RFC 1130
IAB official protocol standards
IAB OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS 🎀
okay bestie, this is RFC 1130 💅 It was published in October 1989 by the Internet Activities Board (IAB), with J. Postel as the editor ✨ It obsoletes RFCs 1100 and 1083, so those are officially out 💀 The title block says it came from the Network Working Group, and it's basically the official cheat sheet for which Internet protocols are standards.
Status of this Memo 🌸
This memo describes the state of standardization of protocols used in the Internet, as determined by the Internet Activities Board (IAB). Distribution of this memo is unlimited 🦋
Introduction 💖
Okay so the intro is basically a roadmap ✨ First there's an overview of the standards procedures, then the standardization process and the RFC document series, then the terms get explained, then the lists of protocols at each stage of standardization, and finally pointers 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 📅 Current copies can be grabbed from the Network Information Center or the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (see the contact info at the end of this memo). Do not use this memo after 31-Jan-90.
💀 Not to be dramatic, but that date is long gone, so treat this as a snapshot from the past and not the current state of things.
See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes ✨
1. Overview of Standards Procedures 🔥
The Internet Activities Board keeps a list of documents that define standards for the Internet protocol suite (see RFC-1120 for the role and organization of the IAB 📚). The IAB provides these standards to coordinate the evolution of the Internet protocols. That coordination has gotten super important because the Internet protocols are increasingly in general commercial use 💼
Anyone in the Internet community can suggest a protocol standard by writing an RFC and submitting it 🙌 Generally, a suggested protocol gets reviewed or developed within some Task Force of the IAB, or within a research group or working group in that Task Force. If official delegation is needed, the IAB will assign a suggested protocol to a working group or research group.
The Internet Engineering Task Force plays a huge role in how the Internet Architecture evolves, so every proposed protocol gets reviewed by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), which is made up of the Technical Area Directors 👑
The recommendation of the IESG and of the working group or research group gets major consideration when the IAB decides which state and status a protocol gets 🫶 The general policy is to gain implementation experience with a protocol before considering it for a possible designation as an official standard.
If there's uncertainty about the proper decision for a protocol, the IAB may convene a special review committee. That committee would be made up of interested parties from the working group and members of the IAB itself, and its purpose is to recommend some explicit action to the IAB 🤔
A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without IAB approval. Some vendor protocols became super important to the Internet community even though the IAB never proposed or reviewed them 💅 Still, the IAB strongly recommends using the IAB standards process to evolve the protocol suite, to maximize interoperability (and to prevent incompatible protocol requirements from showing 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 believes it's really useful to document a protocol at an early stage, so others interested in the functionality of the protocol and in protocol design can make suggestions. Once a protocol is implemented and tested, it's useful to report the results too. The RFC document series is the preferred place for publishing these protocol documents and testing results 📝
The IAB encourages documenting every protocol developed for the Internet (that is, publishing the protocol specification as an RFC), even if it's never intended to become an Internet standard. A protocol that isn't intended to become a standard is called "experimental" 🧪
Protocols that are intended to become standards are first designated as "proposed" protocols 🌱 While in this state, the protocol is expected to be implemented and tested by several groups. It's likely that an improved version of the protocol will result from this activity 🔬
Once a proposed protocol has become 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. This draft standard state is essentially a warning 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 the protocol an official Internet standard 🏆
Some protocols have been superseded by better protocols or are otherwise unused. Those get designated "historic" 🕰️
On top of a state (like proposed or standard), a protocol also gets a status. Here's how that works:
- required: A protocol can be required, meaning that all systems in the Internet must implement it. For example, the Internet Protocol (IP) is required.
- recommended: A protocol may be recommended, meaning that systems should implement this protocol.
- elective: A protocol may be elective, meaning that systems may implement this protocol. That is, if (and only if) the functionality of this protocol is needed or useful for a system, it must use this protocol to provide the functionality.
- not recommended: A protocol may be termed not recommended if it is not 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, like gateways, terminal servers, workstations, and multi-user hosts 🖥️ For example, it's not necessary for a gateway 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 about essentially any topic related to computer communication. It can 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 info at the end of this memo) 📧
RFCs are not 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. That's why 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 determining the correct RFC for the current specification of each protocol 🫶
The RFCs are available from the Network Information Center at SRI International. For more info about obtaining RFCs, see the contact info at the end of this memo 🦋
4. Other Reference Documents 🗂️
There are four other reference documents of interest when checking the current status of protocol specifications and standardization: the Assigned Numbers, the Official Protocols, the Gateway Requirements, and the Host Requirements 👀 These documents are revised and updated at different times. In case of differences between them, the most recent must prevail.
Also, be aware of the MIL-STD publications on IP, TCP, Telnet, FTP, and SMTP. These are described in section 4.5 ✨
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-1117.
4.2. Official Protocols 📜
This document lists the protocols and describes any known problems and ongoing experiments. Official Protocols was most 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 is RFC-1009.
4.4. Host Requirements 💻
This pair of documents reviews the specifications that apply to hosts and supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities. Host Requirements was recently issued as RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.
4.5. The MIL-STD Documents 🎖️
The Internet community specifications for IP (RFC-791) and TCP (RFC-793) and the DoD MIL-STD specifications are intended to describe exactly the same protocols. Any difference in the protocols specified by these sets of documents should be reported to DCA and to the IAB. The RFCs and the MIL-STDs for IP and TCP differ in style and level of detail, so it is strongly advised that the two sets of documents be used together 🤝
The IAB and the DoD MIL-STD specifications for the FTP, SMTP, and Telnet protocols are essentially the same documents (RFCs 765, 821, 854). The MIL-STD versions have been edited slightly. Note that the current Internet specification for FTP is RFC-959 💖
Internet Protocol (IP) MIL-STD-1777
Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) MIL-STD-1778
File Transfer Protocol (FTP) MIL-STD-1780
Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) MIL-STD-1781
Telnet Protocol and Options (TELNET) MIL-STD-1782To be continued in part 2 🎀🌈
5. Explanation of Terms ✨
okay bestie, so there are two separate ways to sort protocols and they're totally independent 💅 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 protocol to glow up on both scales at once, like going from elective to required while it also goes from proposed to standard 🦋
At any given time a protocol is a cell of the matrix below. Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the proportions shown by the number of Xs. Most will sit on the main diagonal 👑 A brand 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 are particular to gateways, and a few are used by both 🧚 The definitions below talk about 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 meant 🎀
5.1. Definitions of Protocol State
5.1.1. Standard Protocol
The IAB has made this an official standard protocol for the Internet ✨ There are two groups here. The first is IP protocol and above, which apply to the whole Internet. The second is network-specific protocols, which are generally specs for how to do IP on particular types of networks 🌈
5.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol
The IAB is actively considering this protocol as a possible Standard Protocol, so substantial and widespread testing and comment is wanted 🔥 Comments and test results should be sent to the IAB. Changes might still happen to a Draft Standard Protocol before it becomes a Standard Protocol 🫶
5.1.3. Proposed Protocol
These are protocol proposals that the IAB may consider for standardization later on 🌸 Implementation and testing by several groups is desirable, and revisions of the protocol specification are likely 💜
5.1.4. Experimental Protocol
A system should not implement an experimental protocol unless it is taking part in the experiment and has coordinated its use of the protocol with the developer 🧪
Typically, experimental protocols come out of a specific ongoing research project and aren't tied to an operational service offering. They may be proposed as a service protocol later, and then move through proposed, draft, and standard. Still, calling a protocol experimental is meant to signal that, even if it's mature, it isn't intended for operational use 🙈
5.1.5. Historic Protocol
These are protocols that are unlikely ever to become Internet standards, either because later developments superseded them or because nobody is interested anymore 🥀 They're at an evolutionary dead end 💀
5.2. Definitions of Protocol Status
5.2.1. Required Protocol
All systems must implement the required protocols 💅
5.2.2. Recommended Protocol
All systems should implement the recommended protocols 🍓
5.2.3. Elective Protocol
A system may or may not implement an elective protocol. The general notion is that if you're going to do something like this, you must do exactly this 🦋
5.2.4. Not Recommended Protocol
These protocols are not recommended for general use 🙅 That might be because of their limited functionality, specialized nature, or experimental or historic state 🕰️
6. The Protocols ✨
This section lists the standards in groups by protocol state 📚
6.1. Recent Changes:
- The Host Requirements [RFC-1122, RFC-1123] is now a Required Standard 👑
- The Network Time Protocol [RFC-1119] is now a Recommended Standard ⭐
- The Internet Group Multicast Protocol [RFC-1112] is now a Recommended Standard 🌈
- The mail Content Type Header Field [RFC-1049] is now a Recommended Standard 💌
- The "Internet Numbers" list was recently issued as RFC-1117 📋
- The Telnet Linemode Option [RFC-1116] is now a Elective Proposed standard 🌸
- The mail Privacy procedures [RFC-1113, RFC-1114, and RFC-1115] are now Elective Draft Standards 🔐
- The Border Gateway Protocol [RFC-1105] is a Not-Recommended Experimental protocol 🧪
- A procedure for sending IP over FDDI networks [RFC-1103] is now a Specific Standard 🎀
- The Trivial File Transfer Protocol [RFC-783] is now a Elective Draft Standard 🦋
6.2. Standard Protocols
Protocol Name Status RFC
-------- ---- ------ ---
Assigned Numbers Required 1010
Gateway Requirements Required 1009
Host Requirements - Communications Required 1122
Host Requirements - Applications Required 1123
IP Internet Protocol Required 791
as amended by:
IP Subnet Extension Required 950
IP Broadcast Datagrams Required 919
IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets Required 922
ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol Required 792
IGMP Internet Group Multicast Protocol Recommended 1054
UDP User Datagram Protocol Recommended 768
TCP Transmission Control Protocol Recommended 793
DOMAIN Domain Name System Recommended 1034,1035
TELNET Telnet Protocol Recommended 854
FTP File Transfer Protocol Recommended 959
SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol Recommended 821
MAIL Format of Electronic Mail Messages Recommended 822
CONTENT Content Type Header Field Recommended 1049
EGP Exterior Gateway Protocol Recommended 904
ECHO Echo Protocol Recommended 862
NTP Network Time Protocol Recommended 1119
NETBIOS NetBIOS Service Protocols Elective 1001,1002
DISCARD Discard Protocol Elective 863
CHARGEN Character Generator Protocol Elective 864
QUOTE Quote of the Day Protocol Elective 865
USERS Active Users Protocol Elective 866
DAYTIME Daytime Protocol Elective 867
TIME Time Server Protocol Elective 8686.3. 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 1055
IP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS Elective 1088
IP-FDDI Transmission of IP over FDDI Elective 1103Note: a system is expected to support one or more physical networks, and for each physical network it supports, the appropriate protocols from the list above must be supported 🌐 So supporting any particular type of physical network is elective, but for the networks you actually do support, they're required to be supported exactly according to the protocols in the list above 🫶
6.4. Draft Standard Protocols
Protocol Name Status RFC
-------- ---- ------ ---
Mail Privacy: Procedures Elective 1113
Mail Privacy: Key Management Elective 1114
Mail Privacy: Algorithms Elective 1115
SNMP Simple Network Management Protocol Recommended 1098
CMOT Common Management Information Services Recommended 1095
and Protocol over TCP/IP
MIB Management Information Base Recommended 1066
SMI Structure of Management Information Recommended 1065
BOOTP Bootstrap Protocol Recommended 951,1048,1084
TFTP Trivial File Transfer Protocol Elective 783The Internet Activities Board has given two different network management protocols the same status: "Draft Standard" and "Recommended" 👀 Those two are the Common Management Information Services and Protocol over TCP/IP (CMOT) [RFC-1095] and the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) [RFC-1098]. The IAB wants both of them to get attention from implementers and experimenters, and it's asking system builders and users for reports of experience with these two protocols 📣 By this action, the IAB recommends that all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable (for example, by implementing the Internet MIB [RFC-1066]). Implementations that are network manageable are expected to adopt and implement at least one of these two Internet Draft Standards 💖 The reasoning behind this position is discussed in RFCs 1052 and 1109 📖
6.5. Proposed Protocols 🌸
okay bestie, here are the proposed protocols, and some of them are literally iconic 💅
Protocol Name Status RFC
-------- ---- ------ ---
SUN-NFS Network File System Protocol Elective 1094
POP3 Post Office Protocol, Version 3 Elective 1081,1082
RIP Routing Information Protocol Elective 1058
SUN-RPC Remote Procedure Call Protocol Elective 1057
PCMAIL Pcmail Transport Protocol Elective 1056
VMTP Versatile Message Transaction Protocol Elective 1045
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, Version 2 Elective 937
SFTP Simple File Transfer Protocol Elective 913
RLP Resource Location Protocol Elective 887
RTELNET Remote Telnet Service Elective 818
FINGER Finger Protocol Elective 742
SUPDUP SUPDUP Protocol Elective 734
NETED Network Standard Text Editor Elective 569
RJE Remote Job Entry Elective 4076.6. Experimental Protocols 🧪
these ones are in the experimental era, so the vibe is "still cooking" 🍳
Protocol Name Status RFC
-------- ---- ------ ---
BGP Border Gateway Protocol Not Recommended 1105
IP-DVMRP IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing Not Recommended 1075
TCP-LDP TCP Extensions for Long Delay Paths Not Recommended 1072
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 memo6.7. Historic Protocols 🕰️
and these are the vintage icons. we love a classic, but they're retired now 🫶
Protocol Name Status RFC
-------- ---- ------ ---
SGMP Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol Not Recommended 1028
HEMS High Level Entity Management Protocol Not Recommended 1021
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 Not Recommended 740
XNET Cross Net Debugger Not Recommended IEN 158
NAMESERVER Host Name Server Protocol Not Recommended IEN 116
MUX Multiplexing Protocol Not Recommended IEN 90
GRAPHICS Graphics Protocol Not Recommended NIC 243087. Contacts 📇
this is the part where you get the people, the phone numbers, and the places to slide into the DMs 💌
7.1. Internet Activities Board Contact 🌟
Contact:
Jon Postel
USC Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-213-822-1511
Postel@ISI.EDUbestie, if you have thoughts on this list of protocols, and especially on the Draft Standard Protocols, send them to the Internet Activities Board 💖
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 IAB's protocol standards are managed by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, so that's who runs the show here 👑
for more info on the status of protocol documents, check out "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1010) and "Official Internet Protocols" (RFC-1011). there are also two docs that sum up what hosts and gateways need to do on the Internet: "Host Requirements" (RFC-1122 and RFC-1123) and "Gateway Requirements" (RFC-1009) 📚
How to obtain the most recent edition of this "IAB Official Protocol Standards" memo:
the file in-notes/iab-standards.txt can be copied via FTP from the VENERA.ISI.EDU computer. use the FTP username "anonymous" and FTP password "guest" 🦋
7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact ✍️
Contact:
Jon Postel
RFC Editor
USC Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-213-822-1511
Postel@ISI.EDUyou can email documents to the RFC Editor to be considered for publication as an RFC. if the format or style stuff feels confusing, ask for the "Instructions for RFC Authors". in general, you can use the style of any recent RFC as a guide 🎀
7.4. The Network Information Center and Requests for Comments Distribution Contact 📬
Contact:
DDN Network Information Center
SRI International
Room EJ291
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025
1-800-235-3155
1-415-859-3695
NIC@NIC.DDN.MILthe Network Information Center (NIC) is the place for loads of info services for the Internet community. one of its big jobs is keeping the Requests for Comments (RFC) library up to date 📚✨
you can grab RFCs via FTP from NIC.DDN.MIL, using the pathname RFC:RFCnnnn.TXT where "nnnn" is the number of the RFC. if you want a list of all RFCs, copy the file RFC:RFC-INDEX.TXT. log in with FTP username ANONYMOUS and password GUEST 🧚
if your site can't use FTP, the NIC also has an automatic mail service. send your request to SERVICE@NIC.DDN.MIL and put the RFC number in the subject field, like "Subject: RFC nnnn" 💌
How to obtain the most recent edition of this "IAB Official Protocol Standards" memo:
the file RFC:IAB-STANDARDS.TXT can be copied via FTP from the NIC.DDN.MIL computer, using the same steps you'd use to get RFCs 🍓
7.5. Other Sources for Requests for Comments 🌈
NSF Network Service Center (NNSC)
NSF Network Service Center (NNSC)
BBN Systems and Technology Corporation
10 Moulton St.
Cambridge, MA 02238
617-873-3400
NNSC@NNSC.NSF.NETNSF Network Information Service (NIS)
NSF Network Information Service
Merit Inc.
University of Michigan
1075 Beal Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
313-763-4897
INFO@NIS.NSF.NETCSNET Coordination and Information Center (CIC)
CSNET Coordination and Information Center
Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.
10 Moulton Street
Cambridge, MA 02238
617-873-2777
INFO@SH.CS.NET8. Security Considerations: 🔐
Security issues are not addressed in this memo.
⚠️ bestie, this is a big one: the security side is NOT covered here, so don't assume any protection just because it's in the doc 💀
9. 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: rfc1130 1989-10
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms