summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc1280.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc1280.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc1280.txt1795
1 files changed, 1795 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1280.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1280.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..303650c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc1280.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,1795 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group Internet Activities Board
+Request for Comments: 1280 J. Postel, Editor
+Obsoletes: RFCs 1250, March 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 Activities 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
+
+
+
+Internet Activities Board [Page 1]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
+ 7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
+ 7.1.1. Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact . . . . . . . 28
+ 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 . . . 30
+ 7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact . . . . . . . . . . 31
+ 7.4. Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . . 31
+ 7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments . . . . . . . . . . . 32
+ 7.6. SRI Network Information Systems Center . . . . . . . . . 32
+ 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
+ 9. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
+
+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 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 31-July-92.
+
+ 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 Activities Board maintains this list of documents that
+ define standards for the Internet protocol suite (see 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)). The IAB provides these
+
+
+
+Internet Activities Board [Page 2]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 1992
+
+
+ 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 Activities Board [Page 3]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 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 Activities Board [Page 4]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 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 Activities Board [Page 5]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 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-1060.
+
+ 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 Activities Board [Page 6]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 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. These five documents are included in the 1985 DDN Protocol
+ Handbook (available from the SRI Network Information Systems Center,
+ see Section 7.6).
+
+ 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.
+
+
+
+
+Internet Activities Board [Page 7]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 1992
+
+
+ When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard,
+ it is labeled with a current status and when possible, the IAB also
+ 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
+
+
+
+Internet Activities Board [Page 8]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 1992
+
+
+ IP on particular types of networks.
+
+ 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 Activities Board [Page 9]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 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 Activities Board [Page 10]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 1992
+
+
+ +==========================================================+
+ |**************| S O U R C E |
+ +==========================================================+
+ | Desired | IAB | IESG | IRSG | Other |
+ | Status | | | or RG | |
+ +==========================================================+
+ | | | | | |
+ | 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 Activities Board [Page 11]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 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 Activities Board [Page 12]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 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 Activities Board [Page 13]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 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:
+
+ 1311 - Introduction to the STD Notes
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1310 - The Internet Standards Process
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1309 - Technical Overview of Directory Services
+ Using the X.500 Protocol
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1308 - Executive Introduction to Directory Services
+ Using the X.500 Protocol
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1307 - Dynamically Switched Link Control Protocol
+
+ An Experimental Protocol.
+
+ 1306 - Experiences Supporting By-Request Circuit-Switched T3
+ Networks
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1304 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the SIP Interface Type
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1303 - A Convention for Describing SNMP-based Agents
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+
+
+
+Internet Activities Board [Page 14]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 1992
+
+
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1302 - Building a Network Information Services Infrastructure
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1301 - Multicast Transport Protocol
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1300 - Remembrances of Things Past
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1298 - SNMP over IPX
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1297 - NOC Internal Integrated Trouble Ticket System Functional
+ Specification Wishlist ("NOC TT REQUIREMENTS")
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1296 - Internet Growth (1981-1991)
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1295 - User Bill of Rights for entries
+ and listings in the Public Directory
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1294 - Multiprotocol Interconnect over Frame Relay
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1293 - Inverse Address Resolution Protocol
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Activities Board [Page 15]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 1992
+
+
+ 1292 - A Catalog of Available X.500 Implementations
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1291 - Mid-Level Networks - Potential Technical Services
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1290 - There's Gold in them thar Networks! or
+ Searching for Treasure in all the Wrong Places
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1289 - DECnet Phase IV MIB Extensions
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1288 - The Finger User Information Protocol
+
+ A Draft Standard protocol.
+
+ 1287 - Towards the Future Internet Architecture
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1286 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1285 - FDDI Management Information Base
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1284 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-like
+ Interface Types
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1283 - SNMP over OSI
+
+ An Experimental protocol.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Activities Board [Page 16]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 1992
+
+
+ 1282 - BSD Rlogin
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1281 - Guidelines for the Secure Operation of the Internet
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1280 - This memo.
+
+ 1279 - X.500 and Domains
+
+ An Experimental protocol.
+
+ 1278 - A string encoding of Presentation Address
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1277 - Encoding Network Addresses to support operation over non-
+ OSI lower layers
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1276 - Replication and Distributed Operations extensions to
+ provide an Internet Directory using X.500
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1275 - Replication Requirements to provide an Internet Directory
+ using X.500
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1274 - The COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1273 - A Measurement Study of Changes in Service-Level
+ Reachability in the Global TCP/IP Internet: Goals,
+ Experimental Design, Implementation, and Policy
+ Considerations
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+
+
+Internet Activities Board [Page 17]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 1992
+
+
+ 1272 - Internet Accounting: Background
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1271 - Remote Network Monitoring Management Information Base
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1270 - SNMP Communications Services
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1269 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the Border Gateway
+ Protocol (Version 3)
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1268 - Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet
+
+ A Draft Standard protocol.
+
+ 1267 - A Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3)
+
+ A Draft Standard protocol.
+
+ 1266 - Experience with the BGP Protocol
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1265 - BGP Protocol Analysis
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1264 - Internet Engineering Task Force - Internet Routing Protocol
+ Standardization Criteria
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1263 - TCP Extensions Considered Harmful
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+
+
+
+Internet Activities Board [Page 18]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 1992
+
+
+ 1262 - Guidelines for Internet Measurement Activities
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1261 - Transition of NIC Services
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1260 - Not yet issued.
+
+ 1259 - Building The Open Road: The NREN As Test-Bed For
+ The National Public Network
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1258 - BSD Rlogin
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard. Obsoleted by RFC 1282.
+
+ 1257 - Isochronous Applications Do Not Require Jitter-Controlled
+ Networks
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1256 - ICMP Router Discovery Messages
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1255 - A Naming Scheme for c=US
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1254 - Gateway Congestion Control Survey
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1253 - OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Activities Board [Page 19]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 1992
+
+
+ 1108 - U.S. Department of Defense Security Options for the
+ Internet Protocol
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1099 - Request for Comments Summary RFC Numbers 1000-1099
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+6.1.2. Other Changes:
+
+ RFC 1156, MIB-I is no longer referenced since it is completely
+ replaced by RFC 1213, MIB-II.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Activities Board [Page 20]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 1992
+
+
+6.2. Standard Protocols
+
+Protocol Name Status RFC STD *
+======== ===================================== ======== ==== === =
+-------- IAB Official Protocol Standards Req 1280 1 *
+-------- Assigned Numbers Req 1060 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 *
+
+[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the
+previous edition of this document.]
+
+Applicability Statements:
+
+ IGMP -- The Internet Activities Board intends to move towards general
+ adoption of IP multicasting, as a more efficient solution than
+ broadcasting for many applications. The host interface has been
+ standardized in RFC-1112; however, multicast-routing gateways are in
+
+
+
+Internet Activities Board [Page 21]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 1992
+
+
+ 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 Activities 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
+ also the Host and Gateway Requirements RFCs for more specific
+ information on network-specific ("link layer") protocols.
+
+
+
+Internet Activities Board [Page 22]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 1992
+
+
+6.4. Draft Standard Protocols
+
+Protocol Name Status RFC
+======== ===================================== ============== =====
+FINGER Finger Protocol Elective 1288*
+BGP-APP Application of BGP Elective 1268*
+BGP3 Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3) Elective 1267*
+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
+-------- Mail Privacy: Procedures Elective 1113
+-------- Mail Privacy: Key Management Elective 1114
+-------- Mail Privacy: Algorithms Elective 1115
+BOOTP Bootstrap Protocol Recommended 951,1084
+RIP Routing Information Protocol Elective 1058
+TP-TCP ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP Elective 1006
+NICNAME WhoIs Protocol Elective 954
+TFTP Trivial File Transfer Protocol Elective 783
+
+[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".
+
+
+
+
+Internet Activities Board [Page 23]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 1992
+
+
+ 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-specific standard protocol state
+ in the future.
+
+6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols
+
+Protocol Name Status RFC
+======== ===================================== ============== =====
+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*
+------- Replication Requirements... Elective 1275*
+------- 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
+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
+PPP-INIT PPP Initial Configuration Options Elective 1172
+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
+PCMAIL Pcmail Transport Protocol Elective 1056
+NFILE A File Access Protocol Elective 1037
+
+
+
+Internet Activities Board [Page 24]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 1992
+
+
+------- Mapping between X.400(84) and RFC-822 Elective 987,1026
+NNTP Network News Transfer Protocol Elective 977
+HOSTNAME HOSTNAME Protocol Elective 953
+SFTP Simple File Transfer Protocol Elective 913
+RLP Resource Location Protocol Elective 887
+SUPDUP SUPDUP Protocol Elective 734
+
+[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
+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
+
+
+
+Internet Activities Board [Page 25]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 1992
+
+
+TOPT-TERM Terminal Type 24 Prop Ele 930
+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
+======== ===================================== ============== =====
+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
+MSP Message Send Protocol Limited Use 1159
+EHF-MAIL Encoding Header Field for Mail Elective 1154
+DMF-MAIL Digest Message Format for Mail Elective 1153
+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
+
+
+
+Internet Activities Board [Page 26]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 1992
+
+
+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
+======= ==================================== =============== =====
+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 Activities Board [Page 27]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 1992
+
+
+6.9. Historic Protocols
+
+Protocol Name Status RFC
+======= ===================================== ============== =====
+BGP Border Gateway Protocol Elective 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.]
+
+7. Contacts
+
+7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts
+
+ 7.1.1. Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact
+
+ Please send your comments about this list of protocols and especially
+ about the Draft Standard Protocols to the Internet Activities Board
+ care of Bob Braden, IAB Executive Director.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Activities Board [Page 28]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 1992
+
+
+ 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
+
+ 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
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Activities Board [Page 29]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 1992
+
+
+ 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
+
+
+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-1060) 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 Activities Board [Page 30]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 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:
+
+ Government Systems, Inc.
+ 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 Activities Board [Page 31]
+
+RFC 1280 IAB Standards March 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
+
+7.6 SRI Network Information Systems Center
+
+ To obtain documentation from the SRI Network Information Systems
+ Center (NISC):
+
+ EMail: nisc@nisc.sri.com
+ Phone: (415) 859-6387, (415) 859-3695
+ Fax: (415) 859-6028
+
+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 Activities Board [Page 32]
+ \ No newline at end of file