RFC 1410
IAB Official Protocol Standards
IAB OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS 🎀
okay bestie, welcome to RFC 1410! 🦋 this one is by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and it's written up by J. Postel as Editor, dated March 1993. it's from the Network Working Group, and it's STD 1 (so it's a numbered standard, iykyk 💅). it obsoletes RFCs 1360, 1280, 1250, 1100, 1083, 1130, 1140, and 1200. so if you see any of those floating around, they're old news now 💀
Status of This Memo 📜
this memo describes where standardization stands for the protocols used on the Internet, as determined by the Internet Architecture 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) . . . 9
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.2. Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.4. Draft Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.6. Telnet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.7. Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.8. Informational Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.9. Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7. Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7.1.1. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact . . . . . . 31
7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . 31
7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact . . . . . 32
7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . . 33
7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact . . . . . . . . . . 34
7.4. Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Introduction ✨
okay so the intro is basically a map 🗺️ first we get the standardization process and the RFC document series, then we get the explanation of terms. Sections 6.2 - 6.9 are where the lists of protocols live, one list for each stage of standardization. the references and contacts for more info come last.
this memo is meant to come out about every quarter, so double-check that the copy you're reading is current 🫶 current copies can be grabbed from the Network Information Center or from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (the contact info is at the end of the memo). and do not use this edition after 31-July-93 ❌
see Section 6.1 for recent changes! in the official lists (sections 6.2 - 6.9), an asterisk (*) next to a protocol means it's new to this document, it got moved from one protocol level to another, or it's different from the last edition. so keep an eye out for the * 👀
1. The Standardization Process 🌸
the Internet Architecture Board keeps this list of documents that define standards for the Internet protocol suite. the IAB's charter is in RFC-1358, and RFC-1160 explains the role and organization of the IAB and its subsidiary groups, which are the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). each of those groups has a steering group, called the IESG and the IRSG respectively. the IAB provides these standards so the Internet protocols keep evolving in a coordinated way, and honestly that coordination has gotten super important now that the protocols are everywhere in general commercial use 💼 the definitive description of the Internet standards process is in RFC-1310.
most of the 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). each step involves more scrutiny and testing 🔍 when a protocol finishes the whole 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 doesn't get ratified, the protocol gets sent back to the IETF for more work 😬
to give the community time to think about and react to standardization proposals, the IAB sets 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 IESG's recommendation). moving from draft standard to standard generally needs operational experience and demonstrated interoperability of two or more implementations (and the IESG's recommendation too) 💅
if it's unclear what the right decision is for a protocol, the IAB can convene a special review committee made up of experts from the IETF, the IRTF, and the IAB. their job is to recommend an explicit action to the IAB 🧚
getting advanced 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"). getting advanced to draft standard is a major step too, since it warns the community that, unless major objections are raised or flaws are discovered, the protocol will likely be advanced to standard in six months 🦋
some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are just not used anymore. those are still documented in this memo with the designation "historic" 🕰️
because the IAB thinks it's useful to document the results of early protocol research and development, some RFCs describe protocols that are still experimental. those protocols are designated "experimental" in this memo. they show up in this report as a convenience for the community, not as evidence that they've been standardized 🧪
other protocols, like the ones developed by other standards organizations or by particular vendors, might be interesting or recommended for use on the Internet. their specifications can be published as RFCs for the community's convenience. these protocols are labeled "informational" in this memo ℹ️
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 individuals who are into Internet protocol development. the IAB encourages writing up that 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 reached 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, because that maximizes interoperability and keeps incompatible protocol requirements from showing up 🙅♀️ the IAB also reserves the terms "standard", "draft standard", and "proposed standard" for use in any RFC or other publication about Internet protocols, but only for protocols the IAB has approved. no shortcuts on the name 👑
in addition to a state (like "Proposed Standard"), a protocol also gets a status, or requirement level, in this document. the possible requirement levels are "Required", "Recommended", "Elective", "Limited Use", and "Not Recommended", and they're defined in Section 4.2. when a protocol is on the standards track (that means 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 try its best to indicate the eventual status the protocol will have once it's adopted as a standard 🌈
honestly, not many protocols have to be implemented in every system. there's just too much variety in the kinds of systems out there, like gateways, terminal servers, workstations, and multi-user hosts 🖥️ the requirement level in this document is only a one-word label, and that might not be enough to describe the implementation requirements for a protocol in every situation. for some protocols, this document includes an extra status paragraph (an applicability statement). and more detailed status info 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", which is the Internet research and development community 🧚. A doc in this series can be about basically anything related to computer communication, from a meeting report all the way up to a full standard spec 💖
Notice: All standards are published as RFCs, but not all RFCs specify standards. 🙈
Anyone can submit a doc for publication as an RFC 💅. Submissions have to be sent by email to the RFC Editor (check the contact info at the end of this memo, and see RFC 1111).
RFCs aren't refereed publications, so there's no peer-review gatekeeping 😭. They do get technical review from the task forces, individual technical experts, or the RFC Editor, as appropriate.
The RFC series is a huge mix, from informational docs of general interest all the way to specs for standard Internet protocols. When a submission is meant to document a proposed standard, draft standard, or standard protocol, the RFC Editor will publish it only with the approval of both the IESG and the IAB 👑. For 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 then those comments get passed along 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 of having the most recent version of a particular RFC.
However, a protocol (such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP)) may be improved and re-documented many times in several different RFCs. It's important to verify that you have the most recent RFC on a particular protocol 😭. This "IAB Official Protocol Standards" memo is the reference for 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 knowing about when you're checking the current status of protocol specs and standardization: the Assigned Numbers, the Gateway Requirements, and the Host Requirements. heads up, these get revised and updated at different times, so if they ever disagree, the most recent one must prevail 🍓.
Also, one should be aware of the MIL-STD publications on IP, TCP, Telnet, FTP, and SMTP. These 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-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 gives 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 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. It is strongly advised that the two sets of docs be used together, along with RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.
The IAB and the 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. 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 docs are available from the Naval Publications and Forms Center. Requests can be started by telephone, telegraph, or mail. However, it's 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, 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 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 gets labeled with a current status. When possible, the IAB also notes the status that the protocol is expected to have when it reaches the standard state.
At any given time a protocol occupies a cell of the following matrix. Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the following proportions (indicated by the relative number of Xs). A new protocol is most likely to start in the (proposed standard, elective) cell, or the (experimental, not recommended) cell 🌈.
S T A T U S
Req Rec Ele Lim Not
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Std | X | XXX | XXX | | |
S +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Draft | X | X | XXX | | |
T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Prop | | X | XXX | | |
A +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Info | | | | | |
T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Expr | | | | XXX | |
E +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Hist | | | | | XXX |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+What is a "system"? 🤔
Some protocols are particular to hosts and some to gateways, and a few are used in both. The definitions below refer to a "system", which is either a host or a gateway (or both). It should be clear from the context of the particular protocol which types of systems are intended 🤓.
4.1. Definitions of Protocol State 🌷
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, which are generally specs 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's 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 the ones 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 thus become proposed standard, draft standard, and then standard protocols. But the designation of a protocol as experimental may sometimes be meant to suggest that the protocol, although perhaps mature, is not intended for operational use 🙈.
4.1.5. Informational Protocol 📖
Protocols developed by other standards organizations, or 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.
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 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're going to do something like this, you must do exactly this. There may be several elective protocols in a general area. For example, there are several electronic mail protocols, and several routing protocols 💅.
4.2.4. Limited Use Protocol 🦋
These protocols are for use in limited circumstances. This may be because of their experimental state, specialized nature, limited functionality, or historic state.
4.2.5. Not Recommended Protocol 🚫
These protocols are not recommended for general use. This may be because of their limited functionality, specialized nature, or experimental or historic state.
5. The Standards Track 🛤️
This section goes into more detail about the procedures the RFC Editor and the IAB use when they make decisions about labeling and publishing protocols as standards 💖.
5.1. The RFC Processing Decision Table 💅
okay so this is the RFC Editor's decision table, basically the bouncer list for submissions 🫶 whether your doc gets in depends on two things: who submitted it, and what status they're asking for. Here it is, exact as the original:
+==========================================================+
|**************| 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 | | | | |
| | | | | |
+==========================================================+Now the footnotes, the little rules that decide what happens in each box 🍓
(1) Publish. Straight in, no drama ✨
(2) Bogus. Inform the source of the rules. RFCs specifying Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IAB, only. So if you're not the IAB, that standard-level request is getting sent back, no cap 🙈
(3) Vote by the IAB. If approved then do Publish (1), else do Refer (4). The IAB gets the vote, and if it passes it's a yes, otherwise it gets shuffled over to the Refer path 🦋
(4) Refer. Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG. Expect to see the document again only after approval by the IESG and the IAB. So it goes back to the working group, then has to get the nod from both the IESG and the IAB before it shows up again 💜
(5) Notify. Notify both the IESG and IRSG. If no concerns are raised in two weeks then do Discretion (6), else RFC Editor to resolve the concerns or do Refer (4). Two weeks of silence and it moves to the RFC Editor's discretion. Somebody complains and the RFC Editor either sorts it out or it gets referred 👀
(6) RFC Editor's discretion. The RFC Editor decides if a review is needed and if so by whom. RFC Editor decides to publish or not. The RFC Editor is the final call here, periodt 👑
Of course, in all cases the RFC Editor can request or make minor changes for style, format, and presentation purposes. So small polish stuff is always on the table ✨
The IESG has designated the IESG Secretary as its agent for forwarding documents with IESG approval and for registering concerns in response to notifications (5) to the RFC Editor. So the IESG Secretary is the one doing the paperwork and passing things along 💅
Documents from Area Directors or Working Group Chairs may be considered in the same way as documents from "other". So if you're an AD or WG chair, you get treated like the "Other" column 🌸
5.2. The Standards Track Diagram 🦋
okay so there's this whole part of the STATUS and STATE categorization called the standards track 🛤️ and honestly the main thing to know is that only the changes of state are significant for moving along the track. The status assignments can change too, but state changes are the big deal ✨
Here's the vibe with the boxes: the states drawn with single line boxes are temporary states 🌷 and the ones drawn with double line boxes are long term states 👑 A protocol will normally be expected to remain in a temporary state for several months (minimum six months for proposed standard, minimum four months for draft standard). A protocol may be in a long term state for many years. So temporary means months, long term means years, easy 💜
A protocol may enter the standards track only on the recommendation of the IESG and by action of the IAB; and may move from one state to another along the track only on the recommendation of the IESG and by action of the IAB. That is, it takes both the IESG and the IAB to either start a protocol on the track or to move it along. It's a team effort, bestie 🫶
Generally, as the protocol enters the standards track a decision is made as to the eventual STATUS, requirement level or applicability (elective, recommended, or required) the protocol will have, although a somewhat less stringent current status may be assigned, and it then is placed in the proposed standard STATE with that status. So the initial placement of a protocol is into state 1. At any time the STATUS decision may be revisited. So the final status is decided up front, but the current one can be a bit chill for now, and the STATUS can get reconsidered later 🧚
Here's the diagram, copied exactly:
|
+<----------------------------------------------+
| ^
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 be by action of the IAB on the recommendation of the IESG, and only after the protocol has been proposed standard (1) for at least six months. So it has to sit in state 1 for six months minimum before it can level up 🌸
The move from draft standard (2) to standard (3) can only be by action of the IAB on the recommendation of the IESG, and only after the protocol has been draft standard (2) for at least four months. Same deal, one more hop, four months minimum 💅
Occasionally, the decision may be that the protocol is not ready for standardization and will be assigned to the experimental state (4). This is off the standards track, and the protocol may be resubmitted to enter the standards track after further work. So it can get bumped off the track, but it can come back once the work is done 🍓
There are other paths into the experimental and historic states that do not involve IAB action. So not every trip to those states needs the IAB to sign off 🙈
Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus becomes historic, or it may happen that a protocol on the standards track is in a sense overtaken by another protocol (or other events) and becomes historic (state 5). So historic is where things end up when they get replaced or overtaken, state 5 🌈
6. The Protocols 👑
okay so section 6 is where the actual standards live, the protocols themselves 🧚 Subsection 6.1 lists recent RFCs and other changes. Subsections 6.2 - 6.9 list the standards in groups by protocol state. So 6.1 is the what's-new column, and the rest are sorted by state 💜
6.1. Recent Changes ✨
6.1.1. New RFCs ✨
- 1436 - The Internet Gopher Protocol
- 📚 Okay so this is an information document, which means it does not specify any level of standard.
- 1435 - IESG Advice from Experience with Path MTU Discovery
- 📚 Information doc alert! It does not specify any level of standard.
- 1434 - Data Link Switching: Switch-to-Switch Protocol
- 📚 Information doc, so no standard level here.
- 1433 - Directed ARP
- 🧪 An Experimental protocol.
- 1432 - Recent Internet Books
- 📚 Information doc, no standard level, just good reading 📖
- 1431 - DUA Metrics
- 📚 Information doc, so it doesn't specify any level of standard.
- 1430 - A Strategic Plan for Deploying an Internet X.500 Directory Service
- 📚 Information doc, no standard level.
- 1429 - Listserv Distribute Protocol
- 📚 Information doc, so it doesn't specify any level of standard.
- 1428 - Transition of Internet Mail from Just-Send-8 to 8bit-SMTP/MIME
- 📚 Information doc, no standard level.
- 1427 - SMTP Service Extension for Message Size Declaration
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1426 - SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1425 - SMTP Service Extensions
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1424 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part IV: Key Certification and Related Services
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1423 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part III: Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1422 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part II: Certificate-Based Key Management
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1421 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part I: Message Encryption and Authentication Procedures
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1420 - SNMP over IPX
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1419 - SNMP over AppleTalk
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1418 - SNMP over OSI
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1417 - NADF Standing Documents: A Brief Overview
- 📚 Information doc, no standard level.
- 1416 - Telnet Authentication Option
- 🧪 An Experimental protocol.
- 1415 - FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1414 - Identification MIB
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1413 - Identification Protocol
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1412 - Telnet Authentication: SPX
- 🧪 An Experimental protocol.
- 1411 - Telnet Authentication: Kerberos Version 4
- 🧪 An Experimental protocol.
- 1410 - This memo. 🫶
- 1409 - Telnet Authentication Option
- 🧪 An Experimental protocol.
- 1408 - Telnet Environment Option
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1407 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the DS3/E3 Interface Type
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1406 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the DS1 and E1 Interface Types
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1405 - Mapping between X.400(1984/1988) and Mail-11 (DECnet mail)
- 🧪 An Experimental protocol.
- 1404 - A Model for Common Operational Statistics
- 📚 Information doc, no standard level.
- 1403 - BGP OSPF Interaction
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1402 - There's Gold in them thar Networks! or Searching for Treasure in all the Wrong Places
- 📚 Information doc, no standard level. Treasure hunt vibes 💎
- 1401 - Correspondence between the IAB and DISA on the use of DNS throughout the Internet
- 📚 Information doc, no standard level.
- 1400 - Not yet issued. 💤
- 1399 - Not yet issued. 💤
- 1398 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-like Interface Types
- 🎀 A Draft Standard protocol.
- 1397 - Default Route Advertisement In BGP2 And BGP3 Versions Of The Border Gateway Protocol
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1396 - The Process for Organization of Internet Standards Working Group (POISED), Steve Crocker, Chair
- 📚 Information doc, no standard level.
- 1395 - BOOTP Vendor Information Extensions
- 📊 Okay, this one's a status report.
- 1394 - Relationship of Telex Answerback Codes to Internet Domains
- 📚 Information doc, no standard level.
- 1393 - Traceroute Using an IP Option
- 🧪 An Experimental protocol.
- 1392 - Internet Users' Glossary
- 📚 Information doc, no standard level. Great for beginners 🧚
- 1391 - The Tao of IETF - A Guide for New Attendees of the Internet Engineering Task Force
- 📚 Information doc, no standard level.
- 1390 - Transmission of IP and ARP over FDDI Networks
- 👑 A full Standard protocol.
- 1389 - RIP Version 2 MIB Extension
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1388 - RIP Version 2 - Carrying Additional Information
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1387 - RIP Version 2 Protocol Analysis
- 📚 Information doc, no standard level.
- 1386 - The US Domain
- 📚 Information doc, no standard level.
- 1385 - EIP: The Extended Internet Protocol A Framework for Maintaining Backward Compatibility
- 📚 Information doc, no standard level.
- 1384 - Naming Guidelines for Directory Pilots
- 📚 Information doc, no standard level.
- 1383 - An Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing
- 🧪 An Experimental protocol.
- 1382 - SNMP MIB Extension for the X.25 Packet Layer
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1381 - SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 LAPB
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1380 - IESG Deliberations on Routing and Addressing
- 📚 Information doc, no standard level.
- 1379 - Extending TCP for Transactions -- Concepts
- 📚 Information doc, no standard level.
- 1378 - The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1377 - The PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol (OSINLCP)
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1376 - The PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol (DNCP)
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1375 - Suggestion for New Classes of IP Addresses
- 📚 Information doc, no standard level.
- 1374 - IP and ARP on HIPPI
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1373 - PORTABLE DUAs
- 📚 Information doc, no standard level.
- 1372 - Telnet Remote Flow Control Option
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1371 - Choosing a "Common IGP" for the IP Internet (The IESG's Recommendation to the IAB)
- 📚 Information doc, no standard level.
- 1370 - Applicability Statement for OSPF
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1369 - Implementation Notes and Experience for The Internet Ethernet MIB
- 📚 Information doc, no standard level.
- 1368 - Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.3 Repeater Devices
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1367 - Schedule for IP Address Space Management Guidelines
- 📚 Information doc, no standard level.
- 1366 - Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space
- 📚 Information doc, no standard level.
- 1365 - An IP Address Extension Proposal
- 📚 Information doc, no standard level.
- 1364 - BGP OSPF Interaction
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
- 1363 - A Proposed Flow Specification
- 📚 Information doc, no standard level.
- 1362 - Novell IPX Over Various WAN Media (IPXWAN)
- 📚 Information doc, no standard level.
- 1334 - PPP Authentication Protocols
- 💖 A Proposed Standard protocol.
6.1.2. Other Changes 🦋
💅 These are the changes to protocols that were on the previous edition's list, bestie.
- 1305 - Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Specification, Implementation and Analysis
- 🚀 Elevated to Draft Standard.
- 1230 - IEEE 802.4 Token Bus MIB
- 🕰️ Moved to Historic.
- 1212 - Concise MIB Definitions
- 👑 Elevated to full Standard.
- 1191 - Path MTU Discovery
- 🚀 Elevated to Draft Standard.
- 1189 - The Common Management Information Services and Protocols for the Internet (CMOT and CMIP)
- 🕰️ Moved to Historic.
6.2. Standard Protocols ✨
Okay bestie, here's the big list of Standard Protocols 💅 Each row has a protocol, its name, a status, and the RFC (and STD number, where there is one) that defines it.
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
NTPV2 Network Time Protocol (Version 2) 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
Concise-MIB Concise MIB Definitions Rec 1212 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
TP-TCP ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP Ele 1006 35 *Heads up: an asterisk at the end of a line means that entry changed from the previous edition of this document 👀
Applicability Statements:
IGMP -- okay so the Internet Architecture Board is 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, BUT multicast-routing gateways are still experimental and not widely available 😭 An Internet host SHOULD support all of RFC-1112, except for the IGMP protocol itself, which is OPTIONAL (see RFC-1122 for more deets) 💅 Even without IGMP, implementing RFC-1112 is a huge win, because you get IP-layer access to local network multicast addressing ✨ It's expected that IGMP will become RECOMMENDED for all hosts and gateways at some future date 👑
SMI, MIB-II, SNMP -- the Internet Architecture 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) 🧚
RIP -- the Routing Information Protocol is widely implemented and used across the Internet, but 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's standardized, because improved Internet service will result for many users 🌈
TP-TCP -- as OSI protocols get more widely implemented and used, there will be a growing need to support interoperation with the TCP/IP protocols 🦋 The Internet Engineering Task Force is working on strategies for that. RFC-1006 provides one interoperation mode, where TCP/IP is used to emulate TP0 so OSI applications can run. Hosts that want to run OSI connection-oriented applications in this mode SHOULD use the procedure described in RFC-1006. 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'll be possible to run OSI applications across the Internet using full OSI protocol "stacks" 👑
6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols 🌸
Quick heads up: every Network-Specific Standard has Elective status, no exceptions 💅
Protocol Name State RFC STD *
======== ===================================== ===== ===== === =
IP-FDDI Transmission of IP and ARP over FDDI Net Std 1390 36 *
IP-HIPPI IP and ARP on HIPPI Prop 1374 *
IP-X.25 X.25 and ISDN in the Packet Mode Prop 1356
IP-FR Multiprotocol over Frame Relay Prop 1294
IP-SMDS IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service Prop 1209
IP-ARCNET Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Nets Prop 1201
ARP Address Resolution Protocol Std 826 37
RARP A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol Std 903 38
IP-ARPA Internet Protocol on ARPANET Std BBN1822
IP-WB Internet Protocol on Wideband Network Std 907
IP-E Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks Std 894
IP-EE Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets Std 895
IP-IEEE Internet Protocol on IEEE 802 Std 1042
IP-DC Internet Protocol on DC Networks Std 891
IP-HC Internet Protocol on Hyperchannel Std 1044
IP-ARC Internet Protocol on ARCNET Std 1051
IP-SLIP Transmission of IP over Serial Lines Std 1055
IP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS Std 1088
IP-IPX Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks Std 1132Same deal as before: an asterisk at the end of a line means it changed from the previous edition of this document ✨
Applicability Statements:
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 above list MUST be supported 🫶 That means it's elective to support any particular type of physical network, but for the physical networks you actually support, it is REQUIRED that they be supported exactly according to the protocols in the above list 💖 Also check out the Host and Gateway Requirements RFCs for more specific info on network-specific ("link layer") protocols 🦋
6.4. Draft Standard Protocols 🌈
Protocol Name Status RFC
======== ===================================== ============== =====
ETHER-MIB Ethernet MIB Elective 1398*
NTPV3 Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Elective 1305*
IP-MTU Path MTU Discovery Elective 1191*
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
IP-FDDI Internet Protocol on FDDI Networks Elective 1188
PPP Point to Point Protocol Elective 1171
BOOTP Bootstrap Protocol Recommended 951,1395*
NICNAME WhoIs Protocol Elective 954Yep, the asterisk rule still applies here too: it marks a change from the previous edition of this document 🎀
Applicability Statements:
PPP -- Point to Point Protocol is a method of sending IP over serial lines, which are a type of physical network 🧚 It's anticipated that PPP will be advanced to the network-specifics standard protocol state in the future ⭐
6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols ✨
Okay bestie, the Proposed Standard crew is here and they are a LOT 💅 Every single one is marked Elective in the table, so this list is packed 🎀
Protocol Name Status RFC
======== ===================================== ============== =====
SMTP-SIZE SMTP Service Ext for Message Size Elective 1427*
SMTP-8BIT SMTP Service Ext or 8bit-MIMEtransport Elective 1426*
SMTP-EXT SMTP Service Extensions Elective 1425*
PEM-KEY PEM - Key Certification Elective 1424*
PEM-ALG PEM - Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers Elective 1423*
PEM-CKM PEM - Certificate-Based Key Management Elective 1422*
PEM-ENC PEM - Message Encryption and Auth Elective 1421*
SNMP-IPX SNMP over IPX Elective 1420*
SNMP-AT SNMP over AppleTalk Elective 1419*
SNMP-OSI SNMP over OSI Elective 1418*
FTP-FTAM FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification Elective 1415*
IDENT-MIB Identification MIB Elective 1414*
IDENT Identification MIB Elective 1413*
DS3/E3-MIB DS3/E3 Interface Type Elective 1407*
DS1/E1-MIB DS1/E1 Interface Type Elective 1406*
BGP-OSPF BGP OSPF Interaction Elective 1403*
-------- Route Advertisement In BGP2 And BGP3 Elective 1397*
RIP2-MIB RIP Version 2 MIB Extension Elective 1389*
RIP2 RIP Version 2-Carrying Additional Info. Elective 1388*
SNMP-X.25 SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 Packet Layer Elective 1382*
SNMP-LAPB SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 LAPB Elective 1381*
PPP-ATCP PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol Elective 1378*
PPP-OSINLCP PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol Elective 1377*
PP-DNCP PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol Elective 1376*
802.3-MIB IEEE 802.3 Repeater MIB Elective 1368*
BGP-OSPF BGP OSPF Interaction Elective 1364*
TABLE-MIB IP Forwarding Table MIB Elective 1354
SNMP-PARTY-MIB 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-AUTH PPP Authentication Elective 1334*
PPP-LINK PPP Link Quality Monitoring Elective 1333
PPP-IPCP PPP Control Protocol Elective 1332
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
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
IS-IS OSI IS-IS for TCP/IP Dual Environments Elective 1195
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
------- Mapping Between X.400(1984) Elective 1026,987
NNTP Network News Transfer Protocol Elective 977Heads up, an asterisk at the end of a line means it changed from the previous edition of this document 🙈
Applicability Statements:
OSPF has its own applicability statement, and that's RFC 1370 🦋
6.6. Telnet Options 🧚
Bestie, I gathered every Telnet Option in one place so you can check each one's state and status without scrolling all over the place 🫶
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 736
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 1372*
TOPT-LINE Linemode 34 Draft Ele 1184
TOPT-XDL X Display Location 35 Prop Ele 1096
TOPT-ENVIR Telnet Environment Option 36 Prop Ele 1408*
TOPT-AUTH Telnet Authentication Option 37 Exp Ele 1416*
TOPT-EXTOP Extended-Options-List 255 Std Rec 861 32Same deal here: an asterisk at the end of a line marks a change from the previous edition of this document ✨
6.7. Experimental Protocols 🧪
Next up, the experimental protocols, and it's giving pure chaos in the best way 🌈
All Experimental protocols have the Limited Use status 🧪✨ bestie, these are the ones still in the test kitchen, so handle with care.
Protocol Name RFC
======== ===================================== =====
DIR-ARP Directed ARP 1433*
TEL-SPX Telnet Authentication: SPX 1412*
TEL-KER Telnet Authentication: Kerberos V4 1411*
MAP-MAIL X.400 Mapping and Mail-11 1405*
TRACE-IP Traceroute Using an IP Option 1393*
DNS-IP Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing 1383*
DNS NSAP DNS NSAP RRs 1348
RMCP Remote Mail Checking Protocol 1339
MSP2 Message Send Protocol 2 1312
DSLCP Dynamically Switched Link Control 1307
-------- X.500 and Domains 1279
SNMP-OSI SNMP over OSI 1283
IN-ENCAP Internet Encapsulation Protocol 1241
CLNS-MIB CLNS-MIB 1238
CFDP Coherent File Distribution Protocol 1235
SNMP-DPI SNMP Distributed Program Interface 1228
SNMP-MUX SNMP MUX Protocol and MIB 1227
IP-AX.25 IP Encapsulation of AX.25 Frames 1226
ALERTS Managing Asynchronously Generated Alerts 1224
MPP Message Posting Protocol 1204
ST-II Stream Protocol 1190
SNMP-BULK Bulk Table Retrieval with the SNMP 1187
DNS-RR New DNS RR Definitions 1183
NTP-OSI NTP over OSI Remote Operations 1165
EHF-MAIL Encoding Header Field for Mail 1154
DMF-MAIL Digest Message Format for Mail 1153
RDP Reliable Data Protocol 908,1151
-------- Mapping between X.400(88) and RFC-822 1148
TCP-ACO TCP Alternate Checksum Option 1146
-------- Mapping full 822 to Restricted 822 1137
IP-DVMRP IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing 1075
TCP-LDP TCP Extensions for Long Delay Paths 1072
IMAP2 Interactive Mail Access Protocol 1176,1064
IMAP3 Interactive Mail Access Protocol 1203
VMTP Versatile Message Transaction Protocol 1045
COOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme 1004
NETBLT Bulk Data Transfer Protocol 998
IRTP Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol 938
AUTH Authentication Service 931
LDP Loader Debugger Protocol 909
RLP Resource Location Protocol 887
NVP-II Network Voice Protocol ISI-memo
PVP Packet Video Protocol 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
Information protocols have no status 🧘 they're here to inform, and that's the whole vibe.
Protocol Name RFC
======= ==================================== =====
GOPHER The Internet Gopher Protocol 1436*
------- Data Link Switching: Switch-to-Switch Protocol 1434*
LISTSERV Listserv Distribute Protocol 1429*
------- Replication Requirements 1275
PCMAIL Pcmail Transport Protocol 1056
MTP Multicast Transport Protocol 1301
SNMP-IPX SNMP over IPX 1298
BSD Login BSD Login 1282
DIXIE DIXIE Protocol Specification 1249
IP-X.121 IP to X.121 Address Mapping for DDN 1236
OSI-HYPER OSI and LLC1 on HYPERchannel 1223
HAP2 Host Access Protocol 1221
SUBNETASGN On the Assignment of Subnet Numbers 1219
SNMP-TRAPS Defining Traps for use with SNMP 1215
DAS Directory Assistance Service 1202
MD4 MD4 Message Digest Algorithm 1186
LPDP Line Printer Daemon Protocol 1179[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.]
6.9. Historic Protocols
All Historic protocols have Not Recommended status 🕰️ they're retired legends, so no new builds on these.
Protocol Name RFC
======= ===================================== =====
802.4-MIP IEEE 802.4 Token Bus MIB 1230*
CMOT Common Management Information Services 1189*
PPP-INIT PPP Initial Configuration Options 1172
MSP Message Send Protocol 1159
-------- Mail Privacy: Procedures 1113
-------- Mail Privacy: Key Management 1114
-------- Mail Privacy: Algorithms 1115
NFILE A File Access Protocol 1037
HOSTNAME HOSTNAME Protocol 953
SFTP Simple File Transfer Protocol 913
SUPDUP SUPDUP Protocol 734
BGP Border Gateway Protocol 1163,1164
MIB-I MIB-I 1156
SGMP Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol 1028
HEMS High Level Entity Management Protocol 1021
STATSRV Statistics Server 996
POP2 Post Office Protocol, Version 2 937
RATP Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol 916
HFEP Host - Front End Protocol 929
THINWIRE Thinwire Protocol 914
HMP Host Monitoring Protocol 869
GGP Gateway Gateway Protocol 823
RTELNET Remote Telnet Service 818
CLOCK DCNET Time Server Protocol 778
MPM Internet Message Protocol 759
NETRJS Remote Job Service 740
NETED Network Standard Text Editor 569
RJE Remote Job Entry 407
XNET Cross Net Debugger IEN-158
NAMESERVER Host Name Server Protocol IEN-116
MUX Multiplexing Protocol IEN-90
GRAPHICS Graphics Protocol NIC-24308[Note: 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 Architecture Board (IAB) Contact
Bestie, if you have thoughts 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
Contacts:
Phill Gross
Chair of the IETF
Advanced Network and Services
100 Clearbrook Road
Elmsford, NY 10523
1-914-789-5300
PGross@ANS.NET
Greg Vaudreuil
IESG Secretary
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
Reston, VA 22091
1-703-620-8990
gvaudre@CNRI.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@CNRI.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 🔢
Please refer to the document "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1340) for further information about the status of protocol documents. There are two documents that summarize the requirements for host and gateways in the Internet, "Host Requirements" (RFC-1122 and RFC-1123) and "Gateway Requirements" (RFC-1009).
How to obtain the most recent edition of this "IAB Official Protocol Standards" memo:
The file in-notes/iab-standards.txt may be copied via FTP from the VENERA.ISI.EDU computer using the FTP username anonymous and FTP password guest 🫶
7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact
Contact:
Jon Postel
RFC Editor
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-310-822-1511
RFC-Editor@ISI.EDUDocuments may be submitted via electronic mail to the RFC Editor for consideration for publication as RFC. If you are not familiar with the format or style requirements, please request the "Instructions for RFC Authors". In general, the style of any recent RFC may be used as a guide 🎀
7.4. The Network Information Center and Requests for Comments Distribution Contact
Contact:
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) provides many information services for the Internet community. Among them is maintaining the Requests for Comments (RFC) library 📚
7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments
Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to rfc-info@ISI.EDU with the message body help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example:
To: rfc-info@ISI.EDU
Subject: getting rfcs
help: ways_to_get_rfcs8. Security Considerations 🔐
Security issues are not addressed in this memo. Yes, you read that right, this one is a no-go zone for security 💀
9. Author's Address ✨
okay so this is the part where we find out who wrote the whole thing 👑 the author is Jon Postel, and here's exactly how to reach him, no cap:
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.EDUthe legend himself 🧚 bestie, the way he's listed right at the end like the closing credits of a movie is iconic 💅 that's the whole doc, babe 🎀
📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc1410 1993-03
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms