RFC 1280
IAB Official Protocol Standards
IAB OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS 🎀
okay bestie, this is RFC 1280 💅 It's from the Network Working Group, edited by J. Postel, and it comes from the Internet Activities Board (IAB), dated March 1992 🧚 It's filed as STD: 1, which is giving "official list of the whole vibe" energy 👑 It obsoletes RFCs 1250, 1100, 1083, 1130, 1140 and 1200 🍓 so those are old news now 💀 The header doesn't list anything it updates, just FYI.
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 ✨ so share it with everyone 🫶
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. Gateway Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Host Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. The MIL-STD Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Explanation of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Definitions of Protocol State (Maturity Level) . . . . . . 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 (Requirement Level) . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.4. Draft Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.6. Telnet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.7. Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.8. Informational Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.9. Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7. Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.1.1. Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact . . . . . . . 28
7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . 29
7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact . . . . . 30
7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . . 30
7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact . . . . . . . . . . 31
7.4. Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.6. SRI Network Information Systems Center . . . . . . . . . 32
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Introduction 🌸
okay so the intro basically tells you the plan 🗺️ first comes the standardization process and the RFC document series, then the terms get explained. Sections 6.2 - 6.9 hold the lists of protocols at each stage of standardization 📋 and last but not least, you get pointers to references and contacts for more info 🦋
this memo is meant to be issued quarterly, so double-check that the copy you're reading is current 🙈 you can grab current copies from the Network Information Center or the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (check the contact info at the end of this memo). do not use this edition after 31-July-92 💀 that's a hard stop, bestie.
see Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes 💖 in the official lists in sections 6.2 - 6.9, a (*) next to a protocol means it's new to this document, got moved from one protocol level to another, or differs from the previous edition of this doc 🔥
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 co-ordinate how the Internet protocols evolve, and this co-ordination has become quite important now that the protocols are increasingly in general commercial use 💼 the definitive description of the Internet standards process is in RFC-1310 📖
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 move through a series of states or maturity levels (proposed standard, draft standard, and standard), with more and more scrutiny and testing at each step 🔍 once a protocol finishes this process, it gets a STD number (see RFC-1311) 🏅 at each step, the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) of the IETF has to make a recommendation for advancing the protocol, and the IAB has to ratify it. if a recommendation isn't ratified, the protocol gets sent back to the IETF for more work 🔄
to give the Internet community time to think about and react to standardization proposals, the IAB imposes a minimum delay of 6 months before a proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard, and 4 months before a draft standard can be promoted to standard ⏳
it's general IAB practice that no proposed standard gets 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) 🤝
if 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, whose job is to recommend an explicit action to the IAB 🕵️♀️
advancing a protocol to proposed standard is a big deal, 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 that 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, labeled "historic" 🕰️
because the IAB thinks it's useful to document the results of early protocol research and development, some RFCs document protocols that are still experimental 🧪 those protocols are designated "experimental" in this memo. 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 particular vendors, may be interesting or may be recommended for use on the Internet 📚 their specifications may be published as RFCs for the community's convenience. these get labeled "informational" in this memo 🏷️
on top of 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 track for standardization until the IESG has recommended advancing the protocol to the proposed standard state and the IAB has approved that step 🚦
a few protocols have achieved widespread 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 hasn't recommended them and the IAB hasn't ratified them 😤 still, the IAB strongly recommends using the IAB standards process to evolve the protocol suite, to maximize interoperability (and to prevent incompatible protocol requirements from showing up) 💜 the IAB reserves the use of the 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 touching those words unless you've got the stamp 🙅♀️
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, meaning it's in the proposed standard, draft standard, or standard state (see Section 5), the status shown in Section 6 is the current one. for a proposed or draft standard, though, the IAB will also endeavor to indicate the eventual status the protocol will have once it's adopted as a standard 🔮
okay real talk: few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems, because there's such a huge 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 describe a protocol's implementation requirements in every situation 🙈 for some protocols, this document has an extra status paragraph (an applicability statement). more detailed status info lives in separate requirements documents (see Section 3) 📑
2. The Request for Comments Documents 📜
Okay bestie, RFCs (Request for Comments) are basically the working notes of the "Network Working Group," which is the Internet research and development community 🧚✨ A doc in this series can be about literally any computer communication topic, from a meeting report all the way up to the spec for 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 (check the contact information at the end of this memo, and see RFC 1111).
RFCs aren't 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 a whole mix of stuff, from informational docs of general interest to specs for 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 docs describing experimental work, the RFC Editor will notify the IESG before publication. That gives the relevant IETF working group or IRTF research group a chance to review it and pass their comments on to the author. See Section 5.1 for more detail.
Once a doc is assigned an RFC number and 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 🦋 BUT a protocol (like File Transfer Protocol (FTP)) can get improved and re-documented many times across several different RFCs, so it's important to verify that you have the most recent RFC on a particular protocol 👀 The "IAB Official Protocol Standards" memo is the reference for figuring out 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 info about getting RFCs, see Sections 7.4 and 7.5. 🍓
3. Other Reference Documents 🔍
There are three other reference docs worth checking when you want the current status of protocol specs and standardization. Those are the Assigned Numbers, the Gateway Requirements, and the Host Requirements. These docs get revised and updated at different times, so if they ever disagree, the most recent one prevails 💖
Also, you should be aware of the MIL-STD publications on IP, TCP, Telnet, FTP, and SMTP. Those are described in Section 3.4.
3.1. Assigned Numbers 🔢
This doc 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 doc, Internet Numbers, lists the assigned IP network numbers and the autonomous system numbers. Internet Numbers was most recently issued as RFC-1166.
3.2. Gateway Requirements 🚪
This doc reviews the specs that apply to gateways and gives guidance and clarification for any ambiguities 💅 Gateway Requirements is RFC-1009, and a working group of the IETF is actively preparing a revision.
3.3. Host Requirements 🖥️
This pair of docs reviews and updates the specs that apply to hosts, and it gives guidance and clarification for any ambiguities 🫶 Host Requirements was issued as RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.
3.4. The MIL-STD Documents 🎖️
The Internet community specs for IP (RFC-791) and TCP (RFC-793) and the DoD MIL-STD specs are meant to describe exactly the same protocols. Any difference in the protocols specified by these sets of docs 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 be used together, along with RFC-1122 and RFC-1123. 🧐
The IAB and DoD MIL-STD specs for FTP, SMTP, and Telnet are essentially the same docs (RFCs 765, 821, 854). The MIL-STD versions have been edited slightly. Also note that the current Internet spec for FTP is RFC-959 (as modified by RFC-1123).
Real talk though, these MIL-STDs are now somewhat out of date 💀 The Gateway Requirements (RFC-1009) and Host Requirements (RFC-1122, RFC-1123) take precedence over both earlier RFCs and the MIL-STDs.
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 docs are available from the Naval Publications and Forms Center. You can request them by telephone, telegraph, or mail, but private industry is preferred to use form DD1425 if possible. These five docs are included in the 1985 DDN Protocol Handbook (available from the SRI Network Information Systems Center, see Section 7.6). 📮
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 ways to categorize protocols 🌸 The first is the "maturity level" or STATE of standardization, which is one of "standard", "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", "informational" or "historic". The second is the "requirement level" or STATUS of the protocol, which is one of "required", "recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".
The status or requirement level is hard to capture in a one-word label, so treat these status labels only as an indication. For the full picture, check a further description or applicability statement 🔍
When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard, it gets labeled with a current status. When possible, the IAB also notes the status 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 (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 | | |
A +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Info | | X | XXX | XX | X |
T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Expr | | | X | XXX | XX |
E +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Hist | | | | X | XXX |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+What is a "system"?
Some protocols are particular to hosts, some are particular 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). The context of the particular protocol should make it clear which types of systems are intended.
4.1. Definitions of Protocol State 🌈
Every protocol listed in this document is assigned to a "maturity level" or STATE of standardization: "standard", "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic" 💜
4.1.1. Standard Protocol 👑
The IAB has established this as an official standard protocol for the Internet. These protocols are assigned STD numbers (see RFC-1311). They're 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 specs for 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, and comments and test results should be submitted to the IAB. There's 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, and 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 related to an operational service offering. They may be proposed as a service protocol at a later stage, and so become proposed standard, draft standard, and then standard protocols. But calling a protocol experimental can sometimes be meant to suggest that it's not intended for operational use, even if it's perhaps mature 🤷♀️
4.1.5. Informational Protocol 📚
Protocols developed by other standards organizations, by vendors, or for other reasons outside the purview of the IAB may be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community as informational protocols. In some cases, these protocols may 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've been superseded by later developments or because of lack of interest 🥀
4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status 💅
This document lists a "requirement level" or STATUS for each protocol. The status is one of "required", "recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended" 🫶
4.2.1. Required Protocol 🔥
A system must implement the required protocols.
4.2.2. Recommended Protocol ⭐
A system should implement the recommended protocols.
4.2.3. Elective Protocol 🦋
A system may or may not implement an elective protocol. The general notion is that if you are going to do something like this, you must do exactly this. There may be several elective protocols in a general area. For example, there are several electronic mail protocols, and several routing protocols 💖
4.2.4. Limited Use Protocol 🍓
These protocols are for use in limited circumstances. This may be because of their experimental state, specialized nature, limited functionality, or historic state 🧚
4.2.5. Not Recommended Protocol 🙅♀️
These protocols are not recommended for general use. This may be because of their limited functionality, specialized nature, or experimental or historic state. 💀
5. The Standards Track ✨
Okay bestie, this part is all about how the RFC Editor and the IAB decide when a protocol gets labeled a standard and published as one. It's giving serious gatekeeping energy, and I'm obsessed 💅
5.1. The RFC Processing Decision Table
Here's the current decision table for how the RFC Editor processes submissions 📋. What happens depends on two things: who submitted it, and what status they want it to have.
+==========================================================+
|**************| S O U R C E |
+==========================================================+
| Desired | IAB | IESG | IRSG | Other |
| Status | | | or RG | |
+==========================================================+
| | | | | |
| Standard | Publish | Vote | Bogus | Bogus |
| or | (1) | (3) | (2) | (2) |
| Draft | | | | |
| 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 | | | | |
| | | | | |
+==========================================================+Now let's decode the notes, because these are the important bits 🎀
- (1) Publish. Straight to publication, no drama 🌸
- (2) Bogus. Tell the source about the rules. RFCs specifying Standard, or Draft Standard, must come from the IAB, only 🙅♀️
- (3) Vote by the IAB. If it's approved, do Publish (1). If not, do Refer (4) 🗳️
- (4) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG. You won't see the document again until it's been approved by the IESG and the IAB 🔁
- (5) Notify both the IESG and IRSG. If nobody raises concerns in two weeks, do Discretion (6). If they do, the RFC Editor resolves the concerns or does Refer (4) 📣
- (6) RFC Editor's discretion. The RFC Editor decides whether a review is needed and, if so, by whom. The RFC Editor also decides whether to publish or not 👑
Of course, in every case the RFC Editor can request or make minor changes for style, format, and presentation purposes ✨
The IESG has picked the IESG Secretary as its agent for forwarding documents with IESG approval, and for sending concerns from notifications (5) over to the RFC Editor 💌 Documents from Area Directors or Working Group Chairs get handled 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 🛤️ Honestly, only the changes of state really matter for moving along the track, though the status assignments can change too.
States drawn with single line boxes are temporary, and states drawn with double line boxes are long term 📦 A protocol is normally expected to stay in a temporary state for several months (minimum six months for proposed standard, minimum four months for draft standard) ⏳ Meanwhile, a protocol in a long term state can chill there for many years 🛋️
Here's the wild part: a protocol can enter the standards track only on the recommendation of the IESG and by action of the IAB. It can also move from one state to another along the track only on the recommendation of the IESG and by action of the IAB. So it takes both the IESG and the IAB to either start a protocol on the track or move it along 🤝
When a protocol enters the standards track, a decision gets made about its eventual STATUS, requirement level or applicability (elective, recommended, or required). A somewhat less stringent current status might 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. And 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 six 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 four months 🏆
Sometimes the verdict is that a protocol isn't ready for standardization. Then it gets assigned to the experimental state (4) 🧪 This is off the standards track, but the protocol can be resubmitted to enter the standards track after more work. There are other paths into the experimental and historic states that don't involve IAB action 🚪
Also, one protocol can get replaced by another and become historic. Or a protocol on the standards track can get overtaken by another protocol (or other events) and become historic (state 5) 🥀 Rough, but that's how it goes 💀
6. The Protocols ✨
Okay, the lineup! Subsection 6.1 covers recent RFCs and other changes 📰 Subsections 6.2 - 6.9 list the standards in groups by protocol state 🗂️
6.1. Recent Changes 🌈
6.1.1. New RFCs ✨
okay bestie, here's the new RFC drop 💖 these are all the new ones and what kind of standard each one is (or isn't 😭)
- 1311 Introduction to the STD Notes: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1310 The Internet Standards Process: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1309 Technical Overview of Directory Services Using the X.500 Protocol: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1308 Executive Introduction to Directory Services Using the X.500 Protocol: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1307 Dynamically Switched Link Control Protocol: 🧪 Experimental Protocol
- 1306 Experiences Supporting By-Request Circuit-Switched T3 Networks: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1304 Definitions of Managed Objects for the SIP Interface Type: 🦋 Proposed Standard protocol
- 1303 A Convention for Describing SNMP-based Agents: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1302 Building a Network Information Services Infrastructure: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1301 Multicast Transport Protocol: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1300 Remembrances of Things Past: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1298 SNMP over IPX: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1297 NOC Internal Integrated Trouble Ticket System Functional Specification Wishlist ("NOC TT REQUIREMENTS"): info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1296 Internet Growth (1981-1991): info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1295 User Bill of Rights for entries and listings in the Public Directory: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1294 Multiprotocol Interconnect over Frame Relay: 🦋 Proposed Standard protocol
- 1293 Inverse Address Resolution Protocol: 🦋 Proposed Standard protocol
- 1292 A Catalog of Available X.500 Implementations: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1291 Mid-Level Networks - Potential Technical Services: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1290 There's Gold in them thar Networks! or Searching for Treasure in all the Wrong Places: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1289 DECnet Phase IV MIB Extensions: 🦋 Proposed Standard protocol
- 1288 The Finger User Information Protocol: 👑 Draft Standard protocol
- 1287 Towards the Future Internet Architecture: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1286 Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges: 🦋 Proposed Standard protocol
- 1285 FDDI Management Information Base: 🦋 Proposed Standard protocol
- 1284 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-like Interface Types: 🦋 Proposed Standard protocol
- 1283 SNMP over OSI: 🧪 Experimental protocol
- 1282 BSD Rlogin: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1281 Guidelines for the Secure Operation of the Internet: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1280 This memo. 💅
- 1279 X.500 and Domains: 🧪 Experimental protocol
- 1278 A string encoding of Presentation Address: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1277 Encoding Network Addresses to support operation over non-OSI lower layers: 🦋 Proposed Standard protocol
- 1276 Replication and Distributed Operations extensions to provide an Internet Directory using X.500: 🦋 Proposed Standard protocol
- 1275 Replication Requirements to provide an Internet Directory using X.500: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1274 The COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema: 🦋 Proposed Standard protocol
- 1273 A Measurement Study of Changes in Service-Level Reachability in the Global TCP/IP Internet: Goals, Experimental Design, Implementation, and Policy Considerations: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1272 Internet Accounting: Background: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1271 Remote Network Monitoring Management Information Base: 🦋 Proposed Standard protocol
- 1270 SNMP Communications Services: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1269 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Border Gateway Protocol (Version 3): 🦋 Proposed Standard protocol
- 1268 Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet: 👑 Draft Standard protocol
- 1267 A Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3): 👑 Draft Standard protocol
- 1266 Experience with the BGP Protocol: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1265 BGP Protocol Analysis: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1264 Internet Engineering Task Force - Internet Routing Protocol Standardization Criteria: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1263 TCP Extensions Considered Harmful: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1262 Guidelines for Internet Measurement Activities: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1261 Transition of NIC Services: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1260 Not yet issued. 🙈
- 1259 Building The Open Road: The NREN As Test-Bed For The National Public Network: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1258 BSD Rlogin: info doc, does not specify any level of standard. Obsoleted by RFC 1282. 📖
- 1257 Isochronous Applications Do Not Require Jitter-Controlled Networks: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1256 ICMP Router Discovery Messages: 🦋 Proposed Standard protocol
- 1255 A Naming Scheme for c=US: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1254 Gateway Congestion Control Survey: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
- 1253 OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base: 🦋 Proposed Standard protocol
- 1108 U.S. Department of Defense Security Options for the Internet Protocol: 🦋 Proposed Standard protocol
- 1099 Request for Comments Summary RFC Numbers 1000-1099: info doc, does not specify any level of standard 📖
6.1.2. Other Changes 🌸
okay one more thing! RFC 1156, MIB-I is no longer referenced 🙈 because it has been completely replaced by RFC 1213, MIB-II. 🎀
6.2. Standard Protocols 👑
Here's the big protocol table, all lined up and everything 🧚
Protocol Name Status RFC STD *
======== ===================================== ======== ==== === =
-------- IAB Official Protocol Standards Req 1280 1 *
-------- Assigned Numbers Req 1060 2 *
-------- Host Requirements - Communications Req 1122 3 *
-------- Host Requirements - Applications Req 1123 3 *
-------- Gateway Requirements Req 1009 4 *
IP Internet Protocol Req 791 5 *
as amended by:
-------- IP Subnet Extension Req 950 5 *
-------- IP Broadcast Datagrams Req 919 5 *
-------- IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets Req 922 5 *
ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol Req 792 5 *
IGMP Internet Group Multicast Protocol Rec 1112 5 *
UDP User Datagram Protocol Rec 768 6 *
TCP Transmission Control Protocol Rec 793 7 *
TELNET Telnet Protocol Rec 854,855 8 *
FTP File Transfer Protocol Rec 959 9 *
SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol Rec 821 10 *
MAIL Format of Electronic Mail Messages Rec 822 11 *
CONTENT Content Type Header Field Rec 1049 11 *
NTP Network Time Protocol Rec 1119 12 *
DOMAIN Domain Name System Rec 1034,1035 13 *
DNS-MX Mail Routing and the Domain System Rec 974 14 *
SNMP Simple Network Management Protocol Rec 1157 15 *
SMI Structure of Management Information Rec 1155 16 *
MIB-II Management Information Base-II Rec 1213 17 *
EGP Exterior Gateway Protocol Rec 904 18 *
NETBIOS NetBIOS Service Protocols Ele 1001,1002 19 *
ECHO Echo Protocol Rec 862 20 *
DISCARD Discard Protocol Ele 863 21 *
CHARGEN Character Generator Protocol Ele 864 22 *
QUOTE Quote of the Day Protocol Ele 865 23 *
USERS Active Users Protocol Ele 866 24 *
DAYTIME Daytime Protocol Ele 867 25 *
TIME Time Server Protocol Ele 868 26 *📝 Note: an asterisk at the end of a line means that line changed from the previous edition of this document. 💖
Applicability Statements:
Okay so IGMP is giving "coming soon" energy 🦋 The Internet Activities Board is really trying to move toward general adoption of IP multicasting, because it's a more efficient move than broadcasting for lots of apps 💖 The host interface got standardized in RFC-1112 ✨, however multicast-routing gateways are still in the experimental stage and aren't 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 is a huge glow-up: IP-layer access to local network multicast addressing 💜 It is expected that IGMP will become recommended for all hosts and gateways at some future date 👑
SMI, MIB-II SNMP -- The Internet Activities Board recommends that all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable 🎀 Right now that means implementing the Internet MIB-II (RFC-1213), and at least the recommended management protocol SNMP (RFC-1157) 🧚
6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols ✨
Protocol Name State Status RFC
======== ===================================== ======= ====== =====
IP-FR Multiprotocol over Frame Relay Prop Ele 1294*
IP-SMDS Transmission of IP Datagrams over SMDS Prop Ele 1209*
ARP Address Resolution Protocol Std Ele 826*
RARP A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol Std Ele 903*
IP-ARPA Internet Protocol on ARPANET Std Ele BBN1822*
IP-WB Internet Protocol on Wideband Network Std Ele 907*
IP-X25 Internet Protocol on X.25 Networks Std Ele 877*
IP-E Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks Std Ele 894*
IP-EE Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets Std Ele 895*
IP-IEEE Internet Protocol on IEEE 802 Std Ele 1042*
IP-DC Internet Protocol on DC Networks Std Ele 891*
IP-HC Internet Protocol on Hyperchannel Std Ele 1044*
IP-ARC Internet Protocol on ARCNET Std Ele 1051*
IP-SLIP Transmission of IP over Serial Lines Std Ele 1055*
IP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS Std Ele 1088*
IP-IPX Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks Std Ele 1132*
IP-FDDI Transmission of IP over FDDI Draft Ele 1188*[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.]
Applicability Statements:
It is expected that a system will support one or more physical networks, and for each physical network supported, the appropriate protocols from the above list must be supported 💅 That means it is elective to support any particular type of physical network, and for the physical networks actually supported it is required that they be supported exactly according to the protocols in the above list 🫶 See also the Host and Gateway Requirements RFCs for more specific information on network-specific ("link layer") protocols 🌈
6.4. Draft Standard Protocols 🌸
Protocol Name Status RFC
======== ===================================== ============== =====
FINGER Finger Protocol Elective 1288*
BGP-APP Application of BGP Elective 1268*
BGP3 Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3) Elective 1267*
OSPF2 Open Shortest Path First Routing V2 Elective 1247
POP3 Post Office Protocol, Version 3 Elective 1225
Concise-MIB Concise MIB Definitions Elective 1212
IP-FDDI Internet Protocol on FDDI Networks Elective 1188
TOPT-LINE Telnet Linemode Option Elective 1184
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 951,1084
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 783[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.]
Applicability Statements:
RIP -- The Routing Information Protocol (RIP) is widely implemented and used across the Internet 💖 However, both implementors and users should be aware that RIP has some serious technical limitations as a routing protocol 😭 The IETF is currently 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 become more widely implemented and used, there will be an increasing need to support interoperation with the TCP/IP protocols 🦋 The Internet Engineering Task Force is formulating strategies for interoperation. RFC-1006 provides one interoperation mode, in which TCP/IP is used to emulate TP0 in order to support OSI applications. Hosts that wish to run OSI connection-oriented applications in this mode should use the procedure described in 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 it will then be possible to run OSI applications across the Internet using full OSI protocol "stacks" 🌈
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 🔥
Protocol Name Status RFC
======== ===================================== ============== =====
SIP-MIB SIP Interface Type MIB Elective 1304*
IARP Inverse Address Resolution Protocol Elective 1293*
DECNET-MIB DECNET MIB Elective 1289*
BRIDGE-MIB BRIDGE-MIB Elective 1286*
FDDI-MIB FDDI-MIB Elective 1285*
ETHER-MIB Ethernet MIB Elective 1284*
------- Encoding Network Addresses... Elective 1277*
------- Replication and Distributed Operations.. Elective 1276*
------- Replication Requirements... Elective 1275*
------- COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema... Elective 1274*
RMON-MIB Remote Network Monitoring MIB Elective 1271*
BGP-MIB Border Gateway Protocol MIB (Version 3) Elective 1269*
ICMP-ROUT ICMP Router Discovery Messages Elective 1256*
OSPF-MIB OSPF Version 2 MIB Elective 1253*
IPSO DoD Security Options for IP Elective 1108*
AT-MIB Appletalk MIB Elective 1243
OSI-UDP OSI TS on UDP Elective 1240
STD-MIBs Reassignment of Exp MIBs to Std MIBs Elective 1239
OSI-NSAP Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation Elective 1237
IPX-IP Tunneling IPX Traffic through IP Nets Elective 1234
DS3-MIB DS3 Interface Objects Elective 1233
DS1-MIB DS1 Interface Objects Elective 1232
802.5-MIB IEEE 802.5 Token Ring MIB Elective 1231
802.4-MIP IEEE 802.4 Token Bus MIB Elective 1230
GINT-MIB Extensions to the Generic-Interface MIB Elective 1229
PPP-EXT PPP Extensions for Bridging Elective 1220
OIM-MIB-II OSI Internet Management: MIB-II Elective 1214
IP-SMDS IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service Elective 1209
IP-ARCNET Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Nets Elective 1201
IS-IS OSI IS-IS for TCP/IP Dual Environments Elective 1195
IP-MTU Path MTU Discovery Elective 1191
CMOT Common Management Information Services.. Elective 1189
PPP-INIT PPP Initial Configuration Options Elective 1172
IP-CMPRS Compressing TCP/IP Headers Elective 1144
ISO-TS-ECHO Echo for ISO-8473 Elective 1139
SUN-NFS Network File System Protocol Elective 1094
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 734[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.]
Applicability Statements:
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. Telnet Options 🦋
Okay so, for convenience, all the Telnet Options are collected here with both
Check out their state and status below, bestie 🦋 Here's the full Telnet Options roster, so you can see what's standard, what's proposed, and what's already a lowkey legend 💜
Protocol Name Number State Status RFC STD
======== ===================================== ===== ====== ==== ====
TOPT-BIN Binary Transmission 0 Std Rec 856 27*
TOPT-ECHO Echo 1 Std Rec 857 28*
TOPT-RECN Reconnection 2 Prop Ele ...
TOPT-SUPP Suppress Go Ahead 3 Std Rec 858 29*
TOPT-APRX Approx Message Size Negotiation 4 Prop Ele ...
TOPT-STAT Status 5 Std Rec 859 30*
TOPT-TIM Timing Mark 6 Std Rec 860 31*
TOPT-REM Remote Controlled Trans and Echo 7 Prop Ele 726
TOPT-OLW Output Line Width 8 Prop Ele ...
TOPT-OPS Output Page Size 9 Prop Ele ...
TOPT-OCRD Output Carriage-Return Disposition 10 Prop Ele 652
TOPT-OHT Output Horizontal Tabstops 11 Prop Ele 653
TOPT-OHTD Output Horizontal Tab Disposition 12 Prop Ele 654
TOPT-OFD Output Formfeed Disposition 13 Prop Ele 655
TOPT-OVT Output Vertical Tabstops 14 Prop Ele 656
TOPT-OVTD Output Vertical Tab Disposition 15 Prop Ele 657
TOPT-OLD Output Linefeed Disposition 16 Prop Ele 658
TOPT-EXT Extended ASCII 17 Prop Ele 698
TOPT-LOGO Logout 18 Prop Ele 727
TOPT-BYTE Byte Macro 19 Prop Ele 735
TOPT-DATA Data Entry Terminal 20 Prop Ele 1043
TOPT-SUP SUPDUP 21 Prop Ele 734
TOPT-SUPO SUPDUP Output 22 Prop Ele 749
TOPT-SNDL Send Location 23 Prop Ele 779
TOPT-TERM Terminal Type 24 Prop Ele 930
TOPT-EOR End of Record 25 Prop Ele 885
TOPT-TACACS TACACS User Identification 26 Prop Ele 927
TOPT-OM Output Marking 27 Prop Ele 933
TOPT-TLN Terminal Location Number 28 Prop Ele 946
TOPT-3270 Telnet 3270 Regime 29 Prop Ele 1041
TOPT-X.3 X.3 PAD 30 Prop Ele 1053
TOPT-NAWS Negotiate About Window Size 31 Prop Ele 1073
TOPT-TS Terminal Speed 32 Prop Ele 1079
TOPT-RFC Remote Flow Control 33 Prop Ele 1080
TOPT-LINE Linemode 34 Draft Ele 1184
TOPT-XDL X Display Location 35 Prop Ele 1096
TOPT-EXTOP Extended-Options-List 255 Std Rec 861 32*Heads up, bestie: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document 💅
6.7. Experimental Protocols
These are the experimental ones, and they're giving main character energy in their own way ✨
Protocol Name Status RFC
======== ===================================== ============== =====
DSLCP Dynamically Switched Link Control Elective 1307*
-------- X.500 and Domains Elective 1279*
SNMP-OSI SNMP over OSI Elective 1283*
IN-ENCAP Internet Encapsulation Protocol Limited Use 1241
CLNS-MIB CLNS-MIB Limited Use 1238
CFDP Coherent File Distribution Protocol Limited Use 1235
SNMP-DPI SNMP Distributed Program Interface Limited Use 1228
SNMP-MUX SNMP MUX Protocol and MIB Limited Use 1227
IP-AX25 IP Encapsulation of AX.25 Frames Limited Use 1226
ALERTS Managing Asynchronously Generated Alerts Limited Use 1224
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-memoSame asterisk rule applies here: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document 🌸
6.8. Informational Protocols
Vibes check: these are the informational ones, so they're more about sharing knowledge than being a strict rule 🧚
Protocol Name Status RFC
======= ==================================== =============== =====
MTP Multicast Transport Protocol Elective 1301*
SNMP-IPX SNMP over IPX Elective 1298*
BSD Login BSD Login Elective 1282*
DIXIE DIXIE Protocol Specification Limited Use 1249
IP-X.121 IP to X.121 Address Mapping for DDN Limited Use 1236
OSI-HYPER OSI and LLC1 on HYPERchannel Limited Use 1223
HAP2 Host Access Protocol Limited Use 1221
SUBNETASGN On the Assignment of Subnet Numbers Limited Use 1219
SNMP-TRAPS Defining Traps for use with SNMP Limited Use 1215
DAS Directory Assistance Service Limited Use 1202
MD4 MD4 Message Digest Algorithm Limited Use 1186
LPDP Line Printer Daemon Protocol Limited Use 1179Asterisk alert: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document 🍓
6.9. Historic Protocols
These are the old-school legends. They've been retired from the main stage, but they still matter 👑
Protocol Name Status RFC
======= ===================================== ============== =====
BGP Border Gateway Protocol Elective 1163,1164*
MIB-I MIB-I Not Recommended 1156*
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
HFEP Host - Front End Protocol Not Recommended 929
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-24308Last asterisk reminder: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document ⭐
7. Contacts
7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts
7.1.1. Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact
Got comments about this list, especially the Draft Standard Protocols? Send them to the Internet Activities Board, care of Bob Braden, IAB Executive Director 💌
Contacts:
Bob Braden
Executive Director of the IAB
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-310-822-1511
Braden@ISI.EDUA. Lyman Chapin
Chair of the IAB
Bolt, Beranek & Newman
Mail Stop 20/5b
150 Cambridge Park Drive
Cambridge, MA 02140
1-617-873-3133
Lyman@BBN.COM7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact
Contacts:
Phill Gross
Chair of the IETF
Advanced Network and Services
100 Clearbrook Road
Elmsford, NY 10523
1-914-789-5300
PGross@NRI.RESTON.VA.USGreg Vaudreuil
IESG Secretary
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
Reston, VA 22091
1-703-620-8990
gvaudre@NRI.RESTON.VA.US7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact
Contact:
Jon Postel
Chair of the IRTF
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-310-822-1511
Postel@ISI.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
1-310-822-1511
IANA@ISI.EDUThe protocol standards are managed for the IAB by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority 🫶
Check out "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1060) for more info on the status of protocol documents. 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 filein-notes/iab-standards.txtcan be copied over FTP from the computer VENERA.ISI.EDU, using the FTP usernameanonymousand the FTP passwordguest🔥
7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact
Contact:
Jon Postel
RFC Editor
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-310-822-1511
RFC-Editor@ISI.EDUWant to submit a document for publication as an RFC? Send it by email to the RFC Editor 💖 If the format or style stuff is confusing, request the "Instructions for RFC Authors". Honestly, the style of any recent RFC works as a guide ✨
7.4. The Network Information Center and Requests for Comments Distribution Contact 💌
Okay so if you need the NIC, here's where to find them 🎀 Hours and numbers are below, and yes, that toll-free number literally spells DNIC, so iconic 🙈
Government Systems, Inc.
Attn: Network Information Center
14200 Park Meadow Drive
Suite 200
Chantilly, VA 22021
Help Desk Hours of Operation: 7:00 am to 7:00 pm Eastern Time
1-800-365-3642 (1-800-365-DNIC)
1-703-802-4535
Fax Number: 1-703-802-8376
NIC@NIC.DDN.MILThe Network Information Center (NIC) is basically the queen of information services for the Internet community 👑 Among everything they handle, they keep the Requests for Comments (RFC) library going, which is literally the whole reason you're reading this 💜
7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments 🦋
Want to get RFCs through FTP or EMAIL? Send an EMAIL message to rfc-info@ISI.EDU with help: ways_to_get_rfcs in the message body, and they'll walk you through it ✨ Here's what that looks like:
To: rfc-info@ISI.EDU
Subject: getting rfcs
help: ways_to_get_rfcs7.6 SRI Network Information Systems Center 🌸
If you're looking for documentation from the SRI Network Information Systems Center (NISC), these are the ways to reach them 🧚
EMail: nisc@nisc.sri.com
Phone: (415) 859-6387, (415) 859-3695
Fax: (415) 859-60288. Security Considerations 💀
Okay, the big plot twist: security issues are not addressed in this memo 😭 Nothing about security is covered here, so keep that in mind as you read. Main character drama, no cap 🔥
9. Author's Address ✨
This document was written by Jon Postel, over at the USC/Information Sciences Institute 🫶
Jon Postel
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Phone: 310-822-1511
Fax: 310-823-6714
Email: Postel@ISI.EDUThat's a wrap on RFC 1280, bestie 🌈💅
📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc1280 1992-03
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms