GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc1140

Network Working Group Internet Activities Board Request for Comments: 1140 J. Postel, Editor Obsoletes: RFCs 1130, May 1990

        1100, 1083
                  IAB OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS

Status of this Memo

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

Table of Contents

 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
 1.  The Standardization Process  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
 2.  The Request for Comments Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
 3.  Other Reference Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
 3.1.  Assigned Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
 3.2.  Annotated Internet Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
 3.3.  Gateway Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
 3.4.  Host Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
 3.5.  The MIL-STD Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
 4.  Explanation of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
 4.1.  Definitions of Protocol State  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
 4.1.1.  Standard Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
 4.1.2.  Draft Standard Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
 4.1.3.  Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
 4.1.4.  Experimental Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
 4.1.5.  Historic Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
 4.2.  Definitions of Protocol Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
 4.2.1.  Required Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
 4.2.2.  Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
 4.2.3.  Elective Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
 4.2.4.  Limited Use Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
 4.2.5.  Not Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
 5.  The Standards Track  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
 5.1.  The RFC Processing Decision Table  . . . . . . . . . . .  10
 5.2.  The Standards Track Diagram  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
 6.  The Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
 6.1.  Recent Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
 6.1.1.  New RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
 6.1.2.  Other Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
 6.2.  Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18

Internet Activities Board [Page 1] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990

 6.3.  Network-Specific Standard Protocols  . . . . . . . . . .  19
 6.4.  Draft Standard Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
 6.5.  Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
 6.6.  Experimental Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
 6.7.  Historic Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
 7.  Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
 7.1.  IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
 7.1.1.  Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact  . . . . . . .  23
 7.1.2.  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . .  23
 7.1.3.  Internet Research  Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . .  24
 7.2.  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . .  24
 7.3.  Request for Comments Editor Contact  . . . . . . . . . .  25
 7.4.  Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . .  25
 7.5.  Other Sources for Requests for Comments  . . . . . . . .  26
 7.5.1.  NSF Network Service Center (NNSC)  . . . . . . . . . .  26
 7.5.2.  NSF Network Information Service (NIS)  . . . . . . . .  26
 7.5.3.  CSNET Coordination and Information Center (CIC)  . . .  26
 8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
 9.  Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27

Introduction

 Discussion of the standardization process and the RFC document series
 is presented first, then the explanation of the terms is presented,
 the lists of protocols in each stage of standardization follows and
 finally come 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 edition after 31-Aug-90.
 See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes.

1. The Standardization Process

 The Internet Activities Board maintains this 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 and its
 subsidiary groups, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the
 Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)).  The IAB provides these
 standards with the goal of co-ordinating the evolution of the
 Internet protocols; this co-ordination has become quite important as
 the Internet protocols are increasingly in general commercial use.
 The majority of Internet protocol development and standardization

Internet Activities Board [Page 2] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990

 activity takes place in the working groups of the Internet
 Engineering Task Force.
 Protocols which are to become standards in the Internet go through a
 series of states (proposed standard, draft standard, and standard)
 involving increasing amounts of scrutiny and experimental testing.
 At each step, the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) of the
 IETF must make a recommendation for advancement of the protocol and
 the IAB must ratify it.  If a recommendation is not ratified, the
 protocol is remanded to the IETF for further work.
 To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react to
 standardization proposals, the IAB imposes a minimum delay of 4
 months before a proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard
 and 6 months before a draft standard can be promoted to standard.
 It is general IAB practice that no proposed standard can be promoted
 to draft standard without at least two independent implementations
 (and the recommendation of the IESG).  Promotion from draft standard
 to standard generally requires operational experience and
 demonstrated interoperability of two or more implementations (and the
 recommendation of the IESG).
 In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper decision
 concerning a protocol the IAB may convene a special review committee
 consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB with the
 purpose of recommending an explicit action to the IAB.
 Advancement of a protocol to proposed standard is an important step
 since it marks a protocol as a candidate for eventual standardization
 (it puts the protocol "on the standards track").  Advancement to
 draft standard is a major step which warns the community that, unless
 major objections are raised or flaws are discovered, the protocol is
 likely to be advanced to standard in six months.
 Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are otherwise
 unused.  Such protocols are still documented in this memorandum with
 the designation "historic".
 Because the IAB believes it is useful to document the results of
 early protocol research and development work, some of the RFCs
 document protocols which are still in an experimental condition.  The
 protocols are designated "experimental" in this memorandum.  They
 appear in this report as a convenience to the community and not as
 evidence of their standardization.
 In addition to the working groups of the IETF, protocol development
 and experimentation may take place as a result of the work of the

Internet Activities Board [Page 3] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990

 research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or the work of
 other individuals interested in Internet protocol development.  The
 IAB encourages the documentation of such experimental work in the RFC
 series, but none of this work is considered to be on the track for
 standardization until the IESG has made a recommendation to advance
 the protocol to the proposed standard state, and the IAB has approved
 this step.
 A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without the
 approval of the IESG and the IAB.  For example, some vendor protocols
 have become very important to the Internet community even though they
 have not been recommended by the IESG or ratified by the IAB.
 However, the IAB strongly recommends that the IAB standards process
 be used in the evolution of the protocol suite to maximize
 interoperability (and to prevent incompatible protocol requirements
 from arising).  The IAB reserves the use of the terms "standard",
 "draft standard", and "proposed standard" in any RFC or other
 publication of Internet protocols to only those protocols which the
 IAB has approved.
 In addition to a state (like "proposed standard") a protocol is also
 assigned a status, or requirement level.  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 limited use
 or even not recommended if it is not intended to be generally
 implemented; for example, experimental or historic protocols.
 When a protocol is on the standards track, that is in the proposed
 standard, draft standard, or standard state (see Section 5), the
 status is the current status.  However, the IAB will also endeavor to
 indicate the eventual status this protocol will have when the
 standardization is completed.
 The IAB realizes that a one word label is not sufficient to
 characterize the implementation requirements for a protocol in all
 situations.  In many cases, an additional paragraph about the status
 will be provided, and in some cases reference will be made to
 separate requirements documents.
 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 or the protocols that

Internet Activities Board [Page 4] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990

 use TCP (though it may be useful).  It is expected that general
 purpose hosts will implement at least IP (including ICMP and IGMP),
 TCP and UDP, Telnet, FTP, NTP, SMTP, Mail, and the Domain Name System
 (DNS).

2. The Request for Comments Documents

 The documents called Request for Comments (or RFCs) are the working
 notes of the "Network Working Group", that is the Internet research
 and development community.  A document in this series may be on
 essentially any topic related to computer communication, and may be
 anything from a meeting report to the specification of a standard.
 Notice:
    All standards are published as RFCs, but not all RFCs specify
    standards.
 Anyone can submit a document for publication as an RFC.  Submissions
 must be made via electronic mail to the RFC Editor (see the contact
 information at the end of this memo).
 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 such as
 informational documents of general interests to specifications of
 standard Internet protocols.  In cases where submission is intended
 to document a proposed standard, draft standard, or standard
 protocol, the RFC Editor will publish the document only with the
 approval of both the IESG and the IAB.  For documents describing
 experimental work, the RFC Editor will typically request review
 comments from the relevant IETF working group or IRTF research group
 and provide those comments to the author prior to committing to
 publication.  See Section 5.1 for more detail.
 Once a document is assigned an RFC number and published, that RFC is
 never revised or re-issued with the same number.  There is never a
 question of having the most recent version of a particular RFC.
 However, a protocol (such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP)) may be
 improved and re-documented many times in several different RFCs.  It
 is important to verify that you have the most recent RFC on a
 particular protocol.  This "IAB Official Protocol Standards" memo is
 the reference for determining the correct RFC to refer to for the
 current specification of each protocol.
 The RFCs are available from the Network Information Center at SRI

Internet Activities Board [Page 5] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990

 International, and a number of other sites.  For more information
 about obtaining RFCs, see Sections 7.4 and 7.5.

3. Other Reference Documents

 There are four other reference documents of interest in checking the
 current status of protocol specifications and standardization.  These
 are the Assigned Numbers, the Annotated Internet 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 3.5.

3.1. 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-1060.
 Another document, Internet Numbers, lists the assigned IP network
 numbers, and the autonomous system numbers.  Internet Numbers was
 most recently issued as RFC-1117.

3.2. Annotated Internet Protocols

 This document lists the protocols and describes any known problems
 and ongoing experiments.  This document was most recently issued as
 RFC-1011 under the title "Official Internet Protocols".

3.3. Gateway Requirements

 This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways and
 supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities.  Gateway
 Requirements is RFC-1009.  A working group of the IETF is actively
 preparing a revision.

3.4. Host Requirements

 This pair of documents 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.

Internet Activities Board [Page 6] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990

3.5. 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
 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.  These five documents are included in the 1985 DDN Protocol
 Handbook (available from the Network Information Center, see Section
 7.4).
        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 STATE of standardization which is one of "standard", "draft
 standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic".  The
 second is the STATUS of this protocol which is one of "required",
 "recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".
 The IAB notes that 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 should be
 consulted.
 When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard,

Internet Activities Board [Page 7] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990

 it is labeled with a current status and when possible, the IAB also
 notes the status that that protocol is expected to have when it
 reaches the standard state.
 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 relative number of Xs).  A new protocol
 is most likely to start in the (proposed standard, elective) cell, or
 the (experimental, not recommended) cell.
                           S T A T U S
                   Req   Rec   Ele   Lim   Not
     S           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
         Std     |  X  | XXX | XXX |     |     |
     T           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
         Draft   |  X  |  X  | XXX |     |     |
     A           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
         Prop    |     |  X  | XXX |  X  |     |
     T           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
         Expr    |     |     |  X  | XXX |  X  |
     E           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
         Hist    |     |     |     |  X  | 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

 There are two independent categorizations of protocols.  The first is
 the STATE of standardization, which is one of "standard", "draft
 standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic".
 4.1.1.  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.

Internet Activities Board [Page 8] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990

 4.1.2.  Draft Standard Protocol
    The IAB is actively considering this protocol as a possible
    Standard Protocol.  Substantial and widespread testing and comment
    are desired.  Comments and test results should be submitted to the
    IAB.  There is a possibility that changes will be made in a Draft
    Standard Protocol before it becomes a Standard Protocol.
 4.1.3.  Proposed Standard Protocol
    These are protocol proposals that may be considered by the IAB for
    standardization in the future.  Implementation and testing by
    several groups is desirable.  Revision of the protocol
    specification is likely.
 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.  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

    There are two independent categorizations of protocols.  The
    second is the STATUS of this protocol which is one of "required",
    "recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".
 4.2.1.  Required Protocol
    A system must implement the required protocols.

Internet Activities Board [Page 9] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990

 4.2.2.  Recommended Protocol
    A system should implement the recommended protocols.
 4.2.3.  Elective Protocol
    A system may or may not implement an elective protocol. The
    general notion is that if you are going to do something like this,
    you must do exactly this.  There may be several elective protocols
    in a general area, for example, there are several electronic mail
    protocols, and several routing protocols.
 4.2.4.  Limited Use Protocol
    These protocols are for use in limited circumstances.  This may be
    because of their experimental state, specialized nature, limited
    functionality, or historic state.
 4.2.5.  Not Recommended Protocol
    These protocols are not recommended for general use.  This may be
    because of their limited functionality, specialized nature, or
    experimental or historic state.

5. The Standards Track

 This section discusses in more detail the procedures used by the RFC
 Editor and the IAB 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 RFC
 Editor.  The processing depends on who submitted it, and the status
 they want it to have.

Internet Activities Board [Page 10] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990

    +==========================================================+
    |++++++++++++++|               S O U R C E                 |
    +==========================================================+
    | Desired      |    IAB   |   IESG   |   IRSG   |  Other   |
    | Status       |          |          |  or RG   |          |
    +==========================================================+
    |              |          |          |          |          |
    | Full or      |  Publish |  Vote    |  Bogus   |  Bogus   |
    | Draft        |   (1)    |   (3)    |   (2)    |   (2)    |
    | Standard     |          |          |          |          |
    |              |          |          |          |          |
    +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
    |              |          |          |          |          |
    |              |  Publish |  Vote    |  Refer   |  Refer   |
    | Proposed     |   (1)    |   (3)    |   (4)    |   (4)    |
    | Standard     |          |          |          |          |
    |              |          |          |          |          |
    +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
    |              |          |          |          |          |
    |              |  Publish |  Notify  |  Notify  |  Notify  |
    | Experimental |   (1)    |   (5)    |   (5)    |   (5)    |
    | Protocol     |          |          |          |          |
    |              |          |          |          |          |
    +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
    |              |          |          |          |          |
    | Information  |  Publish |Discretion|Discretion|Discretion|
    | or Opinion   |   (1)    |   (6)    |   (6)    |   (6)    |
    | Paper        |          |          |          |          |
    |              |          |          |          |          |
    +==========================================================+
    (1) Publish.
    (2) Bogus.  Inform the source of the rules.  RFCs specifying
        Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IAB, only.
    (3) Vote by the IAB.  If approved then do Publish (1), else do
        Refer (4).
    (4) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG.  Expect to see
        the document again only after approval by the IESG and the
        IAB.
    (5) Notify both the IESG and IRSG.  If no protest in 1 week then
        do Discretion (6), else do undefined.
    (6) RFC Editor's discretion.  The RFC Editor decides if a review
        is needed and if so by whom.  RFC Editor decides to publish or

Internet Activities Board [Page 11] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990

        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 Greg Vaudreuil as its agent for forwarding
 documents with IESG approval and for registering protest in response
 to notifications (5) to the RFC Editor.  Documents from Area
 Directors or Working Group Chairs may be considered in the same way
 as documents from "other".

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 be changed as well.
 The states illustrated by single line boxes are temporary states,
 those illustrated by double line boxes are long term states.  A
 protocol will normally be expected to remain in a temporary state for
 several months (minimum four months for proposed standard, minimum
 six months for draft standard).  A protocol may be in a long term
 state for many years.
 A protocol may enter the standards track only on the recommendation
 of the IESG and by action of the IAB; and may move from one state to
 another along the track only on the recommendation of the IESG and by
 action of the IAB.  That is, it takes both the IESG and the IAB to
 either start a protocol on the track or to move it along.
 Generally, as the protocol enters the standards track a decision is
 made as to the eventual STATUS (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.

Internet Activities Board [Page 12] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990

       |
       +<----------------------------------------------+
       |                                               ^
       V    0                                          |    4
 +-----------+                                   +===========+
 |   enter   |-->----------------+-------------->|experiment |
 +-----------+                   |               +=====+=====+
                                 |                     |
                                 V    1                |
                           +-----------+               V
                           | proposed  |-------------->+
                      +--->+-----+-----+               |
                      |          |                     |
                      |          V    2                |
                      +<---+-----+-----+               V
                           | draft std |-------------->+
                      +--->+-----+-----+               |
                      |          |                     |
                      |          V    3                |
                      +<---+=====+=====+               V
                           | standard  |-------------->+
                           +=====+=====+               |
                                                       |
                                                       V    5
                                                 +=====+=====+
                                                 | historic  |
                                                 +===========+
 The transition from proposed standard (1) to draft standard (2) can
 only be by action of the IAB on the recommendation of the IESG and
 only after the protocol has been proposed standard (1) for at least
 four months.
 The transition from draft standard (2) to standard (3) can only be by
 action of the IAB on the recommendation of the IESG and only after
 the protocol has been draft standard (2) for at least six months.
 Occasionally, the decision may be that the protocol is not ready for
 standardization and will be assigned to the experimental state (4).
 This is off the standards track, and the protocol may be resubmitted
 to enter the standards track after further work.  There are other
 paths into the experimental and historic states that do not involve
 IAB action.
 Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus becomes
 historic, 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).

Internet Activities Board [Page 13] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990

6. The Protocols

 This section lists the standards in groups by protocol state.

6.1. Recent Changes

6.1.1. New RFCs:

    1157 - Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
           Advanced to Recommended Standard protocol.  Replaces 1098.
    1156 - Management Information Base (MIB)
           Advanced to Recommended Standard protocol.  Replaces 1066.
    1155 - Structure of Management Information (SMI)
           Advanced to Recommended Standard protocol.  Replaces 1065.
    1154 - Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages
           This is a new Elective Experimental protocol.
    1153 - Digest Message Format
           This is a new Elective Experimental protocol.
    1152 - Workshop Report: Internet Research Steering Group Workshop
           on Very-High-Speed Networks
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1151 - Version 2 of the Reliable Data Protocol (RDP)
           This is an update to a Not-recommended Experimental
           protocol.
    1150 - FYI on FYI
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1149 - A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian
           Carriers
           This describes an implementation technique, and does not

Internet Activities Board [Page 14] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990

           specify any level of standard.
    1148 - Mapping between X.400(88) and RFC 822
           This is a new Elective Experimental protocol (corrects
           editing errors in 1138).
    1147 - FYI on a Network Management Tool Catalog
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1146 - TCP Alternative Checksum Options
           This is a new Not-recommended Experimental protocol
           (corrects editing errors in 1145).
    1145 - TCP Alternate Checksum Options
           This is a new Not-recommended Experimental protocol.
    1144 - Compressing TCP/IP Headers for Low-Speed Serial Links
           This is a new Elective Proposed Standard protocol.
    1143 - The Q Method of Implementing TELNET Option Negotiation
           This describes an implementation technique.
    1142 - < not issued yet >
    1141 - Incremental Updating of the Internet Checksum
           This describes an implementation technique.
    1140 - IAB Official Protocol Standards
           This memo.
    1139 - An Echo Function for ISO 8473
           This is a new Elective Proposed Standard protocol.
    1138 - Mapping between X.400(88) and RFC 822
           This is a new Elective Experimental protocol (replaced by
           1148).

Internet Activities Board [Page 15] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990

    1137 - Mapping Between Full RFC 822 and RFC 822 with Restricted
           Encoding
           This is a new Elective Experimental protocol.
    1136 - Administrative Domains and Routing Domains: A Model for
           Routing in the Internet
           This is a discussion document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1135 - The Helminthiasis of the Internet
           This is a discussion document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1134 - The Point-to-Point Protocol: A Proposal for Multi-Protocol
           Transmission of Datagrams Over Point-to-Point Links
           This is a new Elective Proposed Standard protocol.
    1133 - Routing between the NSFNET and the DDN
           This is a discussion document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1132 - A Standard for the Transmission of 802.2 Packets over IPX
           Networks
           This is a new Elective Network-Specific Standard protocol,
           that is, a full Standard for a network-specific situation.
    1131 - The OSPF Specification
           This is a new Elective Proposed Standard protocol.
    1060 - Assigned Numbers
           The status report on assigned numbers and protocol
           parameters.

Internet Activities Board [Page 16] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990

6.1.2. Other Changes:

 The following are changes to protocols listed in the previous
 edition.
    1058 - Routing Information Protocol (RIP)
           Advanced to Elective Draft Standard protocol.
    1045 - Versatile Message Transaction Protocol (VMTP)
           Moved to Elective Experimental protocol.
    1006 - ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP (TP-TCP)
           Advanced to Elective Draft Standard protocol.
     996 - Statistics Server (STATSRV)
           Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.
     954 - WhoIs Protocol (NICNAME)
           Advanced to Elective Draft Standard protocol.
     937 - Post Office Protocol, Version 2 (POP2)
           Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.
     916 - Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol (RATP)
           Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.
     914 - Thinwire Protocol (THINWIRE)
           Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.
     818 - Remote Telnet Service (RTELNET)
           Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.
     569 - Network Standard Text Editor (NETED)
           Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.
     407 - Remote Job Entry (RJE)
           Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.

Internet Activities Board [Page 17] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990

6.2. Standard Protocols

Protocol Name Status RFC

===================================== ==============

——– Assigned Numbers Required 1060 ——– 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 1112 UDP User Datagram Protocol Recommended 768 TCP Transmission Control Protocol Recommended 793 SMI Structure of Management Information Recommended 1155 MIB Management Information Base Recommended 1156 SNMP Simple Network Management Protocol Recommended 1157 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

Notes:

 IGMP -- The Internet Activities 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

Internet Activities Board [Page 18] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990

 is expected that IGMP will become recommended for all hosts and
 gateways at some future date.
 SMI, MIB, SNMP -- The Internet Activities Board recommends that all
 IP and TCP implementations be network manageable.  This implies
 implementation of the Internet MIB (RFC-1156) and at least one of the
 two recommended management protocols SNMP (RFC-1157) or CMOT (RFC-
 1095).  It should be noted that, at this time, SNMP is a full
 Internet standard and CMOT is a draft standard.  See also the Host
 and Gateway Requirements RFCs for more specific information on the
 applicability of this standard.

6.3. Network-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 Hyperchannel 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 IP-IPX Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks Elective 1132

Notes:

 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.

Internet Activities Board [Page 19] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990

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 CMOT Common Management Information Services Recommended 1095

         and Protocol over TCP/IP

BOOTP Bootstrap Protocol Recommended 951,1048,1084 RIP Routing Information Protocol Elective 1058 TP-TCP ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP Elective 1006 NICNAME WhoIs Protocol Elective 954 TFTP Trivial File Transfer Protocol Elective 783

Notes:

 CMOT -- The Internet Activities Board recommends that all IP and TCP
 implementations be network manageable.  This implies implementation
 of the Internet MIB (RFC-1156) and at least one of the two
 recommended management protocols SNMP (RFC-1157) or CMOT (RFC-1095).
 It should be noted that, at this time, SNMP is a full Internet
 standard and CMOT is a draft standard.  See also the Host and Router
 Requirements RFCs for more specific information on the applicability
 of this standard.
 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".

Internet Activities Board [Page 20] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990

6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols

Protocol Name Status RFC

===================================== ===============

MIB-II MIB-II Elective xxxx IP-CMPRS Compressing TCP/IP Headers Elective 1144 ——– Echo for ISO-8473 Elective 1139 PPP Point to Point Protocol Elective 1134 OSPF Open Shortest Path First Routing Elective 1131 SUN-NFS Network File System Protocol Elective 1094 POP3 Post Office Protocol, Version 3 Elective 1081,1082 SUN-RPC Remote Procedure Call Protocol Elective 1057 PCMAIL Pcmail Transport Protocol Elective 1056 NFILE A File Access Protocol Elective 1037 ——– Mapping between X.400(84) and RFC-822 Elective 987,1026 NNTP Network News Transfer Protocol Elective 977 HOSTNAME HOSTNAME Protocol Elective 953 SFTP Simple File Transfer Protocol Elective 913 RLP Resource Location Protocol Elective 887 FINGER Finger Protocol Elective 742 SUPDUP SUPDUP Protocol Elective 734

Notes:

 This section is being reviewed by the IESG, which will recommend that
 some of these protocols be moved to either the draft standard, or the
 experimental or historic categories.
 MIB-II -- This memo defines a mandatory extension to the base MIB
 (RFC-1156) and is a Proposed Standard for the Internet community.
 The extensions described here are currently Elective, but when they
 become a standard, they will have the same status as RFC-1156, that
 is, Recommended.  The Internet Activities Board recommends that all
 IP and TCP implementations be network manageable.  This implies
 implementation of the Internet MIB (RFC-1156 and the extensions in
 RFC-xxxx) and at least one of the two recommended management
 protocols SNMP (RFC-1157) or CMOT (RFC-1095).
 PPP -- Point to Point Protocol is a method of sending IP over serial
 lines, which are a type of physical network.  It is expected that a
 system will support one or more physical networks and for each
 physical network supported the appropriate protocols from the
 network-specific standard protocols (Section 6.3) 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
 listed.  It is anticipated that PPP will be advanced to the network-
 specific standard protocol state in the future.

Internet Activities Board [Page 21] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990

6.6. Experimental Protocols

Protocol Name Status RFC

===================================== ===============

EHF-MAIL Encoding Header Field for Mail Elective 1154 DMF-MAIL Digest Message Format for Mail Elective 1153 RDP Reliable Data Protocol Limited Use 908,1151 ——– Mapping between X.400(88) and RFC-822 Elective 1148 TCP-ACO TCP Alternate Checksum Option Not Recommended 1146 ——– Mapping full 822 to Restricted 822 Elective 1137 BGP Border Gateway Protocol Limited Use 1105 IP-DVMRP IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing Not Recommended 1075 TCP-LDP TCP Extensions for Long Delay Paths Limited Use 1072 IMAP2 Interactive Mail Access Protocol Limited Use 1064 IP-MTU IP MTU Discovery Options Not Recommended 1063 VMTP Versatile Message Transaction Protocol Elective 1045 COOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme Not Recommended 1004 NETBLT Bulk Data Transfer Protocol Not Recommended 998 IRTP Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol Not Recommended 938 AUTH Authentication Service Not Recommended 931 LDP Loader Debugger Protocol Not Recommended 909 ST Stream Protocol Limited Use IEN-119 NVP-II Network Voice Protocol Limited Use ISI-memo PVP Packet Video Protocol Limited Use ISI-memo

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 STATSRV Statistics Server Not Recommended 996 POP2 Post Office Protocol, Version 2 Not Recommended 937 RATP Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol Not Recommended 916 THINWIRE Thinwire Protocol Not Recommended 914 HMP Host Monitoring Protocol Not Recommended 869 GGP Gateway Gateway Protocol Not Recommended 823 RTELNET Remote Telnet Service Not Recommended 818 CLOCK DCNET Time Server Protocol Not Recommended 778 MPM Internet Message Protocol Not Recommended 759 NETRJS Remote Job Service Not Recommended 740 NETED Network Standard Text Editor Not Recommended 569 RJE Remote Job Entry Not Recommended 407 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

Internet Activities Board [Page 22] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990

7. Contacts

7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts

 7.1.1.  Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact
    Contact:
       Bob Braden
       Executive Director of the IAB
       USC/Information Sciences Institute
       4676 Admiralty Way
       Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695
       1-213-822-1511
       Braden@ISI.EDU
 Please send your comments about this list of protocols and especially
 about the Draft Standard Protocols to the Internet Activities Board
 care of Bob Braden, IAB Executive Director.
 7.1.2.  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact
    Contact:
       Phill Gross
       Chair of the IETF
       Corporation for National Research Initiatives (NRI)
       1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
       Reston, VA 22091
       1-703-620-8990
       PGross@NRI.RESTON.VA.US

Internet Activities Board [Page 23] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990

 7.1.3.  Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact
    Contact:
       David D. Clark
       Chair of the IRTF
       Massachusetts Institute of Technology
       Laboratory for Computer Science
       545 Main Street
       Cambridge, MA 02139
       1-617-253-6003
       ddc@LCS.MIT.EDU

7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Contact

    Contact:
       Joyce K. Reynolds
       Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
       USC/Information Sciences Institute
       4676 Admiralty Way
       Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695
       1-213-822-1511
       IANA@ISI.EDU
 The protocol standards are managed for the IAB by the Internet
 Assigned Numbers Authority.
 Please refer to the documents "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1060) 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".

Internet Activities Board [Page 24] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990

7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact

    Contact:
       Jon Postel
       RFC Editor
       USC/Information Sciences Institute
       4676 Admiralty Way
       Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695
       1-213-822-1511
       Postel@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.

7.4. The Network Information Center and

    Requests for Comments Distribution Contact
    Contact:
       DDN Network Information Center
       SRI International
       Room EJ291
       333 Ravenswood Avenue
       Menlo Park, CA  94025
       1-800-235-3155
       1-415-859-3695
       NIC@NIC.DDN.MIL
 The Network Information Center (NIC) provides many information
 services for the Internet community.  Among them is maintaining the
 Requests for Comments (RFC) library.
 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 file name, as in

Internet Activities Board [Page 25] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990

 "Subject: SEND RFC:RFCnnnn.TXT".
 Some RFCs are now available in PostScript, these may be obtained from
 the NIC in a similar fashion by substituting ".PS" for ".TXT".
    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.

7.5. Other Sources for Requests for Comments

 7.5.1.  NSF Network Service Center (NNSC)
       NSF Network Service Center (NNSC)
       BBN Laboratories, Inc.
       10 Moulton St.
       Cambridge, MA 02238
       617-873-3400
       NNSC@NNSC.NSF.NET
 7.5.2.  NSF Network Information Service (NIS)
       NSF Network Information Service
       Merit Computer Network
       University of Michigan
       1075 Beal Avenue
       Ann Arbor, MI 48109
       313-763-4897
       INFO@NIS.NSF.NET
 7.5.3.  CSNET Coordination and Information Center (CIC)
       CSNET Coordination and Information Center
       BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation
       10 Moulton Street
       Cambridge, MA 02238
       617-873-2777
       INFO@SH.CS.NET

Internet Activities Board [Page 26] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990

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: (213) 822-1511
 Email: Postel@ISI.EDU

Internet Activities Board [Page 27]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc1140.txt · Last modified: 1990/05/11 19:16 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki