RFC 1140
IAB official protocol standards
IAB OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS 🎀
Okay bestie, this is RFC 1140, and the whole vibe is official protocol standards 🦋
- Request for Comments: 1140
- Working group: Network Working Group
- Issued by: Internet Activities Board
- Editor: J. Postel
- Date: May 1990
- Obsoletes: RFCs 1130, 1100, 1083
- Updates: The header doesn't list any RFCs that this one updates.
- Category: The header doesn't name a category, but the Status of this Memo section says it describes where standardization stands for Internet protocols 📜
Status of this Memo 📜
This memo describes where standardization stands for the protocols used on the Internet, as decided by the Internet Activities Board (IAB). Distribution of this memo is unlimited 🌍
Table of Contents 🗂️
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1. The Standardization Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. The Request for Comments Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Other Reference Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Assigned Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Annotated Internet Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Gateway Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Host Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5. The MIL-STD Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Explanation of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Definitions of Protocol State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.1. Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.4. Experimental Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.5. Historic Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.1. Required Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.2. Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.3. Elective Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.4. Limited Use Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.5. Not Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. The Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. The RFC Processing Decision Table . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. The Standards Track Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. The Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1. Recent Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.1. New RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.2. Other Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2. Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.4. Draft Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.5. Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.6. Experimental Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.7. Historic Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7. Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.1.1. Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact . . . . . . . 23
7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . 23
7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . . 24
7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . . 24
7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.4. Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.5. Other Sources for Requests for Comments . . . . . . . . 26
7.5.1. NSF Network Service Center (NNSC) . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.5.2. NSF Network Information Service (NIS) . . . . . . . . 26
7.5.3. CSNET Coordination and Information Center (CIC) . . . 26
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Introduction 🌸
Here's the game plan: first we chat about the standardization process and the RFC document series, then we explain the terms, then we go through the lists of protocols at each stage of standardization, and finally we get to the references and contacts for more info 🧚
This memo gets issued quarterly, so make sure the copy you're reading is dated within the last three months 📅 You can grab current copies from the Network Information Center or from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (check the contact information at the end of this memo). Do not use this edition after 31-Aug-90 💀
See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes ✨
1. The Standardization Process ✨
Okay so the Internet Activities Board keeps a list of the documents that define standards for the Internet protocol suite 📚 (see RFC-1120 for the lowdown on how the IAB and its subsidiary groups are organized, including the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)). The IAB does this to co-ordinate how the Internet protocols evolve, and honestly that co-ordination is a big deal now that the protocols are increasingly in general commercial use 💼
Most Internet protocol development and standardization happens in the working groups of the Internet Engineering Task Force 🛠️
Protocols that are going to become standards go through a series of states (proposed standard, draft standard, and standard), and each step brings more scrutiny and experimental testing 🔍 At each step, the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) of the IETF must make a recommendation to advance the protocol, and the IAB must ratify it. If a recommendation isn't ratified, the protocol gets remanded to the IETF for further work 😤
To give the Internet community time to consider and react to standardization proposals, the IAB imposes a minimum delay of 4 months before a proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard, and 6 months before a draft standard can be promoted to standard ⏳
It is general IAB 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 it's unclear what the right decision is for a protocol, the IAB may convene a special review committee made up of experts from the IETF, IRTF, and the IAB. Their job is to recommend an explicit action to the IAB 🧐
Advancing a protocol to proposed standard is a big moment, because it marks the protocol as a candidate for eventual standardization (it puts the protocol "on the standards track") 🦋 Advancing to draft standard is a major step too, since it 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 📣
Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are otherwise unused. Those are still documented in this memo with the designation "historic" 🕰️
The IAB believes it's useful to document the results of early protocol research and development, so some RFCs describe protocols that are still in an experimental condition 🧪 Those protocols are designated "experimental" in this memo. They show up here as a convenience to the community, and not as evidence of their standardization 💜
Protocol development and experimentation can also happen through the research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or through the work of other individuals interested in Internet protocol development 🌈 The IAB encourages documenting that experimental work in the RFC series, but none of it 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, and the IAB has approved this step 🚦
A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without the approval of the IESG and the IAB. For example, some vendor protocols have become very important to the Internet community even though they haven't been recommended by the IESG or ratified by the IAB 🏪 Still, the IAB strongly recommends that the IAB standards process be used in the evolution of the protocol suite, to maximize interoperability and to prevent incompatible protocol requirements from arising 🫶 The IAB reserves the use of the terms "standard", "draft standard", and "proposed standard" in any RFC or other publication of Internet protocols, and only for protocols the IAB has approved 👑
On top of a state (like "proposed standard"), a protocol also gets a status, or requirement level 🎯 A protocol can be required, meaning that all systems in the Internet must implement it. The Internet Protocol (IP) is the classic example, since it 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, the system must use this protocol to provide that functionality 💅 A protocol may be termed limited use or even not recommended if it isn't intended to be generally implemented, like experimental or historic protocols 🙈
When a protocol is on the standards track (in the proposed standard, draft standard, or standard state, see Section 5), its status is the current status. The IAB will also endeavor to indicate the eventual status the protocol will have once standardization is completed 🔮
The IAB knows that a one-word label isn't enough to describe the implementation requirements for a protocol in every situation 🙌 In lots of cases, an additional paragraph about the status will be provided, and in some cases reference will be made to separate requirements documents 📝
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, and so on 🖥️ It is not necessary for a gateway to implement TCP or the protocols that use TCP (though it may be useful). It is expected that general purpose hosts will implement at least IP (including ICMP and IGMP), TCP and UDP, Telnet, FTP, NTP, SMTP, Mail, and the Domain Name System (DNS) 🍓 no cap, this is the core stack 🌸
2. The Request for Comments Documents ✨
Okay bestie, so RFCs (Request for Comments) are the working notes of the "Network Working Group," which is the Internet research and development community 🤓💖. A document in this series can be about pretty much anything related to computer communication. It could be a meeting report or the spec for a full 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) 📧.
RFCs are not refereed publications, but they do get technical review from the task forces, individual technical experts, or the RFC Editor, as appropriate 🧐.
The RFC series is huge 🌈. It covers informational documents of general interest, all the way to specifications of standard Internet protocols. If a submission is meant to document a proposed standard, draft standard, or standard protocol, the RFC Editor will publish it only with the approval of both the IESG and the IAB 👑. For documents describing experimental work, the RFC Editor will typically request review comments from the relevant IETF working group or IRTF research group, and then pass those comments along to the author before committing to publication 🧪. See Section 5.1 for more detail.
Once a document gets an RFC number and is published, that RFC is never revised or re-issued with the same number 🔒. So there is never a question of having the most recent version of a particular RFC. A protocol (like File Transfer Protocol (FTP)), though, may be improved and re-documented many times across several different RFCs 🔁. It is important to verify that you have the most recent RFC on a particular protocol 👀. The "IAB Official Protocol Standards" memo is the reference for finding the correct RFC for the current specification of each protocol 🗂️.
The RFCs are available from the Network Information Center at SRI International, and from a number of other sites. For more info about getting RFCs, see Sections 7.4 and 7.5 📚.
3. Other Reference Documents
There are four other reference documents that are really useful for checking the current status of protocol specifications and standardization 🔍. They are the Assigned Numbers, the Annotated Internet Protocols, the Gateway Requirements, and the Host Requirements. These documents get revised and updated at different times, so if they ever disagree, 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 3.5 💅.
3.1. Assigned Numbers
This document lists the assigned values of the parameters used in the various protocols 🔢. Think IP protocol codes, TCP port numbers, Telnet Option Codes, ARP hardware types, and Terminal Type names. Assigned Numbers was most recently issued as RFC-1060 💖.
Another document, Internet Numbers, lists the assigned IP network numbers and the autonomous system numbers 🌐. Internet Numbers was most recently issued as RFC-1117 🦋.
3.2. Annotated Internet Protocols
This document lists the protocols and describes any known problems and ongoing experiments 🧪✨. It was most recently issued as RFC-1011 under the title "Official Internet Protocols" 🎀.
3.3. Gateway Requirements
This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways, and it gives guidance and clarification for any ambiguities 🚪. Gateway Requirements is RFC-1009. A working group of the IETF is actively preparing a revision 🛠️.
3.4. Host Requirements
This pair of documents reviews the specifications that apply to hosts, and it gives guidance and clarification for any ambiguities 🖥️. Host Requirements was recently issued as RFC-1122 and RFC-1123 🌸.
3.5. The MIL-STD Documents
The Internet community specifications for IP (RFC-791) and TCP (RFC-793), and the DoD MIL-STD specifications, are meant 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 🎭. 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 basically 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-1782These documents are available from the Naval Publications and Forms Center 📮. You can request them by telephone, telegraph, or mail. However, it is preferred that private industry use form DD1425, if possible 📝. These five documents are included in the 1985 DDN Protocol Handbook, which is available from the Network Information Center (see Section 7.4) 📖.
Naval Publications and Forms Center, Code 3015
5801 Tabor Ave
Philadelphia, PA 19120
Phone: 1-215-697-3321 (order tape)
1-215-697-4834 (conversation)4. Explanation of Terms 🧠
There are two independent categorizations of protocols 🗂️. The first is the STATE of standardization, which is one of "standard", "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic". The second is the STATUS of the protocol, which is one of "required", "recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".
The IAB notes that status or requirement level is hard to capture in a one-word label 😅. These status labels should be considered only as an indication, and you should consult a further description 📖.
When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard, it is labeled with a current status. When possible, the IAB also notes the status that the protocol is expected to have when it reaches the standard state 🔮.
At any given time, a protocol sits in one cell of the matrix below. Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the proportions shown by the relative number of Xs 📊. A new protocol is most likely to start in the (proposed standard, elective) cell, or the (experimental, not recommended) cell 🌱.
S T A T U S
Req Rec Ele Lim Not
S +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Std | X | XXX | XXX | | |
T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Draft | X | X | XXX | | |
A +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Prop | | X | XXX | X | |
T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Expr | | | X | XXX | X |
E +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Hist | | | | X | XXX |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+What is a "system"?
Some protocols are specific to hosts and some are specific to gateways, and a few are used in both 🖥️🚪. The definitions 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 🔍.
4.1. Definitions of Protocol State
There are two independent categorizations of protocols 🗂️. The first is the STATE of standardization, which is one of "standard", "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic" 🎀.
4.1.1. Standard Protocol
The IAB has established this as an official standard protocol for the Internet 👑. These are split into two groups: (1) IP protocol and above, which are protocols that apply to the whole Internet; and (2) network-specific protocols, which are generally specifications of how to do IP on particular types of networks 🌍.
4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol
The IAB is actively considering this protocol as a possible Standard Protocol 🧐. Substantial and widespread testing and comment are desired 🧪. Comments and test results should be submitted to the IAB 📨. There is a possibility that changes will be made to a Draft Standard Protocol before it becomes a Standard Protocol 🔄.
4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol
These are protocol proposals that may be considered by the IAB 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 developed as part of an ongoing research project that isn't tied to an operational service offering 🔬. They may be proposed as a service protocol later on, and thus become proposed standard, draft standard, and then standard protocols 🪜. However, labeling a protocol as experimental can sometimes mean that it is mature but still not intended for operational use 🙈.
4.1.5. Historic Protocol
These are protocols that are unlikely to ever become standards on the Internet, either because they have been superseded by later developments or due to lack of interest 🥀.
4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status
There are two independent categorizations of protocols. The second is the STATUS of this protocol, which 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 🥺.
5. The Standards Track 🏁
This section goes deeper into the procedures that the RFC Editor and the IAB use when deciding how to label and publish protocols as standards 📋💅.
5.1. The RFC Processing Decision Table ✨
okay so this is the current decision table for how the RFC Editor handles submissions 💅 whether it gets processed depends on who sent it in, and what status they're hoping it ends up with 👑
+==========================================================+
|++++++++++++++| S O U R C E |
+==========================================================+
| Desired | IAB | IESG | IRSG | Other |
| Status | | | or RG | |
+==========================================================+
| | | | | |
| Full or | Publish | Vote | Bogus | Bogus |
| Draft | (1) | (3) | (2) | (2) |
| Standard | | | | |
| | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| | Publish | Vote | Refer | Refer |
| Proposed | (1) | (3) | (4) | (4) |
| Standard | | | | |
| | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| | Publish | Notify | Notify | Notify |
| Experimental | (1) | (5) | (5) | (5) |
| Protocol | | | | |
| | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| Information | Publish |Discretion|Discretion|Discretion|
| or Opinion | (1) | (6) | (6) | (6) |
| Paper | | | | |
| | | | | |
+==========================================================+Here's what those little numbers mean 🧚
- (1) Publish. Just publish it 🎀
- (2) Bogus. Inform the source of the rules. RFCs specifying Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IAB, only. 🙈
- (3) Vote by the IAB. If approved then do Publish (1), else do Refer (4). ✨
- (4) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG. Expect to see the document again only after approval by the IESG and the IAB. 🦋
- (5) Notify both the IESG and IRSG. If no protest in 1 week then do Discretion (6), else do undefined. 💀
- (6) 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. it's giving tidy formatting energy 💅
The IESG has designated Greg Vaudreuil as its agent for forwarding documents with IESG approval and for registering protest in response to notifications (5) to the RFC Editor. Documents from Area Directors or Working Group Chairs may be considered in the same way as documents from "other". 🫶
5.2. The Standards Track Diagram 🦋
okay so there's a part of the STATUS and STATE categorization called the standards track 🛤️ Only the changes of state are actually significant for moving along the track, though the status assignments can change too.
The states drawn with single line boxes are temporary, and the ones drawn with double line boxes are long term 💖 A protocol will normally be expected to stay in a temporary state for several months (minimum four months for proposed standard, minimum six months for draft standard). Long term states can last for many years 🌸
A protocol may enter the standards track only on the recommendation of the IESG and by action of the IAB; and may move from one state to another along the track only on the recommendation of the IESG and by action of the IAB. Basically it takes both the IESG and the IAB to either start a protocol on the track or move it along 🤝
Generally, when the protocol enters the standards track, a decision gets made about the eventual STATUS (elective, recommended, or required) it will have. A somewhat less stringent current status might be assigned, and then it gets placed in the proposed standard STATE with that status. So the starting spot is state 1 ✨ At any time the STATUS decision may be revisited 🔁
|
+<----------------------------------------------+
| ^
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 IAB on the recommendation of the IESG and only after the protocol has been proposed standard (1) for at least four months. ⏳
The transition from draft standard (2) to standard (3) can only be by action of the IAB on the recommendation of the IESG and only after the protocol has been draft standard (2) for at least six months. ⏳💜
Occasionally the decision is that the protocol isn't ready for standardization yet, so it gets 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 don't involve IAB action 🌈
Sometimes one protocol gets replaced by another and thus becomes historic. It can also happen that a protocol on the standards track gets sort of overtaken by another protocol (or other events) and becomes historic (state 5) 😭🪦
6. The Protocols 👑
This section lists the standards in groups by protocol state. 📚
6.1. Recent Changes 🌟
6.1.1. New RFCs:
- 1157 - Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
- Advanced to Recommended Standard protocol. Replaces 1098. 🚀
- 1156 - Management Information Base (MIB)
- Advanced to Recommended Standard protocol. Replaces 1066. 🚀
- 1155 - Structure of Management Information (SMI)
- Advanced to Recommended Standard protocol. Replaces 1065. 🚀
- 1154 - Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages
- This is a new Elective Experimental protocol. 🧪
- 1153 - Digest Message Format
- This is a new Elective Experimental protocol. 🧪
- 1152 - Workshop Report: Internet Research Steering Group Workshop on Very-High-Speed Networks
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📖
- 1151 - Version 2 of the Reliable Data Protocol (RDP)
- This is an update to a Not-recommended Experimental protocol. 🛠️
- 1150 - FYI on FYI
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📖
- 1149 - A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers
- This describes an implementation technique, and does not specify any level of standard. 🐦
- 1148 - Mapping between X.400(88) and RFC 822
- This is a new Elective Experimental protocol (corrects editing errors in 1138). 🧪
- 1147 - FYI on a Network Management Tool Catalog
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📖
- 1146 - TCP Alternative Checksum Options
- This is a new Not-recommended Experimental protocol (corrects editing errors in 1145). 🧪
- 1145 - TCP Alternate Checksum Options
- This is a new Not-recommended Experimental protocol. 🧪
- 1144 - Compressing TCP/IP Headers for Low-Speed Serial Links
- This is a new Elective Proposed Standard protocol. ✨
- 1143 - The Q Method of Implementing TELNET Option Negotiation
- This describes an implementation technique. 🔧
- 1142 -
< not issued yet > - 1141 - Incremental Updating of the Internet Checksum
- This describes an implementation technique. 🔧
- 1140 - IAB Official Protocol Standards
- This memo. 🫶
- 1139 - An Echo Function for ISO 8473
- This is a new Elective Proposed Standard protocol. ✨
- 1138 - Mapping between X.400(88) and RFC 822
- This is a new Elective Experimental protocol (replaced by 1148). 🧪
- 1137 - Mapping Between Full RFC 822 and RFC 822 with Restricted Encoding
- This is a new Elective Experimental protocol. 🧪
- 1136 - Administrative Domains and Routing Domains: A Model for Routing in the Internet
- This is a discussion document and does not specify any level of standard. 💬
- 1135 - The Helminthiasis of the Internet
- This is a discussion document and does not specify any level of standard. 💬🙈
- 1134 - The Point-to-Point Protocol: A Proposal for Multi-Protocol Transmission of Datagrams Over Point-to-Point Links
- This is a new Elective Proposed Standard protocol. ✨
- 1133 - Routing between the NSFNET and the DDN
- This is a discussion document and does not specify any level of standard. 💬
- 1132 - A Standard for the Transmission of 802.2 Packets over IPX Networks
- This is a new Elective Network-Specific Standard protocol, that is, a full Standard for a network-specific situation. 🌸
- 1131 - The OSPF Specification
- This is a new Elective Proposed Standard protocol. ✨
- 1060 - Assigned Numbers
- The status report on assigned numbers and protocol parameters. 📋
6.1.2. Other Changes: 🦋
okay bestie, now for the protocols that were already on the list last edition and got a glow-up or a retirement 💅 these are the changes:
- 1058 - Routing Information Protocol (RIP)
- Advanced to Elective Draft Standard protocol. 📈
- 1045 - Versatile Message Transaction Protocol (VMTP)
- Moved to Elective Experimental protocol. 🧪
- 1006 - ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP (TP-TCP)
- Advanced to Elective Draft Standard protocol. 📈
- 996 - Statistics Server (STATSRV)
- Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol. 🕰️
- 954 - WhoIs Protocol (NICNAME)
- Advanced to Elective Draft Standard protocol. 📈
- 937 - Post Office Protocol, Version 2 (POP2)
- Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol. 🕰️
- 916 - Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol (RATP)
- Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol. 🕰️
- 914 - Thinwire Protocol (THINWIRE)
- Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol. 🕰️
- 818 - Remote Telnet Service (RTELNET)
- Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol. 🕰️
- 569 - Network Standard Text Editor (NETED)
- Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol. 🕰️
- 407 - Remote Job Entry (RJE)
- Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol. 🕰️
RIP, TP-TCP, NICNAME and VMTP are the stars of this list 🌸
6.2. Standard Protocols 👑
okay so here's the main lineup of standard protocols, the ones with the biggest main character energy 🎀 it's giving full set:
Protocol Name Status RFC
======== ===================================== ============== ====
-------- Assigned Numbers Required 1060
-------- 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 1112
UDP User Datagram Protocol Recommended 768
TCP Transmission Control Protocol Recommended 793
SMI Structure of Management Information Recommended 1155
MIB Management Information Base Recommended 1156
SNMP Simple Network Management Protocol Recommended 1157
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 868Notes
IGMP: okay so the Internet Activities Board is working toward general adoption of IP multicasting 🫶 it's way more efficient than broadcasting for lots of apps. The host interface is standardized in RFC-1112, but multicast-routing gateways are still experimental and not widely available 🧪. An Internet host should support all of RFC-1112, except the IGMP protocol itself, which is optional (see RFC-1122 for more details). Even without IGMP, implementing RFC-1112 is a big deal because you get IP-layer access to local network multicast addressing ✨. IGMP is expected to become recommended for all hosts and gateways at some future date 🔮.
SMI, MIB, SNMP: the Internet Activities Board recommends that every IP and TCP implementation be network manageable 🛠️. That means implementing the Internet MIB (RFC-1156) and at least one of the two recommended management protocols, SNMP (RFC-1157) or CMOT (RFC-1095). Just so you know, right now SNMP is a full Internet standard and CMOT is a draft standard 📝. For more specific info on how this applies, check the Host and Gateway Requirements RFCs 💖.
6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols 🌈
okay this list is all about running IP over specific physical networks, like ARPANET, Ethernet, FDDI and friends 🚀:
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 Hyperchannel 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 1103
IP-IPX Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks Elective 1132Notes
okay so a system is expected to support one or more physical networks 🧩. For each physical network it supports, it must support the appropriate protocols from the list above. Basically, supporting any particular type of physical network is elective, but for the networks you actually do support, they have to be supported exactly according to the protocols in the list above 💅. For more specific info on network-specific ("link layer") protocols, see the Host and Gateway Requirements RFCs 🫶.
6.4. Draft Standard Protocols 🧁
these are the ones that are almost there, just finishing their final polish ✨:
Protocol Name Status RFC
======== ===================================== =============== ====
-------- Mail Privacy: Procedures Elective 1113
-------- Mail Privacy: Key Management Elective 1114
-------- Mail Privacy: Algorithms Elective 1115
CMOT Common Management Information Services Recommended 1095
and Protocol over TCP/IP
BOOTP Bootstrap Protocol Recommended 951,1048,1084
RIP Routing Information Protocol Elective 1058
TP-TCP ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP Elective 1006
NICNAME WhoIs Protocol Elective 954
TFTP Trivial File Transfer Protocol Elective 783Notes
CMOT: the Internet Activities Board recommends that every IP and TCP implementation be network manageable 🛠️. That implies implementing the Internet MIB (RFC-1156) and at least one of the two recommended management protocols, SNMP (RFC-1157) or CMOT (RFC-1095). At this time, SNMP is a full Internet standard and CMOT is a draft standard 📝. See also the Host and Router Requirements RFCs for more specific info on how this standard applies 💜.
RIP: the Routing Information Protocol is widely implemented and used across the Internet 🌐. But bestie, implementors and users should know that RIP has some serious technical limitations as a routing protocol 😬. The IETF is working on several candidates for a new standard "open" routing protocol with better properties than RIP 🔧. The IAB urges the Internet community to keep an eye on these developments and to implement the new protocol once it's standardized, since improved Internet service will result for many users 🚀.
TP-TCP: as OSI protocols get more widely implemented and used, there'll be a growing need to support interoperation with TCP/IP protocols 🤝. The Internet Engineering Task Force is working out strategies for that. RFC-1006 provides one interoperation mode, where TCP/IP is used to emulate TP0 so OSI applications can run 🦋. Hosts that want to run OSI connection-oriented applications in this mode should use the procedure described in RFC-1006 💅. The IAB expects that in the future, a major portion of the Internet will support both TCP/IP and OSI (inter-)network protocols in parallel, which means OSI applications will be able to run across the Internet using full OSI protocol "stacks" 🌈.
6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols 🌸
last stop before the big leagues: these are the proposed standards, still in the making 🧚
Protocol Name Status RFC
======== ===================================== =============== ====
MIB-II MIB-II Elective xxxx
IP-CMPRS Compressing TCP/IP Headers Elective 1144
-------- Echo for ISO-8473 Elective 1139
PPP Point to Point Protocol Elective 1134
OSPF Open Shortest Path First Routing Elective 1131
SUN-NFS Network File System Protocol Elective 1094
POP3 Post Office Protocol, Version 3 Elective 1081,1082
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(84) and RFC-822 Elective 987,1026
NNTP Network News Transfer Protocol Elective 977
HOSTNAME HOSTNAME Protocol Elective 953
SFTP Simple File Transfer Protocol Elective 913
RLP Resource Location Protocol Elective 887
FINGER Finger Protocol Elective 742
SUPDUP SUPDUP Protocol Elective 734Notes:
okay bestie, the IESG is doing a whole review of this section rn 🧐 and they'll recommend that some of these protocols get moved up to draft standard, or sorted into the experimental or historic categories 💅✨ the sorting never stops, periodt 🌈
MIB-II -- this memo defines a mandatory extension to the base MIB (RFC-1156) and is a Proposed Standard for the Internet community 🎀 The extensions described here are currently Elective, but once they become a standard they'll have the same status as RFC-1156, that is, Recommended 💜 The Internet Activities Board recommends that all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable 🙌 which implies implementation of the Internet MIB (RFC-1156 and the extensions in RFC-xxxx) and at least one of the two RECOMMENDED management protocols SNMP (RFC-1157) or CMOT (RFC-1095) 🧚
PPP -- Point to Point Protocol is a method of sending IP over serial lines, which are a type of physical network 🔥 It's expected that a system will support one or more physical networks, and for each physical network supported, the appropriate protocols from the network-specific standard protocols (Section 6.3) MUST be supported. That is, it's 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 listed 🫶 It's anticipated that PPP will be advanced to the network-specific standard protocol state in the future 👑
6.6. Experimental Protocols ✨
Protocol Name Status RFC
======== ===================================== =============== ====
EHF-MAIL Encoding Header Field for Mail Elective 1154
DMF-MAIL Digest Message Format for Mail Elective 1153
RDP Reliable Data Protocol Limited Use 908,1151
-------- Mapping between X.400(88) and RFC-822 Elective 1148
TCP-ACO TCP Alternate Checksum Option Not Recommended 1146
-------- Mapping full 822 to Restricted 822 Elective 1137
BGP Border Gateway Protocol Limited Use 1105
IP-DVMRP IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing Not Recommended 1075
TCP-LDP TCP Extensions for Long Delay Paths Limited Use 1072
IMAP2 Interactive Mail Access Protocol Limited Use 1064
IP-MTU IP MTU Discovery Options Not Recommended 1063
VMTP Versatile Message Transaction Protocol Elective 1045
COOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme Not Recommended 1004
NETBLT Bulk Data Transfer Protocol Not Recommended 998
IRTP Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol Not Recommended 938
AUTH Authentication Service Not Recommended 931
LDP Loader Debugger Protocol Not Recommended 909
ST Stream Protocol Limited Use IEN-119
NVP-II Network Voice Protocol Limited Use ISI-memo
PVP Packet Video Protocol Limited Use ISI-memo6.7. Historic Protocols 🦋
Protocol Name Status RFC
======= ===================================== =============== ====
SGMP Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol Not Recommended 1028
HEMS High Level Entity Management Protocol Not Recommended 1021
STATSRV Statistics Server Not Recommended 996
POP2 Post Office Protocol, Version 2 Not Recommended 937
RATP Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol Not Recommended 916
THINWIRE Thinwire Protocol Not Recommended 914
HMP Host Monitoring Protocol Not Recommended 869
GGP Gateway Gateway Protocol Not Recommended 823
RTELNET Remote Telnet Service Not Recommended 818
CLOCK DCNET Time Server Protocol Not Recommended 778
MPM Internet Message Protocol Not Recommended 759
NETRJS Remote Job Service Not Recommended 740
NETED Network Standard Text Editor Not Recommended 569
RJE Remote Job Entry Not Recommended 407
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 💌
7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts 📇
7.1.1. Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact 🌸
Contact:
Bob Braden
Executive Director of the IAB
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-213-822-1511
Braden@ISI.EDUPlease send your comments about this list of protocols, and especially about the Draft Standard Protocols, to the Internet Activities Board care of Bob Braden, IAB Executive Director 💖
7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact 🧁
Contact:
Phill Gross
Chair of the IETF
Corporation for National Research Initiatives (NRI)
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
Reston, VA 22091
1-703-620-8990
PGross@NRI.RESTON.VA.US7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact 🔬
Contact:
David D. Clark
Chair of the IRTF
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Laboratory for Computer Science
545 Main Street
Cambridge, MA 02139
1-617-253-6003
ddc@LCS.MIT.EDU7.2. 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
IANA@ISI.EDUThe protocol standards are managed for the IAB by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority 🫶
Please refer to the documents "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1060) and "Official Internet Protocols" (RFC-1011) for further information about the status of protocol documents 📚 There are two documents that summarize the requirements for hosts and gateways in the Internet: "Host Requirements" (RFC-1122 and RFC-1123) and "Gateway Requirements" (RFC-1009) ✨
How to obtain the most recent edition of this "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 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.EDUDocuments may be submitted via electronic mail to the RFC Editor for consideration for publication as an RFC 💅 If you're 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 🛰️
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) provides many information services for the Internet community, and among them is maintaining the Requests for Comments (RFC) library 🦋
RFCs can be obtained via FTP from NIC.DDN.MIL, with the pathname RFC:RFCnnnn.TXT where "nnnn" refers to the number of the RFC 🍓 A list of all RFCs may be obtained by copying the file RFC:RFC-INDEX.TXT. Log in with FTP username ANONYMOUS and password GUEST 🔐
The NIC also provides an automatic mail service for those sites which cannot use FTP 📬 Address the request to SERVICE@NIC.DDN.MIL and in the subject field of the message indicate the file name, as in "Subject: SEND RFC:RFCnnnn.TXT" 💌
Some RFCs are now available in PostScript, and these may be obtained from the NIC in a similar fashion by substituting .PS for .TXT 🖨️
How to obtain the most recent edition of this "IAB Official Protocol Standards" memo:
The file RFC:IAB-STANDARDS.TXT may be copied via FTP from the NIC.DDN.MIL computer, following the same procedures used to obtain RFCs 🧚
7.5. Other Sources for Requests for Comments 🗂️
7.5.1. NSF Network Service Center (NNSC) 💜
NSF Network Service Center (NNSC)
BBN Laboratories, Inc.
10 Moulton St.
Cambridge, MA 02238
617-873-3400
NNSC@NNSC.NSF.NET7.5.2. NSF Network Information Service (NIS) 🌷
NSF Network Information Service
Merit Computer Network
University of Michigan
1075 Beal Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
313-763-4897
INFO@NIS.NSF.NET7.5.3. CSNET Coordination and Information Center (CIC) 🎀
CSNET Coordination and Information Center
BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation
10 Moulton Street
Cambridge, MA 02238
617-873-2777
INFO@SH.CS.NET8. Security Considerations 🚨
Okay, this part is serious bestie 😭 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: (213) 822-1511
Email: Postel@ISI.EDU📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc1140 1990-05
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms