Документ взят из кэша поисковой машины. Адрес оригинального документа : http://mirror.msu.net/pub/rfc-editor/rfc-ed-all/pdfrfc/rfc1720.txt.pdf Дата изменения: Wed Mar 27 23:16:02 2002 Дата индексирования: Tue Oct 2 18:44:27 2012 Кодировка: Поисковые слова: guide 8.0

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 1720 Obsoletes: RFCs 1610, 1600, 1540, 1500, 1410, 1360, 1280, 1250, 1100, 1083, 1130, 1140, 1200 STD: 1 Category: Standards Track

Internet Architecture Board J. Postel, Editor November 1994

INTERNET 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 Architecture Board (IAB). This memo is an Internet Standard. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Table of Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Standardization Process . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Request for Comments Documents . . . . . . . . . 3. Other Reference Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Assigned Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Gateway Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Host Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. The MIL-STD Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Explanation of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. Definitions of Protocol State (Maturity Level) . . 4.1.1. Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.4. Experimental Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.5. Informational Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.6. Historic Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status (Requirement Level) 4.2.1. Required Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2. Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3. Elective Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.4. Limited Use Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.5. Not Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. The Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1. The RFC Processing Decision Table . . . . . . . . 5.2. The Standards Track Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . 6. The Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1. Recent Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 12 14 14

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 1]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

6.1.1. New RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.2. Other Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2. Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols . . . . . . . 6.4. Draft Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6. Telnet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7. Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8. Informational Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9. Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.10 Obsolete Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.1. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact . . . 7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . 7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact . . 7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact 7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact . . . . . . . 7.4. Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . 7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments . . . . . . . . 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 23 24 26 27 28 31 32 33 34 36 37 37 37 38 39 39 40 40 41 41 41

A discussion of the standardization process and the RFC document series is presented first, followed by an explanation of the terms. Sections 6.2 - 6.10 contain the lists of protocols in each stage of standardization. Finally are pointers to references and contacts for further information. This memo is intended to be issued approximately quarterly; please be sure the copy you are reading is current. Current copies may be obtained from the Network Information Center (INTERNIC) or from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (see the contact information at the end of this memo). Do not use this edition after 1-Mar-95. See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes. In the official lists in sections 6.2 - 6.10, an asterisk (*) next to a protocol denotes that it is new to this document or has been moved from one protocol level to another, or differs from the previous edition of this document.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 2]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

1.

The Standardization Process The Internet Architecture Board maintains this list of documents that define standards for the Internet protocol suite. See RFC-1601 for the charter of the IAB and RFC-1160 for an explanation of the role and organization of the IAB and its subsidiary groups, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). Each of these groups has a steering group called the IESG and IRSG, respectively. The IETF develops these standards with the goal of co-ordinating the evolution of the Internet protocols; this co-ordination has become quite important as the Internet protocols are increasingly in general commercial use. The definitive description of the Internet standards process is found in RFC-1602. The majority of Internet protocol development and standardization activity takes place in the working groups of the IETF. Protocols which are to become standards in the Internet go through a series of states or maturity levels (proposed standard, draft standard, and standard) involving increasing amounts of scrutiny and testing. When a protocol completes this process it is assigned a STD number (see RFC-1311). At each step, the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) of the IETF must make a recommendation for advancement of the protocol. To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react to standardization proposals, a minimum delay of 6 months before a proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard and 4 months before a draft standard can be promoted to standard. It is general practice that no proposed standard can be promoted to draft standard without at least two independent implementations (and the recommendation of the IESG). Promotion from draft standard to standard generally requires operational experience and demonstrated interoperability of two or more implementations (and the recommendation of the IESG). In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper decision concerning a protocol a special review committee may be appointed consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB with the purpose of recommending an explicit action. Advancement of a protocol to proposed standard is an important step since it marks a protocol as a candidate for eventual standardization (it puts the protocol "on the standards track"). Advancement to draft standard is a major step which warns the community that, unless major objections are raised or flaws are discovered, the protocol is likely to be advanced to standard in six months.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 3]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are otherwise unused. Such protocols are still documented in this memorandum with the designation "historic". Because it is useful to document the results of early protocol research and development work, some of the RFCs document protocols which are still in an experimental condition. The protocols are designated "experimental" in this memorandum. They appear in this report as a convenience to the community and not as evidence of their standardization. Other protocols, such as those developed by other standards organizations, or by particular vendors, may be of interest or may be recommended for use in the Internet. The specifications of such protocols may be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community. These protocols are labeled "informational" in this memorandum. In addition to the working groups of the IETF, protocol development and experimentation may take place as a result of the work of the research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or the work of other individuals interested in Internet protocol development. The the documentation of such experimental work in the RFC series is encouraged, but none of this work is considered to be on the track for standardization until the IESG has made a recommendation to advance the protocol to the proposed standard state. A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without the approval of the IESG. For example, some vendor protocols have become very important to the Internet community even though they have not been recommended by the IESG. However, the IAB strongly recommends that the standards process be used in the evolution of the protocol suite to maximize interoperability (and to prevent incompatible protocol requirements from arising). The use of the terms "standard", "draft standard", and "proposed standard" are reserved in any RFC or other publication of Internet protocols to only those protocols which the IESG has approved. In addition to a state (like "Proposed Standard"), a protocol is also assigned a status, or requirement level, in this document. The possible requirement levels ("Required", "Recommended", "Elective", "Limited Use", and "Not Recommended") are defined in Section 4.2. When a protocol is on the standards track, that is in the proposed standard, draft standard, or standard state (see Section 5), the status shown in Section 6 is the current status. Few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems; this is because there is such a variety of possible systems, for example,

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 4]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

gateways, routers, terminal servers, workstations, and multi-user hosts. The requirement level shown in this document is only a one word label, which may not be sufficient to characterize the implementation requirements for a protocol in all situations. For some protocols, this document contains an additional status paragraph (an applicability statement). In addition, more detailed status information may be contained in separate requirements documents (see Section 3). 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, and see RFC 1543). While RFCs are not refereed publications, they do receive technical review from the task forces, individual technical experts, or the RFC Editor, as appropriate. The RFC series comprises a wide range of documents, ranging from informational documents of general interests to specifications of standard Internet protocols. In cases where submission is intended to document a proposed standard, draft standard, or standard protocol, the RFC Editor will publish the document only with the approval of the IESG. For documents describing experimental work, the RFC Editor will notify the IESG before publication, allowing for the possibility of review by the relevant IETF working group or IRTF research group and provide those comments to the author. See Section 5.1 for more detail. Once a document is assigned an RFC number and published, that RFC is never revised or re-issued with the same number. There is never a question of having the most recent version of a particular RFC. However, a protocol (such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP)) may be improved and re-documented many times in several different RFCs. It is important to verify that you have the most recent RFC on a particular protocol. This "Internet Official Protocol Standards"

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 5]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

memo is the reference for determining the correct RFC for the current specification of each protocol. The RFCs are available from the INTERNIC, and a number of other sites. For more information about obtaining RFCs, see Sections 7.4 and 7.5. 3. Other Reference Documents There are three other reference documents of interest in checking the current status of protocol specifications and standardization. These are the Assigned Numbers, the Gateway Requirements, and the Host Requirements. Note that these documents are revised and updated at different times; in case of differences between these documents, the most recent must prevail. Also, one should be aware of the MIL-STD publications on IP, TCP, Telnet, FTP, and SMTP. These are described in Section 3.4. 3.1. Assigned Numbers lists the assigned values of the protocols. For example, IP protocol Option Codes, ARP hardware types, and Numbers was most recently issued as

The "Assigned Numbers" document parameters used in the various codes, TCP port numbers, Telnet Terminal Type names. Assigned RFC-1700. 3.2. 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. 3.3. 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. 3.4. The MIL-STD Documents

The Internet community specifications for IP (RFC-791) and TCP (RFC793) 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 DISA and to the IESG. 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

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 6]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

of documents be used together, along with RFC-1122 and RFC-1123. The Internet 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). Note that these MIL-STD are now somewhat out of date. The Gateway Requirements (RFC-1009) and Host Requirements (RFC-1122, RFC-1123) take precedence over both earlier RFCs and the MIL-STDs. Internet Protocol (IP) Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) File Transfer Protocol (FTP) Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Telnet Protocol and Options (TELNET) MIL-STD-1777 MIL-STD-1778 MIL-STD-1780 MIL-STD-1781 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. 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 "maturity level" or STATE of standardization, one of "standard", "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", "informational" or "historic". The second is the "requirement level" or STATUS of this protocol, one of "required", "recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended". The status or requirement level is difficult to portray in a one word label. These status labels should be considered only as an indication, and a further description, or applicability statement, should be consulted. When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard, it is labeled with a current status.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 7]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

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. STATUS Req Rec Ele Lim Not +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | X | XXX | XXX | | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | X | X | XXX | | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | X | XXX | | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | | | | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | | | XXX | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | | | | XXX | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

Std S Draft T Prop A Info T Expr E Hist

What is a "system"? Some protocols are particular to hosts and some protocols are used in both. The definitions of will refer to a "system" which is either a host both). It should be clear from the context of protocol which types of systems are intended. 4.1. Definitions of Protocol State to the or the gateways; a few terms below a gateway (or particular

Every protocol listed in this document is assigned to a "maturity level" or STATE of standardization: "standard", "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic". 4.1.1. Standard Protocol

The IESG has established this as an official standard protocol for the Internet. These protocols are assigned STD numbers (see RFC1311). 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 Architecture Board

[Page 8]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

4.1.2.

Draft Standard Protocol as a possible testing and comment be submitted to the be made in a Draft Protocol.

The IESG is actively considering this protocol Standard Protocol. Substantial and widespread are desired. Comments and test results should IESG. There is a possibility that changes will Standard Protocol before it becomes a Standard 4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol

These are protocol proposals that may be considered by the IESG for standardization in the future. Implementation and testing by several groups is desirable. Revision of the protocol specification is likely. 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 IESG, may be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community as informational protocols. 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. 4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status This document lists a "requirement level" or STATUS for each protocol. The status is one of "required", "recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 9]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

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 IESG 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 Architecture Board

[Page 10]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

+==========================================================+ |**************| SOURCE | +==========================================================+ | Desired | IAB | IESG | IRSG | Other | | Status | | | | | +==========================================================+ | | | | | | | Standard | Bogus | Publish | Bogus | Bogus | | or | (2) | (1) | (2) | (2) | | Draft | | | | | | Standard | | | | | +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ | | | | | | | | Refer | Publish | Refer | Refer | | Proposed | (3) | (1) | (3) | (3) | | Standard | | | | | | | | | | | +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ | | | | | | | | Notify | Publish | Notify | Notify | | Experimental | (4) | (1) | (4) | (4) | | Protocol | | | | | | | | | | | +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ | | | | | | | Information | Publish | Publish |Discretion|Discretion| | or Opinion | (1) | (1) | (5) | (5) | | Paper | | | | | | | | | | | +==========================================================+ (1) Publish. (2) Bogus. Inform the source of the rules. RFCs specifying Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IESG, only. (3) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG. Expect to see the document again only after approval by the IESG. (4) Notify both the IESG and IRSG. If no concerns are raised in two weeks then do Discretion (5), else RFC Editor to resolve the concerns or do Refer (3). (5) RFC Editor's discretion. The RFC Editor decides if a review is needed and if so by whom. RFC Editor decides to publish or not.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 11]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

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 forwarding documents with IESG approval and in response to notifications (4) to the RFC Area Directors or Working Group Chairs may way as documents from "other". 5.2. The Standards Track Diagram as its agent for for registering concerns Editor. Documents from be considered in the same

There is a part of the STATUS and STATE categorization that is called the standards track. Actually, only the changes of state are significant to the progression along the standards track, though the status assignments may change as well. The states illustrated by single line boxes are those illustrated by double line boxes are long protocol will normally be expected to remain in several months (minimum six months for proposed four months for draft standard). A protocol may state for many years. temporary states, term states. A a temporary state for standard, minimum be in a long term

A protocol may enter the standards track only on the of the IESG; and may move from one state to another only on the recommendation of the IESG. That is, it the IESG to either start a protocol on the track or

recommendation along the track takes action by to move it along.

Generally, as the protocol enters the standards track a decision is made as to the eventual STATUS, requirement level or applicability (elective, recommended, or required) the protocol will have, although a somewhat less stringent current status may be assigned, and it then is placed in the the proposed standard STATE with that status. So the initial placement of a protocol is into state 1. At any time the STATUS decision may be revisited.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 12]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

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

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 13]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

6.

The Protocols Subsection 6.1 lists recent RFCs and other changes. Subsections 6.2 - 6.10 list the standards in groups by protocol state.

6.1. 6.1.1.

Recent Changes New RFCs: 1725 - Post Office Protocol - Version 3 A Draft Standard protocol. 1724 - RIP Version 2 MIB Extension A Draft Standard protocol. 1723 - RIP Version 2 - Carrying Additional Information A Draft Standard protocol. 1722 - RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement A Draft Standard protocol. 1721 - RIP Version 2 Protocol Analysis This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1720 - Internet Official Protocol Standards This memo. 1719 - Not yet issued. 1718 - The Tao of IETF - A Guide for New Attendees of the Internet Engineering Task Force This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1717 - The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP) A Proposed Standard protocol.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 14]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

1716 - Towards Requirements for IP Routers This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1715 - The H Ratio for Address Assignment Efficiency This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1714 - Referral Whois Protocol (RWhois) This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1713 - Tools for DNS debugging This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1712 - DNS Encoding of Geographical Location An Experimental protocol. 1711 - Classifications in E-mail Routing This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1710 - Simple Internet Protocol Plus White Paper This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1709 - K-12 Internetworking Guidelines This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1708 - NTP PICS PROFORMA - For the Network Time Protocol Version 3 This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1707 - CATNIP: Common Architecture for the Internet This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 15]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

1706 - DNS NSAP Resource Records This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1705 - Six Virtual Inches to the Left: The Problem with IPng This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1704 - On Internet Authentication This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1703 - Principles of Operation for the TPC.INT Subdomain: Radio Paging -- Technical Procedures This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1702 - Generic Routing Encapsulation over IPv4 networks This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1701 - Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1700 - Assigned Numbers A status report on the parameters (i.e., numbers and keywords) used in protocols in the Internet community. 1699 - Not yet issued. 1698 - Octet Sequences for Upper-Layer OSI to Support Basic Communications Applications This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1697 - Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) Management Information Base (MIB) using SMIv2 A Proposed Standard protocol.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 16]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

1696 - Modem Management Information Base (MIB) using SMIv2 A Proposed Standard protocol. 1695 - Definitions of Managed Objects for ATM Management Version 8.0 using SMIv2 A Proposed Standard protocol. 1694 - Definitions of Managed Objects for SMDS Interfaces using SMIv2 A Draft Standard protocol. 1693 - An Extension to TCP : Partial Order Service An Experimental protocol. 1692 - Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux) This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1691 - The Document Architecture for the Cornell Digital Library This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1690 - Introducing the Internet Engineering and Planning Group (IEPG) This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1689 - A Status Report on Networked Information Retrieval: Tools and Groups This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1688 - IPng Mobility Considerations This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 17]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

1687 -

A Large Corporate User's View of IPng This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.

1686 - IPng Requirements: A Cable Television Industry Viewpoint This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1685 - Writing X.400 O/R Names This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1684 - Introduction to White Pages Services based on X.500 This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1683 - Multiprotocol Interoperability In IPng This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1682 - IPng BSD Host Implementation Analysis This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1681 - On Many Addresses per Host This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1680 - IPng Support for ATM Services This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1679 - HPN Working Group Input to the IPng Requirements Solicitation This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 18]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

1678 - IPng Requirements of Large Corporate Networks This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1677 - Tactical Radio Frequency Communication Requirments for IPng This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1676 - INFN Requirements for an IPng This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1675 - Security Concerns for IPng This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1674 - Electric Power Research Institute Comments on IPng This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1673 - Electric Power Research Institute Comments on IPng This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1672 - Accounting Requirements for IPng This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1671 - IPng White Paper on Transition and Other Considerations This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1670 - Input to IPng Engineering Considerations This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 19]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

1669 - Market Viability as a IPng Criteria This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1668 - Unified Routing Requirements for IPng This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1667 - Modeling and Simulation Requirements for IPng This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1666 - Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA NAUs using SMIv2 A Proposed Standard protocol. 1665 - Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA NAUs using SMIv2 A Proposed Standard protocol. 1664 - Using the Internet DNS to Distribute RFC1327 Mail Address Mapping Tables An Experimental protocol. 1663 - PPP Reliable Transmission A Proposed Standard protocol. 1662 - The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) A Standard protocol. 1661 - The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) A Standard protocol. 1660 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Parallel-printer-like Hardware Devices using SMIv2 A Draft Standard protocol.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 20]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

1659 - Definitions of Managed Objects for RS-232-like Hardware Devices using SMIv2 A Draft Standard protocol. 1658 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Character Stream Devices using SMIv2 A Draft Standard protocol. 1657 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the Fourth Version of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4) using SMIv2 A Proposed Standard protocol. 1656 - BGP-4 Protocol Document Roadmap and Implementation Experience This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1655 - Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet A Proposed Standard protocol. 1654 - A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) A Proposed Standard protocol. 1653 - SMTP Service Extension for Message Size Declaration A Draft Standard protocol. 1652 - SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport A Draft Standard protocol. 1651 - SMTP Service Extensions A Draft Standard protocol. 1650 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-like Interface Types using SMIv2 A Proposed Standard protocol.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 21]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

1649 - Operational Requirements for X.400 Management Domains in the GO-MHS Community This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1648 - Postmaster Convention for X.400 Operations A Proposed Standard protocol. 1647 - TN3270 Enhancements A Proposed Standard protocol. 1646 - TN3270 Extensions for LUname and Printer Selection This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1645 - Simple Network Paging Protocol - Version 2 This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1644 - T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions Functional Specification An Experimental protocol. 1643 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-like Interface Type A Standard protocol. 1642 - UTF-7 - A Mail-Safe Transformation Format of Unicode An Experimental protocol. 1641 - Using Unicode with MIME An Experimental protocol.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 22]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

6.1.2.

Other Changes:

The following are changes to protocols listed in the previous edition. 904 - Exterior Gateway Protocol Moved to Historic.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 23]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

6.2.

Standard Protocols Status ======== Req Req Req Req Req Req RFC STD * ==== === = 1720 1 1700 2 1122 3 1123 3 1009 4 791 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 33 34 35 50* 51* 51*

Protocol ======== -----------------------------------IP

Name ===================================== Internet Official Protocol Standards Assigned Numbers Host Requirements - Communications Host Requirements - Applications Gateway Requirements Internet Protocol as amended by:--------------IP Subnet Extension -------IP Broadcast Datagrams -------IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol IGMP Internet Group Multicast Protocol UDP User Datagram Protocol TCP Transmission Control Protocol TELNET Telnet Protocol FTP File Transfer Protocol SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol MAIL Format of Electronic Mail Messages CONTENT Content Type Header Field NTPV2 Network Time Protocol (Version 2) DOMAIN Domain Name System DNS-MX Mail Routing and the Domain System SNMP Simple Network Management Protocol SMI Structure of Management Information Concise-MIB Concise MIB Definitions MIB-II Management Information Base-II NETBIOS NetBIOS Service Protocols ECHO Echo Protocol DISCARD Discard Protocol CHARGEN Character Generator Protocol QUOTE Quote of the Day Protocol USERS Active Users Protocol DAYTIME Daytime Protocol TIME Time Server Protocol TFTP Trivial File Transfer Protocol RIP Routing Information Protocol TP-TCP ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP ETHER-MIB Ethernet MIB PPP Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) PPP-HDLC PPP in HDLC Framing

Req 950 Req 919 Req 922 Req 792 Rec 1112 Rec 768 Rec 793 Rec 854,855 Rec 959 Rec 821 Rec 822 Rec 1049 Rec 1119 Rec 1034,1035 Rec 974 Rec 1157 Rec 1155 Rec 1212 Rec 1213 Ele 1001,1002 Rec 862 Ele 863 Ele 864 Ele 865 Ele 866 Ele 867 Ele 868 Ele 1350 Ele 1058 Ele 1006 Ele 1643 Ele 1661 Ele 1662

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.]

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 24]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

Applicability Statements: IGMP -- The Internet Architecture Board intends to move towards general adoption of IP multicasting, as a more efficient solution than broadcasting for many applications. The host interface has been standardized in RFC-1112; however, multicast-routing gateways are in the experimental stage and are not widely available. An Internet host should support all of RFC-1112, except for the IGMP protocol itself which is optional; see RFC-1122 for more details. Even without IGMP, implementation of RFC-1112 will provide an important advance: IP-layer access to local network multicast addressing. It is expected that IGMP will become recommended for all hosts and gateways at some future date. SMI, MIB-II SNMP -- The Internet Architecture Board recommends that all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable. At the current time, this implies implementation of the Internet MIB-II (RFC-1213), and at least the recommended management protocol SNMP (RFC-1157). RIP -- The Routing Information Protocol (RIP) is widely implemented and used in the Internet. However, both implementors and users should be aware that RIP has some serious technical limitations as a routing protocol. The IETF is currently 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 RFC1006. 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 Architecture Board

[Page 25]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

6.3.

Network-Specific Standard Protocols

All Network-Specific Standards have Elective status. Protocol ======== IP-ATM IP-FR ATM-ENCAP IP-TR-MC IP-FDDI IP-HIPPI IP-X.25 IP-SMDS IP-FDDI ARP RARP IP-ARPA IP-WB IP-E IP-EE IP-IEEE IP-DC IP-HC IP-ARC IP-SLIP IP-NETBIOS IP-IPX Name ===================================== Classical IP and ARP over ATM Multiprotocol over Frame Relay Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM IP Multicast over Token-Ring LANs Transmission of IP and ARP over FDDI Net IP and ARP on HIPPI X.25 and ISDN in the Packet Mode IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service Internet Protocol on FDDI Networks Address Resolution Protocol A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol Internet Protocol on ARPANET Internet Protocol on Wideband Network Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets Internet Protocol on IEEE 802 Internet Protocol on DC Networks Internet Protocol on Hyperchannel Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Nets Transmission of IP over Serial Lines Transmission of IP over NETBIOS Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks State RFC ===== ===== Prop 1577 Draft 1490 Prop 1483 Prop 1469 Std 1390 Prop 1374 Draft 1356 Prop 1209 Draft 1188 Std 826 Std 903 Std BBN1822 Std 907 Std 894 Std 895 Std 1042 Std 891 Std 1044 Std 1201 Std 1055 Std 1088 Std 1132 STD * === =

36

37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.] Applicability Statements: 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 Architecture Board

[Page 26]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

6.4.

Draft Standard Protocols Name Status RFC ===================================== ============== ===== Post Office Protocol, Version 3 Elective 1725* RIP Version 2 MIB Extension Elective 1724* RIP Version 2-Carrying Additional Info. Elective 1723* RIP Version 2 Protocol App. Statement Elective 1722* SIP Interface Type MIB Elective 1694* Def Man Objs Parallel-printer-like Elective 1660* Def Man Objs RS-232-like Elective 1659* Def Man Objs Character Stream Elective 1658* SMTP Service Ext for Message Size Elective 1653* SMTP Service Ext or 8bit-MIMEtransport Elective 1652* SMTP Service Extensions Elective 1651* Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation Elective 1629 Open Shortest Path First Routing V2 Elective 1583 Echo for ISO-8473 Elective 1575 DECNET MIB Elective 1559 Message Header Ext. of Non-ASCII Text Elective 1522 Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions Elective 1521 IEEE 802.3 Repeater MIB Elective 1516 BRIDGE-MIB Elective 1493 Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Elective 1305 Path MTU Discovery Elective 1191 Finger Protocol Elective 1288 Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3) Elective 1267,1268 Bootstrap Protocol Recommended 951,1497 WhoIs Protocol Elective 954

Protocol ======== POP3 RIP2-MIB RIP2 RIP2-APP SIP-MIB ------------------SMTP-SIZE SMTP-8BIT SMTP-EXT OSI-NSAP OSPF2 ISO-TS-ECHO DECNET-MIB ------MIME 802.3-MIB BRIDGE-MIB NTPV3 IP-MTU FINGER BGP3 BOOTP NICNAME

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.] Applicability Statements: PPP -- Point to Point Protocol is a method of sending IP over serial lines, which are a type of physical network. It is anticipated that PPP will be advanced to the network-specifics standard protocol state in the future.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 27]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

6.5.

Proposed Standard Protocols Name Status ===================================== ============== PPP Multilink Protocol Elective RDMS MIB - using SMIv2 Elective Modem MIB - using SMIv2 Elective ATM Management Version 8.0 using SMIv2 Elective SNA NAUs MIB using SMIv2 Elective PPP Reliable Transmission Elective BGP-4 MIB Elective BGP-4 Roadmap and Implementation Elective Application of BGP-4 Elective Border Gateway Protocol 4 Elective Postmaster Convention X.400 Operations Elective TN3270 Enhancements Elective PPP Bridging Control Protocol Elective UPS Management Information Base Elective Default IP MTU for use over ATM AAL5 Elective PPP over SONET/SDH Elective PPP over ISDN Elective DNS Resolver MIB Extensions Elective DNS Server MIB Extensions Elective Frame Relay Service MIB Elective PPP in X.25 Elective The OSPF NSSA Option Elective Multicast Extensions to OSPF Elective MIB SONET/SDH Interface Type Elective Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Cir. Elective Evolution of the Interfaces Group of MIB-II Elective PPP LCP Extensions Elective X.500 Directory Monitoring MIB Elective Mail Monitoring MIB Elective Network Services Monitoring MIB Elective Compressing IPX Headers Over WAM Media Elective PPP Internetworking Packet Exchange Control Elective Content-MD5 Header Field Elective Interoperation Between DHCP and BOOTP Elective DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor Extensions Elective Clarifications and Extensions BOOTP Elective Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Elective Source Routing Bridge MIB Elective CIDR Address Assignment... Elective CIDR Architecture... Elective CIDR Applicability Statement Elective 802.3 MAU MIB Elective Host Resources MIB Elective Token Ring Extensions to RMON MIB Elective RFC ===== 1717* 1697* 1696* 1695* 1665* 1663* 1657* 1656* 1655* 1654* 1648* 1647* 1638 1628 1626 1619 1618 1612 1611 1604 1598 1587 1584 1595 1582 1573 1570 1567 1566 1565 1553 1552 1544 1534 1533 1532 1531 1525 1519 1518 1517 1515 1514 1513

Protocol ======== PPP-MP RDBMS-MIB MODEM-MIB ATM-MIB SNANAU-MIB PPP-TRANS BGP-4-MIB BGP-4-IMP BGP-4-APP BGP-4 -------TN3270-En PPP-BCP UPS-MIB AAL5-MTU PPP-SONET PPP-ISDN DNS-R-MIB DNS-S-MIB FR-MIB PPP-X25 OSPF-NSSA OSPF-Multi SONET-MIB RIP-DC -------PPP-LCP X500-MIB MAIL-MIB NSM-MIB CIPX IPXCP CON-MD5 DHCP-BOOTP DHCP-BOOTP BOOTP DHCP SRB-MIB CIDR-STRA CIDR-ARCH CIDR-APP -------HOST-MIB --------

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 28]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

FDDI-MIB KERBEROS GSSAPI GSSAPI DASS -------HARPOON Mapping Equiv X.500syn X.500lite STR-REP OSI-Dir IDPR IDPR-ARCH PPP/Bridge PPP/IP MIB PPP/SEC MIB PPP/LCP MIB X25-MIB SNMPv2 SNMPv2 SNMPv2 SNMPv2 SNMPv2 SNMPv2 SNMPv2 SNMPv2 SNMPv2 SNMPv2 SNMPv2 SNMPv2 PEM-KEY PEM-ALG PEM-CKM PEM-ENC SNMP-IPX SNMP-AT SNMP-OSI FTP-FTAM IDENT-MIB IDENT DS3/E3-MIB DS1/E1-MIB BGP-OSPF -------SNMP-X.25 SNMP-LAPB

FDDI Management Information Base Kerberos Network Authentication Ser (V5) Generic Security Service API: C-bindings Generic Security Service Application... Distributed Authentication Security... X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets Rules for Downgrading Messages... MHS/RFC-822 Message Body Mapping X.400/MIME Body Equivalences X.500 String Representation ... X.500 Lightweight ... String Representation ... OSI User Friendly Naming ... Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Architecture for IDPR MIB Bridge PPP MIB IP Network Control Protocol of PPP MIB Security Protocols of PPP MIB Link Control Protocol of PPP MIB Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 MIB Coexistence between SNMPv1 and SNMPv2 Manager-to-Manager MIB Management Information Base for SNMPv2 Transport Mappings for SNMPv2 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 Party MIB for SNMPv2 Security Protocols for SNMPv2 Administrative Model for SNMPv2 Conformance Statements for SNMPv2 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 SMI for SNMPv2 Introduction to SNMPv2 PEM - Key Certification PEM - Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers PEM - Certificate-Based Key Management PEM - Message Encryption and Auth SNMP over IPX SNMP over AppleTalk SNMP over OSI FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification Identification MIB Identification Protocol DS3/E3 Interface Type DS1/E1 Interface Type BGP OSPF Interaction Route Advertisement In BGP2 And BGP3 SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 Packet Layer SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 LAPB

Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective

1512 1510 1509 1508 1507 1502 1496 1495 1494 1488 1487 1485 1484 1479 1478 1474 1473 1472 1471 1461 1452 1451 1450 1449 1448 1447 1446 1445 1444 1443 1442 1441 1424 1423 1422 1421 1420 1419 1418 1415 1414 1413 1407 1406 1403 1397 1382 1381

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 29]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

PPP-ATCP PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol PPP-OSINLCP PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol PPP-DNCP PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol TABLE-MIB IP Forwarding Table MIB SNMP-PARTY-MIB Administration of SNMP SNMP-SEC SNMP Security Protocols SNMP-ADMIN SNMP Administrative Model TOS Type of Service in the Internet PPP-AUTH PPP Authentication PPP-LINK PPP Link Quality Monitoring PPP-IPCP PPP Control Protocol ------X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading ------Mapping between X.400(1988) TCP-EXT TCP Extensions for High Performance FRAME-MIB Management Information Base for Frame NETFAX File Format for the Exchange of Images IARP Inverse Address Resolution Protocol FDDI-MIB FDDI-MIB ------Encoding Network Addresses ------Replication and Distributed Operations ------COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema RMON-MIB Remote Network Monitoring MIB BGP-MIB Border Gateway Protocol MIB (Version 3) ICMP-ROUT ICMP Router Discovery Messages OSPF-MIB OSPF Version 2 MIB IPSO DoD Security Options for IP AT-MIB Appletalk MIB OSI-UDP OSI TS on UDP STD-MIBs Reassignment of Exp MIBs to Std MIBs IPX-IP Tunneling IPX Traffic through IP Nets 802.5-MIB IEEE 802.5 Token Ring MIB GINT-MIB Extensions to the Generic-Interface MIB PPP-EXT PPP Extensions for Bridging IS-IS OSI IS-IS for TCP/IP Dual Environments IP-CMPRS Compressing TCP/IP Headers NNTP Network News Transfer Protocol

Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective Elective

1378 1377 1376 1354 1353 1352 1351 1349 1334 1333 1332 1328 1327 1323 1315 1314 1293 1285 1277 1276 1274 1271 1269 1256 1253 1108 1243 1240 1239 1234 1231 1229 1220 1195 1144 977

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.] Applicability Statements: OSPF - RFC 1370 is an applicability statement for OSPF.

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 30]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

6.6.

Telnet Options

For convenience, all the Telnet Options are collected here with both their state and status. Protocol ======== TOPT-BIN TOPT-ECHO TOPT-RECN TOPT-SUPP TOPT-APRX TOPT-STAT TOPT-TIM TOPT-REM TOPT-OLW TOPT-OPS TOPT-OCRD TOPT-OHT TOPT-OHTD TOPT-OFD TOPT-OVT TOPT-OVTD TOPT-OLD TOPT-EXT TOPT-LOGO TOPT-BYTE TOPT-DATA TOPT-SUP TOPT-SUPO TOPT-SNDL TOPT-TERM TOPT-EOR TOPT-TACACS TOPT-OM TOPT-TLN TOPT-3270 TOPT-X.3 TOPT-NAWS TOPT-TS TOPT-RFC TOPT-LINE TOPT-XDL TOPT-ENVIR TOPT-AUTH TOPT-ENVIR TOPT-EXTOP Name Number ===================================== Binary Transmission 0 Echo 1 Reconnection 2 Suppress Go Ahead 3 Approx Message Size Negotiation 4 Status 5 Timing Mark 6 Remote Controlled Trans and Echo 7 Output Line Width 8 Output Page Size 9 Output Carriage-Return Disposition 10 Output Horizontal Tabstops 11 Output Horizontal Tab Disposition 12 Output Formfeed Disposition 13 Output Vertical Tabstops 14 Output Vertical Tab Disposition 15 Output Linefeed Disposition 16 Extended ASCII 17 Logout 18 Byte Macro 19 Data Entry Terminal 20 SUPDUP 21 SUPDUP Output 22 Send Location 23 Terminal Type 24 End of Record 25 TACACS User Identification 26 Output Marking 27 Terminal Location Number 28 Telnet 3270 Regime 29 X.3 PAD 30 Negotiate About Window Size 31 Terminal Speed 32 Remote Flow Control 33 Linemode 34 X Display Location 35 Telnet Environment Option 36 Telnet Authentication Option 37 Telnet Environment Option 39 Extended-Options-List 255 State ===== Std Std Prop Std Prop Std Std Prop Prop Prop Prop Prop Prop Prop Prop Prop Prop Prop Prop Prop Prop Prop Prop Prop Prop Prop Prop Prop Prop Prop Prop Prop Prop Prop Draft Prop Hist Exp Prop Std Status ====== Rec Rec Ele Rec Ele Rec Rec Ele Ele Ele Ele Ele Ele Ele Ele Ele Ele Ele Ele Ele Ele Ele Ele Ele Ele Ele Ele Ele Ele Ele Ele Ele Ele Ele Ele Ele Not Ele Ele Rec RFC STD ==== === 856 27 857 28 ... 858 29 ... 859 30 860 31 726 ... ... 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 698 727 735 1043 736 749 779 1091 885 927 933 946 1041 1053 1073 1079 1372 1184 1096 1408 1416 1572 861 32

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 31]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.] 6.7. Experimental Protocols

All Experimental protocols have the Limited Use status. Protocol ======== DNS-DEBUG DNS-ENCODE TCP-POS ------T/TCP UTF-7 MIME-UNI FOOBAR X500-CHART X500-DIR SNMP-DPI CLNP-TUBA REM-PRINT EHF-MAIL REM-PRT RAP TP/IX X400 DNS IRCP TOS-LS SIFT/UFT DIR-ARP TEL-SPX TEL-KER MAP-MAIL TRACE-IP DNS-IP RMCP TCP-HIPER MSP2 DSLCP -------IN-ENCAP CLNS-MIB CFDP SNMP-DPI IP-AX.25 ALERTS Name ===================================== Tools for DNS debugging DNS Encoding of Geographical Location An Extension to TCP: Partial Order Service DNS to Distribute RFC1327 Mail Address Mapping Tables TCP Extensions for Transactions A Mail-Safe Transformation Format of Unicode Using Unicode with MIME FTP Operation Over Big Address Records Charting Networks in the X.500 Directory Representing IP Information in the X.500 Directory SNMP Distributed Protocol Interface Use of ISO CLNP in TUBA Environments TPC.INT Subdomain Remote Printing - Technical Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages An Experiment in Remote Printing Internet Route Access Protocol TP/IX: The Next Internet Routing Coordination for X.400 Services Storing Arbitrary Attributes in DNS Internet Relay Chat Protocol Link Security TOS Sender-Initiated/Unsolicited File Transfer Directed ARP Telnet Authentication: SPX Telnet Authentication: Kerberos V4 X.400 Mapping and Mail-11 Traceroute Using an IP Option Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing Remote Mail Checking Protocol TCP Extensions for High Performance Message Send Protocol 2 Dynamically Switched Link Control X.500 and Domains Internet Encapsulation Protocol CLNS-MIB Coherent File Distribution Protocol SNMP Distributed Program Interface IP Encapsulation of AX.25 Frames Managing Asynchronously Generated Alerts RFC ===== 1713* 1712* 1693* 1664* 1644* 1642* 1641* 1639 1609 1608 1592 1561 1528 1505 1486 1476 1475 1465 1464 1459 1455 1440 1433 1412 1411 1405 1393 1383 1339 1323 1312 1307 1279 1241 1238 1235 1228 1226 1224

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 32]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

MPP ST-II SNMP-BULK DNS-RR IMAP2 NTP-OSI DMF-MAIL RDP TCP-ACO -------IP-DVMRP VMTP COOKIE-JAR NETBLT IRTP LDP RLP NVP-II PVP

Message Posting Protocol Stream Protocol Bulk Table Retrieval with the SNMP New DNS RR Definitions Interactive Mail Access Protocol NTP over OSI Remote Operations Digest Message Format for Mail Reliable Data Protocol TCP Alternate Checksum Option Mapping full 822 to Restricted 822 IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing Versatile Message Transaction Protocol Authentication Scheme Bulk Data Transfer Protocol Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol Loader Debugger Protocol Resource Location Protocol Network Voice Protocol Packet Video Protocol

1204 1190 1187 1183 1176 1165 1153 908,1151 1146 1137 1075 1045 1004 998 938 909 887 ISI-memo ISI-memo

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.] 6.8. Informational Protocols

Information protocols have no status. Protocol ======= RWHOIS DNS-NSAP RADIO-PAGE GRE-IPv4 GRE TMUX SNPP IPXWAN ADSNA-IP AUBR TACACS SUN-NFS SUN-RPC GOPHER ------LISTSERV ------PCMAIL MTP Name ==================================== Referral Whois Protocol DNS NSAP Resource Records TPC.INT Subdomain: Radio Paging -- Technical Procedures Generic Routing Encapsulation over IPv4 Generic Routing Encapsulatio Transport Multiplexing Protocol Simple Network Paging Protocol - Version 2 Novell IPX Over Various WAN Media Advanced SNA/IP: A Simple SNA Transport Protocol Appletalk Update-Based Routing Protocol... Terminal Access Control Protocol Network File System Protocol Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 The Internet Gopher Protocol Data Link Switching: Switch-to-Switch Protocol Listserv Distribute Protocol Replication Requirements Pcmail Transport Protocol Multicast Transport Protocol RFC ===== 1714* 1706* 1703* 1702* 1701* 1692* 1645* 1634 1538 1504 1492 1094 1057 1436 1434 1429 1275 1056 1301

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 33]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

BSD Login DIXIE IP-X.121 OSI-HYPER HAP2 SUBNETASGN SNMP-TRAPS DAS MD4 LPDP

BSD Login DIXIE Protocol Specification IP to X.121 Address Mapping for DDN OSI and LLC1 on HYPERchannel Host Access Protocol On the Assignment of Subnet Numbers Defining Traps for use with SNMP Directory Assistance Service MD4 Message Digest Algorithm Line Printer Daemon Protocol

1282 1249 1236 1223 1221 1219 1215 1202 1186 1179

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.] 6.9. Historic Protocols

All Historic protocols have Not Recommended status. Protocol ======== EGP SNMP-MUX OIM-MIB-II IMAP3 SUN-RPC 802.4-MIP CMOT ---------------------NFILE HOSTNAME SFTP SUPDUP BGP MIB-I SGMP HEMS STATSRV POP2 RATP HFEP THINWIRE HMP GGP RTELNET CLOCK MPM Name RFC STD ===================================== ===== === Exterior Gateway Protocol Rec 904 18* SNMP MUX Protocol and MIB 1227 OSI Internet Management: MIB-II 1214 Interactive Mail Access Protocol Version 3 1203 Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 1 1050 IEEE 802.4 Token Bus MIB 1230 Common Management Information Services 1189 Mail Privacy: Procedures 1113 Mail Privacy: Key Management 1114 Mail Privacy: Algorithms 1115 A File Access Protocol 1037 HOSTNAME Protocol 953 Simple File Transfer Protocol 913 SUPDUP Protocol 734 Border Gateway Protocol 1163,1164 MIB-I 1156 Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol 1028 High Level Entity Management Protocol 1021 Statistics Server 996 Post Office Protocol, Version 2 937 Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol 916 Host - Front End Protocol 929 Thinwire Protocol 914 Host Monitoring Protocol 869 Gateway Gateway Protocol 823 Remote Telnet Service 818 DCNET Time Server Protocol 778 Internet Message Protocol 759

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 34]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

NETRJS NETED RJE XNET NAMESERVER MUX GRAPHICS

Remote Job Service Network Standard Text Editor Remote Job Entry Cross Net Debugger Host Name Server Protocol Multiplexing Protocol Graphics Protocol

740 569 407 IEN-158 IEN-116 IEN-90 NIC-24308

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.]

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 35]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

6.10.

Obsolete Protocols

Some of the protocols listed in this memo are described in RFCs that are obsoleted by newer RFCs. "Obsolete" or "obsoleted" is not an official state or status of protocols. This subsection is for information only. While it may seem to be obviously wrong to have an obsoleted RFC in the list of standards, there may be cases when an older standard is in the process of being replaced. This process may take a year or two. For example, the Network Time Protocol (NTP) [RFC 1119] is in its version 2 a full Standard, and in its version 3 is a Draft Standard [RFC 1305]. Once version 3 is a full Standard, version 2 will be made Historic. Many obsoleted protocols are of little interest and are dropped from this memo altogether. Some obsoleted protocols have received enough recognition that it seems appropriate to list them under their current status and with the following reference to their current replacement. RFC ==== 1305 1533 1331 1574 1573 1559 1548 1541 1592 1528 1320 1057 1421 1422 1423 1267 1268 RFC ==== 1119 1497 1171 1139 1229 1289 1331 1531 1228 1486 1186 1050 1113 1114 1115 1163 1164 Status ========= Std /Rec Draft/Rec Draft/Ele Prop /Ele Prop /Ele Prop /Ele Prop /Ele Prop /Ele Exper/Lim Exper/Lim Info / Hist /Not Hist /Not Hist /Not Hist /Not Hist /Not Hist /Not Title * =================================== = Network Time Protocol (Version 2) Bootstrap Protocol Point to Point Protocol Echo for ISO-8473 Extensions to the Generic-IF MIB DECNET MIB Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol SNMP Distributed Program Interface An Experiment in Remote Printing MD4 Message Digest Algorithm Remote Procedure Call Version 1 Mail Privacy: Procedures Mail Privacy: Key Management Mail Privacy: Algorithms Border Gateway Protocol Border Gateway Protocol

obsoletes obsoletes obsoletes obsoletes obsoletes obsoletes obsoletes obsoletes obsoletes obsoletes obsoletes obsoletes obsoletes obsoletes obsoletes obsoletes obsoletes

Thanks to Lynn Wheeler of Britton Lee for compiling the information in this subsection. [Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.]

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 36]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

7. 7.1.

Contacts IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact

7.1.1.

Please send your comments about this list of protocols and especially about the Draft Standard Protocols to the Internet Architecture Board care of Abel Winerib, IAB Executive Director. Contacts: Abel Winerib Executive Director of the IAB Intel, JF2-64 2111 NE 25th Avenue Hillsboro, OR 97124 1-503-696-8972 AWeinrib@ibeam.intel.com

Christian Huitema Chair of the IAB INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis 2004 Route des Lucioles BP 109 F-06561 Valbonne Cedex France +33 93 65 77 15 Christian.Huitema@MIRSA.INRIA.FR 7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact

Contacts: Paul Mockapetris Chair of the IETF USC/Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695 1-310-822-1511 pvm@ISI.EDU

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 37]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

John Stewart IESG Secretary Corporation for National Research Initiatives 1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100 Reston, VA 22091 1-703-620-8990 jstewart@CNRI.RESTON.VA.US Steve Coya Executive Director of the IETF Corporation for National Research Initiatives 1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100 Reston, VA 22091 1-703-620-8990 scoya@CNRI.RESTON.VA.US

7.1.3.

Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact

Contact: Jon Postel Chair of the IRTF USC/Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695 1-310-822-1511 Postel@ISI.EDU

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 38]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

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 1-310-822-1511 IANA@ISI.EDU

The protocol standards are managed by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. Please refer to the document "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1700) for further information about the status of protocol documents. There are two documents that summarize the requirements for host and gateways in the Internet, "Host Requirements" (RFC-1122 and RFC-1123) and "Gateway Requirements" (RFC-1009). How to obtain the most recent edition of this "Internet Official Protocol Standards" memo: The file "in-notes/std/std1.txt" may be copied via FTP from the FTP.ISI.EDU computer using the FTP username "anonymous" and FTP password "guest".

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 39]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

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 1-310-822-1511 RFC-Editor@ISI.EDU

Documents may be submitted via electronic mail to the RFC Editor for consideration for publication as RFC. If you are not familiar with the format or style requirements please request the "Instructions for RFC Authors". In general, the style of any recent RFC may be used as a guide. 7.4. The Network Information Center and Requests for Comments Distribution Contact RFC's may be obtained from DS.INTERNIC.NET via FTP, WAIS, and electronic mail. Through FTP, RFC's are stored as rfc/rfcnnnn.txt or rfc/rfcnnnn.ps where 'nnnn' is the RFC number. Login as "anonymous" and provide your e-mail address as the password. Through WAIS, you may use either your local WAIS client or telnet to DS.INTERNIC.NET and login as "wais" (no password required) to access a WAIS client. Help information and a tutorial for using WAIS are available online. The WAIS database to search is "rfcs". Directory and Database Services also provides a mail server interface. Send a mail message to mailserv@ds.internic.net and include any of the following commands in the message body: document-by-name rfcnnnn where 'nnnn' is the RFC number The text version is sent. where 'nnnn' is the RFC number. and 'yyy' is 'txt' or 'ps'. to get information on how to use the mailserver.

file /ftp/rfc/rfcnnnn.yyy

help

The InterNIC directory and database services collection of resource listings, internet documents such as RFCs, FYIs, STDs, and Internet Drafts, and publicly accessible databases are also

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 40]


RFC 1720

Internet Standards

November 1994

now available via Gopher. All our collections are WAIS indexed and can be searched from the Gopher menu. To access the InterNIC Gopher Servers, please connect to "internic.net" port 70. Contact: admin@ds.internic.net 7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments

Details on many sources of RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to "rfc-info@ISI.EDU" with the message body "help: ways_to_get_rfcs". For example: To: rfc-info@ISI.EDU Subject: getting rfcs help: ways_to_get_rfcs 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: 310-822-1511 Fax: 310-823-6714 Email: Postel@ISI.EDU

Internet Architecture Board

[Page 41]