RFC 1200
IAB official protocol standards
RFC 1200: IAB OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS 💖
Okay bestie, let's set the scene 🎀 This is RFC 1200, and it's called IAB OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS. It's from the Network Working Group series, and it came out in April 1991. J. Postel is the editor, and the author is the Internet Activities Board (IAB) 👑
It obsoletes (basically replaces) RFCs 1140, 1100, 1083, and 1130. So if you've got any of those open, it's time to swap them out 🦋
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 🌸
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. Informational Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.6. Historic Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
4.2.1. Required Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.2. Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.4. Draft Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.5. Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.6. Experimental Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.7. Informational Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.8. Historic Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7. Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.1.1. Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact . . . . . . . 27
7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . 28
7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . . 28
7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . . 28
7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.4. Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.5. Other Sources for Requests for Comments . . . . . . . . 30
7.5.1. NSF Network Service Center (NNSC) . . . . . . . . . . 30
7.5.2. NSF Network Information Service (NIS) . . . . . . . . 30
7.5.3. CSNET Coordination and Information Center (CIC) . . . 31
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
9. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Introduction 🧚
Okay so the doc starts with how standardization works and what the RFC series is, and then it explains the terms. Sections 6.2 - 6.8 are the lists of protocols at each stage of standardization. Then you get pointers to references and contacts for more info 💅
This memo is meant to come out quarterly, so double-check that your copy is current 🫶 You can grab 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 edition after 30-Jun-91 😭
See Section 6.1 for recent changes. In the official lists in sections 6.2 - 6.8, an asterisk (*) next to a protocol means it's new to this document or it got moved from one protocol level to another ✨
1. The Standardization Process 👑
The Internet Activities Board keeps this list of documents that define standards for the Internet protocol suite. (See RFC-1160 for the role and organization of the IAB and its subsidiary groups, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) 📚) The IAB sets these standards to coordinate the evolution of the Internet protocols, and that coordination has gotten super important now that Internet protocols are used all over commercially 💼
Most Internet protocol development and standardization happens in the working groups of the Internet Engineering Task Force 🌈
Protocols that are going to become Internet standards go through a series of states (proposed standard, draft standard, and standard), with more and more scrutiny and experimental testing at each step 🔥 At each step, the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) of the IETF must make a recommendation for advancing the protocol, and the IAB must ratify it. If a recommendation doesn't get ratified, the protocol gets sent back to the IETF for more work 🙈
The IAB gives the community time to think and react to standardization proposals. So it puts a minimum delay of 4 months before a proposed standard can move up to a draft standard, and 6 months before a draft standard can be promoted to standard ⏳
It's general IAB practice that no proposed standard gets promoted to draft standard without at least two independent implementations (plus the IESG's recommendation). Going from draft standard to standard generally needs operational experience and demonstrated interoperability of two or more implementations (plus the IESG's recommendation) 🍓
When there's uncertainty about the right call on a protocol, the IAB may convene a special review committee made up of experts from the IETF, the IRTF, and the IAB. Their job is to recommend an explicit action to the IAB 🧐
Moving a protocol to proposed standard is a big deal, since it marks the protocol as a candidate for eventual standardization (it puts the protocol "on the standards track") 🦋 Moving to draft standard is a major step too. It warns the community that, unless major objections are raised or flaws are discovered, the protocol is likely to become a standard in six months 👀
Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are otherwise unused. These protocols are still documented in this memo, labeled "historic" 🕰️
Because the IAB thinks it's useful to document early protocol research and development, some RFCs describe protocols that are still experimental. The memo labels these protocols "experimental." They show up in this report as a convenience to the community, not as evidence that they've been standardized 🧪
Other protocols, like ones developed by other standards organizations or by particular vendors, might be interesting or recommended for use on the Internet. Their specifications may be published as RFCs for the community's convenience. This memo labels these protocols "informational" 📖
Beyond the IETF working groups, protocol development and experimentation can also happen through the research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or through other individuals interested in Internet protocol development. The IAB encourages documenting this experimental work in the RFC series. But none of it counts as being on the standardization track until the IESG has recommended advancing the protocol to the proposed standard state and the IAB has approved that step 🌸
A few protocols have reached wide implementation without approval from the IESG and the IAB. For example, some vendor protocols have become super important to the Internet community even though the IESG never recommended them and the IAB never ratified them. Still, the IAB strongly recommends using the IAB standards process to evolve the protocol suite. That maximizes interoperability and prevents incompatible protocol requirements from showing up 🫶 The IAB also reserves the use of the terms "standard", "draft standard", and "proposed standard" in any RFC or other publication of Internet protocols for only those protocols the IAB has approved. No sharing those titles for non-approved stuff, periodt 💅
In addition to a state (like "Proposed Standard"), a protocol also gets a status, or requirement level, in this document. The possible requirement levels ("Required", "Recommended", "Elective", "Limited Use", and "Not Recommended") are defined in Section 4.2. When a protocol is on the standards track (that is, in the proposed standard, draft standard, or standard state, see Section 5), the status shown in Section 6 is the current status. For a proposed or draft standard, though, the IAB will also try to indicate the eventual status the protocol will have after it's adopted as a standard 🎯
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 🖥️ The requirement level shown in this document is only a one-word label, which may not be enough to capture the implementation requirements for a protocol in every situation. For some protocols, this document has an additional status paragraph. More detailed status info lives in separate requirements documents (see Section 3) 💜
Part 1 of 6 💖 more parts coming, bestie!
2. The Request for Comments Documents 📝✨
okay so RFCs (Request for Comments) are basically the working notes of the "Network Working Group", aka the whole Internet research and development community 🤓💖. A doc in this series can be about literally any topic in computer communication, from a meeting report all the way up to a full specification of a standard 💅.
Notice: All standards are published as RFCs, but not all RFCs specify standards. 🙈
Anyone can submit a document for publication as an RFC 🫶. Submissions MUST be made via electronic mail to the RFC Editor (see the contact information at the end of this memo) 📧.
RFCs are not refereed publications, ngl, but they DO get technical review from the task forces, individual technical experts, or the RFC Editor, as appropriate 🧐.
The RFC series is a wide range of docs, from informational stuff of general interest all the way to specs for standard Internet protocols 🌈. When 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 notify the IESG before publication, allowing for the possibility of review by the relevant IETF working group or IRTF research group and provide those comments to the author. See Section 5.1 for more detail 🔍.
Once a document is assigned an RFC number and published, that RFC is never revised or re-issued with the same number. There is never a question of having the most recent version of a particular RFC 🙅♀️. However, a protocol (such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP)) MAY be improved and re-documented many times in several different RFCs. It is important to verify that you have the most recent RFC on a particular protocol. This "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, and a number of other sites. For more information about obtaining RFCs, see Sections 7.4 and 7.5 🗺️.
3. Other Reference Documents 📚🎀
there are four other reference docs worth knowing about if you want to check the current status of protocol specs and standardization 🧐. They're the Assigned Numbers, the Annotated Internet Protocols, the Gateway Requirements, and the Host Requirements. These get revised at different times, so if they ever disagree, the most recent one MUST prevail 🏆.
one should 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 💜. 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-1060.
Another document, Internet Numbers, lists the assigned IP network numbers and the autonomous system numbers 🌐. Internet Numbers was most recently issued as RFC-1166.
3.2. Annotated Internet Protocols 🦋
this one lists the protocols and describes any known problems and ongoing experiments 🧪. It was most recently issued as RFC-1011.
3.3. Gateway Requirements 🚪
This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways and supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities 🧩. Gateway Requirements is RFC-1009. A working group of the IETF is actively preparing a revision, so keep an eye out 👀.
3.4. Host Requirements 🖥️
This pair of documents reviews and updates the specs that apply to hosts, and it supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities 💅. Host Requirements was 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, so it is strongly advised that the two sets of documents be used together, along with RFC-1122 🫶.
The IAB and the DoD MIL-STD specs for the FTP, SMTP, and Telnet protocols are essentially the same documents (RFCs 765, 821, 854) 💌. The MIL-STD versions have been edited slightly. Note that the current Internet specification for FTP is RFC-959 (as modified by RFC-1123) 📌.
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 📮. Requests can be initiated 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 (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 🧠💖
okay so there are two independent categorizations of protocols 🗂️. The first is the STATE of standardization, one of "standard", "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", "informational" or "historic". The second is the STATUS of this protocol, one of "required", "recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended" 🎀.
The status or requirement level is hard to squish into a one-word label 🙈. These status labels SHOULD be considered only as an indication, and a further description, or applicability statement, SHOULD be consulted 📝.
When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard, it is labeled with a current status. 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 occupies a cell of the following matrix. Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the following proportions (indicated by the relative number of Xs). A new protocol is most likely to start in the (proposed standard, elective) cell, or the (experimental, not recommended) cell 🌸.
S T A T U S
Req Rec Ele Lim Not
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Std | X | XXX | XXX | | |
S +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Draft | X | X | XXX | | |
T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Prop | | X | XXX | X | |
A +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Info | | X | XXX | X | X |
T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Expr | | | X | XXX | X |
E +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Hist | | | | X | XXX |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+What is a "system"? 🤔
Some protocols are particular to hosts and some to gateways, and a few are used in both 🖧. The definitions of the terms below will 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 🌈
Every protocol listed in this document is assigned to a STATE of standardization: "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 separated 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 in 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 those developed as part of an ongoing research project that isn't related to an operational service offering 🔬. While they MAY be proposed as a service protocol at a later stage, and thus become proposed standard, draft standard, and then standard protocols, the designation of a protocol as experimental MAY sometimes be meant to suggest that the protocol, although perhaps mature, is not intended for operational use 🫣.
4.1.5. Informational Protocol 📖
Protocols developed by other standards organizations, or by vendors, or that are for other reasons outside the purview of the IAB, MAY be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community as informational protocols 💌. Such protocols MAY in some cases also be recommended for use in the Internet by the IAB.
4.1.6. Historic Protocol 🕰️
These are protocols that are unlikely to ever become standards in the Internet, either because they have been superseded by later developments or due to lack of interest 🥀.
4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status 🎯
This document lists a STATUS for each protocol. The status is one of "required", "recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended" 🏅.
4.2.1. Required Protocol 💖
A system MUST implement the required protocols 🔒.
4.2.2. Recommended Protocol 💜
A system SHOULD implement the recommended protocols ⭐.
4.2.3. Elective Protocol 🦋
A system MAY or MAY NOT implement an elective protocol. The general notion is that if you are going to do something like this, you MUST do exactly this. There MAY be several elective protocols in a general area. For example, there are several electronic mail protocols, and several routing protocols 📬.
4.2.4. Limited Use Protocol 🎈
These protocols are for use in limited circumstances. This MAY be because of their experimental state, specialized nature, limited functionality, or historic state 🧩.
4.2.5. Not Recommended Protocol 🙈
These protocols are not recommended for general use. This MAY be because of their limited functionality, specialized nature, or experimental or historic state 🚫.
5. The Standards Track 🛤️✨
This section goes deeper into the procedures that the RFC Editor and the IAB use when they make decisions about labeling and publishing 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 💅 It depends on two things: who submitted it, and what status they want it to end 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 the numbers mean 🌸
- (1) Publish.
- (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 Refer (4). ⏰
- (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. 👑
Obvi, in every single case the RFC Editor can still request or make minor changes for style, format, and presentation purposes 🎀
The IESG picked the IESG Secretary as its agent 🧚 for two jobs: forwarding documents that got IESG approval, and registering protests when there's a notification (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 🦋
There's a part of the STATUS and STATE categorization called the standards track, and it's giving main character energy ⭐ Actually, only the changes of state matter for progress along the track, though the status assignments may be changed as well.
The states drawn with single line boxes are temporary states, and the ones drawn with double line boxes are long term states. A protocol is normally expected to stay in a temporary state for several months (minimum four months for proposed standard, minimum six months for draft standard). A protocol may be in a long term state for many years 🍓
A protocol may enter the standards track only on the recommendation of the IESG and by action of the IAB, and it may move from one state to another along the track only on the recommendation of the IESG and by action of the IAB. So basically it takes both the IESG and the IAB to either start a protocol on the track or move it along 🤝
Generally, when a protocol enters the standards track, a decision gets made about the eventual STATUS it'll have (elective, recommended, or required). A somewhat less strict current status can be assigned, and then it gets placed in the proposed standard STATE with that status. So the initial placement of a protocol is into state 1. At any time, the STATUS decision may be revisited 🔄
|
+<----------------------------------------------+
| ^
V 0 | 4
+-----------+ +===========+
| enter |-->----------------+-------------->|experiment |
+-----------+ | +=====+=====+
| |
V 1 |
+-----------+ V
| proposed |-------------->+
+--->+-----+-----+ |
| | |
| V 2 |
+<---+-----+-----+ V
| draft std |-------------->+
+--->+-----+-----+ |
| | |
| V 3 |
+<---+=====+=====+ V
| standard |-------------->+
+=====+=====+ |
|
V 5
+=====+=====+
| historic |
+===========+The move from proposed standard (1) to draft standard (2) can only happen 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 move from draft standard (2) to standard (3) can only happen 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, so it gets assigned to the experimental state (4). This is off the standards track, but 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 may also happen that a protocol on the standards track gets kinda overtaken by another protocol (or other events) and becomes historic (state 5) 🪦
6. The Protocols 🌈
Subsection 6.1 lists recent RFCs and other changes. Subsections 6.2 - 6.8 list the standards in groups by protocol state 📚
6.1. Recent Changes 🆕
6.1.1. New RFCs 🎀
okay bestie, here's the new drop 💖 these are the RFCs that just joined the list, newest first ✨
- 1218 - Naming Scheme for c=US
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1217 - Memo from the Consortium for Slow Commotion Research (CSCR)
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1216 - Gigabit Network Economics and Paradigm Shifts
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1215 - A Convention for Defining Traps for use with the SNMP
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1214 - OSI Internet Management: Management Information Base
- A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1213 - Management Information Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II
- Advanced to Draft Standard protocol.
- 1212 - Concise MIB Definitions
- This is a new Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1211 - Problems with the Maintenance of Large Mailing Lists
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1210 - Network and Infrastructure User Requirements for Transatlantic Research Collaboration - Brussels, July 16-18, and Washington July 24-25, 1990
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1209 - The Transmission of IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service
- This is a new Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1208 - A Glossary of Networking Terms
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1207 - FYI on Questions and Answers - Answers to Commonly asked "Experienced Internet User" Questions
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1206 - FYI on Questions and Answers - Answers to Commonly asked "New Internet User" Questions
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1205 - 5250 Telnet Interface
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1204 - Message Posting Protocol (MPP)
- This is a new Experimental protocol.
- 1203 - Interactive Mail Access Protocol - Version 3 (IMAP3)
- This is a new Experimental protocol.
- 1202 - Directory Assistance Service
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1201 - Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Networks
- A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1200 - IAB Official Protocol Standards
- This memo.
- 1199 -
<not issued yet> - 1198 - FYI on the X Window System
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1197 - Using ODA for Translating Multimedia Information
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1196 - The Finger User Information Protocol
- A Draft Standard protocol. This edition corrects and clarifies in a minor way, RFC 1194.
- 1195 - Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual Environments
- A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1194 - The Finger User Information Protocol
- A Draft Standard protocol.
- 1193 - Client Requirements for Real-Time Communication Services
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1192 - Commercialization of the Internet Summary Report
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1191 - Path MTU Discovery (MTU)
- A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1190 - Experimental Internet Stream Protocol, Version 2 (ST-II)
- A Limited-Use Experimental protocol.
- 1189 - The Common Management Information Services and Protocols for the Internet
- A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1188 - A Proposed Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams over FDDI Networks
- A Draft Standard protocol.
- 1187 - Bulk Table Retrieval with the SNMP
- A new Experimental protocol.
- 1186 - The MD4 Message Digest Algorithm
- A specification of the MD4 Digest Algorithm. This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1185 - TCP Extension for High-Speed Paths
- An Experimental protocol extension to TCP.
- 1184 - Telnet Linemode Option
- A Draft Standard protocol.
- 1183 - New DNS RR Definitions
- A new Experimental protocol.
- 1182 -
<not issued yet> - 1181 - RIPE Terms of Reference
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1180 - A TCP/IP Tutorial
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1179 - Line Printer Daemon Protocol
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1178 - Choosing a Name for Your Computer
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1177 - FYI on Questions and Answers - Answers to Commonly asked "New Internet User" Questions
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1176 - Interactive Mail Access Protocol - Version 2 (IMAP2)
- This is a new Experimental protocol.
- 1175 - FYI on Where to Start - A Bibliography of Internetworking Information
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1174 - IAB Recommended Policy on Distributing Internet Identifier Assignment and IAB Recommended Policy Change to Internet "Connected" Status
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1173 - Responsibilities of Host and Network Managers: A Summary of the "Oral Tradition" of the Internet
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1172 - The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Initial Configuration Options
- A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1171 - The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) for the Transmission of Multi-Protocol Datagrams Over Point-to-Point Links
- A Draft Standard protocol.
- 1170 - Public Key Standards and Licenses
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1169 - Explaining the Role of GOSIP
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1168 - Intermail and Commercial Mail Relay Services
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1167 - Thoughts on the National Research and Education Network
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1166 - Internet Numbers
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1165 - Network Time Protocol (NTP) over the OSI Remote Operations Service
- An Experimental protocol.
- 1164 - Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet
- A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1163 - A Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
- A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1162 - Connectionless Network Protocol (ISO 8473) and End System to Intermediate System (ISO 9542) Management Information Base
- This memo does not specify a standard for the Internet community. However, after experimentation, if sufficient consensus is reached in the Internet community, then a subsequent revision of this document...
- 1161 - SNMP over OSI
- An experimental means for running the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) over OSI transports.
- 1160 - The Internet Activities Board
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
- 1159 - Message Send Protocol
- An Experimental protocol.
6.1.2. Other Changes 🦋
the following are changes to protocols listed in the previous edition 💅
- 1213 - Management Information Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II
- Advanced to Draft Standard protocol.
- 1196 - The Finger User Information Protocol
- Advanced to Draft Standard protocol.
- 1191 - Path MTU Discovery
- Advanced to Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1189 - The Common Management Information Services and Protocols for the Internet
- Moved to Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1188 - A Proposed Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams over FDDI Networks
- Advanced to Draft Standard protocol.
- 1184 - Telnet Linemode Option
- Advanced to Draft Standard protocol.
- 1171 - The Point-to-Point Protocol for the Transmission of Multi-Protocol Datagrams Over Point-to-Point Links
- Advanced to Draft Standard protocol.
- 1163 - A Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
- Advanced to Proposed Standard protocol.
6.2. Standard Protocols ✨
okay bestie, this is the big list of the protocols that are officially standard 💅 each row gives you a Protocol abbreviation, its Name, a Status (Required, Recommended, or Elective), and the RFC number(s) that define it.
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 🦋 the Internet Activities Board is aiming to move toward general adoption of IP multicasting, because it's a more efficient option than broadcasting for lots of applications. 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 for the IGMP protocol itself, which is optional; see RFC-1122 for more details. Even without IGMP, implementing RFC-1112 still gives an important upgrade: IP-layer access to local network multicast addressing. It is expected that IGMP will become recommended for all hosts and gateways at some future date. 🌈
SMI, MIB, SNMP 🧚 the Internet Activities Board recommends that all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable. Right now, that means implementing the Internet MIB (RFC-1156), the MIB extension MIB-II (RFC-1158, a Draft Standard), and at least the recommended management protocol SNMP (RFC-1157). 💖
6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols 🌸
this section is for the protocols that are specific to particular physical networks, and they're all Elective 🍓
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, and for each physical network it supports, the matching protocols from the list above must be supported. Supporting any particular type of physical network is elective, but for the physical networks you actually support, it is required that they be supported exactly according to the protocols in the list above. For more specific info on network-specific ("link layer") protocols, check the Host and Gateway Requirements RFCs too. 🫶
6.4. Draft Standard Protocols 💅
these are the Draft Standard protocols, and yes, they're all still in the spotlight 🔥
Protocol Name Status RFC
======== ===================================== =============== ====
FINGER Finger Protocol Elective 1196*
IP-FDDI Internet Protocol on FDDI Networks Elective 1188*
TOPT-LINE Telnet Linemode Option Elective 1184*
MIB-II MIB-II Elective 1213*
PPP Point to Point Protocol Elective 1171*
-------- Mail Privacy: Procedures Elective 1113
-------- Mail Privacy: Key Management Elective 1114
-------- Mail Privacy: Algorithms Elective 1115
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:
RIP 🌊 the Routing Information Protocol is widely implemented and used across the Internet. But implementors and users should both be aware that RIP has some serious technical limitations as a routing protocol. The IETF is currently developing several candidates for a new standard "open" routing protocol with better properties than RIP. The IAB urges the Internet community to track these developments and to implement the new protocol when it is standardized, because improved Internet service will result for many users. 💜
TP-TCP 🌈 as OSI protocols get more widely implemented and used, there will be a growing need to support interoperation with the TCP/IP protocols. The Internet Engineering Task Force is working out strategies for interoperation. RFC-1006 provides one interoperation mode, in which TCP/IP is used to emulate TP0 in order to support OSI applications. Hosts that want to run OSI connection-oriented applications in this mode should use the procedure described in RFC-1006. In the future, the IAB expects that a major portion of the Internet will support both TCP/IP and OSI (inter-)network protocols in parallel, and then it will be possible to run OSI applications across the Internet using full OSI protocol "stacks". ✨
MIB-II 🎀 this memo defines a mandatory extension to the base MIB (RFC-1156) and is a Draft Standard for the Internet community. The extensions described here are currently Elective, but once they become a standard, they will have the same status as RFC-1156, which is Recommended. See also the note on SMI, MIB and SNMP under Standards. 🙈
PPP 🍓 Point to Point Protocol is a method of sending IP over serial lines, which are a type of physical network. It is anticipated that PPP will be advanced to the network-specific standard protocol state in the future. 🦋
6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols 🦋
last stop! these are the Proposed Standard protocols, the ones still on their way up 🚀
Protocol Name Status RFC
======== ===================================== =============== ====
OIM-MIB-II OSI Internet Management: MIB-II Elective 1214*
Concise-MIB Concise MIB Definitions Elective 1212*
IP-SMDS IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service Elective 1209*
IP-ARCNET Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Networks Elective 1201*
IS-IS Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP Elective 1195*
and Dual Environments
IP-MTU Path MTU Discovery Elective 1191*
CMOT Common Management Information Services Elective 1189*
and Protocol over TCP/IP
PPP-INIT PPP Initial Configuration Options Elective 1172*
BGP Border Gateway Protocol Elective 1163,1164*
IP-CMPRS Compressing TCP/IP Headers Elective 1144
-------- Echo for ISO-8473 Elective 1139
OSPF Open Shortest Path First Routing Elective 1131
TOPT-ENV Telnet Environment Option Elective 1116*
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
SUPDUP SUPDUP Protocol Elective 734Notes:
IP-SMDS and IP-ARCNET 🌸 these define methods of sending IP over particular network types. It is anticipated that these will be advanced to the network specific standard protocol state in the future. 💖
6.6. Experimental Protocols ✨
okay bestie, this is the experimental corner 🧪 these are the protocols that are still in their chaotic glow-up era, so most are marked Limited Use 💅
Protocol Name Status RFC
======== ===================================== =============== ====
MPP Message Posting Protocol Limited Use 1204*
ST-II Stream Protocol Limited Use 1190*
SNMP-BULK Bulk Table Retrieval with the SNMP Limited Use 1187*
DNS-RR New DNS RR Definitions Limited Use 1183*
NTP-OSI NTP over OSI Remote Operations Limited Use 1165*
MSP Message Send Protocol Limited Use 1159*
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
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 1176,1064
IMAP3 Interactive Mail Access Protocol Limited Use 1203*
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
NVP-II Network Voice Protocol Limited Use ISI-memo
PVP Packet Video Protocol Limited Use ISI-memo6.7. Informational Protocols 🧠
these ones aren't standards, they're just really good to know about 🦋
Protocol Name RFC
======= ===================================== ====
SNMP-TRAPS A Convention for Defining Traps for use with SNMP 1215*
DAS Directory Assistance Service 1202*
------- FYI on the X Window System 1198*
ODA Office Document Architecture 1197*
MD4 MD4 Message Digest Algorithm 1186*
LPDP Line Printer Daemon Protocol 1179*6.8. Historic Protocols 🕰️
these are the retired legends. they had their moment, and now they're in the archives 👑
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 📇
okay so this is the who's who section 💌 here's who to reach out to, bestie
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. ✨
for more info on protocol status, check out "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1060) and "Official Internet Protocols" (RFC-1011). there are also two docs that sum up the requirements for hosts and gateways on the Internet: "Host Requirements" (RFC-1122 and RFC-1123) and "Gateway Requirements" (RFC-1009) 📚
how to get the most recent edition of this "IAB Official Protocol Standards" memo: the file in-notes/iab-standards.txt can be copied via FTP from VENERA.ISI.EDU, 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 can be emailed to the RFC Editor to be considered for publication as an RFC 💌 if the format or style stuff is confusing, ask for the "Instructions for RFC Authors". generally, you can use the style of any recent RFC as your 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 basically the info hub for the Internet community 🌸 one of its big jobs is keeping the Requests for Comments (RFC) library up to date.
RFCs can be grabbed via FTP from NIC.DDN.MIL, with the pathname RFC:RFCnnnn.TXT, where "nnnn" is the number of the RFC. want a list of every RFC? copy the file RFC:RFC-INDEX.TXT. log in with FTP username ANONYMOUS and password GUEST 🦋
no FTP? the NIC also has an automatic mail service. email SERVICE@NIC.DDN.MIL and put the file name in the subject line, like "Subject: SEND RFC:RFCnnnn.TXT" 💌
some RFCs are also available in PostScript. you can get those from the NIC the same way, just swap ".PS" in for ".TXT" 🎀
how to get 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, following the same steps you'd use to get any RFC 💅
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 bestie, this part is dramatic 💀 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
Fax: 213-823-6714
Email: Postel@ISI.EDUand that's the whole RFC, bestie! 🌈💖✨
📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc1200 1991-04
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms