RFC 1083
IAB official protocol standards
RFC 1083: IAB OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS 🎀
Okay bestie, so this one comes from the Network Working Group and was published by the Internet Activities Board in December 1988 as RFC 1083 💖. The header doesn't name a category, and it doesn't say it obsoletes or updates anything ✨. Think of it as the official cheat sheet for which Internet protocols are standards and how far along each one is 🦋.
Status of this Memo 📜
This memo describes the state of standardization of protocols used in the Internet, as determined by the Internet Activities Board (IAB) 🌸. It goes over the standards procedures first, then the standardization process and the RFC document series, then explains the terms. After that it lists the protocols at each stage of standardization, and finally points you to references and contacts for more info 🧚.
This memo is issued quarterly, so please make sure the copy you're reading is dated within the last three months 🙈. You can get current copies from the Network Information Center or from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (check the contact info at the end of this memo). Do not use this memo after 31-March-89 💀.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited 🌈.
1. Overview of Standards Procedures ✨
The IAB keeps a list of documents that define standards for the Internet protocol suite 📋. It does this to coordinate how the Internet protocols evolve, and that coordination matters a lot now that the protocols are increasingly in general commercial use 💅.
Anyone in the Internet community can propose a protocol by writing and submitting an RFC 🫶. Generally, a proposed protocol gets reviewed or developed in the context of some IAB Task Force, or some working group inside that Task Force. If official delegation is needed, the IAB will assign the proposed protocol to a working group 🔥.
The recommendation of the working group or task force gets major consideration when the IAB decides what state and status to give the protocol 👑. The general policy is not to make a protocol an official standard until there's implementation experience with it 🍓.
If there's uncertainty about the right decision for a protocol, the IAB may convene a special review committee. It's made up of interested parties from the working group plus members of the IAB themselves, and its job is to recommend some explicit action to the IAB 🧐.
It's possible to go ahead with widespread implementation of a standard without IAB approval. For example, some vendor standards have become super important to the Internet community even though the IAB never proposed or reviewed them 💀. However, the IAB strongly recommends using the IAB standards process to evolve the protocol suite, so you get better interoperability and so incompatible protocol requirements don't pop up 🙏. The IAB reserves the use of the term "standard" in any RFC for only those protocols the IAB has approved 🔒.
2. The Standardization Process 🧃
Anyone can invent a protocol, document it, implement it, test it, and so on 🙌. The IAB thinks documenting a protocol at an early stage is really useful, because it invites suggestions from people interested in the protocol's functionality and from people interested in protocol design 💬. Once a protocol is implemented and tested, it's useful to report the results. The RFC document series is the preferred place to publish these protocol documents and testing results 📚.
The IAB encourages documenting every protocol developed in the Internet (that is, publishing the protocol specification as an RFC), even if it's never meant to become an Internet standard 🫶. A protocol that isn't meant to become a standard is called "experimental" 🧪.
Protocols that are meant to become standards are first designated as "proposed" protocols 🌱. While they're in this state, several groups are expected to implement and test them, and an improved version will likely come out of that activity 🛠️.
Once a proposed protocol is stable and has a sponsor (an individual willing to speak for the protocol to the IAB), it may advance to the "draft standard" state 🎀. In this state, it should be reviewed by the entire Internet community. Draft standard is basically a heads-up to the community that unless an objection is raised or a flaw is found, this protocol will become a "standard" 🚨.
Once a protocol has been a draft standard for a sufficient time (usually 6 months) without serious objections, the IAB may act to declare it an official Internet standard 👑.
Some protocols have been superseded by better protocols or are otherwise unused. Those get designated "historic" 🕰️.
In addition to a state (like proposed or standard), a protocol is also assigned a status 🏷️. A protocol can be "required", meaning that all systems in the Internet must implement it. For example, the Internet Protocol (IP) is required 🌐. A protocol may be "recommended", meaning that systems should implement it. A protocol may be "elective", meaning that systems may implement it; that is, if and only if the functionality of the protocol is needed or useful for a system, it must use this protocol to provide that functionality 🧩. A protocol may be termed "not recommended" if it isn't intended to be generally implemented; for example, experimental or historic protocols 🙅♀️.
Few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems, because there's such a variety of possible systems: gateways, terminal servers, workstations, multi-user hosts 🖥️. For instance, a gateway doesn't need to implement TCP and the protocols that use TCP, though it may be useful 🤷♀️. It's expected that general purpose hosts will implement at least IP (including ICMP), TCP and UDP, Telnet, FTP, SMTP, Mail, and the Domain Name System (DNS) 💻.
3. The Request for Comments Documents 📝
RFCs (Request for Comments) are the working notes of the Internet research and development community 🧠. A document in this series can be on essentially any topic related to computer communication, from a meeting report all the way to the specification of a standard. 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 by electronic mail to the RFC Editor (check the contact info at the end of this memo) 📧.
RFCs aren't refereed publications, but they do receive technical review from the task forces, individual technical experts, or the RFC Editor, as appropriate 🔍.
Once a document is assigned an RFC number and published, that RFC is never revised or re-issued with the same number 🔒. So there's 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, so it's important to verify that you have the most recent RFC on a particular protocol 👀. This "IAB Official Protocol Standards" memo is the reference for working out the correct RFC to look at for the current specification of each protocol ✨.
The RFCs are available from the Network Information Center at SRI International 🗺️. For more about getting RFCs, see the contact info at the end of this memo 📬.
4. Other Reference Documents 📚
There are four other reference documents worth checking when you want the current status of protocol specifications and standardization 🧾. They're the Assigned Numbers, the Official Protocols, the Gateway Requirements, and the Host Requirements. These documents get revised and updated at different times, so if they differ, the most recent one prevails 🏆.
4.1. Assigned Numbers 🔢
This document lists the assigned values of the parameters used in the various protocols. For example: IP protocol codes, TCP port numbers, Telnet Option Codes, ARP hardware types, and Terminal Type names 🧮. Assigned Numbers was most recently issued as RFC-1010 🎀.
Another document, Internet Numbers, lists the assigned IP network numbers and the autonomous system numbers 🌍. Internet Numbers was most recently issued as RFC-1062 💫.
4.2. Official Protocols 📜
This document lists the protocols and describes any known problems and ongoing experiments 🧪. Official Protocols was recently issued as RFC-1011 ✨.
4.3. Gateway Requirements 🌉
This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways and supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities 🔍. Gateway Requirements was recently issued as RFC-1009 💅.
4.4. Host Requirements 🖥️
This document reviews the specifications that apply to hosts and supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities 💡. Host Requirements is in preparation and will be issued soon ⏳.
5. Explanation of Terms 🧠
There are two independent categorizations of protocols 🗂️. The first is the state of standardization, which is one of "standard", "draft standard", "proposed", "experimental", or "historic". The second is the status of the protocol, which is one of "required", "recommended", "elective", or "not recommended". You could expect a particular protocol to move along the scale of status from elective to required at the same time it moves along the scale of standardization from proposed to standard 📈.
At any given time a protocol is in one cell of the following matrix. Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the following proportions (indicated by the number of Xs). Most will be on the main diagonal. A new protocol is most likely to start in the (proposed, elective) cell, or the (experimental, not recommended) cell 🎯.
Req Rec Ele Not
+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Std | XXX | XX | X | |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Draft | | X | XX | |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Prop | | | XXX | X |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Expr | | | X | XXX |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Hist | | | | XXX |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+Some protocols are particular to hosts and some to gateways, and a few are used by both 🖥️🌉. The definitions of the terms below refer to a "system", which is either a host or a gateway (or both). It should be clear from the context of the particular protocol which types of systems are intended 🫶.
5.1. Definitions ✨
5.1.1. Standard Protocol
okay so the IAB has officially marked this as a standard protocol for the Internet 👑. There are two groups: (1) IP protocol and above, the stuff that applies to the whole Internet 🌍; and (2) network-specific protocols, which are basically how-to specs for doing IP on particular types of networks 🧚.
5.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol
the IAB is actively considering this one as a possible Standard Protocol 👀. They really want substantial, widespread testing and comments 🫶, so send your comments and test results to the IAB 💌. Just so you know, changes might still happen to a Draft Standard Protocol before it graduates to a Standard Protocol 🎓.
5.1.3. Proposed Protocol
these are proposals the IAB may standardize down the road 🦋. Lots of groups implementing and testing them is desirable 🌸, and revisions to the spec are likely 🔄.
5.1.4. Experimental Protocol
okay this one's important bestie 🚨: a system should not implement an experimental protocol unless it's actually part of the experiment and has coordinated its use with the protocol's developer 🙈.
Usually experimental protocols come out of a specific ongoing research project that isn't tied to an operational service 🧪. They can get proposed as a service protocol later and go proposed → draft → standard 📈. But calling something experimental is basically a neon sign saying it's not meant for operational use, even if it's pretty mature 💅.
5.1.5. Historic Protocol
these are protocols that are unlikely to ever become Internet standards, either because later developments superseded them or because nobody's interested anymore 🥀. They're at an evolutionary dead end 💀.
5.1.6. Required Protocol
all systems must implement the required protocols 🔐.
5.1.7. Recommended Protocol
all systems should implement the recommended protocols 💜.
5.1.8. Elective Protocol
a system may or may not implement an elective protocol 🤷♀️. The general notion is: if you're going to do something like this, you must do exactly this 🎀.
5.1.9. Not Recommended Protocol
these aren't recommended for general use 🙅♀️. That might be because of limited functionality, a specialized nature, or being experimental or historic in state 🕰️.
6. The Protocols ✨
okay here's the protocol lineup 💖. I've kept the tables in code blocks so nothing gets scrambled 💅.
6.1. Standard Protocols 🌟
Protocol Name Status RFC
-------- ---- ------ ---
Assigned Numbers Required 1010
Gateway Requirements Required 1009
IP Internet Protocol Required 791
as amended by:
IP Subnet Extension Required 950
IP Broadcast Datagrams Required 919
IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets Required 922
ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol Required 792
UDP User Datagram Protocol Recommended 768
TCP Transmission Control Protocol Recommended 793
DOMAINS Domain Name System Recommended 1034,1035
TELNET Telnet Protocol Recommended 854
FTP File Transfer Protocol Recommended 959
SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol Recommended 821
MAIL Format of Electronic Mail Messages Recommended 822
EGP Exterior Gateway Protocol Recommended 904
NETBIOS NetBIOS Services Protocol Elective 1001,1002
ECHO Echo Protocol Recommended 862
DISCARD Discard Protocol Elective 863
CHARGEN Character Generator Protocol Elective 864
QUOTE Quote of the Day Protocol Elective 865
USERS Active Users Protocol Elective 866
DAYTIME Daytime Protocol Elective 867
TIME Time Server Protocol Elective 8686.2. Specific Standard Protocols 🧩
Protocol Name Status RFC
-------- ---- ------ ---
ARP Address Resolution Protocol Elective 826
RARP A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol Elective 903
IP-ARPA Internet Protocol on ARPANET Elective BBN 1822
IP-WB Internet Protocol on Wideband Network Elective 907
IP-X25 Internet Protocol on X.25 Networks Elective 877
IP-E Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks Elective 894
IP-EE Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets Elective 895
IP-IEEE Internet Protocol on IEEE 802 Elective 1042
IP-DC Internet Protocol on DC Networks Elective 891
IP-HC Internet Protocol on Hyperchannnel Elective 1044
IP-ARC Internet Protocol on ARCNET Elective 1051
IP-SLIP Transmission of IP over Serial Lines Elective 1055Note: it's expected that a system will support one or more physical networks 🌐. For each physical network supported, the appropriate protocols from the above list must be supported. So supporting any particular type of physical network is elective 🫧, but for the physical networks you actually do support, it is required that they be supported exactly according to the protocols in the above list 💅.
6.3. Draft Standard Protocols 🎀
Protocol Name Status RFC
-------- ---- ------ ---
SNMP Simple Network Monitoring Protocol Recommended 1067
MIB Management Information Base Recommended 1066
SMI Structure of Management Information Recommended 1065
NTP Network Time Protocol Elective 1059
IGMP Internet Group Multicast Protocol Recommended 1054
BOOTP Bootstrap Protocol Recommended 951,10486.4. Proposed Protocols 🦋
Protocol Name Status RFC
-------- ---- ------ ---
VMTP Versatile Message Transaction Protocol Elective 1045
RIP Routing Information Protocol Elective 1058
SUN-RPC Remote Procedure Call Protocol Elective 1057
PCMAIL Pcmail Transport Protocol Elective 1056
NFILE A File Access Protocol Elective 1037
Mapping between X.400 and RFC-822 Elective 987,1026
STATSRV Statistics Server Elective 996
NNTP Network News Transfer Protocol Elective 977
NICNAME WhoIs Protocol Elective 954
HOSTNAME HOSTNAME Protocol Elective 953
POP2 Post Office Protocol Elective 937
SFTP Simple File Transfer Protocol Elective 913
RLP Resource Location Protocol Elective 887
RTELNET Remote Telnet Service Elective 818
TFTP Trivial File Transfer Protocol Elective 783
FINGER Finger Protocol Elective 742
SUPDUP SUPDUP Protocol Elective 734
NETED Network Standard Text Editor Elective 569
RJE Remote Job Entry Elective 4076.5. Experimental Protocols 🧪
Protocol Name Status RFC
-------- ---- ------ ---
IP-MTU IP MTU Discovery Options Not Recommended 1063
NETBLT Bulk Data Transfer Protocol Not Recommended 998
IMAP2 Interactive Mail Access Protocol Not Recommended 1064
COOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme Not Recommended 1004
IRTP Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol Not Recommended 938
AUTH Authentication Service Not Recommended 931
RATP Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol Not Recommended 916
THINWIRE Thinwire Protocol Not Recommended 914
LDP Loader Debugger Protocol Not Recommended 909
RDP Reliable Data Protocol Not Recommended 908
ST Stream Protocol Not Recommended IEN 119
NVP-II Network Voice Protocol Not Recommended ISI memo6.6. Historic Protocols 🕰️
Protocol Name Status RFC
-------- ---- ------ ---
SGMP Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol Not Recommended 1028
HMP Host Monitoring Protocol Not Recommended 869
GGP Gateway Gateway Protocol Not Recommended 823
CLOCK DCNET Time Server Protocol Not Recommended 778
MPM Internet Message Protocol Not Recommended 759
NETRJS Remote Job Service Elective 740
XNET Cross Net Debugger Elective IEN 158
NAMESERVER Host Name Server Protocol Not Recommended IEN 116
MUX Multiplexing Protocol Not Recommended IEN 90
GRAPHICS Graphics Protocol Not Recommended NIC 243087. Contacts 📮
7.1. Internet Activities Board Contact 💌
here's who to reach 🧚:
Contact:
Jon Postel
Deputy Internet Architect
USC Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-213-822-1511
Postel@ISI.EDUSend your comments about this list of protocols (and especially about the Draft Standard Protocols) to the Internet Activities Board, care of the Deputy Internet Architect 💖.
7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Contact 🗂️
Contact:
Joyce K. Reynolds
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
USC Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-213-822-1511
JKRey@ISI.EDUThe protocol standards are managed for the IAB by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority 👑. For more on the status of protocol docs, check out "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1010) and "Official Internet Protocols" (RFC-1011) ✨. There are also two docs that summarize the requirements for hosts and gateways on the Internet: "Host Requirements" (RFC in preparation) and "Gateway Requirements" (RFC-1009) 📚.
How to obtain the most recent edition of this "IAB Official Protocol Standards" memo:
The file in-notes/iab-standards.txt may be copied via FTP from the VENERA.ISI.EDU computer, using the FTP username anonymous and the FTP password guest 💾.
7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact 🎀
Bestie, this is who to ping about publishing 💌 The RFC Editor is listed like this:
Contact:
Jon Postel
RFC Editor
USC Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-213-822-1511
Postel@ISI.EDUSo okay, want your doc to become an RFC? 📝 You can send it to the RFC Editor by electronic mail and they'll think about publishing it ✨ If the format or style stuff feels confusing, ask for the "Instructions for RFC Authors" 🙏 And honestly, the style of any recent RFC works as a guide, so just copy the vibe 💅
7.4. The Network Information Center and Requests for Comments Contact 📚
Here's the NIC's contact info 🌸
Contact:
SRI International
DDN Network Information Center
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025
1-800-235-3155
1-415-859-3695
NIC@SRI-NIC.ARPAThe Network Information Center (NIC) is basically the info hub for the Internet community 🌐 Among all its services, it keeps the Requests for Comments (RFC) library stocked, which is literally the whole reason we can read any of this 😭🫶
Want to grab RFCs over FTP? Go to SRI-NIC.ARPA and use the pathname RFC:RFCnnnn.TXT, where nnnn stands in for the RFC's number 🦋 If you want a full list of every RFC, copy the file RFC:RFC-INDEX.TXT. Log in with the FTP username ANONYMOUS and the password GUEST 🔑
No FTP access? No stress 🙈 The NIC also runs an automatic mail service. Send your request to SERVICE@SRI-NIC.ARPA, and in the subject field put the RFC number, like "Subject: RFC nnnn" 💜
How to get the most recent edition of this "IAB Official Protocol Standards" memo:
The file RFC:IAB-STANDARDS.TXT can be copied over FTP from the SRI-NIC.ARPA computer, using the same steps you'd use to grab any RFC 🧚
Author's Address 💌
Jon Postel
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Phone: (213) 822-1511
Email: Postel@ISI.EDU📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc1083 1988-12
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms