Request for Comments: 1610
Obsoletes: RFCs 1600, 1540, 1500, 1410
1360, 1280, 1250, 1100, 1083, 1130,
1140, 1200
STD: 1
Category: Standards Track
J. Postel, Editor
July 1994
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 6.1.1. New RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.1.2. Other Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6.2. Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 22 6.4. Draft Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6.6. Telnet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.7. Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.8. Informational Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6.9. Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6.10 Obsolete Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 7. Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7.1.1. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact . . . . . . 32 7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . 32 7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact . . . . . 33 7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . . 34 7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact . . . . . . . . . . 35 7.4. Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . . 35 7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments . . . . . . . . . . . 36 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 9. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
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-Nov-94.
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.
1. The Standardization Process
-
The Internet Architecture Board maintains this list of documents that define standards for the Internet protocol suite. See RFC-1358 for the charter of the IAB and RFC-1160 for an explanation of the role and organization of the IAB and its subsidiary groups, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). Each of these groups has a steering group called the IESG 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.
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, 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" 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-1340.
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 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-1782These 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.
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.
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".
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.
+==========================================================+ |**************| 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.
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.
| +<----------------------------------------------+ | ^ 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).
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:
-
-
1640 - The Process for Organization of Internet Standards Working
Group (POISED)
-
-
-
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
-
- - FTP Operation Over Big Address Records (FOOBAR)
-
-
An Experimental protocol.
-
- - PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP)
-
-
A Proposed Standard protocol.
-
- - DNS NSAP Resource Records
-
-
An Experimental protocol.
-
1636 - Report of IAB Workshop on Security in the Internet
-
Architecture - February 8-10, 1994
-
-
-
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
-
- - How to Use Anonymous FTP
-
-
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
-
- - Novell IPX Over Various WAN Media (IPXWAN)
-
-
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
-
1633 - Integrated Services in the Internet Architecture: an
-
Overview
-
-
-
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
-
- - A Revised Catalog of Available X.500 Implementations
-
-
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
-
- - The IP Network Address Translator (NAT)
-
-
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
-
1630 - Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW: A Unifying Syntax
-
-
for the Expression of Names and Addresses of Objects on the Network as used in the World-Wide Web
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
-
- - Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation in the Internet
-
-
A Draft Standard protocol.
-
- - UPS Management Information Base
-
-
A Proposed Standard protocol.
-
1627 - Network 10 Considered Harmful (Some Practices Shouldn't be
-
Codified)
-
-
-
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
-
- - Default IP MTU for use over ATM AAL5
-
-
A Proposed Standard protocol.
-
-
1625 - WAIS over Z39.50-1988
-
-
-
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
-
- - Computation of the Internet Checksum via Incremental Update
-
-
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
-
1623 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-like
-
Interface Types
-
-
-
A Standard protocol.
-
- - Pip Header Processing
-
-
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
-
-
1621 - Pip Near-term Architecture
-
-
-
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
-
- - Internet Architecture Extensions for Shared Media
-
-
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
-
-
1619 - PPP over SONET/SDH
-
-
-
A Proposed Standard protocol.
-
- - PPP over ISDN
-
-
A Proposed Standard protocol.
-
1617 - Naming and Structuring Guidelines for X.500 Directory
-
Pilots
-
-
-
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
-
1616 - X.400(1988) for the Academic and Research Community in
-
Europe
-
-
-
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
-
-
1615 - Migrating from X.400(84) to X.400(88)
-
-
-
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
-
- - Network Access to Multimedia Information
-
-
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
-
- - cisco Systems X.25 over TCP (XOT)
-
-
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
-
- - DNS Resolver MIB Extensions
-
-
A Proposed Standard protocol.
-
- - DNS Server MIB Extensions
-
-
A Proposed Standard protocol.
-
- - This memo.
- - Charting Networks in the X.500 Directory
-
-
An Experimental protocol.
-
- - Representing IP Information in the X.500 Directory
-
-
An Experimental protocol.
-
- - A View from the 21st Century
-
-
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
-
- - A Historical Perspective On The Usage Of IP Version 9
-
-
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
-
- - SONET to Sonnet Translation
-
-
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
-
- - Definitions of Managed Objects for Frame Relay Service
-
-
A Proposed Standard protocol.
-
- - IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures
-
-
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
-
- - The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 2
-
-
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
-
- - Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
-
-
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
-
- - Not yet issued.
-
1598 - PPP in X.25
-
-
-
A Proposed Standard protocol.
-
- - Address Allocation for Private Internets
-
-
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
-
- - Definitions of Managed Objects for Frame Relay Service
-
-
A Proposed Standard protocol.
-
- - The OSPF NSSA Option
-
-
A Proposed Standard protocol.
-
- - Guidelines for Running OSPF Over Frame Relay Networks
-
-
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
-
- - MOSPF: Analysis and Experience
-
-
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
-
- - Multicast Extensions to OSPF
-
-
A Proposed Standard protocol.
-
- - OSPF Version 2
-
-
A Draft Standard protocol.
-
- - Guide to Network Resource Tools
-
-
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.
-
None to report.
-
6.2. Standard Protocols
Protocol Name Status RFC STD *
======== ===================================== ======== ==== === =
-------- Internet Official Protocol Standards Req 1610 1
-------- Assigned Numbers Req 1340 2
-------- Host Requirements - Communications Req 1122 3
-------- Host Requirements - Applications Req 1123 3
-------- Gateway Requirements Req 1009 4
IP Internet Protocol Req 791 5
as amended by:--------
-------- IP Subnet Extension Req 950 5
-------- IP Broadcast Datagrams Req 919 5
-------- IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets Req 922 5
ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol Req 792 5
IGMP Internet Group Multicast Protocol Rec 1112 5
UDP User Datagram Protocol Rec 768 6
TCP Transmission Control Protocol Rec 793 7
TELNET Telnet Protocol Rec 854,855 8
FTP File Transfer Protocol Rec 959 9
SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol Rec 821 10
MAIL Format of Electronic Mail Messages Rec 822 11
CONTENT Content Type Header Field Rec 1049 11
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
EGP Exterior Gateway Protocol Rec 904 18
NETBIOS NetBIOS Service Protocols Ele 1001,1002 19
ECHO Echo Protocol Rec 862 20
DISCARD Discard Protocol Ele 863 21
CHARGEN Character Generator Protocol Ele 864 22
QUOTE Quote of the Day Protocol Ele 865 23
USERS Active Users Protocol Ele 866 24
DAYTIME Daytime Protocol Ele 867 25
TIME Time Server Protocol Ele 868 26
TFTP Trivial File Transfer Protocol Ele 1350 33
RIP Routing Information Protocol Ele 1058 34
TP-TCP ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP Ele 1006 35
ETHER-MIB Ethernet MIB Req 1623 50 *
[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.]
Applicability Statements:
-
IGMP -- The Internet Architecture Board intends to move towards general adoption of IP multicasting, as a more efficient solution 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 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".
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 Prop 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.
6.4. Draft Standard Protocols
Protocol Name Status RFC ======== ===================================== ============== ===== 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 PPP_HDLC PPP in HDLC Framing Elective 1549 PPP Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Elective 1548 ------- 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 POP3 Post Office Protocol, Version 3 Elective 1460 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.
6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols
Protocol Name Status RFC ======== ===================================== ============== ===== 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 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 X.500syn X.500 String Representation ... Elective 1488 X.500lite X.500 Lightweight ... Elective 1487 STR-REP String Representation ... Elective 1485 OSI-Dir OSI User Friendly Naming ... Elective 1484 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 SMTP-SIZE SMTP Service Ext for Message Size Elective 1427 SMTP-8BIT SMTP Service Ext or 8bit-MIMEtransport Elective 1426 SMTP-EXT SMTP Service Extensions Elective 1425 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 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 RIP2-MIB RIP Version 2 MIB Extension Elective 1389 RIP2 RIP Version 2-Carrying Additional Info. Elective 1388 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 PPP-DNCP PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol Elective 1376 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 ------- Def. Man. Objs Parallel-printer-like Elective 1318 ------- Def. Man Objs RS-232-like Elective 1317 ------- Def. Man. Objs. Character Stream Elective 1316 FRAME-MIB Management Information Base for Frame Elective 1315 NETFAX File Format for the Exchange of Images Elective 1314 SIP-MIB SIP Interface Type MIB Elective 1304 IARP Inverse Address Resolution Protocol Elective 1293 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 RMON-MIB Remote Network Monitoring MIB Elective 1271 BGP-MIB Border Gateway Protocol MIB (Version 3) Elective 1269 ICMP-ROUT ICMP Router Discovery Messages Elective 1256 OSPF-MIB OSPF Version 2 MIB Elective 1253 IPSO DoD Security Options for IP Elective 1108 AT-MIB Appletalk MIB Elective 1243 OSI-UDP OSI TS on UDP Elective 1240 STD-MIBs Reassignment of Exp MIBs to Std MIBs Elective 1239 IPX-IP Tunneling IPX Traffic through IP Nets Elective 1234 802.5-MIB IEEE 802.5 Token Ring MIB Elective 1231 GINT-MIB Extensions to the Generic-Interface MIB Elective 1229 PPP-EXT PPP Extensions for Bridging Elective 1220 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.]
Applicability Statements:
-
OSPF - RFC 1370 is an applicability statement for OSPF.
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
[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 ======== ===================================== ===== FOOBAR FTP Operation Over Big Address Records 1639* DNS-NSAP DNS NSAP RRs 1637* 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 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 ======= ==================================== ===== IPXWAN Novell IPX Over Various WAN Media 1634* SNPP Simple Network Paging Protocol - Version 1(b) 1568 ADSNA-IP Advanced SNA/IP: A Simple SNA Transport Protocol 1538 AUBR Appletalk Update-Based Routing Protocol... 1504 TACACS Terminal Access Control Protocol 1492 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 ======= ===================================== ===== 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 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.]
6.10. Obsolete Protocols
Some of the protcols 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.]
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 Bellcore 445 South St., MRE2D-298 Morristown, NJ 07960-6438 1-201-829-4454 [email protected]-
-
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 [email protected] 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 [email protected]-
-
John Stewart
IESG Secretary
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
Reston, VA 22091
-
1-703-620-8990 [email protected]-
-
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 [email protected] 7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact-
Contact:
Jon Postel Chair of the IRTF USC/Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695 1-310-822-1511 [email protected] -
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 [email protected]The protocol standards are managed by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.
Please refer to the document "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1340) for further information about the status of protocol documents. There are two documents that summarize the requirements for host and gateways in the Internet, "Host Requirements" (RFC-1122 and RFC-1123) and "Gateway Requirements" (RFC-1009).
-
How to obtain the most recent edition of this "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".
-
-
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 [email protected]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 [email protected] 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 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: [email protected]
-
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 "[email protected]" with the message body "help: ways_to_get_rfcs". For example:
To: [email protected] 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 90292Phone: 310-822-1511 Fax: 310-823-6714
Email:
[email protected]