Документ взят из кэша поисковой машины. Адрес оригинального документа : http://mirror.msu.net/pub/rfc-editor/rfc-ed-all/pdfrfc/rfc1880.txt.pdf Дата изменения: Wed Mar 27 23:18:43 2002 Дата индексирования: Tue Oct 2 18:48:51 2012 Кодировка: Поисковые слова: guide 8.0

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 1880 Obsoletes: 1800, 1780, 1720, 1610, 1600, 1540, 1500, 1410, 1360, 1280, 1250, 1200, 1140, 1130, 1100, 1083 STD: 1 Category: Standards Track

Internet Architecture Board J. Postel, Editor November 1995

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 8 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 12 14 14

Internet Architecture Board Standards Track

[Page 1]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

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 19 20 22 23 24 28 29 31 32 33 34 34 34 34 35 36 37 37 38 38 38

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-March-96. 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 Standards Track

[Page 2]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

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 Standards Track

[Page 3]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

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 Standards Track

[Page 4]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

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 Standards Track

[Page 5]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

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.

Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers

This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways and supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities. Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers is RFC-1812. 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. It is strongly advised that the two sets of documents be used together, along with RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.

Internet Architecture Board Standards Track

[Page 6]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

Note that these MIL-STD are now somewhat out of date. The Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers (RFC-1812) and Host Requirements (RFC-1122, RFC-1123) take precedence over both earlier RFCs and the MIL-STDs. 2045-13501 Internet Routing between Autonomous Systems 2045-14502-01 Internet Transport Profile for DoD Communications, Part 1: Transport and Internet Services 2045-14502-04 Internet Transport Profile for DoD Communications, Part 4: LAN Media-Independent Requirements 2045-14503 Internet Transport Service Supporting OSI Applications 2045-44500 Tactical Communications 2045-17503-01 Internet Message Transfer Profile for DoD Communications Part 1: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol 2045-17503-02 Internet Message Transfer Profile for DoD Communications Part 2: Format of Text Messages 2045-17504 Internet File Transfer Profile for DoD Communications 2045-17505 Internet Domain Name Service (DNS) Profile for DoD Communications 2045-17506 Internet Remote Login (RLOGIN) Profile for DoD Communications 2045-17507 Internet Network Management Profile for DoD Communications 2045-38000 DoD Network Management for DoD Communications 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)

Internet Architecture Board Standards Track

[Page 7]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

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. 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, limited use) 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. to the or the gateways; a few terms below a gateway (or particular

Internet Architecture Board Standards Track

[Page 8]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

4.1.

Definitions of Protocol State

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. 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.

Internet Architecture Board Standards Track

[Page 9]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

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". 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.

Internet Architecture Board Standards Track

[Page 10]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

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. +==========================================================+ |**************| 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.

Internet Architecture Board Standards Track

[Page 11]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

(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. 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 Standards Track

[Page 12]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

| +<----------------------------------------------+ | ^ 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 Standards Track

[Page 13]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

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: 1880 - Internet Official Protocol Standards This memo. 1871 - Addendum to RFC 1602 -- Variance Procedure This is a Best Current Practices document and does not specify any level of standard. 1870 - SMTP Service Extension for Message Size Declaration A Standard protocol. 1869 - SMTP Service Extensions A Standard protocol. 1868 - ARP Extension - UNARP An Experimental protocol. 1867 - Form-based File Upload in HTML An Experimental protocol. 1866 - Hypertext Markup Language - 2.0 A Proposed Standard protocol. 1865 - not yet issued. 1864 - The Content-MD5 Header Field A Draft Standard protocol. 1863 - A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh routing An Experimental protocol.

Internet Architecture Board Standards Track

[Page 14]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

1862 - Report of the IAB Workshop on Internet Information Infrastructure, October 12-14, 1994 This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1861 - Simple Network Paging Protocol - Version 3 - Two-Way Enhanced This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1860 - Variable Length Subnet Table For IPv4 This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1859 - ISO Transport Class 2 Non-use of Explicit Flow Control over TCP RFC1006 extension This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1858 - Security Considerations for IP Fragment Filtering This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1857 - A Model for Common Operational Statistics This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1856 - The Opstat Client-Server Model for Statistics Retrieval This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1854 - SMTP Service Extension for Command Pipelining A Proposed Standard protocol.

Internet Architecture Board Standards Track

[Page 15]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

1853 - IP in IP Tunneling This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1852 - IP Authentication using Keyed SHA An Experimental protocol. 1851 - The ESP Triple DES Transform An Experimental protocol. 1850 - OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base A Draft Standard protocol. 1849 - not yet issued. 1848 - MIME Object Security Services A Proposed Standard protocol. 1847 - Security Multiparts for MIME: Multipart/Signed and Multipart/Encrypted A Proposed Standard protocol. 1846 - SMTP 521 Reply Code An Experimental protocol. 1845 - SMTP Service Extension for Checkpoint/Restart An Experimental protocol. 1844 - Multimedia E-mail (MIME) User Agent Checklist This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1843 - ASCII Printable Characters-Based Chinese Character Encoding for Internet Messages This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.

Internet Architecture Board Standards Track

[Page 16]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

1842 - ASCII Printable Characters-Based Chinese Character Encoding for Internet Messages This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1841 - PPP Network Control Protocol for LAN Extension This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1840 - not yet issued. 1839 - not yet issued. 1838 - Use of the X.500 Directory to support mapping between X.400 and RFC 822 Addresses An Experimental protocol. 1837 - Representing Tables and Subtrees in the X.500 Directory An Experimental protocol. 1836 - Representing the O/R Address hierarchy in the X.500 Directory Information Tree An Experimental protocol. 1835 - Architecture of the WHOIS++ service A Proposed Standard protocol. 1834 - Whois and Network Information Lookup Service, Whois++ This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1833 - Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2 A Proposed Standard protocol. 1832 - XDR: External Data Representation Standard A Proposed Standard protocol.

Internet Architecture Board Standards Track

[Page 17]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

1831 - RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version 2 A Proposed Standard protocol. 1830 - SMTP Service Extensions for Transmission of Large and Binary MIME Messages An Experimental protocol. 1829 - The ESP DES-CBC Transform A Proposed Standard protocol. 1828 - IP Authentication using Keyed MD5 A Proposed Standard protocol. 1827 - IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) A Proposed Standard protocol. 1826 - IP Authentication Header A Proposed Standard protocol. 1825 - Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol A Proposed Standard protocol. 1824 - The Exponential Security System TESS: An Identity-Based Cryptographic Protocol for Authenticated Key-Exchange (E.I.S.S.-Report 1995/4) This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1823 - The LDAP Application Program Interface This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1822 - A Grant of Rights to Use a Specific IBM patent with Photuris This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.

Internet Architecture Board Standards Track

[Page 18]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

1821 - Integration of Real-time Services in an IP-ATM Network Architecture This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1820 - Multimedia E-mail (MIME) User Agent Checklist This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1819 - Internet Stream Protocol Version 2 (ST2) Protocol Specification - Version ST2+ An Experimental protocol. 1818 - Best Current Practices This defines the Best Current Practices subseries and does not specify any level of standard. 1817 - CIDR and Classful Routing This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1816 - U.S. Government Internet Domain Names This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 1815 - Character Sets ISO-10646 and ISO-10646-J-1 This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 6.1.2. Other Changes:

The following are changes to protocols listed in the previous edition. 1137 - Mapping Between Full RFC 822 and RFC 822 with Restricted Encoding Moved to Historic.

Internet Architecture Board Standards Track

[Page 19]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

6.2.

Standard Protocols Status ======== Req Req Req Req Req RFC STD * ==== === = 1880 1 1700 2 1122 3 1123 3 791 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 * 10 * 11 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 33 34 35 50 51 51 52

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

Name ===================================== Internet Official Protocol Standards Assigned Numbers Host Requirements - Communications Host Requirements - Applications 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 SMTP-SIZE SMTP Service Ext for Message Size SMTP-EXT SMTP Service Extensions 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 IP-SMDS IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service

Req 950 Req 919 Req 922 Req 792 Rec 1112 Rec 768 Rec 793 Rec 854,855 Rec 959 Rec 821 Rec 1870 Rec 1869 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 Ele 1209

Internet Architecture Board Standards Track

[Page 20]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

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

[Page 21]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

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-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 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 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 Standards Track

[Page 22]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

6.4.

Draft Standard Protocols Name Status RFC ===================================== ============== ===== Content-MD5 Header Field Elective 1864* OSPF Version 2 MIB Elective 1850* String Representation ... Elective 1779 X.500 String Representation ... Elective 1778 X.500 Lightweight ... Elective 1777 Application of BGP-4 Elective 1772 Border Gateway Protocol 4 Elective 1771 PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol Elective 1762 Remote Network Monitoring MIB Elective 1757 IEEE 802.5 Token Ring MIB Elective 1748 BGP-4 MIB Elective 1657 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 or 8bit-MIMEtransport Elective 1652 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 Bootstrap Protocol Recommended 951,1497 WhoIs Protocol Elective 954

Protocol ======== CON-MD5 OSPF-MIB STR-REP X.500syn X.500lite BGP-4-APP BGP-4 PPP-DNCP RMON-MIB 802.5-MIB BGP-4-MIB POP3 RIP2-MIB RIP2 RIP2-APP SIP-MIB ------------------SMTP-8BIT OSI-NSAP OSPF2 ISO-TS-ECHO DECNET-MIB ------MIME 802.3-MIB BRIDGE-MIB NTPV3 IP-MTU FINGER 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 Standards Track

[Page 23]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

6.5.

Proposed Standard Protocols Name ===================================== Hypertext Markup Language - 2.0 SMTP Serv. Ext. for Command Pipelining MIME Object Security Services MIME: Signed and Encrypted Architecture of the WHOIS++ service Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2 External Data Representation Standard Remote Procedure Call Protocol V. 2 ESP DES-CBC Transform IP Authentication using Keyed MD5 IP Encapsulating Security Payload IP Authentication Header Security Architecture for IP Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers Relative Uniform Resource Locators Connection-less LDAP Ext. OSPF to Support Demand Circuits Transport Multiplexing Protocol TFTP Options TFTP Blocksize Option TFTP Option Extension OSI User Friendly Naming ... MIME Encapsulation of EDI Objects Tags for Identification of Languages PPP XNS IDP Control Protocol PPP Banyan Vines Control Protocol Printer MIB ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM Recommendation for IP Next Generation 802.5 SSR MIB using SMIv2 SNADLC SDLC MIB using SMIv2 BGP4/IDRP for IP/OSPF Interaction Appletalk MIB MIME Encapsulation of Macintosh files Uniform Resource Locators POP3 AUTHentication command IMAP4 Authentication Mechanisms Internet Message Access Protocol V4 PPP Multilink Protocol RDMS MIB - using SMIv2 Modem MIB - using SMIv2 ATM Management Version 8.0 using SMIv2 SNA NAUs MIB using SMIv2 PPP Reliable Transmission Status ============== 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 RFC ===== 1866* 1854* 1848* 1847* 1835* 1833* 1832* 1831* 1829* 1828* 1827* 1826* 1825* 1812 1808 1798 1793 1692 1784 1783 1782 1781 1767 1766 1764 1763 1759 1755 1752 1749 1747 1745 1742 1740 1738 1734 1731 1730 1717 1697 1696 1695 1665 1663

Protocol ======== HTML SMTP-Pipe MIME-Sec MIME-Encyp WHOIS++ -------XDR RPC --------------ESP --------------RREQ URL CLDAP OSPF-DC TMUX TFTP-Opt TFTP-Blk TFTP-Ext OSI-Dir MIME-EDI Lang-Tag XNSCP BVCP Print-MIB ATM-SIG IPNG 802.5-SSR SDLCSMIv2 BGP4/IDRP AT-MIB MacMIME URL POP3-AUTH IMAP4-AUTH IMAP4 PPP-MP RDBMS-MIB MODEM-MIB ATM-MIB SNANAU-MIB PPP-TRANS

Internet Architecture Board Standards Track

[Page 24]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

BGP-4-IMP -------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 DHCP-BOOTP DHCP-BOOTP BOOTP DHCP SRB-MIB CIDR-STRA CIDR-ARCH CIDR-APP -------HOST-MIB -------FDDI-MIB KERBEROS GSSAPI GSSAPI DASS -------HARPOON Mapping Equiv IDPR IDPR-ARCH PPP/Bridge PPP/IP MIB PPP/SEC MIB

BGP-4 Roadmap and Implementation 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 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 FDDI Management Information Base Elective Kerberos Network Authentication Ser (V5) Elective Generic Security Service API: C-bindings Elective Generic Security Service Application... Elective Distributed Authentication Security... Elective X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets Elective Rules for Downgrading Messages... Elective MHS/RFC-822 Message Body Mapping Elective X.400/MIME Body Equivalences Elective Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Elective Architecture for IDPR Elective MIB Bridge PPP MIB Elective IP Network Control Protocol of PPP MIB Elective Security Protocols of PPP MIB Elective

1656 1648 1647 1638 1628 1626 1619 1618 1612 1611 1604 1598 1587 1584 1595 1582 1573 1570 1567 1566 1565 1553 1552 1534 1533 1532 1541 1525 1519 1518 1517 1515 1514 1513 1512 1510 1509 1508 1507 1502 1496 1495 1494 1479 1478 1474 1473 1472

Internet Architecture Board Standards Track

[Page 25]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

PPP/LCP MIB Link Control Protocol of PPP MIB X25-MIB Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 MIB SNMPv2 Coexistence between SNMPv1 and SNMPv2 SNMPv2 Manager-to-Manager MIB SNMPv2 Management Information Base for SNMPv2 SNMPv2 Transport Mappings for SNMPv2 SNMPv2 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 SNMPv2 Party MIB for SNMPv2 SNMPv2 Security Protocols for SNMPv2 SNMPv2 Administrative Model for SNMPv2 SNMPv2 Conformance Statements for SNMPv2 SNMPv2 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 SNMPv2 SMI for SNMPv2 SNMPv2 Introduction to SNMPv2 PEM-KEY PEM - Key Certification PEM-ALG PEM - Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers PEM-CKM PEM - Certificate-Based Key Management PEM-ENC PEM - Message Encryption and Auth SNMP-IPX SNMP over IPX SNMP-AT SNMP over AppleTalk SNMP-OSI SNMP over OSI FTP-FTAM FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification IDENT-MIB Identification MIB IDENT Identification Protocol DS3/E3-MIB DS3/E3 Interface Type DS1/E1-MIB DS1/E1 Interface Type BGP-OSPF BGP OSPF Interaction -------Route Advertisement In BGP2 And BGP3 SNMP-X.25 SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 Packet Layer SNMP-LAPB SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 LAPB PPP-ATCP PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol PPP-OSINLCP PPP OSI Network Layer 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

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

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 1378 1377 1354 1353 1352 1351 1349 1334 1333 1332 1328 1327 1323 1315 1314 1293 1285 1277

Internet Architecture Board Standards Track

[Page 26]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

------------BGP-MIB ICMP-ROUT IPSO OSI-UDP STD-MIBs IPX-IP GINT-MIB IS-IS IP-CMPRS NNTP

Replication and Distributed Operations COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema Border Gateway Protocol MIB (Version 3) ICMP Router Discovery Messages DoD Security Options for IP OSI TS on UDP Reassignment of Exp MIBs to Std MIBs Tunneling IPX Traffic through IP Nets Extensions to the Generic-Interface MIB OSI IS-IS for TCP/IP Dual Environments Compressing TCP/IP Headers Network News Transfer Protocol

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

1276 1274 1269 1256 1108 1240 1239 1234 1229 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 Standards Track

[Page 27]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

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 Standards Track

[Page 28]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

[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 ======== UNARP ------------------ESP3DES ------------------------------------ST2 ------------------------TCP/IPXMIB ------ICMP-DM CLNP-MULT OSPF-OVFL RWP NARP 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 Name ===================================== ARP Extension - UNARP Form-based File Upload in HTML BGP/IDRP Route Server Alternative IP Authentication using Keyed SHA ESP Triple DES Transform SMTP 521 Reply Code SMTP Serv. Ext. for Checkpoint/Restart X.500 Mapping X.400 and RFC 822 Addresses Tables and Subtrees in the X.500 Directory O/R Address hierarchy in X.500 SMTP Serv. Ext. Large and Binary MIME Msgs. Stream Protocol Version 2 Content-Disposition Header Schema Publishing in X.500 Directory X.400-MHS use X.500 to support X.400-MHS Routing Class A Subnet Experiment TCP/IPX Connection Mib Specification TCP And UDP Over IPX Networks With Fixed Path MTU ICMP Domain Name Messages Host Group Extensions for CLNP Multicasting OSPF Database Overflow Remote Write ProtocolL - Version 1.0 NBMA Address Resolution Protocol 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 RFC ===== 1868* 1867* 1863* 1852* 1851* 1846* 1845* 1838* 1837* 1836* 1830* 1819* 1806 1804 1801 1797 1792 1791 1788 1768 1765 1756 1735 1713 1712 1693 1664 1644 1642 1641 1639 1609 1608 1592 1561 1528 1505 1486 1476

Internet Architecture Board Standards Track

[Page 29]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

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

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 Message Posting 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 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

1475 1465 1464 1459 1455 1440 1433 1412 1411 1405 1393 1383 1339 1323 1312 1307 1279 1241 1238 1235 1228 1226 1224 1204 1187 1183 1176 1165 1153 908,1151 1146 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.]

Internet Architecture Board Standards Track

[Page 30]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

6.8.

Informational Protocols

Information protocols have no status. Protocol ======= SNPP -------Name ==================================== Simple Network Paging Protocol - Version 2 ISO Transport Class 2 Non-use Explicit Flow Control over TCP RFC1006 extension -------IP in IP Tunneling -------PPP Network Control Protocol for LAN Extension TESS The Exponential Security System NFSV3 NFS Version 3 Protocol Specification -------A Format for Bibliographic Records SDMD IPv4 Option for Sender Directed MD Delivery SNTP Simple Network Time Protocol SNOOP Snoop Version 2 Packet Capture File Format BINHEX MIME Content Type for BinHex Encoded Files RWHOIS Referral Whois Protocol DNS-NSAP DNS NSAP Resource Records RADIO-PAGE TPC.INT Subdomain: Radio Paging -- Technical Procedures GRE-IPv4 Generic Routing Encapsulation over IPv4 GRE Generic Routing Encapsulatio IPXWAN Novell IPX Over Various WAN Media ADSNA-IP Advanced SNA/IP: A Simple SNA Transport Protocol AUBR Appletalk Update-Based Routing Protocol... TACACS Terminal Access Control Protocol SUN-NFS Network File System Protocol SUN-RPC Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 GOPHER The Internet Gopher Protocol ------Data Link Switching: Switch-to-Switch Protocol LISTSERV Listserv Distribute Protocol ------Replication Requirements PCMAIL Pcmail Transport Protocol MTP Multicast Transport Protocol BSD Login BSD Login DIXIE DIXIE Protocol Specification IP-X.121 IP to X.121 Address Mapping for DDN OSI-HYPER OSI and LLC1 on HYPERchannel HAP2 Host Access Protocol SUBNETASGN On the Assignment of Subnet Numbers SNMP-TRAPS Defining Traps for use with SNMP DAS Directory Assistance Service MD4 MD4 Message Digest Algorithm LPDP Line Printer Daemon Protocol [Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.] RFC ===== 1861* 1859* 1853* 1841* 1824* 1813 1807 1770 1769 1761 1741 1714 1706 1703 1702 1701 1634 1538 1504 1492 1094 1057 1436 1434 1429 1275 1056 1301 1282 1249 1236 1223 1221 1219 1215 1202 1186 1179

Internet Architecture Board Standards Track

[Page 31]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

6.9.

Historic Protocols

All Historic protocols have Not Recommended status. Protocol ======== -------BGP3 -------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 NETRJS NETED RJE XNET NAMESERVER MUX GRAPHICS Name RFC STD ===================================== ===== === Mapping full 822 to Restricted 822 1137 * Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3) 1267,1268 Gateway Requirements Req 1009 4 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 Remote Job Service 740 Network Standard Text Editor 569 Remote Job Entry 407 Cross Net Debugger IEN-158 Host Name Server Protocol IEN-116 Multiplexing Protocol IEN-90 Graphics Protocol NIC-24308

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

Internet Architecture Board Standards Track

[Page 32]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

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 ==== 1661 1305 1533 1574 1573 1559 1541 1592 1528 1320 1057 1421 1422 1423 1267 1268 RFC ==== 1548 1119 1497 1139 1229 1289 1531 1228 1486 1186 1050 1113 1114 1115 1163 1164 Status ========= Draft /Ele Std /Rec Draft/Rec 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 * =================================== = The Point to Point Protocol (PPP) Network Time Protocol (Version 2) Bootstrap Protocol Echo for ISO-8473 Extensions to the Generic-IF MIB DECNET MIB 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

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 Standards Track

[Page 33]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

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.jf.intel.com

Brian E. Carpenter Chair of the IAB CERN European Laboratory for Particle Physics 1211 Geneva 23 Switzerland +41 22 767-4967 brian@dxcoms.cern.ch

7.1.2.

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact

Contacts: Paul Mockapetris Chair of the IETF @home.net, Inc. 101 University Avenue, Suite 240 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-415-833-4950 pvm@home.net

Internet Architecture Board Standards Track

[Page 34]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

Steve Coya IESG Secretary Corporation for National Research Initiatives 1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100 Reston, VA 22091 1-703-620-8990 scoya@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: Abel Winerib Chair of the IRTF Intel, JF2-64 2111 NE 25th Avenue Hillsboro, OR 97124 1-503-696-8972 AWeinrib@ibeam.jf.intel.com

Internet Architecture Board Standards Track

[Page 35]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

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 "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers" (RFC-1812). 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 Standards Track

[Page 36]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

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 Standards Track

[Page 37]


RFC 1880

Internet Standards

November 1995

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 Standards Track

[Page 38]