:13.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Network Working Group Internet Architecture Board
Request for Comments: 1360 J. Postel, Editor
Obsoletes: RFCs 1280, 1250, September 1992
1100, 1083, 1130, 1140, 1200
STD: 1
IAB 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).
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Table of Contents
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
Introduction
Discussion of the standardization process and the RFC document series
is presented first, followed by an explanation of the terms.
Sections 6.2 - 6.9 contain the lists of protocols in each stage of
standardization. Finally come 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 or from the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (see the contact information at the end of
this memo). Do not use this edition after 15-Jan-93.
See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes. In the official
lists in sections 6.2 - 6.9, 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.
1. The Standardization Process
The Internet Architecture Board maintains this list of documents that
define standards for the Internet protocol suite. See RFC-1358 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
Internet Architecture Board [Page 2]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
and IRSG, respectively. The IAB provides 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-1310.
The majority of Internet protocol development and standardization
activity takes place in the working groups of the Internet
Engineering Task Force.
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 and the IAB must ratify it. If a
recommendation is not ratified, the protocol is remanded to the IETF
for further work.
To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react to
standardization proposals, the IAB imposes 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 IAB 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 the IAB may convene a special review committee
consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB with the
purpose of recommending an explicit action to the IAB.
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.
Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are otherwise
unused. Such protocols are still documented in this memorandum with
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 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
IAB encourages the documentation of such experimental work in the RFC
series, 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, and the IAB has approved
this step.
A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without the
approval of the IESG and the IAB. For example, some vendor protocols
have become very important to the Internet community even though they
have not been recommended by the IESG or ratified by the IAB.
However, the IAB strongly recommends that the IAB standards process
be used in the evolution of the protocol suite to maximize
interoperability (and to prevent incompatible protocol requirements
from arising). The IAB reserves the use of the terms "standard",
"draft standard", and "proposed standard" in any RFC or other
publication of Internet protocols to only those protocols which the
IAB 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. For a proposed or
draft standard, however, the IAB will also endeavor to indicate the
eventual status this protocol will have after adoption as a standard.
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 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
gateways, 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 is 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 1111).
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 both the IESG and the IAB. 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 "IAB Official Protocol Standards" memo is
Internet Architecture Board [Page 5]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
the reference for determining the correct RFC for the current
specification of each protocol.
The RFCs are available from the Network Information Center at SRI
International, 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
This 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-1340.
Another document, Internet Numbers, lists the assigned IP network
numbers, and the autonomous system numbers. Internet Numbers was
most recently issued as RFC-1166.
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
Internet Architecture Board [Page 6]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
specified by these sets of documents should be reported to DCA and to
the IAB. 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 of
documents be used together, along with RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.
The IAB 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 and when possible, the IAB also
Internet Architecture Board [Page 7]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
notes the status that the protocol is expected to have when it
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 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 | | 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 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 IAB 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 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol
The IAB 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
IAB. 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 IAB 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 IAB, may
be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community
as informational protocols. Such protocols may in some cases also
be recommended for use in the Internet by the IAB.
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.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 9]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
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".
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 IAB 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 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 specifying
Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IAB, only.
(3) Vote by the IAB. If approved then do Publish (1), else do
Refer (4).
(4) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG. Expect to see
the document again only after approval by the IESG and the
IAB.
(5) Notify both the IESG and IRSG. If no concerns are raised in
two weeks then do Discretion (6), else RFC Editor to resolve
the concerns or do Refer (4).
(6) RFC Editor's discretion. The RFC Editor decides if a review
Internet Architecture Board [Page 11]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
is needed and if so by whom. RFC Editor decides to publish or
not.
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 (5) 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 be changed 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 by action of the IAB; and may move from one state to
another along the track only on the recommendation of the IESG and by
action of the IAB. That is, it takes both the IESG and the IAB 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 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
|
+<----------------------------------------------+
| ^
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 IAB on the recommendation 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 IAB on the recommendation 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
IAB 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 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
6. The Protocols
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 Changes
6.1.1. New RFCs:
1361 - Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP)
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1360 - This memo.
1359 - Connecting to the Internet What Connecting Institutions
Should Anticipate
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1358 - Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1357 - A Format for E-mailing Bibliographic Records
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1356 - Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 and ISDN in the Packet
Mode
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1355 - Privacy and Accuracy Issues in Network Information Center
Databases
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1354 - IP Forwarding Table MIB
A Proposed Standard protocol.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 14]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
1353 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Administration of SNMP
Parties
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1352 - SNMP Security Protocols
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1351 - SNMP Administrative Model
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1350 - The TFTP Protocol (Revision 2)
A Standard protocol.
1349 - Type of Service in the Internet Protocol Suite
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1348 - DNS NSAP RRs
An Experimental protocol.
1347 - TCP and UDP with Bigger Addresses (TUBA), A Simple Proposal
for Internet Addressing and Routing
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1346 - Resource Allocation, Control, and Accounting for the Use of
Network Resources
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1345 - Character Mnemonics & Character Sets
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1344 - Implications of MIME for Internet Mail Gateways
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 15]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
1343 - A User Agent Configuration Mechanism For Multimedia Mail
Format Information
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1342 - Representation of Non-ASCII Text in Internet Message
Headers
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1341 - MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions): Mechanisms
for Specifying and Describing the Format of Internet
Message Bodies
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1340 - Assigned Numbers
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1339 - Remote Mail Checking Protocol
An Experimental protocol.
1338 - Supernetting: an Address Assignment and Aggregation
Strategy
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1337 - TIME-WAIT Assassination Hazards in TCP
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1336 - Who's Who in the Internet - Biographies of IAB, IESG and
IRSG Members
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1335 - A Two-Tier Address Structure for the Internet: A Solution
to the Problem of Address Space Exhaustion
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 16]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
1334 - Not yet issued.
1333 - PPP Link Quality Monitoring
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 of
Multi-protocol Datagrams over Point-to-Point Links
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1330 - Recommendations for the Phase I Deployment of OSI Directory
Services (X.500) and OSI Message Handling Services (X.400)
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1329 - Thoughts on Address Resolution for Dual MAC FDDI Networks
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1328 - X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1327 - Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 and RFC 822
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1326 - Mutual Encapsulation Considered Dangerous
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1325 - FYI on Questions and Answers - Answers to Commonly asked
"New Internet User" Questions
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 17]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
1324 - A Discussion on Computer Network Conferencing
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1323 - TCP Extensions for High Performance
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1322 - A Unified Approach to Inter-Domain Routing
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1321 - The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1320 - The MD4 Message-Digest Algorithm
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1319 - The MD2 Message-Digest Algorithm
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1318 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Parallel-printer-like
Hardware Devices
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1317 - Definitions of Managed Objects RS-232-like Hardware Devices
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1316 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Character Stream Devices
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1315 - Management Information Base for Frame Relay DTEs
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 Internet
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1313 - Today's Programming for KRFC AM 1313 Internet Talk Radio
This is an information document and does not specify any
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 previous
edition.
1172 - The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Initial Configuration
Options
Moved to Historic (obsoleted by RFC-1331).
1113 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part I --
Message Encipherment and Authentication Procedures
Moved to Historic.
1114 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part II
-- Certificate-Based Key Management
Moved to Historic.
1115 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part III
-- Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers
Moved to Historic.
1056 - PCMAIL: A Distributed Mail System for Personal Computers
Moved to Historic.
1058 - Routing Information Protocol
Advanced to Standard protocol.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 19]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
1037 - NFILE - A File Access Protocol
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 Server
Moved to Historic.
913 - Simple File Transfer Protocol
Moved to Historic.
734 - SUPDUP
Moved to Historic.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 20]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
6.2. Standard Protocols
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 the
previous edition of this document.]
Applicability Statements:
IGMP -- The Internet Architecture Board intends to move towards
general adoption of IP multicasting, as a more efficient solution
Internet Architecture Board [Page 21]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
than broadcasting for many applications. The host interface has been
standardized in RFC-1112; however, multicast-routing gateways are in
the experimental stage and are not widely available. An Internet
host should support all of RFC-1112, except for the IGMP protocol
itself which is optional; see RFC-1122 for more details. Even
without IGMP, implementation of RFC-1112 will provide an important
advance: IP-layer access to local network multicast addressing. It
is expected that IGMP will become recommended for all hosts and
gateways at some future date.
SMI, MIB-II SNMP -- The Internet Architecture Board recommends that
all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable. At the current
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 Protocols
Protocol Name State Status RFC
======== ===================================== ======= ====== =====
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 the
previous edition of this document.]
Applicability Statements:
It is expected that a system will support one or more physical
networks and for each physical network supported the appropriate
protocols from the above list must be supported. That is, it is
elective to support any particular type of physical network, and for
the physical networks actually supported it is required that they be
supported exactly according to the protocols in the above list. See
Internet Architecture Board [Page 22]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
also the Host and Gateway Requirements RFCs for more specific
information on network-specific ("link layer") protocols.
6.4. Draft Standard Protocols
Protocol Name Status RFC
======== ===================================== ============== =====
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 the
previous edition of this document.]
Applicability Statements:
RIP -- The Routing Information Protocol (RIP) is widely implemented
and used in the Internet. However, both implementors and users
should be aware that RIP has some serious technical limitations as a
routing protocol. The IETF is currently developing several
candidates for a new standard "open" routing protocol with better
properties than RIP. The IAB urges the Internet community to track
these developments, and to implement the new protocol when it is
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 the
TCP/IP protocols. The Internet Engineering Task Force is formulating
strategies for interoperation. RFC-1006 provides one interoperation
mode, in which TCP/IP is used to emulate TP0 in order to support OSI
applications. Hosts that wish to run OSI connection-oriented
applications in this mode should use the procedure described in RFC-
1006. In the future, the IAB expects that a major portion of the
Internet will support both TCP/IP and OSI (inter-)network protocols
in parallel, and it will then be possible to run OSI applications
across the Internet using full OSI protocol "stacks".
PPP -- Point to Point Protocol is a method of sending IP over serial
lines, which are a type of physical network. It is anticipated that
PPP will be advanced to the network-specifics standard protocol state
Internet Architecture Board [Page 23]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
in the future.
6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols
Protocol Name Status RFC
======== ===================================== ============== =====
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 the
previous edition of this document.]
Applicability Statements:
IP-SMDS and IP-ARCNET -- These define methods of sending IP over
particular network types. It is anticipated that these will be
advanced to the network specific standard protocol state in the
future.
6.6. Telnet Options
For convenience, all the Telnet Options are collected here with both
their state and status.
Protocol Name Number State Status RFC STD
======== ===================================== ===== ====== ==== ====
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 Tabstops 14 Prop Ele 656
TOPT-OVTD Output Vertical Tab Disposition 15 Prop Ele 657
TOPT-OLD Output Linefeed Disposition 16 Prop Ele 658
Internet Architecture Board [Page 25]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
TOPT-EXT Extended ASCII 17 Prop Ele 698
TOPT-LOGO Logout 18 Prop Ele 727
TOPT-BYTE Byte Macro 19 Prop Ele 735
TOPT-DATA Data Entry Terminal 20 Prop Ele 1043
TOPT-SUP SUPDUP 21 Prop Ele 734
TOPT-SUPO SUPDUP Output 22 Prop Ele 749
TOPT-SNDL Send Location 23 Prop Ele 779
TOPT-TERM Terminal Type 24 Prop Ele 1091
TOPT-EOR End of Record 25 Prop Ele 885
TOPT-TACACS TACACS User Identification 26 Prop Ele 927
TOPT-OM Output Marking 27 Prop Ele 933
TOPT-TLN Terminal Location Number 28 Prop Ele 946
TOPT-3270 Telnet 3270 Regime 29 Prop Ele 1041
TOPT-X.3 X.3 PAD 30 Prop Ele 1053
TOPT-NAWS Negotiate About Window Size 31 Prop Ele 1073
TOPT-TS Terminal Speed 32 Prop Ele 1079
TOPT-RFC Remote Flow Control 33 Prop Ele 1080
TOPT-LINE Linemode 34 Draft Ele 1184
TOPT-XDL X Display Location 35 Prop Ele 1096
TOPT-EXTOP Extended-Options-List 255 Std Rec 861 32
[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the
previous edition of this document.]
6.7. Experimental Protocols
Protocol Name Status RFC
======== ===================================== ============== =====
DNS NSAP DNS NSAP RRs Elective 1348*
RMCP Remote Mail Checking Protocol Elective 1339*
MSP2 Message Send Protocol 2 Elective 1312*
DSLCP Dynamically Switched Link Control Elective 1307
-------- X.500 and Domains Elective 1279
SNMP-OSI SNMP over OSI Elective 1283
IN-ENCAP Internet Encapsulation Protocol Limited Use 1241
CLNS-MIB CLNS-MIB Limited Use 1238
CFDP Coherent File Distribution Protocol Limited Use 1235
SNMP-DPI SNMP Distributed Program Interface Limited Use 1228
SNMP-MUX SNMP MUX Protocol and MIB Limited Use 1227
IP-AX25 IP Encapsulation of AX.25 Frames Limited Use 1226
ALERTS Managing Asynchronously Generated Alerts Limited Use 1224
MPP Message Posting Protocol Limited Use 1204
ST-II Stream Protocol Limited Use 1190
SNMP-BULK Bulk Table Retrieval with the SNMP Limited Use 1187
DNS-RR New DNS RR Definitions Limited Use 1183
NTP-OSI NTP over OSI Remote Operations Limited Use 1165
EHF-MAIL Encoding Header Field for Mail Elective 1154
DMF-MAIL Digest Message Format for Mail Elective 1153
Internet Architecture Board [Page 26]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
RDP Reliable Data Protocol Limited Use 908,1151
-------- Mapping between X.400(88) and RFC-822 Elective 1148
TCP-ACO TCP Alternate Checksum Option Not Recommended 1146
-------- Mapping full 822 to Restricted 822 Elective 1137
IP-DVMRP IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing Not Recommended 1075
TCP-LDP TCP Extensions for Long Delay Paths Limited Use 1072
IMAP2 Interactive Mail Access Protocol Limited Use 1176,1064
IMAP3 Interactive Mail Access Protocol Limited Use 1203
VMTP Versatile Message Transaction Protocol Elective 1045
COOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme Not Recommended 1004
NETBLT Bulk Data Transfer Protocol Not Recommended 998
IRTP Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol Not Recommended 938
AUTH Authentication Service Not Recommended 931
LDP Loader Debugger Protocol Not Recommended 909
NVP-II Network Voice Protocol Limited Use ISI-memo
PVP Packet Video Protocol Limited Use ISI-memo
[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the
previous edition of this document.]
6.8. Informational Protocols
Protocol Name Status RFC
======= ==================================== =============== =====
------- Replication Requirements... Elective 1275*
PCMAIL Pcmail Transport Protocol Elective 1056*
MTP Multicast Transport Protocol Elective 1301
SNMP-IPX SNMP over IPX Elective 1298
BSD Login BSD Login Elective 1282
DIXIE DIXIE Protocol Specification Limited Use 1249
IP-X.121 IP to X.121 Address Mapping for DDN Limited Use 1236
OSI-HYPER OSI and LLC1 on HYPERchannel Limited Use 1223
HAP2 Host Access Protocol Limited Use 1221
SUBNETASGN On the Assignment of Subnet Numbers Limited Use 1219
SNMP-TRAPS Defining Traps for use with SNMP Limited Use 1215
DAS Directory Assistance Service Limited Use 1202
MD4 MD4 Message Digest Algorithm Limited Use 1186
LPDP Line Printer Daemon Protocol Limited Use 1179
[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the
previous edition of this document.]
Internet Architecture Board [Page 27]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
6.9. Historic Protocols
Protocol Name Status RFC
======= ===================================== ============== =====
PPP-INIT PPP Initial Configuration Options Not Recommended 1172*
MSP Message Send Protocol Not Recommended 1159*
-------- Mail Privacy: Procedures Not Recommended 1113*
-------- Mail Privacy: Key Management Not Recommended 1114*
-------- Mail Privacy: Algorithms Not Recommended 1115*
-------- Mapping X.400(84) and RFC-822 Not Recommended 987,1026*
NFILE A File Access Protocol Elective 1037*
HOSTNAME HOSTNAME Protocol Elective 953*
SFTP Simple File Transfer Protocol Elective 913*
SUPDUP SUPDUP Protocol Elective 734*
BGP Border Gateway Protocol Not Recommended 1163,1164
MIB-I MIB-I Not Recommended 1156
SGMP Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol Not Recommended 1028
HEMS High Level Entity Management Protocol Not Recommended 1021
STATSRV Statistics Server Not Recommended 996
POP2 Post Office Protocol, Version 2 Not Recommended 937
RATP Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol Not Recommended 916
HFEP Host - Front End Protocol Not Recommended 929
THINWIRE Thinwire Protocol Not Recommended 914
HMP Host Monitoring Protocol Not Recommended 869
GGP Gateway Gateway Protocol Not Recommended 823
RTELNET Remote Telnet Service Not Recommended 818
CLOCK DCNET Time Server Protocol Not Recommended 778
MPM Internet Message Protocol Not Recommended 759
NETRJS Remote Job Service Not Recommended 740
NETED Network Standard Text Editor Not Recommended 569
RJE Remote Job Entry Not Recommended 407
XNET Cross Net Debugger Not Recommended IEN-158
NAMESERVER Host Name Server Protocol Not Recommended IEN-116
MUX Multiplexing Protocol Not Recommended IEN-90
GRAPHICS Graphics Protocol Not Recommended NIC-24308
[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the
previous edition of this document.]
Internet Architecture Board [Page 28]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
7. Contacts
7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts
7.1.1. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact
Please send your comments about this list of protocols and especially
about the Draft Standard Protocols to the Internet Architecture Board
care of Bob Braden, IAB Executive Director.
Contacts:
Bob Braden
Executive Director of the IAB
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-310-822-1511
Braden@ISI.EDU
A. Lyman Chapin
Chair of the IAB
Bolt, Beranek & Newman
Mail Stop 20/5b
150 Cambridge Park Drive
Cambridge, MA 02140
1-617-873-3133
Lyman@BBN.COM
7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact
Contacts:
Phill Gross
Chair of the IETF
Advanced Network and Services
100 Clearbrook Road
Elmsford, NY 10523
1-914-789-5300
PGross@NRI.RESTON.VA.US
Internet Architecture Board [Page 29]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
Greg Vaudreuil
IESG Secretary
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
Reston, VA 22091
1-703-620-8990
gvaudre@NRI.RESTON.VA.US
Steve Coya
Executive Director of the IETF
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
Reston, VA 22091
1-703-620-8990
scoya@NRI.RESTON.VA.US
7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact
Contact:
Jon Postel
Chair of the IRTF
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-310-822-1511
Postel@ISI.EDU
Internet Architecture Board [Page 30]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Contact
Contact:
Joyce K. Reynolds
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-310-822-1511
IANA@ISI.EDU
The protocol standards are managed for the IAB by the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority.
Please refer to the document "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1340) for
further information about the status of protocol documents. There
are two documents that summarize the requirements for host and
gateways in the Internet, "Host Requirements" (RFC-1122 and RFC-1123)
and "Gateway Requirements" (RFC-1009).
How to obtain the most recent edition of this "IAB Official
Protocol Standards" memo:
The file "in-notes/iab-standards.txt" may be copied via FTP
from the VENERA.ISI.EDU computer using the FTP username
"anonymous" and FTP password "guest".
Internet Architecture Board [Page 31]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact
Contact:
Jon Postel
RFC Editor
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-310-822-1511
RFC-Editor@ISI.EDU
Documents may be submitted via electronic mail to the RFC Editor for
consideration for publication as RFC. If you are not familiar with
the format or style requirements please request the "Instructions for
RFC Authors". In general, the style of any recent RFC may be used as
a guide.
7.4. The Network Information Center and
Requests for Comments Distribution Contact
Contact:
Network Solutions
Attn: Network Information Center
14200 Park Meadow Drive
Suite 200
Chantilly, VA 22021
Help Desk Hours of Operation: 7:00 am to 7:00 pm Eastern Time
1-800-365-3642 (1-800-365-DNIC)
1-703-802-4535
Fax Number: 1-703-802-8376
NIC@NIC.DDN.MIL
The Network Information Center (NIC) provides many information
services for the Internet community. Among them is maintaining the
Requests for Comments (RFC) library.
Internet Architecture Board [Page 32]
RFC 1360 IAB Standards September 1992
7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments
Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending
an EMAIL message to "rfc-info@ISI.EDU" with the message body "help:
ways_to_get_rfcs". For example:
To: rfc-info@ISI.EDU
Subject: getting rfcs
help: ways_to_get_rfcs
8. Security Considerations
Security issues are not addressed in this memo.
9. Author's Address
Jon Postel
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Phone: 310-822-1511
Fax: 310-823-6714
Email: Postel@ISI.EDU
Internet Architecture Board [Page 33]