GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools

Problem, Formatting or Query -  Send Feedback

Was this page helpful?-10+1


rfc:rfc1200

Network Working Group Internet Activities Board Request for Comments: 1200 J. Postel, Editor Obsoletes: RFCs 1140, April 1991

   1100, 1083, 1130
                  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.  Informational Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
 4.1.6.  Historic Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
 4.2.  Definitions of Protocol Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
 4.2.1.  Required Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20

Internet Activities Board [Page 1] RFC 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

 6.2.  Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
 6.3.  Network-Specific Standard Protocols  . . . . . . . . . .  23
 6.4.  Draft Standard Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
 6.5.  Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
 6.6.  Experimental Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
 6.7.  Informational Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
 6.8.  Historic Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
 7.  Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
 7.1.  IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
 7.1.1.  Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact  . . . . . . .  27
 7.1.2.  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . .  28
 7.1.3.  Internet Research  Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . .  28
 7.2.  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . .  28
 7.3.  Request for Comments Editor Contact  . . . . . . . . . .  29
 7.4.  Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . .  29
 7.5.  Other Sources for Requests for Comments  . . . . . . . .  30
 7.5.1.  NSF Network Service Center (NNSC)  . . . . . . . . . .  30
 7.5.2.  NSF Network Information Service (NIS)  . . . . . . . .  30
 7.5.3.  CSNET Coordination and Information Center (CIC)  . . .  31
 8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
 9.  Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31

Introduction

 Discussion of the standardization process and the RFC document series
 is presented first, followed by an explanation of the terms.
 Sections 6.2 - 6.8 contain the lists of protocols in each stage of
 standardization.  Finally come pointers to references and contacts
 for further information.
 This memo is intended to be issued quarterly; please be sure the copy
 you are reading is current.  Current copies may be obtained from the
 Network Information Center or from the Internet Assigned Numbers
 Authority (see the contact information at the end of this memo).  Do
 not use this edition after 30-Jun-91.
 See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes.  In the official
 lists in sections 6.2 - 6.8, an asterisk (*) next to a protocol
 denotes that it is new to this document or has been moved from one
 protocol level to another.

1. The Standardization Process

 The Internet Activities Board maintains this list of documents that
 define standards for the Internet protocol suite (see 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)).  The IAB provides these

Internet Activities Board [Page 2] RFC 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

 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
 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

Internet Activities Board [Page 3] RFC 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

 appear in this report as a convenience to the community and not as
 evidence of their standardization.
 Other protocols, such as those developed by other standards
 organizations, or by particular vendors, may be of interest or may be
 recommended for use in the Internet.  The specifications of such
 protocols may be published as RFCs for the convenience of the
 Internet community.  These protocols are labeled "informational" in
 this memorandum.
 In addition to the working groups of the IETF, protocol development
 and experimentation may take place as a result of the work of the
 research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or the work of
 other individuals interested in Internet protocol development.  The
 IAB encourages the documentation of such experimental work in the RFC
 series, but none of this work is considered to be on the track for
 standardization until the IESG has made a recommendation to advance
 the protocol to the proposed standard state, and the IAB has approved
 this step.
 A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without the
 approval of the IESG and the IAB.  For example, some vendor protocols
 have become very important to the Internet community even though they
 have not been recommended by the IESG or ratified by the IAB.
 However, the IAB strongly recommends that the IAB standards process
 be used in the evolution of the protocol suite to maximize
 interoperability (and to prevent incompatible protocol requirements
 from arising).  The IAB reserves the use of the terms "standard",
 "draft standard", and "proposed standard" in any RFC or other
 publication of Internet protocols to only those protocols which the
 IAB has approved.
 In addition to a state (like "Proposed Standard"), a protocol is also
 assigned a status, or requirement level, in this document.  The
 possible requirement levels ("Required", "Recommended", "Elective",
 "Limited Use", and "Not Recommended") are defined in Section 4.2.
 When a protocol is on the standards track, that is in the proposed
 standard, draft standard, or standard state (see Section 5), the
 status shown in Section 6 is the current status.  For a proposed or
 draft standard, however, the IAB will also endeavor to indicate the
 eventual status this protocol will have after adoption as a standard.
 Few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems; this is
 because there is such a variety of possible systems, for example,
 gateways, terminal servers, workstations, and multi-user hosts.  The
 requirement level shown in this document is only a one word label,
 which may not be sufficient to characterize the implementation
 requirements for a protocol in all situations.  For some protocols,

Internet Activities Board [Page 4] RFC 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

 this document contains an additional status paragraph.  In addition,
 more detailed status information is contained in separate
 requirements documents (see Section 3).

2. The Request for Comments Documents

 The documents called Request for Comments (or RFCs) are the working
 notes of the "Network Working Group", that is the Internet research
 and development community.  A document in this series may be on
 essentially any topic related to computer communication, and may be
 anything from a meeting report to the specification of a standard.
 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, ranging from
 informational documents of general interests to specifications of
 standard Internet protocols.  In cases where submission is intended
 to document a proposed standard, draft standard, or standard
 protocol, the RFC Editor will publish the document only with the
 approval of both the IESG and the IAB.  For documents describing
 experimental work, the RFC Editor will notify the IESG before
 publication, allowing for the possibility of review by the relevant
 IETF working group or IRTF research group and provide those comments
 to the author.  See Section 5.1 for more detail.
 Once a document is assigned an RFC number and published, that RFC is
 never revised or re-issued with the same number.  There is never a
 question of having the most recent version of a particular RFC.
 However, a protocol (such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP)) may be
 improved and re-documented many times in several different RFCs.  It
 is important to verify that you have the most recent RFC on a
 particular protocol.  This "IAB Official Protocol Standards" memo is
 the reference for determining the correct RFC for the current
 specification of each protocol.
 The RFCs are available from the Network Information Center at SRI
 International, and a number of other sites.  For more information

Internet Activities Board [Page 5] RFC 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

 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-1166.

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.

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 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.

Internet Activities Board [Page 6] RFC 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

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, along with RFC-1122.
 The IAB and the DoD MIL-STD specifications for the FTP, SMTP, and
 Telnet protocols are essentially the same documents (RFCs 765, 821,
 854).  The MIL-STD versions have been edited slightly.  Note that the
 current Internet specification for FTP is RFC-959 (as modified by
 RFC-1123).
        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, one of "standard", "draft standard",
 "proposed standard", "experimental", "informational" or "historic".
 The second is the 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.

Internet Activities Board [Page 7] RFC 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

 When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard,
 it is labeled with a current status and when possible, the IAB also
 notes the status that the protocol is expected to have when it
 reaches the standard state.
 At any given time a protocol occupies a cell of the following matrix.
 Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the following
 proportions (indicated by the relative number of Xs).  A new protocol
 is most likely to start in the (proposed standard, elective) cell, or
 the (experimental, not recommended) cell.
                           S T A T U S
                   Req   Rec   Ele   Lim   Not
                 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
         Std     |  X  | XXX | XXX |     |     |
     S           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
         Draft   |  X  |  X  | XXX |     |     |
     T           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
         Prop    |     |  X  | XXX |  X  |     |
     A           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
         Info    |     |  X  | XXX |  X  |  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

 Every protocol listed in this document is assigned to a STATE of
 standardization: "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 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

 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.  Informational Protocol
    Protocols developed by other standard organizations, or vendors,
    or that are for other reasons outside the purview of the IAB, may
    be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community
    as informational protocols.  Such protocols may in some cases also
    be recommended for use in the Internet by the IAB.
 4.1.6.  Historic Protocol
    These are protocols that are unlikely to ever become standards in
    the Internet either because they have been superseded by later
    developments or due to lack of interest.

Internet Activities Board [Page 9] RFC 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status

    This document lists a STATUS for each protocol.  The status is one
    of "required", "recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not
    recommended".
 4.2.1.  Required Protocol
    A system must implement the required protocols.
 4.2.2.  Recommended Protocol
    A system should implement the recommended protocols.
 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 the
 RFC Editor.  The processing depends on who submitted it, and the
 status they want it to have.

Internet Activities Board [Page 10] RFC 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

    +==========================================================+
    |**************|               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 Refer (4).
    (6) RFC Editor's discretion.  The RFC Editor decides if a review
        is needed and if so by whom.  RFC Editor decides to publish or

Internet Activities Board [Page 11] RFC 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

        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 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 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

       |
       +<----------------------------------------------+
       |                                               ^
       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 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

6. The Protocols

 Subsection 6.1 lists recent RFCs and other changes.  Subsections 6.2
 - 6.8 list the standards in groups by protocol state.

6.1. Recent Changes

6.1.1. New RFCs:

    1218 - Naming Scheme for c=US
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1217 - Memo from the Consortium for Slow Commotion Research (CSCR)
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1216 - Gigabit Network Economics and Paradigm Shifts
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1215 - A Convention for Defining Traps for use with the SNMP
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1214 - OSI Internet Management: Management Information Base
           A Proposed Standard protocol.
    1213 - Management Information Base for Network Management
           of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II
           Advanced to Draft Standard protocol.
    1212 - Concise MIB Definitions
           This is a new Proposed Standard protocol.
    1211 - Problems with the Maintenance of Large Mailing Lists
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.

Internet Activities Board [Page 14] RFC 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

    1210 - Network and Infrastructure User Requirements for
           Transatlantic Research Collaboration - Brussels,
           July 16-18, and Washington July 24-25, 1990
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1209 - The Transmission of IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service
           This is a new Proposed Standard protocol.
    1208 - A Glossary of Networking Terms
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1207 - FYI on Questions and Answers - Answers to Commonly asked
           "Experienced Internet User" Questions
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1206 - FYI on Questions and Answers - Answers to Commonly asked
           "New Internet User" Questions
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1205 - 5250 Telnet Interface
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1204 - Message Posting Protocol (MPP)
           This is a new Experimental protocol.
    1203 - Interactive Mail Access Protocol - Version 3 (IMAP3)
           This is a new Experimental protocol.
    1202 - Directory Assistance Service
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.

Internet Activities Board [Page 15] RFC 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

    1201 - Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Networks
           A Proposed Standard protocol.
    1200 - IAB Official Protocol Standards
           This memo.
    1199 - <not issued yet>
    1198 - FYI on the X Window System
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1197 - Using ODA for Translating Multimedia Information
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1196 - The Finger User Information Protocol
           A Draft Standard protocol.  This edition corrects and
           clarifies in a minor way, RFC 1194.
    1195 - Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual
           Environments
           A Proposed Standard protocol.
    1194 - The Finger User Information Protocol
           A Draft Standard protocol.
    1193 - Client Requirements for Real-Time Communication Services
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1192 - Commercialization of the Internet Summary Report
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1191 - Path MTU Discovery (MTU)
           A Proposed Standard protocol.

Internet Activities Board [Page 16] RFC 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

    1190 - Experimental Internet Stream Protocol, Version 2 (ST-II)
           A Limited-Use Experimental protocol.
    1189 - The Common Management Information Services and Protocols
           for the Internet
           A Proposed Standard protocol.
    1188 - A Proposed Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams
           over FDDI Networks
           A Draft Standard protocol.
    1187 - Bulk Table Retrieval with the SNMP
           A new Experimental protocol.
    1186 - The MD4 Message Digest Algorithm
           A specification of the MD4 Digest Algorithm.  This is an
           information document and does not specify any level of
           standard.
    1185 - TCP Extension for High-Speed Paths
           An Experimental protocol extension to TCP.
    1184 - Telnet Linemode Option
           A Draft Standard protocol.
    1183 - New DNS RR Definitions
           A new Experimental protocol.
    1182 - <not issued yet>
    1181 - RIPE Terms of Reference
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1180 - A TCP/IP Tutorial
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.

Internet Activities Board [Page 17] RFC 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

    1179 - Line Printer Daemon Protocol
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1178 - Choosing a Name for Your Computer
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1177 - FYI on Questions and Answers - Answers to Commonly asked
           "New Internet User" Questions
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1176 - Interactive Mail Access Protocol - Version 2 (IMAP2)
           This is a new Experimental protocol.
    1175 - FYI on Where to Start - A Bibliography of
           Internetworking Information
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1174 - IAB Recommended Policy on Distributing Internet Identifier
           Assignment and IAB Recommended Policy Change to Internet
           "Connected" Status
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1173 - Responsibilities of Host and Network Managers: A Summary of
           the "Oral Tradition" of the Internet
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1172 - The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Initial Configuration
           Options
           A Proposed Standard protocol.

Internet Activities Board [Page 18] RFC 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

    1171 - The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) for the
           Transmission of Multi-Protocol Datagrams
           Over Point-to-Point Links
           A Draft Standard protocol.
    1170 - Public Key Standards and Licenses
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1169 - Explaining the Role of GOSIP
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1168 - Intermail and Commercial Mail Relay Services
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1167 - Thoughts on the National Research and Education Network
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1166 - Internet Numbers
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1165 - Network Time Protocol (NTP) over the OSI Remote Operations
           Service
           An Experimental protocol.
    1164 - Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet
           A Proposed Standard protocol.
    1163 - A Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
           A Proposed Standard protocol.

Internet Activities Board [Page 19] RFC 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

    1162 - Connectionless Network Protocol (ISO 8473)
           and End System to Intermediate System (ISO 9542)
           Management Information Base
           This memo does not specify a standard for the Internet
           community.  However, after experimentation, if sufficient
           consensus is reached in the Internet community, then a
           subsequent revision of this document...
    1161 - SNMP over OSI
           An experimental means for running the Simple Network
           Management Protocol (SNMP) over OSI transports.
    1160 - The Internet Activities Board
           This is an information document and does not specify any
           level of standard.
    1159 - Message Send Protocol
           An Experimental protocol.

6.1.2. Other Changes:

 The following are changes to protocols listed in the previous
 edition.
    1213 - Management Information Base for Network Management
           of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II
           Advanced to Draft Standard protocol.
    1196 - The Finger User Information Protocol
           Advanced to Draft Standard protocol.
    1191 - Path MTU Discovery
           Advanced to Proposed Standard protocol.
    1189 - The Common Management Information Services and Protocols
           for the Internet
           Moved to Proposed Standard protocol.

Internet Activities Board [Page 20] RFC 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

    1188 - A Proposed Standard for the Transmission of
           IP Datagrams over FDDI Networks
           Advanced to Draft Standard protocol.
    1184 - Telnet Linemode Option
           Advanced to Draft Standard protocol.
    1171 - The Point-to-Point Protocol for the Transmission of
           Multi-Protocol Datagrams Over Point-to-Point Links
           Advanced to Draft Standard protocol.
    1163 - A Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
           Advanced to Proposed Standard protocol.

Internet Activities Board [Page 21] RFC 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

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 22] RFC 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

 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.  At the current
 time, this implies implementation of the Internet MIB (RFC-1156), the
 MIB extension MIB-II (RFC-1158, a Draft Standard), and at least the
 recommended management protocol SNMP (RFC-1157).

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 23] RFC 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

6.4. Draft Standard Protocols

Protocol Name Status RFC

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

FINGER Finger Protocol Elective 1196* IP-FDDI Internet Protocol on FDDI Networks Elective 1188* TOPT-LINE Telnet Linemode Option Elective 1184* MIB-II MIB-II Elective 1213* PPP Point to Point Protocol Elective 1171* ——– Mail Privacy: Procedures Elective 1113 ——– Mail Privacy: Key Management Elective 1114 ——– Mail Privacy: Algorithms Elective 1115 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:

 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".
 MIB-II -- This memo defines a mandatory extension to the base MIB
 (RFC-1156) and is a Draft 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.  See also the note on SMI, MIB and SNMP under
 Standards.

Internet Activities Board [Page 24] RFC 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

 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-specific standard protocol state
 in the future.

6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols

Protocol Name Status RFC

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

OIM-MIB-II OSI Internet Management: MIB-II Elective 1214* Concise-MIB Concise MIB Definitions Elective 1212* IP-SMDS IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service Elective 1209* IP-ARCNET Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Networks Elective 1201* IS-IS Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP Elective 1195*

         and Dual Environments

IP-MTU Path MTU Discovery Elective 1191* CMOT Common Management Information Services Elective 1189*

         and Protocol over TCP/IP

PPP-INIT PPP Initial Configuration Options Elective 1172* BGP Border Gateway Protocol Elective 1163,1164* IP-CMPRS Compressing TCP/IP Headers Elective 1144 ——– Echo for ISO-8473 Elective 1139 OSPF Open Shortest Path First Routing Elective 1131 TOPT-ENV Telnet Environment Option Elective 1116* 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 SUPDUP SUPDUP Protocol Elective 734

Notes:

 IP-SMDS and IP-ARCNET -- These define methods of sending IP over
 particular network types.  It is anticipated that these will be
 advanced to the network specific standard protocol state in the
 future.

Internet Activities Board [Page 25] RFC 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

6.6. Experimental Protocols

Protocol Name Status RFC

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

MPP Message Posting Protocol Limited Use 1204* ST-II Stream Protocol Limited Use 1190* SNMP-BULK Bulk Table Retrieval with the SNMP Limited Use 1187* DNS-RR New DNS RR Definitions Limited Use 1183* NTP-OSI NTP over OSI Remote Operations Limited Use 1165* MSP Message Send Protocol Limited Use 1159* 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 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 1176,1064 IMAP3 Interactive Mail Access Protocol Limited Use 1203* 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 NVP-II Network Voice Protocol Limited Use ISI-memo PVP Packet Video Protocol Limited Use ISI-memo

6.7. Informational Protocols

Protocol Name RFC

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

SNMP-TRAPS A Convention for Defining Traps for use with SNMP 1215* DAS Directory Assistance Service 1202* ——- FYI on the X Window System 1198* ODA Office Document Architecture 1197* MD4 MD4 Message Digest Algorithm 1186* LPDP Line Printer Daemon Protocol 1179*

Internet Activities Board [Page 26] RFC 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

6.8. 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

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.

Internet Activities Board [Page 27] RFC 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

 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
 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

Internet Activities Board [Page 28] RFC 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

 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

    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

Internet Activities Board [Page 29] RFC 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

 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
 "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

Internet Activities Board [Page 30] RFC 1200 IAB Standards April 1991

 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

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
 Fax:   213-823-6714
 Email: Postel@ISI.EDU

Internet Activities Board [Page 31]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc1200.txt · Last modified: 1991/04/05 19:39 (external edit)