Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


Network Working Group Internet Activities Board Request for Comments: 1130 J. Postel, Editor Obsoletes: RFCs 1100, 1083 October 1989


Status of this Memo

 This memo describes the state of standardization of protocols used in
 the Internet as determined by the Internet Activities Board (IAB).
 Distribution of this memo is unlimited.


 An overview of the standards procedures is presented first, followed
 by discussions of the standardization process and the RFC document
 series, then the explanation of the terms is presented, the lists of
 protocols in each stage of standardization follows, and finally
 pointers to references and contacts for further information.
 This memo is issued quarterly, please be sure the copy you are
 reading is dated within the last three months.  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 memo after 31-Jan-90.
 See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes.

1. Overview of Standards Procedures

 The Internet Activities Board maintains a list of documents that
 define standards for the Internet protocol suite (see RFC-1120 for an
 explanation of the role and organization of the IAB).  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.
 Protocol standards may be suggested by anyone in the Internet
 community, by writing and submitting an RFC.  In general, any
 suggested protocol will be reviewed or developed in the context of
 some Task Force of the IAB, or some research group or working group
 within that Task Force.  The IAB will assign a suggested protocol to
 a working group or research group if official delegation is

Internet Activities Board [Page 1] RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989

 Given the important role of the Internet Engineering Task Force in
 the evolution of the Internet Architecture, all proposed protocols
 will be reviewed by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)
 which is composed of the Technical Area Directors.
 The recommendation of the IESG and working group or research group is
 given major consideration in the decision by the IAB to assign a
 state and status to the protocol.  The general policy is to gain
 implementation experience with a protocol before considering a
 possible designation as an official standard.
 In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper decision
 concerning a protocol, the IAB may convene a special review committee
 consisting of interested parties from the working group and members
 of the IAB itself, with the purpose of recommending some explicit
 action to the IAB.
 A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without the
 approval of the IAB.  For example, some vendor protocols have become
 very important to the Internet community even though they have not
 been proposed or reviewed 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 term "standard" in any RFC to only those protocols
 which the IAB has approved.

2. The Standardization Process

 Anyone can invent a protocol, document it, implement it, test it, and
 so on.  The IAB believes that it is very useful to document a
 protocol at an early stage to promote suggestions from others
 interested in the functionality the of protocol and from those
 interested in protocol design.  Once a protocol is implemented and
 tested it is useful to report the results.  The RFC document series
 is the preferred place for publishing these protocol documents and
 testing results.
 The IAB encourages the documenting of every protocol developed in the
 Internet (that is, the publication of the protocol specification as
 an RFC), even if it is never intended that the protocol become an
 Internet standard.  A protocol that is not intended to become a
 standard is called "experimental".
 Protocols that are intended to become standards are first designated
 as "proposed" protocols.  It is expected that while in this state the
 protocol will be implemented and tested by several groups.  It is
 likely that an improved version of the protocol will result from this

Internet Activities Board [Page 2] RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989

 Once a proposed protocol has become stable and has a sponsor (an
 individual willing to speak for the protocol to the IAB) it may
 advance to the "draft standard" state.  In this state, it should be
 reviewed by the entire Internet community.  This draft standard state
 is essentially a warning to the community that unless an objection is
 raised or a flaw is found this protocol will become a "standard".
 Once a protocol has been a draft standard for a sufficient time
 (usually 6 months) without serious objections the IAB may act to
 declare the protocol an official Internet standard.
 Some protocols have been superseded by better protocols or are
 otherwise unused.  Such protocols are designated "historic".
 In addition to a state (like proposed or standard) a protocol is also
 assigned a status.  A protocol can be required, meaning that all
 systems in the Internet must implement it.  For example, the Internet
 Protocol (IP) is required.  A protocol may be recommended, meaning
 that systems should implement this protocol.  A protocol may be
 elective, meaning that systems may implement this protocol; that is,
 if (and only if) the functionality of this protocol is needed or
 useful for a system it must use this protocol to provide the
 functionality.  A protocol may be termed not recommended if it is not
 intended to be generally implemented; for example, experimental or
 historic protocols.
 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, multi-user hosts.  It is
 not necessary for a gateway to implement TCP and the protocols that
 use TCP (though it may be useful).  It is expected that general
 purpose hosts will implement at least IP (including ICMP), TCP and
 UDP, Telnet, FTP, SMTP, Mail, and the Domain Name System (DNS).

3. The Request for Comments Documents

 The documents called Request for Comments (or RFCs) are the working
 notes of 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

Internet Activities Board [Page 3] RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989

 Anyone can submit a document for publication as an RFC.  Submissions
 must be made via electronic mail to the RFC Editor (see the contact
 information at the end of this memo).
 While RFCs are not refereed publications, they do receive technical
 review from the task forces, individual technical experts, or the RFC
 Editor, as appropriate.
 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 to refer to for the
 current specification of each protocol.
 The RFCs are available from the Network Information Center at SRI
 International.  For more information about obtaining RFCs see the
 contact information at the end of this memo.

4. Other Reference Documents

 There are four other reference documents of interest in checking the
 current status of protocol specifications and standardization.  These
 are the Assigned Numbers, the Official Protocols, the Gateway
 Requirements, and the Host Requirements.  Note that these documents
 are revised and updated at different times; in case of differences
 between these documents, the most recent must prevail.
 Also one should be aware of the MIL-STD publications on IP, TCP,
 Telnet, FTP, and SMTP.  These are described in section 4.5.

4.1. Assigned Numbers

 This document lists the assigned values of the parameters used in the
 various protocols.  For example, IP protocol codes, TCP port numbers,
 Telnet Option Codes, ARP hardware types, and Terminal Type names.
 Assigned Numbers was most recently issued as RFC-1010.
 Another document, Internet Numbers, lists the assigned IP network
 numbers, and the autonomous system numbers.  Internet Numbers was
 most recently issued as RFC-1117.

4.2. Official Protocols

 This document list the protocols and describes any known problems and

Internet Activities Board [Page 4] RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989

 ongoing experiments.  Official Protocols was most recently issued as

4.3. Gateway Requirements

 This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways and
 supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities.  Gateway
 Requirements is RFC-1009.

4.4. Host Requirements

 This pair of document reviews the specifications that apply to hosts
 and supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities.  Host
 Requirements was recently issued as RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.

4.5. The MIL-STD Documents

 The Internet community specifications for IP (RFC-791) and TCP (RFC-
 793) and the DoD MIL-STD specifications are intended to describe
 exactly the same protocols.  Any difference in the protocols
 specified by these sets of documents should be reported to DCA and to
 the IAB.  The RFCs and the MIL-STDs for IP and TCP differ in style
 and level of detail.  It is strongly advised that the two sets of
 documents be used together.
 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.
        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

5. Explanation of Terms

 There are two independent categorizations of protocols.  The first is
 the state of standardization which is one of "standard", "draft
 standard", "proposed", "experimental", or "historic".  The second is
 the status of this protocol which is one of "required",
 "recommended", "elective", or "not recommended".  One could expect a
 particular protocol to move along the scale of status from elective
 to required at the same time as it moves along the scale of
 standardization from proposed to standard.

Internet Activities Board [Page 5] RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989

 At any given time a protocol is a cell of the following matrix.
 Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the following
 proportions (indicated by the number of Xs).  Most will be on the
 main diagonal.  A new protocol is most likely to start in the
 (proposed, elective) cell, or the (experimental, not recommended)
                   Req   Rec   Ele   Not
         Std     | XXX |  XX |  X  |     |
         Draft   |     |  X  |  XX |     |
         Prop    |     |     | XXX |  X  |
         Expr    |     |     |  X  | XXX |
         Hist    |     |     |     | XXX |
 Some protocol 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.

5.1. Definitions of Protocol State

 5.1.1.  Standard Protocol
    The IAB has established this as an official standard protocol for
    the Internet.  These are separated into two groups: (1) IP
    protocol and above, protocols that apply to the whole Internet;
    and (2) network-specific protocols, generally specifications of
    how to do IP on particular types of networks.
 5.1.2.  Draft Standard Protocol
    The IAB is actively considering this protocol as a possible
    Standard Protocol.  Substantial and widespread testing and comment
    is 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.

Internet Activities Board [Page 6] RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989

 5.1.3.  Proposed 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.  Revisions of the protocol
    specification are likely.
 5.1.4.  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 a specific 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,
    draft, and then standard protocols, the designation of a protocol
    as experimental is meant to suggest that the protocol, although
    perhaps mature, is not intended for operational use.
 5.1.5.  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.  These are protocols that
    are at an evolutionary dead end.

5.2. Definitions of Protocol Status

 5.2.1.  Required Protocol
    All systems must implement the required protocols.
 5.2.2.  Recommended Protocol
    All systems should implement the recommended protocols.
 5.2.3.  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.
 5.2.4.  Not Recommended Protocol
    These protocols are not recommended for general use.  This may be
    because of their limited functionality, specialized nature, or

Internet Activities Board [Page 7] RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989

    experimental or historic state.

6. The Protocols

 This section list the standards in groups by protocol state.

6.1. Recent Changes:

 The Host Requirements [RFC-1122, RFC-1123] is now a Required
 The Network Time Protocol [RFC-1119] is now a Recommended Standard.
 The Internet Group Multicast Protocol [RFC-1112] is now a Recommended
 The mail Content Type Header Field [RFC-1049] is now a Recommended
 The "Internet Numbers" list was recently issued as RFC-1117.
 The Telnet Linemode Option [RFC-1116] is now a Elective Proposed
 The mail Privacy procedures [RFC-1113, RFC-1114, and RFC-1115] are
 now Elective Draft Standards.
 The Border Gateway Protocol [RFC-1105] is a Not-Recommended
 Experimental protocol.
 A procedure for sending IP over FDDI networks [RFC-1103] is now a
 Specific Standard.
 The Trivial File Transfer Protocol [RFC-783] is now a Elective Draft

Internet Activities Board [Page 8] RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989

6.2. Standard Protocols

Protocol Name Status RFC ——– —- —— —

         Assigned Numbers                          Required       1010
         Gateway Requirements                      Required       1009
         Host Requirements - Communications        Required       1122
         Host Requirements - Applications          Required       1123

IP Internet Protocol Required 791

          as amended by:
           IP Subnet Extension                     Required        950
           IP Broadcast Datagrams                  Required        919
           IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets     Required        922

ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol Required 792 IGMP Internet Group Multicast Protocol Recommended 1054 UDP User Datagram Protocol Recommended 768 TCP Transmission Control Protocol Recommended 793 DOMAIN Domain Name System Recommended 1034,1035 TELNET Telnet Protocol Recommended 854 FTP File Transfer Protocol Recommended 959 SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol Recommended 821 MAIL Format of Electronic Mail Messages Recommended 822 CONTENT Content Type Header Field Recommended 1049 EGP Exterior Gateway Protocol Recommended 904 ECHO Echo Protocol Recommended 862 NTP Network Time Protocol Recommended 1119 NETBIOS NetBIOS Service Protocols Elective 1001,1002 DISCARD Discard Protocol Elective 863 CHARGEN Character Generator Protocol Elective 864 QUOTE Quote of the Day Protocol Elective 865 USERS Active Users Protocol Elective 866 DAYTIME Daytime Protocol Elective 867 TIME Time Server Protocol Elective 868

Internet Activities Board [Page 9] RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989

6.3. Specific Standard Protocols

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

Note: 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.

Internet Activities Board [Page 10] RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989

6.4. Draft Standard Protocols

Protocol Name Status RFC ——– —- —— —

         Mail Privacy: Procedures                 Elective        1113
         Mail Privacy: Key Management             Elective        1114
         Mail Privacy: Algorithms                 Elective        1115

SNMP Simple Network Management Protocol Recommended 1098 CMOT Common Management Information Services Recommended 1095

         and Protocol over TCP/IP

MIB Management Information Base Recommended 1066 SMI Structure of Management Information Recommended 1065 BOOTP Bootstrap Protocol Recommended 951,1048,1084 TFTP Trivial File Transfer Protocol Elective 783

The Internet Activities Board has designated two different network management protocols with the same status of "Draft Standard" and "Recommended". The two protocols are the Common Management Information Services and Protocol over TCP/IP (CMOT) [RFC-1095] and the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) [RFC-1098]. The IAB intends each of these two protocols to receive the attention of implementers and experimenters. The IAB seeks reports of experience with these two protocols from system builders and users. By this action, the IAB recommends that all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable (e.g., implement the Internet MIB [RFC-1066], and that implementations that are network manageable are expected to adopt and implement at least one of these two Internet Draft Standards. The motivation for this position is discussed in RFCs 1052 and 1109.

Internet Activities Board [Page 11] RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989

6.5. Proposed Protocols

Protocol Name Status RFC ——– —- —— — SUN-NFS Network File System Protocol Elective 1094 POP3 Post Office Protocol, Version 3 Elective 1081,1082 RIP Routing Information Protocol Elective 1058 SUN-RPC Remote Procedure Call Protocol Elective 1057 PCMAIL Pcmail Transport Protocol Elective 1056 VMTP Versatile Message Transaction Protocol Elective 1045 NFILE A File Access Protocol Elective 1037

         Mapping between X.400 and RFC-822        Elective    987,1026

STATSRV Statistics Server Elective 996 NNTP Network News Transfer Protocol Elective 977 NICNAME WhoIs Protocol Elective 954 HOSTNAME HOSTNAME Protocol Elective 953 POP2 Post Office Protocol, Version 2 Elective 937 SFTP Simple File Transfer Protocol Elective 913 RLP Resource Location Protocol Elective 887 RTELNET Remote Telnet Service Elective 818 FINGER Finger Protocol Elective 742 SUPDUP SUPDUP Protocol Elective 734 NETED Network Standard Text Editor Elective 569 RJE Remote Job Entry Elective 407

6.6. Experimental Protocols

Protocol Name Status RFC ——– —- —— — BGP Border Gateway Protocol Not Recommended 1105 IP-DVMRP IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing Not Recommended 1075 TCP-LDP TCP Extensions for Long Delay Paths Not Recommended 1072 IP-MTU IP MTU Discovery Options Not Recommended 1063 NETBLT Bulk Data Transfer Protocol Not Recommended 998 IMAP2 Interactive Mail Access Protocol Not Recommended 1064 COOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme Not Recommended 1004 IRTP Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol Not Recommended 938 AUTH Authentication Service Not Recommended 931 RATP Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol Not Recommended 916 THINWIRE Thinwire Protocol Not Recommended 914 LDP Loader Debugger Protocol Not Recommended 909 RDP Reliable Data Protocol Not Recommended 908 ST Stream Protocol Not Recommended IEN 119 NVP-II Network Voice Protocol Not Recommended ISI memo

Internet Activities Board [Page 12] RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989

6.7. Historic Protocols

Protocol Name Status RFC ——– —- —— — SGMP Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol Not Recommended 1028 HEMS High Level Entity Management Protocol Not Recommended 1021 HMP Host Monitoring Protocol Not Recommended 869 GGP Gateway Gateway Protocol Not Recommended 823 CLOCK DCNET Time Server Protocol Not Recommended 778 MPM Internet Message Protocol Not Recommended 759 NETRJS Remote Job Service Not Recommended 740 XNET Cross Net Debugger Not Recommended IEN 158 NAMESERVER Host Name Server Protocol Not Recommended IEN 116 MUX Multiplexing Protocol Not Recommended IEN 90 GRAPHICS Graphics Protocol Not Recommended NIC 24308

7. Contacts

7.1. Internet Activities Board Contact

       Jon Postel
       USC Information Sciences Institute
       4676 Admiralty Way
       Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695
 Please send your comments about this list of protocols and especially
 about the Draft Standard Protocols to the Internet Activities Board.

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

Internet Activities Board [Page 13] RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989

 The protocol standards are managed for the IAB by the Internet
 Assigned Numbers Authority.
 Please refer to the documents "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1010) and
 "Official Internet Protocols" (RFC-1011) 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".

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.

Internet Activities Board [Page 14] RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989

7.4. The Network Information Center and

     Requests for Comments Distribution Contact
       DDN Network Information Center
       SRI International
       Room EJ291
       333 Ravenswood Avenue
       Menlo Park, CA  94025
 The Network Information Center (NIC) provides many information
 services for the Internet community.  Among them is maintaining the
 Requests for Comments (RFC) library.
 RFCs can be obtained via FTP from NIC.DDN.MIL with the pathname
 RFC:RFCnnnn.TXT where "nnnn" refers to the number of the RFC. A list
 of all RFCs may be obtained by copying the file RFC:RFC-INDEX.TXT.
 Log in with FTP username ANONYMOUS and password GUEST.
 The NIC also provides an automatic mail service for those sites which
 cannot use FTP.  Address the request to SERVICE@NIC.DDN.MIL and in
 the subject field of the message indicate the RFC number, as in
 "Subject: RFC nnnn".
    How to obtain the most recent edition of this "IAB Official
    Protocol Standards" memo:
       The file RFC:IAB-STANDARDS.TXT may be copied via FTP from the
       NIC.DDN.MIL computer following the same procedures used to
       obtain RFCs.

Internet Activities Board [Page 15] RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989

7.5. Other Sources for Requests for Comments

    NSF Network Service Center (NNSC)
       NSF Network Service Center (NNSC)
       BBN Systems and Technology Corporation
       10 Moulton St.
       Cambridge, MA 02238
    NSF Network Information Service (NIS)
       NSF Network Information Service
       Merit Inc.
       University of Michigan
       1075 Beal Avenue
       Ann Arbor, MI 48109
    CSNET Coordination and Information Center (CIC)
       CSNET Coordination and Information Center
       Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.
       10 Moulton Street
       Cambridge, MA 02238

8. Security Considerations:

 Security issues are not addressed in this memo.

Internet Activities Board [Page 16] RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989

9. Author's Address:

 Jon Postel
 USC/Information Sciences Institute
 4676 Admiralty Way
 Marina del Rey, CA 90292
 Phone: (213) 822-1511
 Email: Postel@ISI.EDU

Internet Activities Board [Page 17]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc1130.txt · Last modified: 1989/10/23 23:20 (external edit)