GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc840

Network Working Group J. Postel Request for Comments: 840 ISI

                                                            April 1983
                         Official Protocols

This RFC identifies the documents specifying the official protocols used in the Internet. Annotations identify any revisions or changes planned.

To first order, the official protocols are those in the Internet Protocol Transition Workbook (IPTW) dated March 1982. There are several protocols in use that are not in the IPTW. A few of the protocols in the IPTW have been revised these are noted here. In particular, the mail protocols have been revised and issued as a volume titled "Internet Mail Protocols" dated November 1982. There is a volume of protocol related information called the Internet Protocol Implementers Guide (IPIG) dated August 1982. A few of the protocols (in particular the Telnet Options) have not been revised for many years, these are found in the old ARPANET Protocol Handbook (APH) dated January 1978.

This document is organized as a sketchy outline. The entries are protocols (e.g., Transmission Control Protocol). In each entry there are notes on status, specification, comments, other references, dependencies, and contact.

 The status is one of: required, recommended, elective, or
 experimental.
 The specification identifies the protocol defining documents.
 The comments describe any differences from the specification or
 problems with the protocol.
 The other references identify documents that comment on or expand on
 the protocol.
 The dependencies indicate what other protocols are called upon by
 this protocol.
 The contact indicates a person who can answer questions about the
 protocol.

Postel [Page 1]

RFC 840 April 1983

                                                    Official Protocols
 In particular, the status may need some further clarification:
    required
  1. all hosts must implement the required protocol,
    recommended
  1. all hosts are encouraged to implement the recommended

protocol,

    elective
  1. hosts may implement or not the elective protocol,
    experimental
  1. hosts should not implement the experimental protocol unless

they are participating in the experiment and have coordinated

       their use of this protocol with the contact person, and
    none
  1. this is not a protocol.

Overview

 Catenet Model
    STATUS:  None
    SPECIFICATION:  IEN 48 (in IPTW)
    COMMENTS:
       Gives an overview of the organization and principles of the
       Internet.
       Could be revised and expanded.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES:
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Postel [Page 2]

RFC 840 April 1983

                                                    Official Protocols

Network Level

 Internet Protocol (IP)
    STATUS:  Required
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 791 (in IPTW)
    COMMENTS:
       A few minor problems have been noted in this document.
       The most serious is a bit of confusion in the route options.
       The route options have a pointer that indicates which octet of
       the route is the next to be used.  The confusion is between the
       phrases "the pointer is relative to this option" and "the
       smallest legal value for the pointer is 4".  If you are
       confused, forget about the relative part, the pointer begins
       at 4.
       Another important point is the alternate reassembly procedure
       suggested in RFC 815.
       Note that ICMP is defined to be an integral part of IP.  You
       have not completed an implementation of IP if it does not
       include ICMP.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
       RFC 815 (in IPIG) - IP Datagram Reassembly Algorithms
       RFC 814 (in IPIG) - Names, Addresses, Ports, and Routes
       RFC 816 (in IPIG) - Fault Isolation and Recovery
       RFC 817 (in IPIG) - Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol
       Implementation
    DEPENDENCIES:
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Postel [Page 3]

RFC 840 April 1983

                                                    Official Protocols
 Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP)
    STATUS:  Required
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 792 (in IPTW)
    COMMENTS:
       A few minor errors in the document have been noted.
       Suggestions have been made for additional types of redirect
       message and additional destination unreachable messages.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Host Level

 User Datagram Protocol (UDP)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 768 (in IPTW)
    COMMENTS:
       The only change noted for the UDP specification is a minor
       clarification that if in computing the checksum a padding octet
       is used for the computation it is not transmitted or counted in
       the length.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Postel [Page 4]

RFC 840 April 1983

                                                    Official Protocols
 Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 793 (in IPTW)
    COMMENTS:
       Many comments and corrections have been received for the TCP
       specification document.  These are primarily document bugs
       rather than protocol bugs.
       Event Processing Section:  There are many minor corrections and
       clarifications needed in this section.
       Push:  There are still some phrases in the document that give a
       "record mark" flavor to the push.  These should be further
       clarified.  The push is not a record mark.
       Listening Servers:  Several comments have been received on
       difficulties with contacting listening servers.  There should
       be some discussion of implementation issues for servers, and
       some notes on alternative models of system and process
       organization for servers.
       Maximum Segment Size:  The maximum segment size option should
       be generalized and clarified.  It can be used to either
       increase or decrease the maximum segment size from the default.
       The default should be established more clearly.  The default is
       based on the default maximum Internet Datagram size which is
       576 octets counting the IP and TCP headers.  The option counts
       only the segment data.  For each of IP and TCP the minimum
       header is 20 octets and the maximum header is 60 octets. So the
       default maximum data segment is could be anywhere from 456 to
       536 octets.  The current proposal is to set it at 536 data
       octets.
       Idle Connections:  There have been questions about
       automatically closing idle connections.  Idle connections are
       ok, and should not be closed.  There are several cases where
       idle connections arise, for example, in Telnet when a user is
       thinking for a long time following a message from the server
       computer before his next input.  There is no TCP "probe"
       mechanism, and none is needed.
       Queued Receive Data on Closing:  There are several points where
       it is not clear from the description what to do about data
       received by the TCP but not yet passed to the user,
       particularly when the connection is being closed.  In general,

Postel [Page 5]

RFC 840 April 1983

                                                    Official Protocols
       the data is to be kept to give to the user if he does a RECV
       call.
       Out of Order Segments:  The description says that segments that
       arrive out of order, that is, are not exactly the next segment
       to be processed, may be kept on hand.  It should also point out
       that there is a very large performance penalty for not doing
       so.
       User Time Out:  This is the time out started on an open or send
       call.  If this user time out occurs the user should be
       notified, but the connection should not be closed or the TCB
       deleted.  The user should explicitly ABORT the connection if he
       wants to give up.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
       RFC 813 (in IPIG) - Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP
       RFC 814 (in IPIG) - Names, Addresses, Ports, and Routes
       RFC 816 (in IPIG) - Fault Isolation and Recovery
       RFC 817 (in IPIG) - Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol
       Implementation
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF
 Host Monitoring Protocol (HMP)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  IEN 197
    COMMENTS:
       This is a good tool for debuging protocol implementations in
       small remotely located computers.
       This protocol is used to monitor Internet gateways and the
       TACs.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
    CONTACT: Hinden@BBN-UNIX

Postel [Page 6]

RFC 840 April 1983

                                                    Official Protocols
 Cross Net Debugger (XNET)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  IEN 158
    COMMENTS:
       This specification should be updated and reissued as an RFC.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
       RFC 643
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF
 Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 827
    COMMENTS:
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Postel [Page 7]

RFC 840 April 1983

                                                    Official Protocols
 Gateway Gateway Protocol (GGP)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 823
    COMMENTS:
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
    CONTACT: Brescia@BBN-UNIX
 Multiplexing Protocol
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  IEN 90
    COMMENTS:
       No current experiment in progress.  There is some question as
       to the extent to which the sharing this protocol envisions can
       actually take place.  Also, there are some issues about the
       information captured in the multiplexing header being (a)
       insufficient, or (b) over specific.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Postel [Page 8]

RFC 840 April 1983

                                                    Official Protocols
 Stream Protocol (ST)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  IEN 119
    COMMENTS:
       The implementation of this protocol has evolved and may no
       longer be consistent with this specification.  The document
       should be updated and issued as an RFC.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
    CONTACT: Forgie@BBN
 Network Voice Protocol (NVP-II)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC xxx
    COMMENTS:
       The specification is an ISI Internal Memo which should be
       updated and issued as an RFC.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol, Stream Protocol
    CONTACT: Casner@USC-ISIB

Postel [Page 9]

RFC 840 April 1983

                                                    Official Protocols

Application Level

 Telnet Protocol (TELNET)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 764 (in IPTW)
    COMMENTS:
       A few minor typographical errors should be corrected and some
       clarification of the SYNCH mechanism should be made.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF
 Telnet Options (TELNET)
    Number   Name                                   RFC   NIC  APH USE
    ------   ------------------------------------   ---  ----- --- ---
       0     Binary Transmission                    ...  15389 yes yes
       1     Echo                                   ...  15390 yes yes
       2     Reconnection                           ...  15391 yes  no
       3     Suppress Go Ahead                      ...  15392 yes yes
       4     Approximate Message Size Negotiation   ...  15393 yes  no
       5     Status                                 651  31154 yes yes
       6     Timing Mark                            ...  16238 yes yes
       7     Remote Controlled Trans and Echo       726  39237 yes  no
       8     Output Line Width                      ...  20196 yes  no
       9     Output Page Size                       ...  20197 yes  no
      10     Output Carriage-Return Disposition     652  31155 yes  no
      11     Output Horizontal Tabstops             653  31156 yes  no
      12     Output Horizontal Tab Disposition      654  31157 yes  no
      13     Output Formfeed Disposition            655  31158 yes  no
      14     Output Vertical Tabstops               656  31159 yes  no
      15     Output Vertical Tab Disposition        657  31160 yes  no
      16     Output Linefeed Disposition            658  31161 yes  no
      17     Extended ASCII                         698  32964 yes  no
      18     Logout                                 727  40025 yes  no
      19     Byte Macro                             735  42083 yes  no
      20     Data Entry Terminal                    732  41762 yes  no
      21     SUPDUP                             734 736  42213 yes  no
      22     SUPDUP Output                          749  45449  no  no
      23     Send Location                          779  -----  no  no
     255     Extended-Options-List                  ...  16239 yes yes

Postel [Page 10]

RFC 840 April 1983

                                                    Official Protocols
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  (in APH)
    COMMENTS:
       There is an open question about some of these.  Most of the
       options are implemented by so few hosts that perhaps they
       should be eliminated.  These should all be studied and the
       useful ones reissued as RFCs.
       The last column (USE) of the table above indicates which
       options are in general use.
       The following are recommended:  Binary Transmission, Echo,
       Suppress Go Ahead, Status, Timing Mark, and Extended Options
       List.
       Many of these must be revised for use with TCP.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Telnet
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF
 File Transfer Protocol (FTP)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 765 (in IPTW)
    COMMENTS:
       There are a number of minor corrections to be made.  A major
       change is the deletion of the mail commands, and a major
       clarification is needed in the discussion of the management of
       the data connection.  Also, a suggestion has been made to
       include some directory manipulation commands (RFC 775).
       Eventhough the MAIL features are defined in this document, they
       are not to be used.  The SMTP protocol is to be used for all
       mail service in the Internet.
       Data Connection Management:
          a.  Default Data Connection Ports:  All FTP implementations
          must support use of the default data connection ports, and
          only the User-PI may initiate the use of non-default ports.

Postel [Page 11]

RFC 840 April 1983

                                                    Official Protocols
          b.  Negotiating Non-Default Data Ports:   The User-PI may
          specify a non-default user side data port with the PORT
          command.  The User-PI may request the server side to
          identify a non-default server side data port with the PASV
          command.  Since a connection is defined by the pair of
          addresses, either of these actions is enough to get a
          different data connection, still it is permitted to do both
          commands to use new ports on both ends of the data
          connection.
          c.  Reuse of the Data Connection:  When using the stream
          mode of data transfer the end of the file must be indicated
          by closing the connection.  This causes a problem if
          multiple files are to be transfered in the session, due to
          need for TCP to hold the connection record for a time out
          period to guarantee the reliable communication.  Thus the
          connection can not be reopened at once.
             There are two solutions to this problem.  The first is to
             negotiate a non-default port (as in (b) above).  The
             second is to use another transfer mode.
             A comment on transfer modes.  The stream transfer mode is
             inherently unreliable, since one can not determine if the
             connection closed prematurely or not.  The other transfer
             modes (Block, Compressed) do not close the connection to
             indicate the end of file.  They have enough FTP encoding
             that the data connection can be parsed to determine the
             end of the file.  Thus using these modes one can leave
             the data connection open for multiple file transfers.
             Why this was not a problem with the old NCP FTP:
                The NCP was designed with only the ARPANET in mind.
                The ARPANET provides very reliable service, and the
                NCP counted on it.  If any packet of data from an NCP
                connection were lost or damaged by the network the NCP
                could not recover.  It is a tribute to the ARPANET
                designers that the NCP FTP worked so well.
                The TCP is designed to provide reliable connections
                over many different types of networks and
                interconnections of networks.  TCP must cope with a
                set of networks that can not promise to work as well
                as the ARPANET.  TCP must make its own provisions for
                end-to-end recovery from lost or damaged packets.
                This leads to the need for the connection phase-down
                time-out.  The NCP never had to deal with
                acknowledgements or retransmissions or many other

Postel [Page 12]

RFC 840 April 1983

                                                    Official Protocols
                things the TCP must do to make connection reliable in
                a more complex world.
       LIST and NLST:
          There is some confusion about the LIST an NLST commands, and
          what is appropriate to return.  Some clarification and
          motivation for these commands should be added to the
          specification.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
       RFC 678 - Document File Format Standards
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF
 Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 783 (in IPTW)
    COMMENTS:
       No known problems with this specification.  This is in use in
       several local networks.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF
 Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 821
    COMMENTS:
       This has been revised since the IPTW, it is in the "Internet
       Mail Protocols" volume of November 1982.  RFC 788 (in IPTW) is
       obsolete.
       There have been many misunderstandings and errors in the early

Postel [Page 13]

RFC 840 April 1983

                                                    Official Protocols
       implementations.  Some documentation of these problems can be
       found in the file [ISIF]<SMTP>MAIL.ERRORS.
       Some minor differences between RFC 821 and RFC 822 should be
       resolved.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
       RFC 822 - Mail Header Format Standards
          This has been revised since the IPTW, it is in the "Internet
          Mail Protocols" volume of November 1982.  RFC 733 (in IPTW)
          is obsolete.  Further revision of RFC 822 is needed to
          correct some minor errors in the details of the
          specification.
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF
 Remote Job Entry (RJE)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 407 (in APH)
    COMMENTS:
       Some changes needed for use with TCP.
       No known active implementations.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: File Transfer Protocol
                  Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Postel [Page 14]

RFC 840 April 1983

                                                    Official Protocols
 Remote Job Service (NETRJS)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 740 (in APH)
    COMMENTS:
       Used with the UCLA IBM OS system.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
       Revision in progress.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Braden@USC-ISIA
 Remote Telnet Service
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 818
    COMMENTS:
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Telnet, Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF
 Graphics Protocol
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  NIC 24308 (in APH)
    COMMENTS:
       Very minor changes needed for use with TCP.
       No known active implementations.
    OTHER REFERENCES:

Postel [Page 15]

RFC 840 April 1983

                                                    Official Protocols
    DEPENDENCIES: Telnet, Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF
 Echo Protocol
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 347
    COMMENTS:
       This specification should be revised for use with TCP and
       reissued.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                  or User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF
 Discard Protocol
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 348
    COMMENTS:
       This specification should be revised for use with TCP and
       reissued.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                  or User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Postel [Page 16]

RFC 840 April 1983

                                                    Official Protocols
 Character Generator Protocol
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 429
    COMMENTS:
       This specification should be revised for use with TCP and
       reissued.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                  or User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF
 Quote of the Day Protocol
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC xxx
    COMMENTS:
       Open a connection to this server, it sends you a quote (as a
       character string), and closes the connection.  This should be
       described in an RFC.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                  or User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF
 Active Users Protocol
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC xxx
    COMMENTS:
       Open a connection to this server, it sends you a list of the
       currently logged in users (as a character string), and closes
       the connection.  This should be described in an RFC.

Postel [Page 17]

RFC 840 April 1983

                                                    Official Protocols
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                  or User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF
 Finger Protocol
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 742 (in APH)
    COMMENTS:
       Some extensions have been suggested.
       Some changes are are needed for TCP.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF
 NICNAME Protocol
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 812 (in IPTW)
    COMMENTS:
       Accesses the ARPANET Directory database.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Feinler@SRI-NIC

Postel [Page 18]

RFC 840 April 1983

                                                    Official Protocols
 HOSTNAME Protocol
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 811 (in IPTW)
    COMMENTS:
       Accesses the Registered Internet Hosts database (HOSTS.TXT).
    OTHER REFERENCES:
       RFC 810 - Host Table Specification
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Feinler@SRI-NIC
 Host Name Server Protocol
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  IEN 116 (in IPTW)
    COMMENTS:
       This specification has significant problems:  1) The name
       syntax is out of date.  2) The protocol details are ambiguous,
       in particular, the length octet either does or doesn't include
       itself and the op code.  3) The extensions are not supported by
       any known implementation.
       Work is in progress on a significant revision.  Further
       implementations of this protocol are not advised.
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Postel [Page 19]

RFC 840 April 1983

                                                    Official Protocols
 CSNET Mailbox Name Server Protocol
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  CS-DN-2
    COMMENTS:
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Solomon@UWISC
 Daytime Protocol
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC xxx
    COMMENTS:
       Open a connection to this server, it sends you the date and
       time (as a character string), and closes the connection.  This
       should be described in an RFC.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                  or User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF
 Time Server Protocol
    STATUS:  Recommended
    SPECIFICATION:  IEN 142
    COMMENTS:
       Open a connection to this server, it sends you the date and
       time (as a 32-bit number), and closes the connection.  Or send
       a user datagram and it send back a datagram containing the date
       and time (as a 32-bit number).

Postel [Page 20]

RFC 840 April 1983

                                                    Official Protocols
       No known problems.  Specification should be reissued as an RFC.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                  or User Datagram Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF
 DCNET Time Server Protocol (Internet Clock Service)
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 778
    COMMENTS:
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Internet Control Message Protocol
    CONTACT: Mills@LINKABIT-DCN6
 SUPDUP Protocol
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 734 (in APH)
    COMMENTS:
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Admin.MRC@SU-SCORE
 Internet Message Protocol (MPM)
    STATUS:  Experimental
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 753
    COMMENTS:
       This is an experimental multimedia mail transfer protocol.  The
       implementation is called a Message Processing Module or MPM.

Postel [Page 21]

RFC 840 April 1983

                                                    Official Protocols
       Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
       protocol with the contact.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
       RFC 767 - Structured Document Formats
    DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Appendices

 Assigned Numbers
    STATUS:  None
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 820
    COMMENTS:
       Describes the fields of various protocols that are assigned
       specific values for actual use, and lists the currently
       assigned values.
       Issued January 1983, replaces RFC 790 in IPTW.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF
 Pre-emption
    STATUS:  Elective
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 794 (in IPTW)
    COMMENTS:
       Describes how to do pre-emption of TCP connections.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Postel [Page 22]

RFC 840 April 1983

                                                    Official Protocols
 Service Mappings
    STATUS:  None
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 795 (in IPTW)
    COMMENTS:
       Describes the mapping of the IP type of service field onto the
       parameters of some specific networks.
       Out of date, needs revision.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF
 Address Mappings
    STATUS:  None
    SPECIFICATION:  RFC 796 (in IPTW)
    COMMENTS:
       Describes the mapping of the IP address field onto the address
       field of some specific networks.
       Out of date, needs revision.
    OTHER REFERENCES:
    CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Postel [Page 23]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc840.txt · Last modified: 1992/09/23 20:14 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki