Network Working Group Internet Architecture Board Request for Comments: 2200 J. Postel, Editor Obsoletes: 2000, 1920, 1880, 1800, 1780, June 1997 1720, 1610, 1600, 1540, 1500, 1410, 1360, 1280, 1250, 1200, 1140, 1130, 1100, 1083 STD: 1 Category: Standards Track
This memo describes the state of standardization of protocols used in the Internet as determined by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). This memo is an Internet Standard. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
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
6.10 Obsolete 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 - 6.10 contain the lists of protocols in each stage of standardization. Finally are pointers to references and contacts for further information.
This memo is intended to be issued approximately quarterly; please be sure the copy you are reading is current. Current copies may be obtained from the Network Information Center (INTERNIC) or from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (see the contact information at the end of this memo). Do not use this edition after 15-Oct-97.
See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes. In the official lists in sections 6.2 - 6.10, an asterisk (*) next to a protocol denotes that it is new to this document or has been moved from one protocol level to another, or differs from the previous edition of this document.
The Internet Architecture Board maintains this list of documents that define standards for the Internet protocol suite. See RFC-1601 for the charter of the IAB and RFC-1160 for an explanation of the role and organization of the IAB and its subsidiary groups, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). Each of these groups has a steering group called the IESG and IRSG, respectively. The IETF develops these standards with the goal of co-ordinating the evolution of the Internet protocols; this co-ordination has become quite important as the Internet protocols are increasingly in general commercial use. The definitive description of the Internet standards process is found in RFC-1602.
The majority of Internet protocol development and standardization activity takes place in the working groups of the IETF.
Protocols which are to become standards in the Internet go through a series of states or maturity levels (proposed standard, draft standard, and standard) involving increasing amounts of scrutiny and testing. When a protocol completes this process it is assigned a STD number (see RFC-1311). At each step, the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) of the IETF must make a recommendation for advancement of the protocol.
To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react to standardization proposals, a minimum delay of 6 months before a proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard and 4 months before a draft standard can be promoted to standard.
It is general practice that no proposed standard can be promoted to
draft standard without at least two independent implementations (and
the recommendation of the IESG). Promotion from draft standard to
standard generally requires operational experience and demonstrated
interoperability of two or more implementations (and the
recommendation of the IESG).
In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper decision concerning a protocol a special review committee may be appointed consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB with the purpose of recommending an explicit action.
Advancement of a protocol to proposed standard is an important step since it marks a protocol as a candidate for eventual standardization (it puts the protocol "on the standards track"). Advancement to draft standard is a major step which warns the community that, unless major objections are raised or flaws are discovered, the protocol is likely to be advanced to standard in six months.
Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are otherwise unused. Such protocols are still documented in this memorandum with the designation "historic".
Because it is useful to document the results of early protocol research and development work, some of the RFCs document protocols which are still in an experimental condition. The protocols are designated "experimental" in this memorandum. They appear in this report as a convenience to the community and not as evidence of their standardization.
Other protocols, such as those developed by other standards organizations, or by particular vendors, may be of interest or may be recommended for use in the Internet. The specifications of such protocols may be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community. These protocols are labeled "informational" in this memorandum.
In addition to the working groups of the IETF, protocol development and experimentation may take place as a result of the work of the research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or the work of other individuals interested in Internet protocol development. The the documentation of such experimental work in the RFC series is encouraged, but none of this work is considered to be on the track for standardization until the IESG has made a recommendation to advance the protocol to the proposed standard state.
A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without the approval of the IESG. For example, some vendor protocols have become very important to the Internet community even though they have not been recommended by the IESG. However, the IAB strongly recommends that the standards process be used in the evolution of the protocol suite to maximize interoperability (and to prevent incompatible protocol requirements from arising). The use of the terms "standard", "draft standard", and "proposed standard" are reserved in any RFC or other publication of Internet protocols to only those protocols which the IESG has approved.
In addition to a state (like "Proposed Standard"), a protocol is also assigned a status, or requirement level, in this document. The possible requirement levels ("Required", "Recommended", "Elective", "Limited Use", and "Not Recommended") are defined in Section 4.2. When a protocol is on the standards track, that is in the proposed standard, draft standard, or standard state (see Section 5), the status shown in Section 6 is the current status.
Few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems; this is because there is such a variety of possible systems, for example,
gateways, routers, terminal servers, workstations, and multi-user hosts. The requirement level shown in this document is only a one word label, which may not be sufficient to characterize the implementation requirements for a protocol in all situations. For some protocols, this document contains an additional status paragraph (an applicability statement). In addition, more detailed status information may be contained in separate requirements documents (see Section 3).
The documents called Request for Comments (or RFCs) are the working notes of the "Network Working Group", that is the Internet research and development community. A document in this series may be on essentially any topic related to computer communication, and may be anything from a meeting report to the specification of a standard.
Notice:
All standards are published as RFCs, but not all RFCs specify standards.
Anyone can submit a document for publication as an RFC. Submissions must be made via electronic mail to the RFC Editor (see the contact information at the end of this memo, and see RFC 1543).
While RFCs are not refereed publications, they do receive technical review from the task forces, individual technical experts, or the RFC Editor, as appropriate.
The RFC series comprises a wide range of documents, ranging from informational documents of general interests to specifications of standard Internet protocols. In cases where submission is intended to document a proposed standard, draft standard, or standard protocol, the RFC Editor will publish the document only with the approval of the IESG. For documents describing experimental work, the RFC Editor will notify the IESG before publication, allowing for the possibility of review by the relevant IETF working group or IRTF research group and provide those comments to the author. See Section 5.1 for more detail.
Once a document is assigned an RFC number and published, that RFC is never revised or re-issued with the same number. There is never a question of having the most recent version of a particular RFC. However, a protocol (such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP)) may be improved and re-documented many times in several different RFCs. It is important to verify that you have the most recent RFC on a particular protocol. This "Internet Official Protocol Standards"
memo is the reference for determining the correct RFC for the current specification of each protocol.
The RFCs are available from the INTERNIC, and a number of other sites. For more information about obtaining RFCs, see Sections 7.4 and 7.5.
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.
The "Assigned Numbers" document lists the assigned values of the parameters used in the various protocols. For example, IP protocol codes, TCP port numbers, Telnet Option Codes, ARP hardware types, and Terminal Type names. Assigned Numbers was most recently issued as RFC-1700.
This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways and
supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities.
Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers is RFC-1812.
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 DoD MIL-STD Internet specifications are out of date and have been discontinued. The DoD's Joint Technical Architecture (JTA) lists the current set of IETF STDs and RFCs that the DoD intends to use in all new and upgraded Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence (C4I) acquisitions. A copy of the JTA can be obtained from http://www-jta.itsi.disa.mil.
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, limited use) 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 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.
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.
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.
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 IESG, 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 IESG 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 | Bogus | Publish | Bogus | Bogus |
| or | (2) | (1) | (2) | (2) |
| Draft | | | | |
| Standard | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| | Refer | Publish | Refer | Refer |
| Proposed | (3) | (1) | (3) | (3) |
| Standard | | | | |
| | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| | Notify | Publish | Notify | Notify |
| Experimental | (4) | (1) | (4) | (4) |
| Protocol | | | | |
| | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| Information | Publish | Publish |Discretion|Discretion|
| or Opinion | (1) | (1) | (5) | (5) |
| Paper | | | | |
| | | | | |
+==========================================================+
(1) Publish.
(2) Bogus. Inform the source of the rules. RFCs specifying Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IESG, only.
(3) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG. Expect to see the document again only after approval by the IESG.
(4) Notify both the IESG and IRSG. If no concerns are raised in two weeks then do Discretion (5), else RFC Editor to resolve the concerns or do Refer (3).
(5) RFC Editor's discretion. The RFC Editor decides if a review is needed and if so by whom. RFC Editor decides to publish or not.
Of course, in all cases the RFC Editor can request or make minor changes for style, format, and presentation purposes.
The IESG has designated the IESG Secretary as its agent for forwarding documents with IESG approval and for registering concerns in response to notifications (4) to the RFC Editor. Documents from Area Directors or Working Group Chairs may be considered in the same way as documents from "other".
There is a part of the STATUS and STATE categorization that is called the standards track. Actually, only the changes of state are significant to the progression along the standards track, though the status assignments may change as well.
The states illustrated by single line boxes are temporary states, those illustrated by double line boxes are long term states. A protocol will normally be expected to remain in a temporary state for several months (minimum six months for proposed standard, minimum four months for draft standard). A protocol may be in a long term state for many years.
A protocol may enter the standards track only on the recommendation of the IESG; and may move from one state to another along the track only on the recommendation of the IESG. That is, it takes action by the IESG to either start a protocol on the track or to move it along.
Generally, as the protocol enters the standards track a decision is made as to the eventual STATUS, requirement level or applicability (elective, recommended, or required) the protocol will have, although a somewhat less stringent current status may be assigned, and it then is placed in the the proposed standard STATE with that status. So the initial placement of a protocol is into state 1. At any time the STATUS decision may be revisited.
|
+<----------------------------------------------+
| ^
V 0 | 4
+-----------+ +===========+
| enter |-->----------------+-------------->|experiment |
+-----------+ | +=====+=====+
| |
V 1 |
+-----------+ V
| proposed |-------------->+
+--->+-----+-----+ |
| | |
| V 2 |
+<---+-----+-----+ V
| draft std |-------------->+
+--->+-----+-----+ |
| | |
| V 3 |
+<---+=====+=====+ V
| standard |-------------->+
+=====+=====+ |
|
V 5
+=====+=====+
| historic |
+===========+
The transition from proposed standard (1) to draft standard (2) can only be by action of the IESG and only after the protocol has been proposed standard (1) for at least six months.
The transition from draft standard (2) to standard (3) can only be by action of the IESG and only after the protocol has been draft standard (2) for at least four months.
Occasionally, the decision may be that the protocol is not ready for standardization and will be assigned to the experimental state (4). This is off the standards track, and the protocol may be resubmitted to enter the standards track after further work. There are other paths into the experimental and historic states that do not involve IESG action.
Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus becomes historic, or it may happen that a protocol on the standards track is in a sense overtaken by another protocol (or other events) and becomes historic (state 5).
Subsection 6.1 lists recent RFCs and other changes. Subsections 6.2
- 6.10 list the standards in groups by protocol state.
2153 - PPP Vendor Extensions
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
2152 - UTF-7
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
2151 - Not yet issued.
2150 - Not yet issued.
2149 - Multicast Server Architectures for MARS-based ATM multicasting
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
2148 - Not yet issued.
2147 - TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2146 - U.S. Government Internet Domain Names
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
2145 - Use and Interpretation of HTTP Version Numbers
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
2144 - The CAST-128 Encryption Algorithm
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
2143 - Encapsulating IP with the Small Computer System Interface
An Experimental protocol.
2142 - Mailbox Names for Common Services, Roles and Functions
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2141 - URN Syntax
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2140 - TCP Control Block Interdependence
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
2139 - RADIUS Accounting
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
2138 - Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2137 - Secure Domain Name System Dynamic Update
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2136 - Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2135 - Internet Society By-Laws
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
2134 - Articles of Incorporation of Internet Society
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
2133 - Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
2132 - DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor Extensions
A Draft Standard protocol.
2131 - Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
A Draft Standard protocol.
2130 - The Report of the IAB Character Set Workshop held 29 February - 1 March, 1996
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
2129 - Toshiba's Flow Attribute Notification Protocol (FANP) Specification
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
2128 - Dial Control Management Information Base using SMIv2
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2127 - ISDN Management Information Base using SMIv2
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2126 - ISO Transport Service on top of TCP (ITOT)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2125 - The PPP Bandwidth Allocation Protocol (BAP), The PPP Bandwidth Allocation Control Protocol (BACP)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2124 - Cabletron's Light-weight Flow Admission Protocol Specification
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
2123 - Traffic Flow Measurement: Experiences with NeTraMet
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
2122 - VEMMI URL Specification
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2121 - Issues affecting MARS Cluster Size
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
2120 - Managing the X.500 Root Naming Context
An Experimental protocol.
2119 - Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Level
This is a Best Current Practices document and does not specify any level of standard.
2118 - Microsoft Point-To-Point Compression (MPPC) Protocol
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
2117 - Not yet issued.
2116 - X.500 Implementations Catalog-96
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
2115 - Not yet issued.
2114 - Data Link Switching Client Access Protocol
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
2113 - IP Router Alert Option
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2112 - The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2111 - Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource Locators
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2110 - MIME E-mail Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents, such as HTML (MHTML)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2100 - The Naming of Hosts
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
2099 - Request for Comments Summary - RFC Numbers 2000-2099
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
2094 - Not yet issued.
2093 - Not yet issued.
2076 - Common Internet Message Headers
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
The following are changes to protocols listed in the previous edition.
1542 - Clarifications and Extensions for the Bootstrap Protocol
Elevated to Draft Standard.
1534 - Interoperation Between DHCP and BOOTP
Elevated to Draft Standard.
IGMP -- The Internet Architecture Board intends to move towards general adoption of IP multicasting, as a more efficient solution than broadcasting for many applications. The host interface has been standardized in RFC-1112; however, multicast-routing gateways are in the experimental stage and are not widely available. An Internet host should support all of RFC-1112, except for the IGMP protocol itself which is optional; see RFC-1122 for more details. Even without IGMP, implementation of RFC-1112 will provide an important advance: IP-layer access to local network multicast addressing. It is expected that IGMP will become recommended for all hosts and gateways at some future date.
SMI, MIB-II SNMP -- The Internet Architecture Board recommends that all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable. At the current time, this implies implementation of the Internet MIB-II (RFC-1213), and at least the recommended management protocol SNMP (RFC-1157).
RIP -- The Routing Information Protocol (RIP) is widely implemented and used in the Internet. However, both implementors and users should be aware that RIP has some serious technical limitations as a routing protocol. The IETF is currently devpeloping several candidates for a new standard "open" routing protocol with better properties than RIP. The IAB urges the Internet community to track these developments, and to implement the new protocol when it is standardized; improved Internet service will result for many users.
TP-TCP -- As OSI protocols become more widely implemented and used, there will be an increasing need to support interoperation with the TCP/IP protocols. The Internet Engineering Task Force is formulating strategies for interoperation. RFC-1006 provides one interoperation mode, in which TCP/IP is used to emulate TP0 in order to support OSI applications. Hosts that wish to run OSI connection-oriented applications in this mode should use the procedure described in RFC- 1006. In the future, the IAB expects that a major portion of the Internet will support both TCP/IP and OSI (inter-)network protocols in parallel, and it will then be possible to run OSI applications across the Internet using full OSI protocol "stacks".
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 Abel Winerib, IAB Executive Director.
Contacts:
Abel Winerib
Executive Director of the IAB
Intel, JF2-64
2111 NE 25th Avenue
Hillsboro, OR 97124
1-503-696-8972
AWeinrib@ibeam.jf.intel.com
Brian E. Carpenter
Chair of the IAB
IBM United Kingdon Laboratories
Hursley Park
Winchester
Hampshire SO21 2JN
+44 1962 816833
brian@hursley.ibm.com
Contacts:
Fred Baker
Chair of the IETF
cisco Systems, Inc.
519 Lado Drive
Santa Barbara, CA 93111
1-805-681-0115
fred@cisco.com
Steve Coya
IESG Secretary
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
Reston, VA 22091
1-703-620-8990
scoya@IETF.ORG
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@IETF.ORG
Contact:
Abel Winerib
Chair of the IRTF
Intel, JF2-64
2111 NE 25th Avenue
Hillsboro, OR 97124
1-503-696-8972
AWeinrib@ibeam.jf.intel.com
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@IANA.ORG
The protocol standards are managed by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.
Please refer to the document "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1700) for further information about the status of protocol documents. There are two documents that summarize the requirements for host and gateways in the Internet, "Host Requirements" (RFC-1122 and RFC-1123) and "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers" (RFC-1812).
How to obtain the most recent edition of this "Internet Official Protocol Standards" memo:
The file "in-notes/std/std1.txt" may be copied via FTP from the FTP.ISI.EDU computer using the FTP username "anonymous" and FTP password "guest".
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.
RFC's may be obtained from DS.INTERNIC.NET via FTP, WAIS, and electronic mail. Through FTP, RFC's are stored as rfc/rfcnnnn.txt or rfc/rfcnnnn.ps where 'nnnn' is the RFC number. Login as "anonymous" and provide your e-mail address as the password. Through WAIS, you may use either your local WAIS client or telnet to DS.INTERNIC.NET and login as "wais" (no password required) to access a WAIS client. Help information and a tutorial for using WAIS are available online. The WAIS database to search is "rfcs".
Directory and Database Services also provides a mail server interface. Send a mail message to mailserv@ds.internic.net and include any of the following commands in the message body:
document-by-name rfcnnnn where 'nnnn' is the RFC number
The text version is sent.
file /ftp/rfc/rfcnnnn.yyy where 'nnnn' is the RFC number.
and 'yyy' is 'txt' or 'ps'.
help to get information on how to use
the mailserver.
The InterNIC directory and database services collection of resource listings, internet documents such as RFCs, FYIs, STDs, and Internet Drafts, and publicly accessible databases are also
now available via Gopher. All our collections are WAIS indexed and can be searched from the Gopher menu.
To access the InterNIC Gopher Servers, please connect to "internic.net" port 70.
Contact: admin@ds.internic.net
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
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