Network Working Group                        Internet Architecture Board
Request for Comments: 1540                             J. Postel, Editor
Obsoletes: RFCs 1500, 1410, 1360,                           October 1993
1280, 1250, 1100, 1083, 1130, 1140, 1200
STD: 1
Category: Standards Track
Page 1


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). Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Table of Contents

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

Page 2

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


A discussion of the standardization process and the RFC document series is presented first, followed by an explanation of the terms. Sections 6.2 - 6.9 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 28-February-94.

See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes. In the official lists in sections 6.2 - 6.9, an asterisk (*) next to a protocol denotes that it is new to this document or has been moved from one protocol level to another, or differs from the previous edition of this document.

1. The Standardization Process

The Internet 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

Page 3

(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-1310.

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

Page 4

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

Page 5

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.


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 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.

Page 6

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).

Page 7

Note that these MIL-STD are now somewhat out of date. The Gateway Requirements (RFC-1009) and Host Requirements (RFC-1122, RFC-1123) take precedence over both earlier RFCs and the MIL-STDs.

          Internet Protocol (IP)                      MIL-STD-1777
          Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)         MIL-STD-1778
          File Transfer Protocol (FTP)                MIL-STD-1780
          Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)        MIL-STD-1781
          Telnet Protocol and Options (TELNET)        MIL-STD-1782

These documents are available from the Naval Publications and Forms Center. Requests can be initiated by telephone, telegraph, or mail; however, it is preferred that private industry use form DD1425, if possible.

Naval Publications and Forms Center, Code 3015
5801 Tabor Ave
Philadelphia, PA 19120
Phone: 1-215-697-3321 (order tape)
1-215-697-4834 (conversation)

4. Explanation of Terms

There are two independent categorization of protocols. The first is the "maturity level" or STATE of standardization, one of "standard", "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental",
"informational" or "historic". The second is the "requirement level" or STATUS of this protocol, one of "required", "recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".

The status or requirement level is difficult to portray in a one word label. These status labels should be considered only as an indication, and a further description, or applicability statement, should be consulted.

When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard, it is labeled with a current status.

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.

Page 8


                     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.

Page 9

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.

Page 10

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.

Page 11

      |**************|               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.

Page 12

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.

Page 13

         |                                               ^
         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).

Page 14

6. The Protocols

Subsection 6.1 lists recent RFCs and other changes. Subsections 6.2

   - 6.9 list the standards in groups by protocol state.

6.1. Recent Changes

6.1.1. New RFCs:

1540 - This memo.

1539 - 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.

1538 - Advanced SNA/IP : A Simple SNA Transport Protocol

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

1537 - Common DNS Data File Configuration Error

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

1536 - Common DNS Implementation Errors and Suggested Fixes

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

1535 - A Security Problem and Proposed Correction With Widely Deployed
DNS Software

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

1534 - Interoperation Between DHCP and BOOTP

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1533 - DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor Extensions

A Proposed Standard protocol.

Page 15

1532 - Clarifications and Extensions for the Bootstrap Protocol

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1531 - Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1530 - Principles of Operation for the TPC.INT
Subdomain: General Principles and Policy

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

1529 - Principles of Operation for the TPC.INT Subdomain: Remote Printing -- Administrative Policies

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

1528 - Principles of Operation for the TPC.INT Subdomain Remote Printing -- Technical Procedures

An Experimental protocol.

1527 - What Should We Plan Given the Dilemma of the Network?

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

1526 - Assignment of System Identifiers for TUBA/CLNP Hosts

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

1525 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Source Routing Bridges

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1524 - A User Agent Configuration Mechanism For Multimedia Mail Format Information

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

Page 16

1523 - The text/enriched MIME Content-type

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

1522 - MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part Two: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text

A Draft Standard protocol.

1521 - MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part One: Mechanisms for Specifying and Describing the Format of Internet Message Bodies

A Draft Standard protocol.

1520 - Exchanging Routing Information Across Provider Boundaries in the CIDR Environment

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

1519 - Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address Assignment and Aggregation Strategy

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1518 - An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1517 - Applicability Statement for the Implementation of Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR)

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1516 - 802.3 Repeater MIB

A Draft Standard protocol.

1515 - Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.3 Medium Attachment Units (MAUs)

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1514 - Host Resources MIB

A Proposed Standard protocol.

Page 17

1513 - Token Ring Extensions to the Remote Network Monitoring MIB

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1512 - FDDI Management Information Base

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1511 - Common Authentication Technology Overview

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

1510 - The Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1509 - Generic Security Service API : C-bindings

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1508 - Generic Security Service Application Program Interface

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1507 - DASS - Distributed Authentication Security Service

An Experimental protocol.

1506 - A Tutorial on Gatewaying between X.400 and Internet Mail

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

1505 - Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages

An Experimental protocol.

1504 - Appletalk Update-Based Routing Protocol: Enhanced Appletalk Routing

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

1503 - Algorithms for Automating Administration in SNMPv2 Managers

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

Page 18

1502 - X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets

A Proposed Standard protocol.

6.1.2. Other Changes:

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

No changes to report.

Page 19

6.2. Standard Protocols

Protocol Name Status RFC STD *
======== ===================================== ======== ==== === =
-------- Internet Official Protocol Standards Req 1540 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

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the
previous edition of this document.]

Page 20

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".

Page 21

6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols

All Network-Specific Standards have Elective status.

Protocol Name State RFC STD *
======== ===================================== ===== ===== === =
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 Prop 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.

Page 22

6.4. Draft Standard Protocols

Protocol Name Status RFC
======== ===================================== ============== =====
------- 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*
ETHER-MIB Ethernet MIB Elective 1398
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
OSPF2 Open Shortest Path First Routing V2 Elective 1247
POP3 Post Office Protocol, Version 3 Elective 1460
PPP Point to Point Protocol Elective 1171
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.

Page 23

6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols

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

Page 24

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
PPP Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Elective 1331
------- 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

Page 25

BGP-MIB Border Gateway Protocol MIB (Version 3) Elective 1269
ICMP-ROUT ICMP Router Discovery Messages Elective 1256
OSPF-MIB OSPF Version 2 MIB Elective 1253
IPSO DoD Security Options for IP Elective 1108
AT-MIB Appletalk MIB Elective 1243
OSI-UDP OSI TS on UDP Elective 1240
STD-MIBs Reassignment of Exp MIBs to Std MIBs Elective 1239
OSI-NSAP Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation Elective 1237
IPX-IP Tunneling IPX Traffic through IP Nets Elective 1234
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
ISO-TS-ECHO Echo for ISO-8473 Elective 1139
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.

Page 26

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 Prop Ele 1408
TOPT-AUTH Telnet Authentication Option 37 Exp Ele 1416
TOPT-EXTOP Extended-Options-List 255 Std Rec 861 32

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the

Page 27

previous edition of this document.]

6.7. Experimental Protocols

All Experimental protocols have the Limited Use status.

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

Page 28

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
======= ==================================== =====
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.]

Page 29

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
MSP Message Send Protocol 1159
-------- Mail Privacy: Procedures 1113
-------- Mail Privacy: Key Management 1114
-------- Mail Privacy: Algorithms 1115
NFILE A File Access Protocol 1037
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.]

Page 30

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 Bob Braden, IAB Executive Director.


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



Christian Huitema
Chair of the IAB
INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis
2004 Route des Lucioles
BP 109
F-06561 Valbonne Cedex

         +33 93 65 77 15


7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact


Phill Gross
Chair of the IETF
Advanced Network and Services
100 Clearbrook Road
Elmsford, NY 10523



Page 31

John Stewart
IESG Secretary
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
Reston, VA 22091



Steve Coya
Executive Director of the IETF
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
Reston, VA 22091



7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact


Jon Postel
Chair of the IRTF
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695



Page 32

7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Contact


Joyce K. Reynolds
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695



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 VENERA.ISI.EDU computer using the FTP username "anonymous" and FTP password "guest".

Page 33

7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact


Jon Postel
RFC Editor
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695



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/ 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 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

Page 34

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 "" port 70.


7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments

Details on many sources of RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to "rfc-info@ISI.EDU" with the message body "help: ways_to_get_rfcs". For example:

To: rfc-info@ISI.EDU
Subject: getting rfcs

help: ways_to_get_rfcs

8. Security Considerations

Security issues are not addressed in this memo.

9. Author's Address

Jon Postel
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292

Phone: 310-822-1511

   Fax:   310-823-6714

Email: Postel@ISI.EDU