summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc1780.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc1780.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc1780.txt2187
1 files changed, 2187 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1780.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1780.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cef5a3c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc1780.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,2187 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group Internet Architecture Board
+Request for Comments: 1780 J. Postel, Editor
+Obsoletes: RFCs 1720, 1610, 1600, 1540, March 1995
+1500, 1410, 1360, 1280, 1250, 1200,
+1140, 1130, 1100, 1083
+STD: 1
+Category: Standards Track
+
+
+ INTERNET OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS
+
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+ This memo describes the state of standardization of protocols used in
+ the Internet as determined by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB).
+ This memo is an Internet Standard. Distribution of this memo is
+ unlimited.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+ Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
+ 1. The Standardization Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
+ 2. The Request for Comments Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+ 3. Other Reference Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
+ 3.1. Assigned Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
+ 3.2. Gateway Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
+ 3.3. Host Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
+ 3.4. The MIL-STD Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
+ 4. Explanation of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
+ 4.1. Definitions of Protocol State (Maturity Level) . . . . . . 8
+ 4.1.1. Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
+ 4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
+ 4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
+ 4.1.4. Experimental Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
+ 4.1.5. Informational Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
+ 4.1.6. Historic Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
+ 4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status (Requirement Level) . . . 9
+ 4.2.1. Required Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
+ 4.2.2. Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
+ 4.2.3. Elective Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
+ 4.2.4. Limited Use Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
+ 4.2.5. Not Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
+ 5. The Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
+ 5.1. The RFC Processing Decision Table . . . . . . . . . . . 10
+ 5.2. The Standards Track Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
+ 6. The Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
+ 6.1. Recent Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 1]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+ 6.1.1. New RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
+ 6.1.2. Other Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
+ 6.2. Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
+ 6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 23
+ 6.4. Draft Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
+ 6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
+ 6.6. Telnet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
+ 6.7. Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
+ 6.8. Informational Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
+ 6.9. Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
+ 6.10 Obsolete Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
+ 7. Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
+ 7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
+ 7.1.1. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact . . . . . . 35
+ 7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . 35
+ 7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact . . . . . 36
+ 7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . . 37
+ 7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact . . . . . . . . . . 38
+ 7.4. Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . . 38
+ 7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments . . . . . . . . . . . 39
+ 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
+ 9. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
+
+Introduction
+
+ A discussion of the standardization process and the RFC document
+ series is presented first, followed by an explanation of the terms.
+ Sections 6.2 - 6.10 contain the lists of protocols in each stage of
+ standardization. Finally are pointers to references and contacts for
+ further information.
+
+ This memo is intended to be issued approximately quarterly; please be
+ sure the copy you are reading is current. Current copies may be
+ obtained from the Network Information Center (INTERNIC) or from the
+ Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (see the contact
+ information at the end of this memo). Do not use this edition after
+ 15-Jul-95.
+
+ See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes. In the official
+ lists in sections 6.2 - 6.10, an asterisk (*) next to a protocol
+ denotes that it is new to this document or has been moved from one
+ protocol level to another, or differs from the previous edition of
+ this document.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 2]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+1. The Standardization Process
+
+ The Internet Architecture Board maintains this list of documents that
+ define standards for the Internet protocol suite. See RFC-1601 for
+ the charter of the IAB and RFC-1160 for an explanation of the role
+ and organization of the IAB and its subsidiary groups, the Internet
+ Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force
+ (IRTF). Each of these groups has a steering group called the IESG
+ and IRSG, respectively. The IETF develops these standards with the
+ goal of co-ordinating the evolution of the Internet protocols; this
+ co-ordination has become quite important as the Internet protocols
+ are increasingly in general commercial use. The definitive
+ description of the Internet standards process is found in RFC-1602.
+
+ The majority of Internet protocol development and standardization
+ activity takes place in the working groups of the IETF.
+
+ Protocols which are to become standards in the Internet go through a
+ series of states or maturity levels (proposed standard, draft
+ standard, and standard) involving increasing amounts of scrutiny and
+ testing. When a protocol completes this process it is assigned a STD
+ number (see RFC-1311). At each step, the Internet Engineering
+ Steering Group (IESG) of the IETF must make a recommendation for
+ advancement of the protocol.
+
+ To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react to
+ standardization proposals, a minimum delay of 6 months before a
+ proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard and 4 months
+ before a draft standard can be promoted to standard.
+
+ It is general practice that no proposed standard can be promoted to
+ draft standard without at least two independent implementations (and
+ the recommendation of the IESG). Promotion from draft standard to
+ standard generally requires operational experience and demonstrated
+ interoperability of two or more implementations (and the
+ recommendation of the IESG).
+
+ In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper decision
+ concerning a protocol a special review committee may be appointed
+ consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB with the
+ purpose of recommending an explicit action.
+
+ Advancement of a protocol to proposed standard is an important step
+ since it marks a protocol as a candidate for eventual standardization
+ (it puts the protocol "on the standards track"). Advancement to
+ draft standard is a major step which warns the community that, unless
+ major objections are raised or flaws are discovered, the protocol is
+ likely to be advanced to standard in six months.
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 3]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+ Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are otherwise
+ unused. Such protocols are still documented in this memorandum with
+ the designation "historic".
+
+ Because it is useful to document the results of early protocol
+ research and development work, some of the RFCs document protocols
+ which are still in an experimental condition. The protocols are
+ designated "experimental" in this memorandum. They appear in this
+ report as a convenience to the community and not as evidence of their
+ standardization.
+
+ Other protocols, such as those developed by other standards
+ organizations, or by particular vendors, may be of interest or may be
+ recommended for use in the Internet. The specifications of such
+ protocols may be published as RFCs for the convenience of the
+ Internet community. These protocols are labeled "informational" in
+ this memorandum.
+
+ In addition to the working groups of the IETF, protocol development
+ and experimentation may take place as a result of the work of the
+ research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or the work of
+ other individuals interested in Internet protocol development. The
+ the documentation of such experimental work in the RFC series is
+ encouraged, but none of this work is considered to be on the track
+ for standardization until the IESG has made a recommendation to
+ advance the protocol to the proposed standard state.
+
+ A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without the
+ approval of the IESG. For example, some vendor protocols have become
+ very important to the Internet community even though they have not
+ been recommended by the IESG. However, the IAB strongly recommends
+ that the standards process be used in the evolution of the protocol
+ suite to maximize interoperability (and to prevent incompatible
+ protocol requirements from arising). The use of the terms
+ "standard", "draft standard", and "proposed standard" are reserved in
+ any RFC or other publication of Internet protocols to only those
+ protocols which the IESG has approved.
+
+ In addition to a state (like "Proposed Standard"), a protocol is also
+ assigned a status, or requirement level, in this document. The
+ possible requirement levels ("Required", "Recommended", "Elective",
+ "Limited Use", and "Not Recommended") are defined in Section 4.2.
+ When a protocol is on the standards track, that is in the proposed
+ standard, draft standard, or standard state (see Section 5), the
+ status shown in Section 6 is the current status.
+
+ Few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems; this is
+ because there is such a variety of possible systems, for example,
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 4]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+ gateways, routers, terminal servers, workstations, and multi-user
+ hosts. The requirement level shown in this document is only a one
+ word label, which may not be sufficient to characterize the
+ implementation requirements for a protocol in all situations. For
+ some protocols, this document contains an additional status paragraph
+ (an applicability statement). In addition, more detailed status
+ information may be contained in separate requirements documents (see
+ Section 3).
+
+2. The Request for Comments Documents
+
+ The documents called Request for Comments (or RFCs) are the working
+ notes of the "Network Working Group", that is the Internet research
+ and development community. A document in this series may be on
+ essentially any topic related to computer communication, and may be
+ anything from a meeting report to the specification of a standard.
+
+ Notice:
+
+ All standards are published as RFCs, but not all RFCs specify
+ standards.
+
+ Anyone can submit a document for publication as an RFC. Submissions
+ must be made via electronic mail to the RFC Editor (see the contact
+ information at the end of this memo, and see RFC 1543).
+
+ While RFCs are not refereed publications, they do receive technical
+ review from the task forces, individual technical experts, or the RFC
+ Editor, as appropriate.
+
+ The RFC series comprises a wide range of documents, ranging from
+ informational documents of general interests to specifications of
+ standard Internet protocols. In cases where submission is intended
+ to document a proposed standard, draft standard, or standard
+ protocol, the RFC Editor will publish the document only with the
+ approval of the IESG. For documents describing experimental work,
+ the RFC Editor will notify the IESG before publication, allowing for
+ the possibility of review by the relevant IETF working group or IRTF
+ research group and provide those comments to the author. See Section
+ 5.1 for more detail.
+
+ Once a document is assigned an RFC number and published, that RFC is
+ never revised or re-issued with the same number. There is never a
+ question of having the most recent version of a particular RFC.
+ However, a protocol (such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP)) may be
+ improved and re-documented many times in several different RFCs. It
+ is important to verify that you have the most recent RFC on a
+ particular protocol. This "Internet Official Protocol Standards"
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 5]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+ memo is the reference for determining the correct RFC for the current
+ specification of each protocol.
+
+ The RFCs are available from the INTERNIC, and a number of other
+ sites. For more information about obtaining RFCs, see Sections 7.4
+ and 7.5.
+
+3. Other Reference Documents
+
+ There are three other reference documents of interest in checking the
+ current status of protocol specifications and standardization. These
+ are the Assigned Numbers, the Gateway Requirements, and the Host
+ Requirements. Note that these documents are revised and updated at
+ different times; in case of differences between these documents, the
+ most recent must prevail.
+
+ Also, one should be aware of the MIL-STD publications on IP, TCP,
+ Telnet, FTP, and SMTP. These are described in Section 3.4.
+
+3.1. Assigned Numbers
+
+ The "Assigned Numbers" document lists the assigned values of the
+ parameters used in the various protocols. For example, IP protocol
+ codes, TCP port numbers, Telnet Option Codes, ARP hardware types, and
+ Terminal Type names. Assigned Numbers was most recently issued as
+ RFC-1700.
+
+3.2. Gateway Requirements
+
+ This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways and
+ supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities. Gateway
+ Requirements is RFC-1009. A working group of the IETF is actively
+ preparing a revision.
+
+3.3. Host Requirements
+
+ This pair of documents reviews and updates the specifications that
+ apply to hosts, and it supplies guidance and clarification for any
+ ambiguities. Host Requirements was issued as RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.
+
+3.4. The MIL-STD Documents
+
+ The Internet community specifications for IP (RFC-791) and TCP (RFC-
+ 793) and the DoD MIL-STD specifications are intended to describe
+ exactly the same protocols. Any difference in the protocols
+ specified by these sets of documents should be reported to DISA and
+ to the IESG. The RFCs and the MIL-STDs for IP and TCP differ in
+ style and level of detail. It is strongly advised that the two sets
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 6]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+ of documents be used together, along with RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.
+
+ The Internet and the DoD MIL-STD specifications for the FTP, SMTP,
+ and Telnet protocols are essentially the same documents (RFCs 765,
+ 821, 854). The MIL-STD versions have been edited slightly. Note
+ that the current Internet specification for FTP is RFC-959 (as
+ modified by RFC-1123).
+
+ Note that these MIL-STD are now somewhat out of date. The Gateway
+ Requirements (RFC-1009) and Host Requirements (RFC-1122, RFC-1123)
+ take precedence over both earlier RFCs and the MIL-STDs.
+
+ Internet Protocol (IP) MIL-STD-1777
+ Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) MIL-STD-1778
+ File Transfer Protocol (FTP) MIL-STD-1780
+ Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) MIL-STD-1781
+ Telnet Protocol and Options (TELNET) MIL-STD-1782
+
+ These documents are available from the Naval Publications and Forms
+ Center. Requests can be initiated by telephone, telegraph, or mail;
+ however, it is preferred that private industry use form DD1425, if
+ possible.
+
+ Naval Publications and Forms Center, Code 3015
+ 5801 Tabor Ave
+ Philadelphia, PA 19120
+ Phone: 1-215-697-3321 (order tape)
+ 1-215-697-4834 (conversation)
+
+4. Explanation of Terms
+
+ There are two independent categorization of protocols. The first is
+ the "maturity level" or STATE of standardization, one of "standard",
+ "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental",
+ "informational" or "historic". The second is the "requirement level"
+ or STATUS of this protocol, one of "required", "recommended",
+ "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".
+
+ The status or requirement level is difficult to portray in a one word
+ label. These status labels should be considered only as an
+ indication, and a further description, or applicability statement,
+ should be consulted.
+
+ When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard,
+ it is labeled with a current status.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 7]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+ At any given time a protocol occupies a cell of the following matrix.
+ Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the following
+ proportions (indicated by the relative number of Xs). A new protocol
+ is most likely to start in the (proposed standard, elective) cell, or
+ the (experimental, not recommended) cell.
+
+ S T A T U S
+ Req Rec Ele Lim Not
+ +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
+ Std | X | XXX | XXX | | |
+ S +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
+ Draft | X | X | XXX | | |
+ T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
+ Prop | | X | XXX | | |
+ A +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
+ Info | | | | | |
+ T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
+ Expr | | | | XXX | |
+ E +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
+ Hist | | | | | XXX |
+ +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
+
+ What is a "system"?
+
+ Some protocols are particular to hosts and some to gateways; a few
+ protocols are used in both. The definitions of the terms below
+ will refer to a "system" which is either a host or a gateway (or
+ both). It should be clear from the context of the particular
+ protocol which types of systems are intended.
+
+4.1. Definitions of Protocol State
+
+ Every protocol listed in this document is assigned to a "maturity
+ level" or STATE of standardization: "standard", "draft standard",
+ "proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic".
+
+ 4.1.1. Standard Protocol
+
+ The IESG has established this as an official standard protocol for
+ the Internet. These protocols are assigned STD numbers (see RFC-
+ 1311). These are separated into two groups: (1) IP protocol and
+ above, protocols that apply to the whole Internet; and (2)
+ network-specific protocols, generally specifications of how to do
+ IP on particular types of networks.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 8]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+ 4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol
+
+ The IESG is actively considering this protocol as a possible
+ Standard Protocol. Substantial and widespread testing and comment
+ are desired. Comments and test results should be submitted to the
+ IESG. There is a possibility that changes will be made in a Draft
+ Standard Protocol before it becomes a Standard Protocol.
+
+ 4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol
+
+ These are protocol proposals that may be considered by the IESG
+ for standardization in the future. Implementation and testing by
+ several groups is desirable. Revision of the protocol
+ specification is likely.
+
+ 4.1.4. Experimental Protocol
+
+ A system should not implement an experimental protocol unless it
+ is participating in the experiment and has coordinated its use of
+ the protocol with the developer of the protocol.
+
+ Typically, experimental protocols are those that are developed as
+ part of an ongoing research project not related to an operational
+ service offering. While they may be proposed as a service
+ protocol at a later stage, and thus become proposed standard,
+ draft standard, and then standard protocols, the designation of a
+ protocol as experimental may sometimes be meant to suggest that
+ the protocol, although perhaps mature, is not intended for
+ operational use.
+
+ 4.1.5. Informational Protocol
+
+ Protocols developed by other standard organizations, or vendors,
+ or that are for other reasons outside the purview of the IESG, may
+ be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community
+ as informational protocols.
+
+ 4.1.6. Historic Protocol
+
+ These are protocols that are unlikely to ever become standards in
+ the Internet either because they have been superseded by later
+ developments or due to lack of interest.
+
+4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status
+
+ This document lists a "requirement level" or STATUS for each
+ protocol. The status is one of "required", "recommended",
+ "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 9]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+ 4.2.1. Required Protocol
+
+ A system must implement the required protocols.
+
+ 4.2.2. Recommended Protocol
+
+ A system should implement the recommended protocols.
+
+ 4.2.3. Elective Protocol
+
+ A system may or may not implement an elective protocol. The
+ general notion is that if you are going to do something like this,
+ you must do exactly this. There may be several elective protocols
+ in a general area, for example, there are several electronic mail
+ protocols, and several routing protocols.
+
+ 4.2.4. Limited Use Protocol
+
+ These protocols are for use in limited circumstances. This may be
+ because of their experimental state, specialized nature, limited
+ functionality, or historic state.
+
+ 4.2.5. Not Recommended Protocol
+
+ These protocols are not recommended for general use. This may be
+ because of their limited functionality, specialized nature, or
+ experimental or historic state.
+
+5. The Standards Track
+
+ This section discusses in more detail the procedures used by the RFC
+ Editor and the IESG in making decisions about the labeling and
+ publishing of protocols as standards.
+
+5.1. The RFC Processing Decision Table
+
+ Here is the current decision table for processing submissions by the
+ RFC Editor. The processing depends on who submitted it, and the
+ status they want it to have.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 10]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+ +==========================================================+
+ |**************| S O U R C E |
+ +==========================================================+
+ | Desired | IAB | IESG | IRSG | Other |
+ | Status | | | | |
+ +==========================================================+
+ | | | | | |
+ | Standard | Bogus | Publish | Bogus | Bogus |
+ | or | (2) | (1) | (2) | (2) |
+ | Draft | | | | |
+ | Standard | | | | |
+ +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
+ | | | | | |
+ | | Refer | Publish | Refer | Refer |
+ | Proposed | (3) | (1) | (3) | (3) |
+ | Standard | | | | |
+ | | | | | |
+ +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
+ | | | | | |
+ | | Notify | Publish | Notify | Notify |
+ | Experimental | (4) | (1) | (4) | (4) |
+ | Protocol | | | | |
+ | | | | | |
+ +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
+ | | | | | |
+ | Information | Publish | Publish |Discretion|Discretion|
+ | or Opinion | (1) | (1) | (5) | (5) |
+ | Paper | | | | |
+ | | | | | |
+ +==========================================================+
+
+ (1) Publish.
+
+ (2) Bogus. Inform the source of the rules. RFCs specifying
+ Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IESG, only.
+
+ (3) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG. Expect to see
+ the document again only after approval by the IESG.
+
+ (4) Notify both the IESG and IRSG. If no concerns are raised in
+ two weeks then do Discretion (5), else RFC Editor to resolve
+ the concerns or do Refer (3).
+
+ (5) RFC Editor's discretion. The RFC Editor decides if a review
+ is needed and if so by whom. RFC Editor decides to publish or
+ not.
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 11]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+ Of course, in all cases the RFC Editor can request or make minor
+ changes for style, format, and presentation purposes.
+
+ The IESG has designated the IESG Secretary as its agent for
+ forwarding documents with IESG approval and for registering concerns
+ in response to notifications (4) to the RFC Editor. Documents from
+ Area Directors or Working Group Chairs may be considered in the same
+ way as documents from "other".
+
+5.2. The Standards Track Diagram
+
+ There is a part of the STATUS and STATE categorization that is called
+ the standards track. Actually, only the changes of state are
+ significant to the progression along the standards track, though the
+ status assignments may change as well.
+
+ The states illustrated by single line boxes are temporary states,
+ those illustrated by double line boxes are long term states. A
+ protocol will normally be expected to remain in a temporary state for
+ several months (minimum six months for proposed standard, minimum
+ four months for draft standard). A protocol may be in a long term
+ state for many years.
+
+ A protocol may enter the standards track only on the recommendation
+ of the IESG; and may move from one state to another along the track
+ only on the recommendation of the IESG. That is, it takes action by
+ the IESG to either start a protocol on the track or to move it along.
+
+ Generally, as the protocol enters the standards track a decision is
+ made as to the eventual STATUS, requirement level or applicability
+ (elective, recommended, or required) the protocol will have, although
+ a somewhat less stringent current status may be assigned, and it then
+ is placed in the the proposed standard STATE with that status. So
+ the initial placement of a protocol is into state 1. At any time the
+ STATUS decision may be revisited.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 12]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+ |
+ +<----------------------------------------------+
+ | ^
+ V 0 | 4
+ +-----------+ +===========+
+ | enter |-->----------------+-------------->|experiment |
+ +-----------+ | +=====+=====+
+ | |
+ V 1 |
+ +-----------+ V
+ | proposed |-------------->+
+ +--->+-----+-----+ |
+ | | |
+ | V 2 |
+ +<---+-----+-----+ V
+ | draft std |-------------->+
+ +--->+-----+-----+ |
+ | | |
+ | V 3 |
+ +<---+=====+=====+ V
+ | standard |-------------->+
+ +=====+=====+ |
+ |
+ V 5
+ +=====+=====+
+ | historic |
+ +===========+
+
+ The transition from proposed standard (1) to draft standard (2) can
+ only be by action of the IESG and only after the protocol has been
+ proposed standard (1) for at least six months.
+
+ The transition from draft standard (2) to standard (3) can only be by
+ action of the IESG and only after the protocol has been draft
+ standard (2) for at least four months.
+
+ Occasionally, the decision may be that the protocol is not ready for
+ standardization and will be assigned to the experimental state (4).
+ This is off the standards track, and the protocol may be resubmitted
+ to enter the standards track after further work. There are other
+ paths into the experimental and historic states that do not involve
+ IESG action.
+
+ Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus becomes
+ historic, or it may happen that a protocol on the standards track is
+ in a sense overtaken by another protocol (or other events) and
+ becomes historic (state 5).
+
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 13]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+6. The Protocols
+
+ Subsection 6.1 lists recent RFCs and other changes. Subsections 6.2
+ - 6.10 list the standards in groups by protocol state.
+
+6.1. Recent Changes
+
+6.1.1. New RFCs:
+
+ 1786 - Representation of IP Routing Policies in a Routing Registry
+ (ripe-81++)
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1785 - TFTP Option Negotiation Analysis
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1784 - TFTP Timeout Interval and Transfer Size Options
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1783 - TFTP Blocksize Option
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1782 - TFTP Option Extension
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1781 - Using the OSI Directory to Achieve User Friendly Naming
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1780 - Internet Official Protocol Standards
+
+ This memo.
+
+ 1779 - A String Representation of Distinguished Names
+
+ A Draft Standard protocol.
+
+ 1778 - The String Representation of Standard Attribute Syntaxes
+
+ A Draft Standard protocol.
+
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 14]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+ 1777 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
+
+ A Draft Standard protocol.
+
+ 1776 - Not yet issued.
+
+ 1775 - To Be "On" the Internet
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1774 - BGP-4 Protocol Analysis
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1773 - Experience with the BGP-4 protocol
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1772 - Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet
+
+ A Draft Standard protocol.
+
+ 1771 - A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)
+
+ A Draft Standard protocol.
+
+ 1770 - IPv4 Option for Sender Directed Multi-Destination Delivery
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1769 - Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP)
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1768 - Host Group Extensions for CLNP Multicasting
+
+ An Experimental protocol.
+
+ 1767 - MIME Encapsulation of EDI Objects
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 15]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+ 1766 - Tags for the Identification of Languages
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1765 - OSPF Database Overflow
+
+ An Experimental protocol.
+
+ 1764 - The PPP XNS IDP Control Protocol (XNSCP)
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1763 - The PPP Banyan Vines Control Protocol (BVCP)
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1762 - The PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol (DNCP)
+
+ A Draft Standard protocol.
+
+ 1761 - Snoop Version 2 Packet Capture File Format
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1760 - The S/KEY One-Time Password System
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1759 - Printer MIB
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1758 - NADF Standing Documents: A Brief Overview
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1757 - Remote Network Monitoring Management Information Base
+
+ A Draft Standard protocol.
+
+ 1756 - Remote Write ProtocolL - Version 1.0
+
+ An Experimental protocol.
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 16]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+ 1755 - ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1754 - IP over ATM Working Group's Recommendations for the ATM
+ Forum's Multiprotocol
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1753 - IPng Technical Requirements Of the Nimrod Routing and
+ Addressing Architecture
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1752 - The Recommendation for the IP Next Generation Protocol
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1751 - A Convention for Human-Readable 128-bit Keys
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1750 - Randomness Recommendations for Security
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1749 - IEEE 802.5 Station Source Routing MIB using SMIv2
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1748 - IEEE 802.5 MIB using SMIv2
+
+ A Draft Standard protocol.
+
+ 1747 - Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA Data Link Control
+ (SDLC) using SMIv2
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1746 - Ways to Define User Expectations
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 17]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+ 1745 - BGP4/IDRP for IP---OSPF Interaction
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1744 - Observations on the Management of the Internet Address
+ Space
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1743 - IEEE 802.5 MIB using SMIv2
+
+ A Draft Standard protocol.
+
+ 1742 - AppleTalk Management Information Base II
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1741 - MIME Content Type for BinHex Encoded Files
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1740 - MIME Encapsulation of Macintosh Files - MacMIME
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1739 - A Primer On Internet and TCP/IP Tools
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1738 - Uniform Resource Locators (URL)
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1737 - Functional Requirements for Uniform Resource Names
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1736 - Functional Recommendations for Internet Resource Locators
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 18]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+ 1735 - NBMA Address Resolution Protocol (NARP)
+
+ An Experimental protocol.
+
+ 1734 - POP3 AUTHentication command
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1733 - Distributed Electronic Mail Models In IMAP4
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1732 - IMAP4 Compatibility with IMAP2 and IMAP2bis
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1731 - IMAP4 Authentication Mechanisms
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1730 - Internet Message Access Protocol - Version 4
+
+ A Proposed Standard protocol.
+
+ 1729 - Using the Z39.50 Information Retrieval Protocol
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1728 - Resource Transponders
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1727 - A Vision of an Integrated Internet Information Service
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+ 1726 - Technical Criteria for Choosing IP The Next Generation
+ (IPng)
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 19]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+ 1719 - A Direction for IPng
+
+ This is an information document and does not specify any
+ level of standard.
+
+6.1.2. Other Changes:
+
+ The following are changes to protocols listed in the previous
+ edition.
+
+ 1657 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the Fourth Version of
+ the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4) using SMIv2904 -
+ Exterior Gateway Protocol
+
+ Elevated to Draft Standard.
+
+ 1009 - Gateway Requirements
+
+ Moved to Historic.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 20]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+6.2. Standard Protocols
+
+Protocol Name Status RFC STD *
+======== ===================================== ======== ==== === =
+-------- Internet Official Protocol Standards Req 1720 1
+-------- Assigned Numbers Req 1700 2
+-------- Host Requirements - Communications Req 1122 3
+-------- Host Requirements - Applications Req 1123 3
+IP Internet Protocol Req 791 5
+ as amended by:--------
+-------- IP Subnet Extension Req 950 5
+-------- IP Broadcast Datagrams Req 919 5
+-------- IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets Req 922 5
+ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol Req 792 5
+IGMP Internet Group Multicast Protocol Rec 1112 5
+UDP User Datagram Protocol Rec 768 6
+TCP Transmission Control Protocol Rec 793 7
+TELNET Telnet Protocol Rec 854,855 8
+FTP File Transfer Protocol Rec 959 9
+SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol Rec 821 10
+MAIL Format of Electronic Mail Messages Rec 822 11
+CONTENT Content Type Header Field Rec 1049 11
+NTPV2 Network Time Protocol (Version 2) Rec 1119 12
+DOMAIN Domain Name System Rec 1034,1035 13
+DNS-MX Mail Routing and the Domain System Rec 974 14
+SNMP Simple Network Management Protocol Rec 1157 15
+SMI Structure of Management Information Rec 1155 16
+Concise-MIB Concise MIB Definitions Rec 1212 16
+MIB-II Management Information Base-II Rec 1213 17
+NETBIOS NetBIOS Service Protocols Ele 1001,1002 19
+ECHO Echo Protocol Rec 862 20
+DISCARD Discard Protocol Ele 863 21
+CHARGEN Character Generator Protocol Ele 864 22
+QUOTE Quote of the Day Protocol Ele 865 23
+USERS Active Users Protocol Ele 866 24
+DAYTIME Daytime Protocol Ele 867 25
+TIME Time Server Protocol Ele 868 26
+TFTP Trivial File Transfer Protocol Ele 1350 33
+RIP Routing Information Protocol Ele 1058 34
+TP-TCP ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP Ele 1006 35
+ETHER-MIB Ethernet MIB Ele 1643 50
+PPP Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Ele 1661 51
+PPP-HDLC PPP in HDLC Framing Ele 1662 51
+
+[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the
+previous edition of this document.]
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 21]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+Applicability Statements:
+
+ IGMP -- The Internet Architecture 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
+ 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).
+
+ 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 devpeloping 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 Architecture Board [Page 22]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols
+
+All Network-Specific Standards have Elective status.
+
+Protocol Name State RFC STD *
+======== ===================================== ===== ===== === =
+IP-ATM Classical IP and ARP over ATM Prop 1577
+IP-FR Multiprotocol over Frame Relay Draft 1490
+ATM-ENCAP Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Prop 1483
+IP-TR-MC IP Multicast over Token-Ring LANs Prop 1469
+IP-FDDI Transmission of IP and ARP over FDDI Net Std 1390 36
+IP-HIPPI IP and ARP on HIPPI Prop 1374
+IP-X.25 X.25 and ISDN in the Packet Mode Draft 1356
+IP-SMDS IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service Draft 1209
+IP-FDDI Internet Protocol on FDDI Networks Draft 1188
+ARP Address Resolution Protocol Std 826 37
+RARP A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol Std 903 38
+IP-ARPA Internet Protocol on ARPANET Std BBN1822 39
+IP-WB Internet Protocol on Wideband Network Std 907 40
+IP-E Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks Std 894 41
+IP-EE Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets Std 895 42
+IP-IEEE Internet Protocol on IEEE 802 Std 1042 43
+IP-DC Internet Protocol on DC Networks Std 891 44
+IP-HC Internet Protocol on Hyperchannel Std 1044 45
+IP-ARC Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Nets Std 1201 46
+IP-SLIP Transmission of IP over Serial Lines Std 1055 47
+IP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS Std 1088 48
+IP-IPX Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks Std 1132 49
+
+[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from 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 Architecture Board [Page 23]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+6.4. Draft Standard Protocols
+
+Protocol Name Status RFC
+======== ===================================== ============== =====
+STR-REP String Representation ... Elective 1779*
+X.500syn X.500 String Representation ... Elective 1778*
+X.500lite X.500 Lightweight ... Elective 1777*
+BGP-4-APP Application of BGP-4 Elective 1772*
+BGP-4 Border Gateway Protocol 4 Elective 1771*
+PPP-DNCP PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol Elective 1762*
+RMON-MIB Remote Network Monitoring MIB Elective 1757*
+802.5-MIB IEEE 802.5 Token Ring MIB Elective 1748*
+BGP-4-MIB BGP-4 MIB Elective 1657*
+POP3 Post Office Protocol, Version 3 Elective 1725
+RIP2-MIB RIP Version 2 MIB Extension Elective 1724
+RIP2 RIP Version 2-Carrying Additional Info. Elective 1723
+RIP2-APP RIP Version 2 Protocol App. Statement Elective 1722
+SIP-MIB SIP Interface Type MIB Elective 1694
+------- Def Man Objs Parallel-printer-like Elective 1660
+------- Def Man Objs RS-232-like Elective 1659
+------- Def Man Objs Character Stream Elective 1658
+SMTP-SIZE SMTP Service Ext for Message Size Elective 1653
+SMTP-8BIT SMTP Service Ext or 8bit-MIMEtransport Elective 1652
+SMTP-EXT SMTP Service Extensions Elective 1651
+OSI-NSAP Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation Elective 1629
+OSPF2 Open Shortest Path First Routing V2 Elective 1583
+ISO-TS-ECHO Echo for ISO-8473 Elective 1575
+DECNET-MIB DECNET MIB Elective 1559
+------- Message Header Ext. of Non-ASCII Text Elective 1522
+MIME Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions Elective 1521
+802.3-MIB IEEE 802.3 Repeater MIB Elective 1516
+BRIDGE-MIB BRIDGE-MIB Elective 1493
+NTPV3 Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Elective 1305
+IP-MTU Path MTU Discovery Elective 1191
+FINGER Finger Protocol Elective 1288
+BGP3 Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3) Elective 1267,1268
+BOOTP Bootstrap Protocol Recommended 951,1497
+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:
+
+ 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
+ in the future.
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 24]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols
+
+Protocol Name Status RFC
+======== ===================================== ============== =====
+TFTP-Opt TFTP Options Elective 1784*
+TFTP-Blk TFTP Blocksize Option Elective 1783*
+TFTP-Ext TFTP Option Extension Elective 1782*
+OSI-Dir OSI User Friendly Naming ... Elective 1781*
+MIME-EDI MIME Encapsulation of EDI Objects Elective 1767*
+Lang-Tag Tags for Identification of Languages Elective 1766*
+XNSCP PPP XNS IDP Control Protocol Elective 1764*
+BVCP PPP Banyan Vines Control Protocol Elective 1763*
+Print-MIB Printer MIB Elective 1759*
+ATM-SIG ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM Elective 1755*
+IPNG Recommendation for IP Next Generation Elective 1752*
+802.5-SSR 802.5 SSR MIB using SMIv2 Elective 1749*
+SDLCSMIv2 SNADLC SDLC MIB using SMIv2 Elective 1747*
+BGP4/IDRP BGP4/IDRP for IP/OSPF Interaction Elective 1745*
+AT-MIB Appletalk MIB Elective 1742*
+MacMIME MIME Encapsulation of Macintosh files Elective 1740*
+URL Uniform Resource Locators Elective 1738*
+POP3-AUTH POP3 AUTHentication command Elective 1734*
+IMAP4-AUTH IMAP4 Authentication Mechanisms Elective 1731*
+IMAP4 Internet Message Access Protocol V4 Elective 1730*
+PPP-MP PPP Multilink Protocol Elective 1717
+RDBMS-MIB RDMS MIB - using SMIv2 Elective 1697
+MODEM-MIB Modem MIB - using SMIv2 Elective 1696
+ATM-MIB ATM Management Version 8.0 using SMIv2 Elective 1695
+SNANAU-MIB SNA NAUs MIB using SMIv2 Elective 1665
+PPP-TRANS PPP Reliable Transmission Elective 1663
+BGP-4-IMP BGP-4 Roadmap and Implementation Elective 1656
+-------- Postmaster Convention X.400 Operations Elective 1648
+TN3270-En TN3270 Enhancements Elective 1647
+PPP-BCP PPP Bridging Control Protocol Elective 1638
+UPS-MIB UPS Management Information Base Elective 1628
+AAL5-MTU Default IP MTU for use over ATM AAL5 Elective 1626
+PPP-SONET PPP over SONET/SDH Elective 1619
+PPP-ISDN PPP over ISDN Elective 1618
+DNS-R-MIB DNS Resolver MIB Extensions Elective 1612
+DNS-S-MIB DNS Server MIB Extensions Elective 1611
+FR-MIB Frame Relay Service MIB Elective 1604
+PPP-X25 PPP in X.25 Elective 1598
+OSPF-NSSA The OSPF NSSA Option Elective 1587
+OSPF-Multi Multicast Extensions to OSPF Elective 1584
+SONET-MIB MIB SONET/SDH Interface Type Elective 1595
+RIP-DC Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Cir. Elective 1582
+-------- Evolution of the Interfaces Group of MIB-II Elective 1573
+PPP-LCP PPP LCP Extensions Elective 1570
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 25]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+X500-MIB X.500 Directory Monitoring MIB Elective 1567
+MAIL-MIB Mail Monitoring MIB Elective 1566
+NSM-MIB Network Services Monitoring MIB Elective 1565
+CIPX Compressing IPX Headers Over WAM Media Elective 1553
+IPXCP PPP Internetworking Packet Exchange Control Elective 1552
+CON-MD5 Content-MD5 Header Field Elective 1544
+DHCP-BOOTP Interoperation Between DHCP and BOOTP Elective 1534
+DHCP-BOOTP DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor Extensions Elective 1533
+BOOTP Clarifications and Extensions BOOTP Elective 1532
+DHCP Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Elective 1531
+SRB-MIB Source Routing Bridge MIB Elective 1525
+CIDR-STRA CIDR Address Assignment... Elective 1519
+CIDR-ARCH CIDR Architecture... Elective 1518
+CIDR-APP CIDR Applicability Statement Elective 1517
+-------- 802.3 MAU MIB Elective 1515
+HOST-MIB Host Resources MIB Elective 1514
+-------- Token Ring Extensions to RMON MIB Elective 1513
+FDDI-MIB FDDI Management Information Base Elective 1512
+KERBEROS Kerberos Network Authentication Ser (V5) Elective 1510
+GSSAPI Generic Security Service API: C-bindings Elective 1509
+GSSAPI Generic Security Service Application... Elective 1508
+DASS Distributed Authentication Security... Elective 1507
+-------- X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets Elective 1502
+HARPOON Rules for Downgrading Messages... Elective 1496
+Mapping MHS/RFC-822 Message Body Mapping Elective 1495
+Equiv X.400/MIME Body Equivalences Elective 1494
+IDPR Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Elective 1479
+IDPR-ARCH Architecture for IDPR Elective 1478
+PPP/Bridge MIB Bridge PPP MIB Elective 1474
+PPP/IP MIB IP Network Control Protocol of PPP MIB Elective 1473
+PPP/SEC MIB Security Protocols of PPP MIB Elective 1472
+PPP/LCP MIB Link Control Protocol of PPP MIB Elective 1471
+X25-MIB Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 MIB Elective 1461
+SNMPv2 Coexistence between SNMPv1 and SNMPv2 Elective 1452
+SNMPv2 Manager-to-Manager MIB Elective 1451
+SNMPv2 Management Information Base for SNMPv2 Elective 1450
+SNMPv2 Transport Mappings for SNMPv2 Elective 1449
+SNMPv2 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 Elective 1448
+SNMPv2 Party MIB for SNMPv2 Elective 1447
+SNMPv2 Security Protocols for SNMPv2 Elective 1446
+SNMPv2 Administrative Model for SNMPv2 Elective 1445
+SNMPv2 Conformance Statements for SNMPv2 Elective 1444
+SNMPv2 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 Elective 1443
+SNMPv2 SMI for SNMPv2 Elective 1442
+SNMPv2 Introduction to SNMPv2 Elective 1441
+PEM-KEY PEM - Key Certification Elective 1424
+PEM-ALG PEM - Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers Elective 1423
+PEM-CKM PEM - Certificate-Based Key Management Elective 1422
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 26]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+PEM-ENC PEM - Message Encryption and Auth Elective 1421
+SNMP-IPX SNMP over IPX Elective 1420
+SNMP-AT SNMP over AppleTalk Elective 1419
+SNMP-OSI SNMP over OSI Elective 1418
+FTP-FTAM FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification Elective 1415
+IDENT-MIB Identification MIB Elective 1414
+IDENT Identification Protocol Elective 1413
+DS3/E3-MIB DS3/E3 Interface Type Elective 1407
+DS1/E1-MIB DS1/E1 Interface Type Elective 1406
+BGP-OSPF BGP OSPF Interaction Elective 1403
+-------- Route Advertisement In BGP2 And BGP3 Elective 1397
+SNMP-X.25 SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 Packet Layer Elective 1382
+SNMP-LAPB SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 LAPB Elective 1381
+PPP-ATCP PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol Elective 1378
+PPP-OSINLCP PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol Elective 1377
+TABLE-MIB IP Forwarding Table MIB Elective 1354
+SNMP-PARTY-MIB 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
+PPP-AUTH PPP Authentication Elective 1334
+PPP-LINK PPP Link Quality Monitoring Elective 1333
+PPP-IPCP PPP Control Protocol Elective 1332
+------- X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading Elective 1328
+------- Mapping between X.400(1988) Elective 1327
+TCP-EXT TCP Extensions for High Performance Elective 1323
+FRAME-MIB Management Information Base for Frame Elective 1315
+NETFAX File Format for the Exchange of Images Elective 1314
+IARP Inverse Address Resolution Protocol Elective 1293
+FDDI-MIB FDDI-MIB Elective 1285
+------- Encoding Network Addresses Elective 1277
+------- Replication and Distributed Operations Elective 1276
+------- COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema Elective 1274
+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
+OSI-UDP OSI TS on UDP Elective 1240
+STD-MIBs Reassignment of Exp MIBs to Std MIBs Elective 1239
+IPX-IP Tunneling IPX Traffic through IP Nets Elective 1234
+GINT-MIB Extensions to the Generic-Interface MIB Elective 1229
+IS-IS OSI IS-IS for TCP/IP Dual Environments Elective 1195
+IP-CMPRS Compressing TCP/IP Headers Elective 1144
+NNTP Network News Transfer Protocol Elective 977
+
+[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 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+Applicability Statements:
+
+ OSPF - RFC 1370 is an applicability statement for OSPF.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 28]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+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 736
+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 1372
+TOPT-LINE Linemode 34 Draft Ele 1184
+TOPT-XDL X Display Location 35 Prop Ele 1096
+TOPT-ENVIR Telnet Environment Option 36 Hist Not 1408
+TOPT-AUTH Telnet Authentication Option 37 Exp Ele 1416
+TOPT-ENVIR Telnet Environment Option 39 Prop Ele 1572
+TOPT-EXTOP Extended-Options-List 255 Std Rec 861 32
+
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 29]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the
+previous edition of this document.]
+
+6.7. Experimental Protocols
+
+All Experimental protocols have the Limited Use status.
+
+Protocol Name RFC
+======== ===================================== =====
+CLNP-MULT Host Group Extensions for CLNP Multicasting 1768*
+OSPF-OVFL OSPF Database Overflow 1765*
+RWP Remote Write ProtocolL - Version 1.0 1756*
+NARP NBMA Address Resolution Protocol 1735*
+DNS-DEBUG Tools for DNS debugging 1713
+DNS-ENCODE DNS Encoding of Geographical Location 1712
+TCP-POS An Extension to TCP: Partial Order Service 1693
+------- DNS to Distribute RFC1327 Mail Address Mapping Tables 1664
+T/TCP TCP Extensions for Transactions 1644
+UTF-7 A Mail-Safe Transformation Format of Unicode 1642
+MIME-UNI Using Unicode with MIME 1641
+FOOBAR FTP Operation Over Big Address Records 1639
+X500-CHART Charting Networks in the X.500 Directory 1609
+X500-DIR Representing IP Information in the X.500 Directory 1608
+SNMP-DPI SNMP Distributed Protocol Interface 1592
+CLNP-TUBA Use of ISO CLNP in TUBA Environments 1561
+REM-PRINT TPC.INT Subdomain Remote Printing - Technical 1528
+EHF-MAIL Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages 1505
+REM-PRT An Experiment in Remote Printing 1486
+RAP Internet Route Access Protocol 1476
+TP/IX TP/IX: The Next Internet 1475
+X400 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services 1465
+DNS Storing Arbitrary Attributes in DNS 1464
+IRCP Internet Relay Chat Protocol 1459
+TOS-LS Link Security TOS 1455
+SIFT/UFT Sender-Initiated/Unsolicited File Transfer 1440
+DIR-ARP Directed ARP 1433
+TEL-SPX Telnet Authentication: SPX 1412
+TEL-KER Telnet Authentication: Kerberos V4 1411
+MAP-MAIL X.400 Mapping and Mail-11 1405
+TRACE-IP Traceroute Using an IP Option 1393
+DNS-IP Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing 1383
+RMCP Remote Mail Checking Protocol 1339
+TCP-HIPER TCP Extensions for High Performance 1323
+MSP2 Message Send Protocol 2 1312
+DSLCP Dynamically Switched Link Control 1307
+-------- X.500 and Domains 1279
+IN-ENCAP Internet Encapsulation Protocol 1241
+CLNS-MIB CLNS-MIB 1238
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 30]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+CFDP Coherent File Distribution Protocol 1235
+SNMP-DPI SNMP Distributed Program Interface 1228
+IP-AX.25 IP Encapsulation of AX.25 Frames 1226
+ALERTS Managing Asynchronously Generated Alerts 1224
+MPP Message Posting Protocol 1204
+ST-II Stream Protocol 1190
+SNMP-BULK Bulk Table Retrieval with the SNMP 1187
+DNS-RR New DNS RR Definitions 1183
+IMAP2 Interactive Mail Access Protocol 1176
+NTP-OSI NTP over OSI Remote Operations 1165
+DMF-MAIL Digest Message Format for Mail 1153
+RDP Reliable Data Protocol 908,1151
+TCP-ACO TCP Alternate Checksum Option 1146
+-------- Mapping full 822 to Restricted 822 1137
+IP-DVMRP IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing 1075
+VMTP Versatile Message Transaction Protocol 1045
+COOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme 1004
+NETBLT Bulk Data Transfer Protocol 998
+IRTP Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol 938
+LDP Loader Debugger Protocol 909
+RLP Resource Location Protocol 887
+NVP-II Network Voice Protocol ISI-memo
+PVP Packet Video Protocol 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
+
+Information protocols have no status.
+
+Protocol Name RFC
+======= ==================================== =====
+SDMD IPv4 Option for Sender Directed MD Delivery 1770*
+SNTP Simple Network Time Protocol 1769*
+SNOOP Snoop Version 2 Packet Capture File Format 1761*
+BINHEX MIME Content Type for BinHex Encoded Files 1741*
+RWHOIS Referral Whois Protocol 1714
+DNS-NSAP DNS NSAP Resource Records 1706
+RADIO-PAGE TPC.INT Subdomain: Radio Paging -- Technical Procedures 1703
+GRE-IPv4 Generic Routing Encapsulation over IPv4 1702
+GRE Generic Routing Encapsulatio 1701
+TMUX Transport Multiplexing Protocol 1692
+SNPP Simple Network Paging Protocol - Version 2 1645
+IPXWAN Novell IPX Over Various WAN Media 1634
+ADSNA-IP Advanced SNA/IP: A Simple SNA Transport Protocol 1538
+AUBR Appletalk Update-Based Routing Protocol... 1504
+TACACS Terminal Access Control Protocol 1492
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 31]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+SUN-NFS Network File System Protocol 1094
+SUN-RPC Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 1057
+GOPHER The Internet Gopher Protocol 1436
+------- Data Link Switching: Switch-to-Switch Protocol 1434
+LISTSERV Listserv Distribute Protocol 1429
+------- Replication Requirements 1275
+PCMAIL Pcmail Transport Protocol 1056
+MTP Multicast Transport Protocol 1301
+BSD Login BSD Login 1282
+DIXIE DIXIE Protocol Specification 1249
+IP-X.121 IP to X.121 Address Mapping for DDN 1236
+OSI-HYPER OSI and LLC1 on HYPERchannel 1223
+HAP2 Host Access Protocol 1221
+SUBNETASGN On the Assignment of Subnet Numbers 1219
+SNMP-TRAPS Defining Traps for use with SNMP 1215
+DAS Directory Assistance Service 1202
+MD4 MD4 Message Digest Algorithm 1186
+LPDP Line Printer Daemon Protocol 1179
+
+[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the
+previous edition of this document.]
+
+6.9. Historic Protocols
+
+All Historic protocols have Not Recommended status.
+
+Protocol Name RFC STD
+======== ===================================== ===== ===
+-------- Gateway Requirements Req 1009 4*
+EGP Exterior Gateway Protocol Rec 904 18
+SNMP-MUX SNMP MUX Protocol and MIB 1227
+OIM-MIB-II OSI Internet Management: MIB-II 1214
+IMAP3 Interactive Mail Access Protocol Version 3 1203
+SUN-RPC Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 1 1050
+802.4-MIP IEEE 802.4 Token Bus MIB 1230
+CMOT Common Management Information Services 1189
+-------- Mail Privacy: Procedures 1113
+-------- Mail Privacy: Key Management 1114
+-------- Mail Privacy: Algorithms 1115
+NFILE A File Access Protocol 1037
+HOSTNAME HOSTNAME Protocol 953
+SFTP Simple File Transfer Protocol 913
+SUPDUP SUPDUP Protocol 734
+BGP Border Gateway Protocol 1163,1164
+MIB-I MIB-I 1156
+SGMP Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol 1028
+HEMS High Level Entity Management Protocol 1021
+STATSRV Statistics Server 996
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 32]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+POP2 Post Office Protocol, Version 2 937
+RATP Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol 916
+HFEP Host - Front End Protocol 929
+THINWIRE Thinwire Protocol 914
+HMP Host Monitoring Protocol 869
+GGP Gateway Gateway Protocol 823
+RTELNET Remote Telnet Service 818
+CLOCK DCNET Time Server Protocol 778
+MPM Internet Message Protocol 759
+NETRJS Remote Job Service 740
+NETED Network Standard Text Editor 569
+RJE Remote Job Entry 407
+XNET Cross Net Debugger IEN-158
+NAMESERVER Host Name Server Protocol IEN-116
+MUX Multiplexing Protocol IEN-90
+GRAPHICS Graphics Protocol 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 33]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+6.10. Obsolete Protocols
+
+Some of the protocols listed in this memo are described in RFCs that are
+obsoleted by newer RFCs. "Obsolete" or "obsoleted" is not an official
+state or status of protocols. This subsection is for information only.
+
+While it may seem to be obviously wrong to have an obsoleted RFC in the
+list of standards, there may be cases when an older standard is in the
+process of being replaced. This process may take a year or two.
+
+For example, the Network Time Protocol (NTP) [RFC 1119] is in its
+version 2 a full Standard, and in its version 3 is a Draft Standard [RFC
+1305]. Once version 3 is a full Standard, version 2 will be made
+Historic.
+
+Many obsoleted protocols are of little interest and are dropped from
+this memo altogether. Some obsoleted protocols have received enough
+recognition that it seems appropriate to list them under their current
+status and with the following reference to their current replacement.
+
+RFC RFC Status Title *
+==== ==== ========= =================================== =
+1305 obsoletes 1119 Std /Rec Network Time Protocol (Version 2)
+1533 obsoletes 1497 Draft/Rec Bootstrap Protocol
+1331 obsoletes 1171 Draft/Ele Point to Point Protocol
+1574 obsoletes 1139 Prop /Ele Echo for ISO-8473
+1573 obsoletes 1229 Prop /Ele Extensions to the Generic-IF MIB
+1559 obsoletes 1289 Prop /Ele DECNET MIB
+1548 obsoletes 1331 Prop /Ele Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)
+1541 obsoletes 1531 Prop /Ele Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
+1592 obsoletes 1228 Exper/Lim SNMP Distributed Program Interface
+1528 obsoletes 1486 Exper/Lim An Experiment in Remote Printing
+1320 obsoletes 1186 Info / MD4 Message Digest Algorithm
+1057 obsoletes 1050 Hist /Not Remote Procedure Call Version 1
+1421 obsoletes 1113 Hist /Not Mail Privacy: Procedures
+1422 obsoletes 1114 Hist /Not Mail Privacy: Key Management
+1423 obsoletes 1115 Hist /Not Mail Privacy: Algorithms
+1267 obsoletes 1163 Hist /Not Border Gateway Protocol
+1268 obsoletes 1164 Hist /Not Border Gateway Protocol
+
+Thanks to Lynn Wheeler of Britton Lee for compiling the information in
+this subsection.
+
+[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the
+previous edition of this document.]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 34]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+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 Abel Winerib, IAB Executive Director.
+
+ Contacts:
+
+ Abel Winerib
+ Executive Director of the IAB
+ Intel, JF2-64
+ 2111 NE 25th Avenue
+ Hillsboro, OR 97124
+
+ 1-503-696-8972
+
+ AWeinrib@ibeam.jf.intel.com
+
+
+ Christian Huitema
+ Chair of the IAB
+ INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis
+ 2004 Route des Lucioles
+ BP 109
+ F-06561 Valbonne Cedex
+ France
+
+ +33 93 65 77 15
+
+ Christian.Huitema@MIRSA.INRIA.FR
+
+ 7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact
+
+ Contacts:
+
+ Paul Mockapetris
+ Chair of the IETF
+ USC/Information Sciences Institute
+ 4676 Admiralty Way
+ Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
+
+ 1-310-822-1511
+
+ pvm@ISI.EDU
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 35]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+ Steve Coya
+ IESG Secretary
+ Corporation for National Research Initiatives
+ 1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
+ Reston, VA 22091
+
+ 1-703-620-8990
+
+ scoya@CNRI.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@CNRI.RESTON.VA.US
+
+
+ 7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact
+
+ Contact:
+
+ Abel Winerib
+ Chair of the IRTF
+ Intel, JF2-64
+ 2111 NE 25th Avenue
+ Hillsboro, OR 97124
+
+ 1-503-696-8972
+
+ AWeinrib@ibeam.jf.intel.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 36]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+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 by the Internet Assigned Numbers
+ Authority.
+
+ Please refer to the document "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1700) 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 "Internet Official
+ Protocol Standards" memo:
+
+ The file "in-notes/std/std1.txt" may be copied via FTP from the
+ FTP.ISI.EDU computer using the FTP username "anonymous" and FTP
+ password "guest".
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 37]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+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
+
+ RFC's may be obtained from DS.INTERNIC.NET via FTP, WAIS, and
+ electronic mail. Through FTP, RFC's are stored as rfc/rfcnnnn.txt
+ or rfc/rfcnnnn.ps where 'nnnn' is the RFC number. Login as
+ "anonymous" and provide your e-mail address as the password.
+ Through WAIS, you may use either your local WAIS client or telnet
+ to DS.INTERNIC.NET and login as "wais" (no password required) to
+ access a WAIS client. Help information and a tutorial for using
+ WAIS are available online. The WAIS database to search is "rfcs".
+
+ Directory and Database Services also provides a mail server
+ interface. Send a mail message to mailserv@ds.internic.net and
+ include any of the following commands in the message body:
+
+ document-by-name rfcnnnn where 'nnnn' is the RFC number
+ The text version is sent.
+
+ file /ftp/rfc/rfcnnnn.yyy where 'nnnn' is the RFC number.
+ and 'yyy' is 'txt' or 'ps'.
+
+ help to get information on how to use
+ the mailserver.
+
+ The InterNIC directory and database services collection of
+ resource listings, internet documents such as RFCs, FYIs, STDs,
+ and Internet Drafts, and publicly accessible databases are also
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board [Page 38]
+
+RFC 1780 Internet Standards March 1995
+
+
+ now available via Gopher. All our collections are WAIS indexed
+ and can be searched from the Gopher menu.
+
+ To access the InterNIC Gopher Servers, please connect to
+ "internic.net" port 70.
+
+ Contact: admin@ds.internic.net
+
+7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments
+
+ Details on many sources of 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 39]
+