RFC 1360
IAB Official Protocol Standards
IAB OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS 🎀
Bestie, this is RFC 1360, and it's basically the Internet Architecture Board's official list of Internet protocol standards 👑. J. Postel, Editor wrote it, and the Internet Architecture Board is the group behind it. It came out in September 1992, and it's the STD: 1 document 🔥. It obsoletes RFCs 1280, 1250, 1100, 1083, 1130, 1140, 1200, so those are retired now 💀. Nothing is listed as updated.
Status of this Memo
Okay so this memo describes where the standardization of Internet protocols stands, as decided by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) 📋. Distribution is unlimited, so share it with your whole group chat 💜.
Table of Contents
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.1.1. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact . . . . . . 29
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 . . . 31
7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.4. Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
9. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Introduction ✨
The vibe of this doc goes like this: first comes the standardization process and the RFC document series, then the explanation of terms 💅. Sections 6.2 - 6.9 are the lists of protocols at each stage of standardization 📝. Last but not least, you get pointers to references and contacts for more info 🧚.
This memo is meant to come out about quarterly, so make sure the copy you're reading is current 🌸. Current copies can be grabbed 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 15-Jan-93. Bestie, that date is long gone 💀
See Section 6.1 for the recent changes 👀. In the official lists in sections 6.2 - 6.9, an asterisk * next to a protocol means it's new to this document, has been moved from one protocol level to another, or differs from the previous edition of this document ⭐.
1. The Standardization Process 💖
The Internet Architecture Board keeps this list of documents that define standards for the Internet protocol suite 📜. See RFC-1358 for the IAB charter, and RFC-1160 for how the IAB and its subsidiary groups are organized: the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). Each of those has a steering group, called the IESG and IRSG respectively. The IAB provides these standards with the goal of co-ordinating how the Internet protocols evolve, and that co-ordination has gotten super important now that the protocols are increasingly in general commercial use 💼. The definitive description of the Internet standards process is in RFC-1310 📖.
The majority of Internet protocol development and standardization happens in the working groups of the Internet Engineering Task Force 🫶.
Protocols that are going to become standards on the Internet 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 assigned an STD number (see RFC-1311) 🏆. At each step, the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) of the IETF must make a recommendation for advancement, and the IAB must ratify it. If a recommendation isn't ratified, the protocol gets remanded 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 about a protocol, the IAB may convene a special review committee made up of experts from the IETF, IRTF, and IAB, whose job is to recommend an explicit action to the IAB 🕵️♀️.
Advancing 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") 🛤️. Advancing to draft standard is a major step too, because it warns the community that, unless major objections are raised or flaws are discovered, the protocol is likely to be advanced to standard in six months 🚨.
Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are otherwise unused. Those are still documented in this memorandum with the designation "historic" 🕰️.
The IAB thinks it's useful to document the results of early protocol research and development, so some of the RFCs document protocols that are still experimental. These protocols are designated "experimental" in this memorandum. They appear here as a convenience to the community and not as evidence of their standardization 🧪🫧.
Other protocols, like those developed by other standards organizations or by particular vendors, may be of interest or may be recommended for use on the Internet. The specifications of those protocols may be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community. These protocols are labeled "informational" in this memorandum 📚.
Beyond the IETF working groups, protocol development and experimentation can also happen through the research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or through the work of other individuals interested in Internet protocol development 🧑💻. The IAB encourages documenting that experimental work in the RFC series, but none of it is considered to be on the track for standardization until the IESG has made a recommendation to advance the protocol to the proposed standard state, and the IAB has approved this step 🚦.
A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without the approval of the IESG and the IAB. For example, some vendor protocols have become very important to the Internet community even though they have not been recommended by the IESG or ratified by the IAB. However, the IAB strongly recommends that the IAB standards process be used in the evolution of the protocol suite, to maximize interoperability and to prevent incompatible protocol requirements from arising 🤝. The IAB reserves the use of the terms "standard", "draft standard", and "proposed standard" in any RFC or other publication of Internet protocols for only those protocols the IAB has approved 🔒.
In addition to a state (like "Proposed Standard"), a protocol is also given 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 status. For a proposed or draft standard, though, the IAB will also endeavor to indicate the eventual status this 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 describe a protocol's implementation requirements in every situation. For some protocols, this document contains an additional status paragraph (an applicability statement). On top of that, more detailed status information lives in separate requirements documents (see Section 3) 🌈.
2. The Request for Comments Documents ✨
okay so RFCs (Request for Comments) are literally the working notes of the "Network Working Group", aka the Internet research and development community 🧠 A doc in this series can be about basically any computer communication topic 💖, from a meeting report all the way up to a full-on 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, 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 range of docs, from informational stuff of general interest to specs for standard Internet protocols 🌈 When a submission is meant to document a proposed standard, draft standard, or standard protocol, the RFC Editor only publishes it with the approval of both the IESG and the IAB 👑 For experimental work, the RFC Editor notifies the IESG before publication, which leaves room for the relevant IETF working group or IRTF research group to review it and send comments to the author 🧪 See Section 5.1 for more detail.
Once a doc gets an RFC number and is published, that RFC is never revised or re-issued with the same number 🔒 So there's never a question about having the most recent version of a particular RFC. BUT a protocol (like File Transfer Protocol (FTP)) can be improved and re-documented many times across several different RFCs 🔄 Lowkey important: verify 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 spec of each protocol 📌
The RFCs are available from the Network Information Center at SRI International, and a number of other sites. For more info on getting RFCs, see Sections 7.4 and 7.5 📚
3. Other Reference Documents 📚
There are three other reference docs worth knowing about when you're checking the current status of protocol specs and standardization 🔍 They're the Assigned Numbers, the Gateway Requirements, and the Host Requirements. These get revised and updated at different times, so in case of differences between these documents, the most recent MUST prevail 🏆
Also, be aware of the MIL-STD publications on IP, TCP, Telnet, FTP, and SMTP 🎀 They're described in Section 3.4.
3.1. Assigned Numbers 🔢
This doc lists the assigned values of the parameters used in the various protocols: like IP protocol codes, TCP port numbers, Telnet Option Codes, ARP hardware types, and Terminal Type names 💅 Assigned Numbers was most recently issued as RFC-1340.
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 supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities. Gateway Requirements is RFC-1009. 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 supplies 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 intended to describe exactly the same protocols 👀 Any difference in the protocols specified by these sets of documents SHOULD be reported to DCA and to the IAB 🙈 The RFCs and the MIL-STDs for IP and TCP differ in style and level of detail. It is strongly advised that the two sets of documents be used together, along with RFC-1122 and RFC-1123 🫶
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) ✏️
Note that these MIL-STD 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 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 📮
Naval Publications and Forms Center, Code 3015
5801 Tabor Ave
Philadelphia, PA 19120
Phone: 1-215-697-3321 (order tape)
1-215-697-4834 (conversation)4. Explanation of Terms 🧠
There are two independent categorizations of protocols 💫 The first is the "maturity level" or STATE of standardization, one of "standard", "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", "informational" or "historic". The second is the "requirement level" or 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 and, 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 | | |
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 and some to gateways; a few protocols 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 "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, protocols that apply to the whole Internet; and (2) network-specific protocols, 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 that are developed as part of an ongoing research project not 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 standard organizations, or 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 "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 section is all about how the RFC Editor and the IAB decide what gets labeled a standard and what gets published 🧐💅 it's giving paperwork, but make it a drama 🎀
5.1. The RFC Processing Decision Table
here's the current decision table for how the RFC Editor handles submissions 💖 the big thing is that it depends on WHO submitted it and what status they're asking for. no cap, that's the whole vibe 😭
+==========================================================+
|**************| S O U R C E |
+==========================================================+
| Desired | IAB | IESG | IRSG | Other |
| Status | | | | |
+==========================================================+
| | | | | |
| 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 | | | | |
| | | | | |
+==========================================================+here's what the numbers in the table mean 🔍
- (1) Publish.
- (2) Bogus. Tell the source about the rules 📣 and yes, 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. The document only comes back to the RFC Editor after it's been approved by both the IESG and the IAB 🔁
- (5) Notify both the IESG and IRSG. If nobody raises concerns within 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, who does it. The RFC Editor also decides whether to publish or not 👑
obvi, in every case the RFC Editor can ask for or make small tweaks for style, format, and presentation 💅✨
the IESG made the IESG Secretary its agent 🧚 for two jobs: forwarding documents that already have IESG approval, and logging concerns raised in response to notifications (5) 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
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 get changed too 🦋
on the diagram, single line boxes are temporary states and double line boxes are long term states. 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) 🌸 a protocol can hang out in a long term state for many years 🥹
a protocol can only enter the standards track on the recommendation of the IESG and by action of the IAB 🫶 and it can only move from one state to another along the track on the recommendation of the IESG and by action of the IAB too. so it takes both the IESG AND the IAB to either start a protocol on the track or move it along. no solo missions 🤝
when a protocol enters the standards track, a decision gets made about the eventual STATUS, requirement level, or applicability (elective, recommended, or required) it'll end up with. it can start with a somewhat less strict current status, and then it's placed in the proposed standard STATE with that status 💖 so the very first spot a protocol lands in is state 1. and the STATUS decision can be revisited at any time ✨
|
+<----------------------------------------------+
| ^
V 0 | 4
+-----------+ +===========+
| enter |-->----------------+-------------->|experiment |
+-----------+ | +=====+=====+
| |
V 1 |
+-----------+ V
| proposed |-------------->+
+--->+-----+-----+ |
| | |
| V 2 |
+<---+-----+-----+ V
| draft std |-------------->+
+--->+-----+-----+ |
| | |
| V 3 |
+<---+=====+=====+ V
| standard |-------------->+
+=====+=====+ |
|
V 5
+=====+=====+
| historic |
+===========+the jump 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 jump 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 yet 🥺 in that case it gets assigned to the experimental state (4). that's off the standards track, but the protocol can be resubmitted to get back on after more work 💜 there are other ways into the experimental and historic states that don't involve IAB action, too 🌈
and sometimes one protocol gets replaced by another and becomes historic 🏛️ or a protocol on the standards track gets kind of overtaken by another protocol (or by other events) and becomes historic (state 5). that's a whole glow-up in reverse 💀
6. The Protocols 📚
okay so subsection 6.1 is where we get the latest RFCs and other changes 🆕 and subsections 6.2 - 6.9 list the standards in groups by protocol state 🗂️
6.1. Recent Changes 🆕
6.1.1. New RFCs 🌈
Here's the fresh drop of new RFCs, bestie 💅
- 1361 · Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP) 🕰️. Info doc, doesn't specify any level of standard.
- 1360 · This memo, the one you're reading right now 💖
- 1359 · Connecting to the Internet What Connecting Institutions Should Anticipate 🏫. Info doc, no standard level set.
- 1358 · Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) 🧭. Info doc, no standard level set.
- 1357 · A Format for E-mailing Bibliographic Records 📚. Info doc, no standard level set.
- 1356 · Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 and ISDN in the Packet Mode 📡. Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1355 · Privacy and Accuracy Issues in Network Information Center Databases 🔐. Info doc, no standard level set.
- 1354 · IP Forwarding Table MIB 🗺️. Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1353 · Definitions of Managed Objects for Administration of SNMP Parties 🧑🤝🧑. Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1352 · SNMP Security Protocols 🛡️. Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1351 · SNMP Administrative Model 🗂️. Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1350 · The TFTP Protocol (Revision 2) 📂. Standard protocol, the full glow-up 👑
- 1349 · Type of Service in the Internet Protocol Suite 🎚️. Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1348 · DNS NSAP RRs 🧪. Experimental protocol 🫶
- 1347 · TCP and UDP with Bigger Addresses (TUBA), A Simple Proposal for Internet Addressing and Routing 🏠. Info doc, no standard level set.
- 1346 · Resource Allocation, Control, and Accounting for the Use of Network Resources 💸. Info doc, no standard level set.
- 1345 · Character Mnemonics & Character Sets 🔤. Info doc, no standard level set.
- 1344 · Implications of MIME for Internet Mail Gateways 📬. Info doc, no standard level set.
- 1343 · A User Agent Configuration Mechanism For Multimedia Mail Format Information 🎞️. Info doc, no standard level set.
- 1342 · Representation of Non-ASCII Text in Internet Message Headers 🌍. Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1341 · MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions): Mechanisms for Specifying and Describing the Format of Internet Message Bodies 🎀. Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1340 · Assigned Numbers 🔢. Info doc, no standard level set.
- 1339 · Remote Mail Checking Protocol 📥. Experimental protocol 🫶
- 1338 · Supernetting: an Address Assignment and Aggregation Strategy 🧩. Info doc, no standard level set.
- 1337 · TIME-WAIT Assassination Hazards in TCP ⚠️. Info doc, no standard level set.
- 1336 · Who's Who in the Internet - Biographies of IAB, IESG and IRSG Members 🪪. Info doc, no standard level set.
- 1335 · A Two-Tier Address Structure for the Internet: A Solution to the Problem of Address Space Exhaustion 🏘️. Info doc, no standard level set.
- 1334 · Not yet issued 🙈
- 1333 · PPP Link Quality Monitoring 📶. Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1332 · The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol (IPCP) 🎛️. Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1331 · The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) for the Transmission of Multi-protocol Datagrams over Point-to-Point Links 🔗. Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1330 · Recommendations for the Phase I Deployment of OSI Directory Services (X.500) and OSI Message Handling Services (X.400) 📇. Info doc, no standard level set.
- 1329 · Thoughts on Address Resolution for Dual MAC FDDI Networks 💭. Info doc, no standard level set.
- 1328 · X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading ⬇️. Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1327 · Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 and RFC 822 🔀. Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1326 · Mutual Encapsulation Considered Dangerous 💀. Info doc, no standard level set.
- 1325 · FYI on Questions and Answers - Answers to Commonly asked "New Internet User" Questions 🙋. Info doc, no standard level set.
- 1324 · A Discussion on Computer Network Conferencing 🗣️. Info doc, no standard level set.
- 1323 · TCP Extensions for High Performance 🚀. Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1322 · A Unified Approach to Inter-Domain Routing 🛣️. Info doc, no standard level set.
- 1321 · The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm 🧾. Info doc, no standard level set.
- 1320 · The MD4 Message-Digest Algorithm 🧾. Info doc, no standard level set.
- 1319 · The MD2 Message-Digest Algorithm 🧾. Info doc, no standard level set.
- 1318 · Definitions of Managed Objects for Parallel-printer-like Hardware Devices 🖨️. Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1317 · Definitions of Managed Objects RS-232-like Hardware Devices 🔌. Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1316 · Definitions of Managed Objects for Character Stream Devices 🧵. Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1315 · Management Information Base for Frame Relay DTEs 🖧. Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1314 · A File Format for the Exchange of Images in the Internet 🖼️. Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1313 · Today's Programming for KRFC AM 1313 Internet Talk Radio 📻. Info doc, no standard level set.
- 1312 · Message Send Protocol 2 💌. Experimental protocol 🫶
6.1.2. Other Changes 💜
These are the glow-ups for protocols that were already on the list last edition ✨
- 1172 · The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Initial Configuration Options. Moved to Historic (obsoleted by RFC-1331).
- 1113 · Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part I -- Message Encipherment and Authentication Procedures. Moved to Historic.
- 1114 · Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part II -- Certificate-Based Key Management. Moved to Historic.
- 1115 · Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part III -- Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers. Moved to Historic.
- 1056 · PCMAIL: A Distributed Mail System for Personal Computers. Moved to Historic.
- 1058 · Routing Information Protocol. Advanced to Standard protocol 🎉
- 1037 · NFILE - A File Access Protocol. Moved to Historic.
- 1026 · Addendum to RFC 987 (Mapping between X.400 and RFC-822). Moved to Historic (obsoleted by RFC-1327).
- 987 · Mapping between X.400 and RFC-822. Moved to Historic (obsoleted by RFC-1327).
- 953 · Hostname Server. Moved to Historic.
- 913 · Simple File Transfer Protocol. Moved to Historic.
- 734 · SUPDUP. Moved to Historic.
6.2. Standard Protocols 👑
Okay, the big one! This table is the official lineup of standard protocols, with each one's status, RFC number, and STD number. Don't mess with the spacing, it's exact 🎀
Protocol Name Status RFC STD *
======== ===================================== ======== ==== === =
-------- IAB Official Protocol Standards Req 1360 1 *
-------- Assigned Numbers Req 1340 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
TFTP Trivial File Transfer Protocol Ele 1350 33*
RIP Routing Information Protocol Ele 1058 34*Quick heads-up: a * at the end of a line means that entry changed since the last edition of this document 🎀
6.2. Standard Protocols 💖
Applicability Statements: 🎀
IGMP 🦋 The IAB is totally aiming for general adoption of IP multicasting, because it's way more efficient than broadcasting for lots of apps 💜. The host interface got standardized in RFC-1112, BUT multicast-routing gateways are still experimental and not widely available yet 🙈. An Internet host should support all of RFC-1112, except the IGMP protocol itself, which is optional (see RFC-1122 for more details) ✨. Even without IGMP, RFC-1112 is a huge glow-up, because you get 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 IAB recommends that all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable. Right now that means implementing the Internet MIB-II (RFC-1213), plus at least the recommended management protocol SNMP (RFC-1157) 💅.
6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols 🔌
Here's the list, bestie 💖:
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: ✨
Okay so it's expected that a system will support one or more physical networks, and for each physical network it supports, the appropriate protocols from the list above must be supported 🫶. Basically, it's elective to support any particular type of physical network, but for the physical networks you actually do support, they are required to be supported exactly according to the protocols in the list above 💅. Also, check out the Host and Gateway Requirements RFCs for more specific info on network-specific ("link layer") protocols 🌸.
6.4. Draft Standard Protocols 🌸
Next up, the drafts 🍓:
Protocol Name Status RFC
======== ===================================== ============== =====
FINGER Finger Protocol Elective 1288
BGP3 Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3) Elective 1267,1268
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
BOOTP Bootstrap Protocol Recommended 951,1084
TP-TCP ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP Elective 1006
NICNAME WhoIs Protocol Elective 954[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 get more widely implemented and used, there's going to be an increasing need to support interoperation with the TCP/IP protocols. The Internet Engineering Task Force is working on 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 then it will 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-specifics standard protocol state in the future 🌈.
6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols 🦋
Here's the proposed-standards lineup, and yes, there are a LOT 😭:
Protocol Name Status RFC
======== ===================================== ============== =====
X.25 and ISDN in the Packet Mode Elective 1356*
TABLE-MIB IP Forwarding Table MIB Elective 1354*
------- Administration of SNMP Elective 1353*
SNMP-SEC SNMP Security Protocols Elective 1352*
SNMP-ADMIN SNMP Administrative Model Elective 1351*
TOS Type of Service in the Internet... Elective 1349*
------- Representation of Non-ASCII Text... Elective 1342*
MIME Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions Elective 1341*
PPP-LINK PPP Link Quality Monitoring Elective 1333*
PPP Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Elective 1331*
------- X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading Elective 1328*
------- Mapping between X.400(1988)... Elective 1327*
TCP-EXT TCP Extensions for High Performance Elective 1323*
------- Def. Man. Objs Parallel-printer-like... Elective 1318*
------- Def. Man Objs RS-232-like... Elective 1317*
------- Def. Man. Objs. Character Stream... Elective 1316*
FRAME-MIB Management Information Base for Frame.. Elective 1315*
NETFAX File Format for the Exchange of Images.. Elective 1314*
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
------- 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
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
NNTP Network News Transfer Protocol Elective 977
RLP Resource Location Protocol Elective 887[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 right here, along with both RFC
Okay so here's the whole Telnet squad, lined up with their state and status 💅
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 1091
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[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.]
6.7. Experimental Protocols 🧪
Now the experimental bunch, which is giving very "still cooking" energy 🍓
Protocol Name Status RFC
======== ===================================== ============== =====
DNS NSAP DNS NSAP RRs Elective 1348*
RMCP Remote Mail Checking Protocol Elective 1339*
MSP2 Message Send Protocol 2 Elective 1312*
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
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-memo[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.]
6.8. Informational Protocols 🦋
Next up are the informational ones, which are lowkey just vibing and sharing knowledge 🌸
Protocol Name Status RFC
======= ==================================== =============== =====
------- Replication Requirements... Elective 1275*
PCMAIL Pcmail Transport Protocol Elective 1056*
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 1179[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.]
6.9. Historic Protocols 🥀
And finally the historic ones. These are the legends, the OGs, and they deserve their flowers 💜
Protocol Name Status RFC
======= ===================================== ============== =====
PPP-INIT PPP Initial Configuration Options Not Recommended 1172*
MSP Message Send Protocol Not Recommended 1159*
-------- Mail Privacy: Procedures Not Recommended 1113*
-------- Mail Privacy: Key Management Not Recommended 1114*
-------- Mail Privacy: Algorithms Not Recommended 1115*
-------- Mapping X.400(84) and RFC-822 Not Recommended 987,1026*
NFILE A File Access Protocol Elective 1037*
HOSTNAME HOSTNAME Protocol Elective 953*
SFTP Simple File Transfer Protocol Elective 913*
SUPDUP SUPDUP Protocol Elective 734*
BGP Border Gateway Protocol Not Recommended 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-24308[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.]
7. Contacts 💌
Now the people section, where you can actually reach the humans behind all of this 🫶
7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts
7.1.1. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact
Got comments about this list of protocols, especially the Draft Standard Protocols? Send them to the Internet Architecture 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.EDU
A. 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
The IETF crew is right here, so you can slide into their DMs 🎀
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.US
Greg 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.US
Steve Coya
Executive Director of the IETF
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
Reston, VA 22091
1-703-620-8990
scoya@NRI.RESTON.VA.US7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact
And last but not least, the 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 ✨
okay so this one is the contact card for the IANA 📇 (the folks who keep the official protocol registries straight) and it's giving very "here's who to text" energy 💅
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. 🦋
ngl the doc also points you to "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1340) if you want the scoop on how the status of protocol documents works 📚. It also name-drops two summary docs that sum up what hosts and gateways are supposed to do: "Host Requirements" (RFC-1122 and RFC-1123) and "Gateway Requirements" (RFC-1009) 🌸.
How to obtain the most recent edition of this "IAB Official Protocol Standards" memo: 💖
The file "in-notes/iab-standards.txt" may be copied via FTP from the VENERA.ISI.EDU computer using the FTP username "anonymous" and FTP password "guest". 🎀
7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact 🍓
Contact:
Jon Postel
RFC Editor
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-310-822-1511
RFC-Editor@ISI.EDUbestie, if you want to submit a doc to the RFC Editor for publication as an RFC, you can send it over email 💌. If you're not sure about the format or style stuff, 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:
Network Solutions
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 the team that does a ton of info services for the Internet community 🫶. One of their big jobs is keeping the Requests for Comments (RFC) library up and running 📚✨.
7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments 💜
Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL can be found by sending an EMAIL message to "rfc-info@ISI.EDU" with the message body "help: ways_to_get_rfcs". Like, literally just this:
To: rfc-info@ISI.EDU
Subject: getting rfcs
help: ways_to_get_rfcs8. Security Considerations 🔥
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: 310-822-1511
Fax: 310-823-6714
Email: Postel@ISI.EDUand that's the whole RFC, bestie 🧚💜 we made it through all seven parts!!
📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc1360 1992-09
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms