path: root/doc/rfc/rfc1200.txt

Network Working Group                          Internet Activities Board
Request for Comments: 1200                             J. Postel, Editor
Obsoletes: RFCs 1140,                                         April 1991
     1100, 1083, 1130



                    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.  Annotated Internet Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   3.3.  Gateway Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   3.4.  Host Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   3.5.  The MIL-STD Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   4.  Explanation of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   4.1.  Definitions of Protocol State  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .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]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


   6.2.  Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   6.3.  Network-Specific Standard Protocols  . . . . . . . . . .  23
   6.4.  Draft Standard Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   6.5.  Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   6.6.  Experimental Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   6.7.  Informational Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   6.8.  Historic Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   7.  Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   7.1.  IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   7.1.1.  Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact  . . . . . . .  27
   7.1.2.  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . .  28
   7.1.3.  Internet Research  Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . .  28
   7.2.  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . .  28
   7.3.  Request for Comments Editor Contact  . . . . . . . . . .  29
   7.4.  Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   7.5.  Other Sources for Requests for Comments  . . . . . . . .  30
   7.5.1.  NSF Network Service Center (NNSC)  . . . . . . . . . .  30
   7.5.2.  NSF Network Information Service (NIS)  . . . . . . . .  30
   7.5.3.  CSNET Coordination and Information Center (CIC)  . . .  31
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   9.  Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31

Introduction

   Discussion of the standardization process and the RFC document series
   is presented first, followed by an explanation of the terms.
   Sections 6.2 - 6.8 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 30-Jun-91.

   See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes.  In the official
   lists in sections 6.2 - 6.8, an asterisk (*) next to a protocol
   denotes that it is new to this document or has been moved from one
   protocol level to another.

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]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


   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 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 (proposed standard, draft standard, and standard)
   involving increasing amounts of scrutiny and experimental testing.
   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 4
   months before a proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard
   and 6 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".

   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



Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 3]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


   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,
   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,



Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 4]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


   this document contains an additional status paragraph.  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).

   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
   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



Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 5]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


   about obtaining RFCs, see Sections 7.4 and 7.5.

3.  Other Reference Documents

   There are four other reference documents of interest in checking the
   current status of protocol specifications and standardization.  These
   are the Assigned Numbers, the Annotated Internet Protocols, 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 3.5.

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.  Annotated Internet Protocols

   This document lists the protocols and describes any known problems
   and ongoing experiments.  This document was most recently issued as
   RFC-1011.

3.3.  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.

3.4.  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.








Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 6]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


3.5.  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 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.

   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).

          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 Network Information Center, see Section
   7.4).

          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 STATE of standardization, one of "standard", "draft standard",
   "proposed standard", "experimental", "informational" or "historic".
   The second is the 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]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


   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 |  X  |     |
       A           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Info    |     |  X  | XXX |  X  |  X  |
       T           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Expr    |     |     |  X  | XXX |  X  |
       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 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 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 Activities Board                                       [Page 8]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


   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]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


4.2.  Definitions of Protocol Status

      This document lists a 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]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


      +==========================================================+
      |**************|               S O U R C E                 |
      +==========================================================+
      | Desired      |    IAB   |   IESG   |   IRSG   |  Other   |
      | Status       |          |          |  or RG   |          |
      +==========================================================+
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      | Full or      |  Publish |  Vote    |  Bogus   |  Bogus   |
      | Draft        |   (1)    |   (3)    |   (2)    |   (2)    |
      | 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 protest in 1 week then
          do Discretion (6), else do Refer (4).

      (6) RFC Editor's discretion.  The RFC Editor decides if a review
          is needed and if so by whom.  RFC Editor decides to publish or



Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 11]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


          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 protest
   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 four months for proposed standard, minimum
   six 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 (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]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


         |
         +<----------------------------------------------+
         |                                               ^
         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
   four 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 six 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, 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]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


6.  The Protocols

   Subsection 6.1 lists recent RFCs and other changes.  Subsections 6.2
   - 6.8 list the standards in groups by protocol state.

6.1.  Recent Changes

6.1.1.  New RFCs:

      1218 - Naming Scheme for c=US

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1217 - Memo from the Consortium for Slow Commotion Research (CSCR)

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1216 - Gigabit Network Economics and Paradigm Shifts

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1215 - A Convention for Defining Traps for use with the SNMP

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1214 - OSI Internet Management: Management Information Base

             A Proposed Standard protocol.


      1213 - Management Information Base for Network Management
             of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II

             Advanced to Draft Standard protocol.

      1212 - Concise MIB Definitions

             This is a new Proposed Standard protocol.

      1211 - Problems with the Maintenance of Large Mailing Lists

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.




Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 14]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


      1210 - Network and Infrastructure User Requirements for
             Transatlantic Research Collaboration - Brussels,
             July 16-18, and Washington July 24-25, 1990

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1209 - The Transmission of IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service

             This is a new Proposed Standard protocol.

      1208 - A Glossary of Networking Terms

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1207 - FYI on Questions and Answers - Answers to Commonly asked
             "Experienced Internet User" Questions

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1206 - FYI on Questions and Answers - Answers to Commonly asked
             "New Internet User" Questions

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1205 - 5250 Telnet Interface

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1204 - Message Posting Protocol (MPP)

             This is a new Experimental protocol.

      1203 - Interactive Mail Access Protocol - Version 3 (IMAP3)

             This is a new Experimental protocol.

      1202 - Directory Assistance Service

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.






Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 15]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


      1201 - Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Networks

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1200 - IAB Official Protocol Standards

             This memo.

      1199 - <not issued yet>

      1198 - FYI on the X Window System

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1197 - Using ODA for Translating Multimedia Information

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1196 - The Finger User Information Protocol

             A Draft Standard protocol.  This edition corrects and
             clarifies in a minor way, RFC 1194.

      1195 - Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual
             Environments

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1194 - The Finger User Information Protocol

             A Draft Standard protocol.

      1193 - Client Requirements for Real-Time Communication Services

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1192 - Commercialization of the Internet Summary Report

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1191 - Path MTU Discovery (MTU)

             A Proposed Standard protocol.




Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 16]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


      1190 - Experimental Internet Stream Protocol, Version 2 (ST-II)

             A Limited-Use Experimental protocol.

      1189 - The Common Management Information Services and Protocols
             for the Internet

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1188 - A Proposed Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams
             over FDDI Networks

             A Draft Standard protocol.

      1187 - Bulk Table Retrieval with the SNMP

             A new Experimental protocol.

      1186 - The MD4 Message Digest Algorithm

             A specification of the MD4 Digest Algorithm.  This is an
             information document and does not specify any level of
             standard.

      1185 - TCP Extension for High-Speed Paths

             An Experimental protocol extension to TCP.

      1184 - Telnet Linemode Option

             A Draft Standard protocol.

      1183 - New DNS RR Definitions

             A new Experimental protocol.

      1182 - <not issued yet>

      1181 - RIPE Terms of Reference

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1180 - A TCP/IP Tutorial

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.




Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 17]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


      1179 - Line Printer Daemon Protocol

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1178 - Choosing a Name for Your Computer

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1177 - FYI on Questions and Answers - Answers to Commonly asked
             "New Internet User" Questions

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1176 - Interactive Mail Access Protocol - Version 2 (IMAP2)

             This is a new Experimental protocol.

      1175 - FYI on Where to Start - A Bibliography of
             Internetworking Information

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1174 - IAB Recommended Policy on Distributing Internet Identifier
             Assignment and IAB Recommended Policy Change to Internet
             "Connected" Status

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1173 - Responsibilities of Host and Network Managers: A Summary of
             the "Oral Tradition" of the Internet

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1172 - The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Initial Configuration
             Options

             A Proposed Standard protocol.








Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 18]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


      1171 - The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) for the
             Transmission of Multi-Protocol Datagrams
             Over Point-to-Point Links

             A Draft Standard protocol.

      1170 - Public Key Standards and Licenses

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1169 - Explaining the Role of GOSIP

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1168 - Intermail and Commercial Mail Relay Services

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1167 - Thoughts on the National Research and Education Network

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1166 - Internet Numbers

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1165 - Network Time Protocol (NTP) over the OSI Remote Operations
             Service

             An Experimental protocol.

      1164 - Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1163 - A Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)

             A Proposed Standard protocol.








Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 19]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


      1162 - Connectionless Network Protocol (ISO 8473)
             and End System to Intermediate System (ISO 9542)
             Management Information Base

             This memo does not specify a standard for the Internet
             community.  However, after experimentation, if sufficient
             consensus is reached in the Internet community, then a
             subsequent revision of this document...

      1161 - SNMP over OSI

             An experimental means for running the Simple Network
             Management Protocol (SNMP) over OSI transports.

      1160 - The Internet Activities Board

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1159 - Message Send Protocol

             An Experimental protocol.

6.1.2.  Other Changes:

   The following are changes to protocols listed in the previous
   edition.

      1213 - Management Information Base for Network Management
             of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II

             Advanced to Draft Standard protocol.

      1196 - The Finger User Information Protocol

             Advanced to Draft Standard protocol.

      1191 - Path MTU Discovery

             Advanced to Proposed Standard protocol.

      1189 - The Common Management Information Services and Protocols
             for the Internet

             Moved to Proposed Standard protocol.






Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 20]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


      1188 - A Proposed Standard for the Transmission of
             IP Datagrams over FDDI Networks

             Advanced to Draft Standard protocol.

      1184 - Telnet Linemode Option

             Advanced to Draft Standard protocol.

      1171 - The Point-to-Point Protocol for the Transmission of
             Multi-Protocol Datagrams Over Point-to-Point Links

             Advanced to Draft Standard protocol.

      1163 - A Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)

             Advanced to Proposed Standard protocol.


































Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 21]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


6.2.  Standard Protocols

Protocol   Name                                      Status          RFC
========   =====================================     ============== ====
--------   Assigned Numbers                          Required       1060
--------   Gateway Requirements                      Required       1009
--------   Host Requirements - Communications        Required       1122
--------   Host Requirements - Applications          Required       1123
IP         Internet Protocol                         Required        791
            as amended by:
--------     IP Subnet Extension                     Required        950
--------     IP Broadcast Datagrams                  Required        919
--------     IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets     Required        922
ICMP       Internet Control Message Protocol         Required        792
IGMP       Internet Group Multicast Protocol         Recommended    1112
UDP        User Datagram Protocol                    Recommended     768
TCP        Transmission Control Protocol             Recommended     793
SMI        Structure of Management Information       Recommended    1155
MIB        Management Information Base               Recommended    1156
SNMP       Simple Network Management Protocol        Recommended    1157
DOMAIN     Domain Name System                     Recommended  1034,1035
TELNET     Telnet Protocol                           Recommended     854
FTP        File Transfer Protocol                    Recommended     959
SMTP       Simple Mail Transfer Protocol             Recommended     821
MAIL       Format of Electronic Mail Messages        Recommended     822
CONTENT    Content Type Header Field                 Recommended    1049
EGP        Exterior Gateway Protocol                 Recommended     904
ECHO       Echo Protocol                             Recommended     862
NTP        Network Time Protocol                     Recommended    1119
NETBIOS    NetBIOS Service Protocols                 Elective  1001,1002
DISCARD    Discard Protocol                          Elective        863
CHARGEN    Character Generator Protocol              Elective        864
QUOTE      Quote of the Day Protocol                 Elective        865
USERS      Active Users Protocol                     Elective        866
DAYTIME    Daytime Protocol                          Elective        867
TIME       Time Server Protocol                      Elective        868

Notes:

   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
   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



Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 22]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


   is expected that IGMP will become recommended for all hosts and
   gateways at some future date.

   SMI, MIB, 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 (RFC-1156), the
   MIB extension MIB-II (RFC-1158, a Draft Standard), and at least the
   recommended management protocol SNMP (RFC-1157).

6.3.  Network-Specific Standard Protocols

Protocol   Name                                     Status           RFC
========   =====================================    =============== ====
ARP        Address Resolution Protocol              Elective         826
RARP       A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol    Elective         903
IP-ARPA    Internet Protocol on ARPANET             Elective    BBN 1822
IP-WB      Internet Protocol on Wideband Network    Elective         907
IP-X25     Internet Protocol on X.25 Networks       Elective         877
IP-E       Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks   Elective         894
IP-EE      Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets  Elective         895
IP-IEEE    Internet Protocol on IEEE 802            Elective        1042
IP-DC      Internet Protocol on DC Networks         Elective         891
IP-HC      Internet Protocol on Hyperchannel        Elective        1044
IP-ARC     Internet Protocol on ARCNET              Elective        1051
IP-SLIP    Transmission of IP over Serial Lines     Elective        1055
IP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS          Elective        1088
IP-FDDI    Transmission of IP over FDDI             Elective        1103
IP-IPX     Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks  Elective        1132

Notes:

   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 23]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


6.4.  Draft Standard Protocols

Protocol   Name                                     Status           RFC
========   =====================================    =============== ====
FINGER     Finger Protocol                          Elective        1196*
IP-FDDI    Internet Protocol on FDDI Networks       Elective        1188*
TOPT-LINE  Telnet Linemode Option                   Elective        1184*
MIB-II     MIB-II                                   Elective        1213*
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 951,1048,1084
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

Notes:

   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".

   MIB-II -- This memo defines a mandatory extension to the base MIB
   (RFC-1156) and is a Draft Standard for the Internet community.  The
   extensions described here are currently Elective, but when they
   become a standard, they will have the same status as RFC-1156, that
   is, Recommended.  See also the note on SMI, MIB and SNMP under
   Standards.




Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 24]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


   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
========   =====================================    =============== ====
OIM-MIB-II OSI Internet Management: MIB-II          Elective       1214*
Concise-MIB Concise MIB Definitions                 Elective       1212*
IP-SMDS    IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service       Elective       1209*
IP-ARCNET  Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Networks Elective   1201*
IS-IS      Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP   Elective       1195*
           and Dual Environments
IP-MTU     Path MTU Discovery                       Elective       1191*
CMOT       Common Management Information Services   Elective       1189*
           and Protocol over TCP/IP
PPP-INIT   PPP Initial Configuration Options        Elective       1172*
BGP        Border Gateway Protocol                  Elective  1163,1164*
IP-CMPRS   Compressing TCP/IP Headers               Elective        1144
--------   Echo for ISO-8473                        Elective        1139
OSPF       Open Shortest Path First Routing         Elective        1131
TOPT-ENV   Telnet Environment Option                Elective        1116*
SUN-NFS    Network File System Protocol             Elective        1094
POP3       Post Office Protocol, Version 3          Elective   1081,1082
SUN-RPC    Remote Procedure Call Protocol           Elective        1057
PCMAIL     Pcmail Transport Protocol                Elective        1056
NFILE      A File Access Protocol                   Elective        1037
--------   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

Notes:

   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.









Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 25]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


6.6.  Experimental Protocols

Protocol   Name                                     Status           RFC
========   =====================================    =============== ====
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
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


6.7.  Informational Protocols

Protocol   Name                                                      RFC
=======    =====================================                    ====
SNMP-TRAPS A Convention for Defining Traps for use with SNMP       1215*
DAS        Directory Assistance Service                            1202*
-------    FYI on the X Window System                              1198*
ODA        Office Document Architecture                            1197*
MD4        MD4 Message Digest Algorithm                            1186*
LPDP       Line Printer Daemon Protocol                            1179*











Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 26]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


6.8.  Historic Protocols

Protocol   Name                                     Status           RFC
=======    =====================================    =============== ====
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
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

7.  Contacts

7.1.  IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts

   7.1.1.  Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact

      Contact:

         Bob Braden
         Executive Director of the IAB
         USC/Information Sciences Institute
         4676 Admiralty Way
         Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695

         1-213-822-1511

         Braden@ISI.EDU

   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 27]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


   7.1.2.  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact

      Contact:

         Phill Gross
         Chair of the IETF
         Corporation for National Research Initiatives (NRI)
         1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
         Reston, VA 22091

         1-703-620-8990

         PGross@NRI.RESTON.VA.US

   7.1.3.  Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact

      Contact:

         David D. Clark
         Chair of the IRTF
         Massachusetts Institute of Technology
         Laboratory for Computer Science
         545 Main Street
         Cambridge, MA 02139

         1-617-253-6003

         ddc@LCS.MIT.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

         1-213-822-1511

         IANA@ISI.EDU

   The protocol standards are managed for the IAB by the Internet
   Assigned Numbers Authority.

   Please refer to the documents "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1060) and
   "Official Internet Protocols" (RFC-1011) for further information



Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 28]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


   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".


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

         1-213-822-1511

         Postel@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:

         DDN Network Information Center
         SRI International
         Room EJ291
         333 Ravenswood Avenue
         Menlo Park, CA  94025

         1-800-235-3155
         1-415-859-3695

         NIC@NIC.DDN.MIL



Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 29]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


   The Network Information Center (NIC) provides many information
   services for the Internet community.  Among them is maintaining the
   Requests for Comments (RFC) library.

   RFCs can be obtained via FTP from NIC.DDN.MIL, with the pathname
   RFC:RFCnnnn.TXT where "nnnn" refers to the number of the RFC.  A list
   of all RFCs may be obtained by copying the file RFC:RFC-INDEX.TXT.
   Log in with FTP username ANONYMOUS and password GUEST.

   The NIC also provides an automatic mail service for those sites which
   cannot use FTP.  Address the request to SERVICE@NIC.DDN.MIL and in
   the subject field of the message indicate the file name, as in
   "Subject: SEND RFC:RFCnnnn.TXT".

   Some RFCs are now available in PostScript, these may be obtained from
   the NIC in a similar fashion by substituting ".PS" for ".TXT".

      How to obtain the most recent edition of this "IAB Official
      Protocol Standards" memo:

         The file RFC:IAB-STANDARDS.TXT may be copied via FTP from the
         NIC.DDN.MIL computer following the same procedures used to
         obtain RFCs.

7.5.  Other Sources for Requests for Comments

   7.5.1.  NSF Network Service Center (NNSC)

         NSF Network Service Center (NNSC)
         BBN Laboratories, Inc.
         10 Moulton St.
         Cambridge, MA 02238

         617-873-3400

         NNSC@NNSC.NSF.NET

   7.5.2.  NSF Network Information Service (NIS)

         NSF Network Information Service
         Merit Computer Network
         University of Michigan
         1075 Beal Avenue
         Ann Arbor, MI 48109

         313-763-4897

         INFO@NIS.NSF.NET



Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 30]
^L
RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991


   7.5.3.  CSNET Coordination and Information Center (CIC)

         CSNET Coordination and Information Center
         BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation
         10 Moulton Street
         Cambridge, MA 02238

         617-873-2777

         INFO@SH.CS.NET

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: 213-822-1511
   Fax:   213-823-6714

   Email: Postel@ISI.EDU

























Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 31]
^L