Network Working Group Internet Architecture Board Request for Comments: 1410 J. Postel, Editor Obsoletes: RFCs 1360, 1280, 1250, March 1993 1100, 1083, 1130, 1140, 1200 STD: 1
This memo describes the state of standardization of protocols used in the Internet as determined by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Introduction
1. The Standardization Process
2. The Request for Comments Documents
3. Other Reference Documents
3.1. Assigned Numbers
3.2. Gateway Requirements
3.3. Host Requirements
3.4. The MIL-STD Documents
4. Explanation of Terms
4.1. Definitions of Protocol State (Maturity Level)
4.1.1. Standard Protocol
4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol
4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol
4.1.4. Experimental Protocol
4.1.5. Informational Protocol
4.1.6. Historic Protocol
4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status (Requirement Level)
4.2.1. Required Protocol
4.2.2. Recommended Protocol
4.2.3. Elective Protocol
4.2.4. Limited Use Protocol
4.2.5. Not Recommended Protocol
5. The Standards Track
5.1. The RFC Processing Decision Table
5.2. The Standards Track Diagram
6. The Protocols
6.1. Recent Changes
6.1.1. New RFCs
6.1.2. Other Changes
6.2. Standard Protocols
6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols
6.4. Draft Standard Protocols
6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols
6.6. Telnet Options
6.7. Experimental Protocols
6.8. Informational Protocols
6.9. Historic Protocols
7. Contacts
7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts
7.1.1. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact
7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact
7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact
7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact
7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact
7.4. Network Information Center Contact
7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments
8. Security Considerations
9. Author's Address
Discussion of the standardization process and the RFC document series is presented first, followed by an explanation of the terms. Sections 6.2 - 6.9 contain the lists of protocols in each stage of standardization. Finally come pointers to references and contacts for further information.
This memo is intended to be issued approximately quarterly; please be sure the copy you are reading is current. Current copies may be obtained from the Network Information Center or from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (see the contact information at the end of this memo). Do not use this edition after 31-July-93.
See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes. In the official lists in sections 6.2 - 6.9, an asterisk (*) next to a protocol denotes that it is new to this document or has been moved from one protocol level to another, or differs from the previous edition of this document.
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 IAB provides these standards with the
goal of co-ordinating the evolution of the Internet protocols; this co-ordination has become quite important as the Internet protocols are increasingly in general commercial use. The definitive description of the Internet standards process is found in RFC-1310.
The majority of Internet protocol development and standardization activity takes place in the working groups of the Internet Engineering Task Force.
Protocols which are to become standards in the Internet go through a series of states or maturity levels (proposed standard, draft standard, and standard) involving increasing amounts of scrutiny and testing. When a protocol completes this process it is assigned a STD number (see RFC-1311). At each step, the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) of the IETF must make a recommendation for advancement of the protocol and the IAB must ratify it. If a recommendation is not ratified, the protocol is remanded to the IETF for further work.
To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react to standardization proposals, the IAB imposes a minimum delay of 6 months before a proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard and 4 months before a draft standard can be promoted to standard.
It is general IAB practice that no proposed standard can be promoted to draft standard without at least two independent implementations (and the recommendation of the IESG). Promotion from draft standard to standard generally requires operational experience and demonstrated interoperability of two or more implementations (and the recommendation of the IESG).
In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper decision concerning a protocol the IAB may convene a special review committee consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB with the purpose of recommending an explicit action to the IAB.
Advancement of a protocol to proposed standard is an important step since it marks a protocol as a candidate for eventual standardization (it puts the protocol "on the standards track"). Advancement to draft standard is a major step which warns the community that, unless major objections are raised or flaws are discovered, the protocol is likely to be advanced to standard in six months.
Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are otherwise unused. Such protocols are still documented in this memorandum with the designation "historic".
Because the IAB believes it is useful to document the results of
early protocol research and development work, some of the RFCs document protocols which are still in an experimental condition. The protocols are designated "experimental" in this memorandum. They appear in this report as a convenience to the community and not as evidence of their standardization.
Other protocols, such as those developed by other standards organizations, or by particular vendors, may be of interest or may be recommended for use in the Internet. The specifications of such protocols may be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community. These protocols are labeled "informational" in this memorandum.
In addition to the working groups of the IETF, protocol development and experimentation may take place as a result of the work of the research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or the work of other individuals interested in Internet protocol development. The IAB encourages the documentation of such experimental work in the RFC series, but none of this work is considered to be on the track for standardization until the IESG has made a recommendation to advance the protocol to the proposed standard state, and the IAB has approved this step.
A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without the approval of the IESG and the IAB. For example, some vendor protocols have become very important to the Internet community even though they have not been recommended by the IESG or ratified by the IAB. However, the IAB strongly recommends that the IAB standards process be used in the evolution of the protocol suite to maximize interoperability (and to prevent incompatible protocol requirements from arising). The IAB reserves the use of the terms "standard", "draft standard", and "proposed standard" in any RFC or other publication of Internet protocols to only those protocols which the IAB has approved.
In addition to a state (like "Proposed Standard"), a protocol is also assigned a status, or requirement level, in this document. The possible requirement levels ("Required", "Recommended", "Elective", "Limited Use", and "Not Recommended") are defined in Section 4.2. When a protocol is on the standards track, that is in the proposed standard, draft standard, or standard state (see Section 5), the status shown in Section 6 is the current status. For a proposed or draft standard, however, the IAB will also endeavor to indicate the eventual status this protocol will have after adoption as a standard.
Few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems; this is because there is such a variety of possible systems, for example, gateways, terminal servers, workstations, and multi-user hosts. The
requirement level shown in this document is only a one word label, which may not be sufficient to characterize the implementation requirements for a protocol in all situations. For some protocols, this document contains an additional status paragraph (an applicability statement). In addition, more detailed status information is contained in separate requirements documents (see Section 3).
The documents called Request for Comments (or RFCs) are the working notes of the "Network Working Group", that is the Internet research and development community. A document in this series may be on essentially any topic related to computer communication, and may be anything from a meeting report to the specification of a standard.
Notice:
All standards are published as RFCs, but not all RFCs specify standards.
Anyone can submit a document for publication as an RFC. Submissions must be made via electronic mail to the RFC Editor (see the contact information at the end of this memo, and see RFC 1111).
While RFCs are not refereed publications, they do receive technical review from the task forces, individual technical experts, or the RFC Editor, as appropriate.
The RFC series comprises a wide range of documents, ranging from informational documents of general interests to specifications of standard Internet protocols. In cases where submission is intended to document a proposed standard, draft standard, or standard protocol, the RFC Editor will publish the document only with the approval of both the IESG and the IAB. For documents describing experimental work, the RFC Editor will notify the IESG before publication, allowing for the possibility of review by the relevant IETF working group or IRTF research group and provide those comments to the author. See Section 5.1 for more detail.
Once a document is assigned an RFC number and published, that RFC is never revised or re-issued with the same number. There is never a question of having the most recent version of a particular RFC. However, a protocol (such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP)) may be improved and re-documented many times in several different RFCs. It is important to verify that you have the most recent RFC on a particular protocol. This "IAB Official Protocol Standards" memo is the reference for determining the correct RFC for the current
specification of each protocol.
The RFCs are available from the Network Information Center at SRI International, and a number of other sites. For more information about obtaining RFCs, see Sections 7.4 and 7.5.
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.
This document lists the assigned values of the parameters used in the various protocols. For example, IP protocol codes, TCP port numbers, Telnet Option Codes, ARP hardware types, and Terminal Type names. Assigned Numbers was most recently issued as RFC-1340.
Another document, Internet Numbers, lists the assigned IP network numbers, and the autonomous system numbers. Internet Numbers was most recently issued as RFC-1166.
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.
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.
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 and RFC-1123.
The IAB and the DoD MIL-STD specifications for the FTP, SMTP, and Telnet protocols are essentially the same documents (RFCs 765, 821, 854). The MIL-STD versions have been edited slightly. Note that the current Internet specification for FTP is RFC-959 (as modified by RFC-1123).
Note that these MIL-STD are now somewhat out of date. The Gateway Requirements (RFC-1009) and Host Requirements (RFC-1122, RFC-1123) take precedence over both earlier RFCs and the MIL-STDs.
Internet Protocol (IP) MIL-STD-1777
Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) MIL-STD-1778
File Transfer Protocol (FTP) MIL-STD-1780
Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) MIL-STD-1781
Telnet Protocol and Options (TELNET) MIL-STD-1782
These documents are available from the Naval Publications and Forms Center. Requests can be initiated by telephone, telegraph, or mail; however, it is preferred that private industry use form DD1425, if possible.
Naval Publications and Forms Center, Code 3015
5801 Tabor Ave
Philadelphia, PA 19120
Phone: 1-215-697-3321 (order tape)
1-215-697-4834 (conversation)
There are two independent categorization of protocols. The first is
the "maturity level" or STATE of standardization, one of "standard",
"draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental",
"informational" or "historic". The second is the "requirement level"
or STATUS of this protocol, one of "required", "recommended",
"elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".
The status or requirement level is difficult to portray in a one word label. These status labels should be considered only as an indication, and a further description, or applicability statement, should be consulted.
When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard, it is labeled with a current status and when possible, the IAB also notes the status that the protocol is expected to have when it
reaches the standard state.
At any given time a protocol occupies a cell of the following matrix. Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the following proportions (indicated by the relative number of Xs). A new protocol is most likely to start in the (proposed standard, elective) cell, or the (experimental, not recommended) cell.
S T A T U S
Req Rec Ele Lim Not
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Std | X | XXX | XXX | | |
S +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Draft | X | X | XXX | | |
T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Prop | | X | XXX | | |
A +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Info | | | | | |
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.
Every protocol listed in this document is assigned to a "maturity level" or STATE of standardization: "standard", "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic".
The IAB has established this as an official standard protocol for the Internet. These protocols are assigned STD numbers (see RFC- 1311). These are separated into two groups: (1) IP protocol and above, protocols that apply to the whole Internet; and (2) network-specific protocols, generally specifications of how to do IP on particular types of networks.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This document lists a "requirement level" or STATUS for each protocol. The status is one of "required", "recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".
A system must implement the required protocols.
A system should implement the recommended protocols.
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.
These protocols are for use in limited circumstances. This may be because of their experimental state, specialized nature, limited functionality, or historic state.
These protocols are not recommended for general use. This may be because of their limited functionality, specialized nature, or experimental or historic state.
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.
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 | Publish | Vote | Bogus | Bogus |
| or | (1) | (3) | (2) | (2) |
| Draft | | | | |
| Standard | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| | Publish | Vote | Refer | Refer |
| Proposed | (1) | (3) | (4) | (4) |
| Standard | | | | |
| | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| | Publish | Notify | Notify | Notify |
| Experimental | (1) | (5) | (5) | (5) |
| Protocol | | | | |
| | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| Information | Publish |Discretion|Discretion|Discretion|
| or Opinion | (1) | (6) | (6) | (6) |
| Paper | | | | |
| | | | | |
+==========================================================+
(1) Publish.
(2) Bogus. Inform the source of the rules. RFCs specifying Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IAB, only.
(3) Vote by the IAB. If approved then do Publish (1), else do Refer (4).
(4) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG. Expect to see the document again only after approval by the IESG and the IAB.
(5) Notify both the IESG and IRSG. If no concerns are raised in two weeks then do Discretion (6), else RFC Editor to resolve the concerns or do Refer (4).
(6) RFC Editor's discretion. The RFC Editor decides if a review
is needed and if so by whom. RFC Editor decides to publish or not.
Of course, in all cases the RFC Editor can request or make minor changes for style, format, and presentation purposes.
The IESG has designated the IESG Secretary as its agent for forwarding documents with IESG approval and for registering concerns in response to notifications (5) to the RFC Editor. Documents from Area Directors or Working Group Chairs may be considered in the same way as documents from "other".
There is a part of the STATUS and STATE categorization that is called the standards track. Actually, only the changes of state are significant to the progression along the standards track, though the status assignments may be changed as well.
The states illustrated by single line boxes are temporary states, those illustrated by double line boxes are long term states. A protocol will normally be expected to remain in a temporary state for several months (minimum six months for proposed standard, minimum four months for draft standard). A protocol may be in a long term state for many years.
A protocol may enter the standards track only on the recommendation of the IESG and by action of the IAB; and may move from one state to another along the track only on the recommendation of the IESG and by action of the IAB. That is, it takes both the IESG and the IAB to either start a protocol on the track or to move it along.
Generally, as the protocol enters the standards track a decision is made as to the eventual STATUS, requirement level or applicability (elective, recommended, or required) the protocol will have, although a somewhat less stringent current status may be assigned, and it then is placed in the the proposed standard STATE with that status. So the initial placement of a protocol is into state 1. At any time the STATUS decision may be revisited.
|
+<----------------------------------------------+
| ^
V 0 | 4
+-----------+ +===========+
| enter |-->----------------+-------------->|experiment |
+-----------+ | +=====+=====+
| |
V 1 |
+-----------+ V
| proposed |-------------->+
+--->+-----+-----+ |
| | |
| V 2 |
+<---+-----+-----+ V
| draft std |-------------->+
+--->+-----+-----+ |
| | |
| V 3 |
+<---+=====+=====+ V
| standard |-------------->+
+=====+=====+ |
|
V 5
+=====+=====+
| historic |
+===========+
The transition from proposed standard (1) to draft standard (2) can only be by action of the IAB on the recommendation of the IESG and only after the protocol has been proposed standard (1) for at least six months.
The transition from draft standard (2) to standard (3) can only be by action of the IAB on the recommendation of the IESG and only after the protocol has been draft standard (2) for at least four months.
Occasionally, the decision may be that the protocol is not ready for standardization and will be assigned to the experimental state (4). This is off the standards track, and the protocol may be resubmitted to enter the standards track after further work. There are other paths into the experimental and historic states that do not involve IAB action.
Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus becomes historic, or it may happen that a protocol on the standards track is in a sense overtaken by another protocol (or other events) and becomes historic (state 5).
Subsection 6.1 lists recent RFCs and other changes. Subsections 6.2
- 6.9 list the standards in groups by protocol state.
1436 - The Internet Gopher Protocol
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1435 - IESG Advice from Experience with Path MTU Discovery
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1434 - Data Link Switching: Switch-to-Switch Protocol
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1433 - Directed ARP
An Experimental protocol.
1432 - Recent Internet Books
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1431 - DUA Metrics
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1430 - A Strategic Plan for Deploying an Internet X.500 Directory Service
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1429 - Listserv Distribute Protocol
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1428 - Transition of Internet Mail from Just-Send-8 to 8bit- SMTP/MIME
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1427 - SMTP Service Extension for Message Size Declaration
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1426 - SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1425 - SMTP Service Extensions
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1424 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part IV: Key Certification and Related Services
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1423 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part III: Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1422 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part II: Certificate-Based Key Management
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1421 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part I: Message Encryption and Authentication Procedures
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1420 - SNMP over IPX
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1419 - SNMP over AppleTalk
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1418 - SNMP over OSI
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1417 - NADF Standing Documents: A Brief Overview
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1416 - Telnet Authentication Option
An Experimental protocol.
1415 - FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1414 - Identification MIB
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1413 - Identification Protocol
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1412 - Telnet Authentication: SPX
An Experimental protocol.
1411 - Telnet Authentication: Kerberos Version 4
An Experimental protocol.
1410 - This memo.
1409 - Telnet Authentication Option
An Experimental protocol.
1408 - Telnet Environment Option
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1407 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the DS3/E3 Interface Type
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1406 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the DS1 and E1 Interface Types
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1405 - Mapping between X.400(1984/1988) and Mail-11 (DECnet mail)
An Experimental protocol.
1404 - A Model for Common Operational Statistics
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1403 - BGP OSPF Interaction
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1402 - There's Gold in them thar Networks! or Searching for Treasure in all the Wrong Places
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1401 - Correspondence between the IAB and DISA on the use of DNS throughout the Internet
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1400 - Not yet issued.
1399 - Not yet issued.
1398 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-like Interface Types
A Draft Standard protocol.
1397 - Default Route Advertisement In BGP2 And BGP3 Versions Of The Border Gateway Protocol
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1396 - The Process for Organization of Internet Standards Working Group (POISED), Steve Crocker, Chair
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1395 - BOOTP Vendor Information Extensions
This is a status report.
1394 - Relationship of Telex Answerback Codes to Internet Domains
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1393 - Traceroute Using an IP Option
An Experimental protocol.
1392 - Internet Users' Glossary
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1391 - The Tao of IETF - A Guide for New Attendees of the Internet Engineering Task Force
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1390 - Transmission of IP and ARP over FDDI Networks
A full Standard protocol.
1389 - RIP Version 2 MIB Extension
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1388 - RIP Version 2 - Carrying Additional Information
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1387 - RIP Version 2 Protocol Analysis
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1386 - The US Domain
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1385 - EIP: The Extended Internet Protocol A Framework for Maintaining Backward Compatibility
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1384 - Naming Guidelines for Directory Pilots
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1383 - An Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing
An Experimental protocol.
1382 - SNMP MIB Extension for the X.25 Packet Layer
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1381 - SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 LAPB
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1380 - IESG Deliberations on Routing and Addressing
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1379 - Extending TCP for Transactions -- Concepts
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1378 - The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1377 - The PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol (OSINLCP)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1376 - The PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol (DNCP)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1375 - Suggestion for New Classes of IP Addresses
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1374 - IP and ARP on HIPPI
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1373 - PORTABLE DUAs
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1372 - Telnet Remote Flow Control Option
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1371 - Choosing a "Common IGP" for the IP Internet (The IESG's Recommendation to the IAB)
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1370 - Applicability Statement for OSPF
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1369 - Implementation Notes and Experience for The Internet Ethernet MIB
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1368 - Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.3 Repeater Devices
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1367 - Schedule for IP Address Space Management Guidelines
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1366 - Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1365 - An IP Address Extension Proposal
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1364 - BGP OSPF Interaction
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1363 - A Proposed Flow Specification
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1362 - Novell IPX Over Various WAN Media (IPXWAN)
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1334 - PPP Authentication Protocols
A Proposed Standard protocol.
The following are changes to protocols listed in the previous edition.
1305 - Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Specification, Implementation and Analysis
Elevated to Draft Standard.
1230 - IEEE 802.4 Token Bus MIB
Moved to Historic.
1212 - Concise MIB Definitions
Elevated to full Standard.
1191 - Path MTU Discovery
Elevated to Draft Standard.
1189 - The Common Management Information Services and Protocols for the Internet (CMOT and CMIP)
Moved to Historic.
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".
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.
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.
OSPF - RFC 1370 is an applicability statement for OSPF.
Please send your comments about this list of protocols and especially about the Draft Standard Protocols to the Internet Architecture Board care of Bob Braden, IAB Executive Director.
Contacts:
Bob Braden
Executive Director of the IAB
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-310-822-1511
Braden@ISI.EDU
1-617-873-3133
Lyman@BBN.COM
Contacts:
Phill Gross
Chair of the IETF
Advanced Network and Services
100 Clearbrook Road
Elmsford, NY 10523
1-914-789-5300
PGross@ANS.NET
Greg Vaudreuil
IESG Secretary
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
Reston, VA 22091
1-703-620-8990
gvaudre@CNRI.RESTON.VA.US
Steve Coya
Executive Director of the IETF
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
Reston, VA 22091
1-703-620-8990
scoya@CNRI.RESTON.VA.US
Contact:
Jon Postel
Chair of the IRTF
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-310-822-1511
Postel@ISI.EDU
Contact:
Joyce K. Reynolds
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-310-822-1511
IANA@ISI.EDU
The protocol standards are managed for the IAB by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.
Please refer to the document "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1340) for further information about the status of protocol documents. There are two documents that summarize the requirements for host and gateways in the Internet, "Host Requirements" (RFC-1122 and RFC-1123) and "Gateway Requirements" (RFC-1009).
How to obtain the most recent edition of this "IAB Official Protocol Standards" memo:
The file "in-notes/iab-standards.txt" may be copied via FTP from the VENERA.ISI.EDU computer using the FTP username "anonymous" and FTP password "guest".
Contact:
Jon Postel
RFC Editor
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-310-822-1511
RFC-Editor@ISI.EDU
Documents may be submitted via electronic mail to the RFC Editor for consideration for publication as RFC. If you are not familiar with the format or style requirements please request the "Instructions for RFC Authors". In general, the style of any recent RFC may be used as a guide.
Contact:
Network Solutions
Attn: Network Information Center
14200 Park Meadow Drive
Suite 200
Chantilly, VA 22021
Help Desk Hours of Operation: 7:00 am to 7:00 pm Eastern Time
1-800-365-3642 (1-800-365-DNIC)
1-703-802-4535
Fax Number: 1-703-802-8376
NIC@NIC.DDN.MIL
The Network Information Center (NIC) provides many information services for the Internet community. Among them is maintaining the Requests for Comments (RFC) library.
Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to "rfc-info@ISI.EDU" with the message body "help: ways_to_get_rfcs". For example:
To: rfc-info@ISI.EDU
Subject: getting rfcs
help: ways_to_get_rfcs
Security issues are not addressed in this memo.
Jon Postel
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Phone: 310-822-1511
Fax: 310-823-6714
Email: Postel@ISI.EDU