RFC 1500
Internet Official Protocol Standards
okay bestie, let's get into RFC 1500 🎀 Its title is INTERNET OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS 💖
It was written by J. Postel, who's the Editor, and it's from the Network Working Group 🧚 It's published by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and dated August 1993 🍓 It's marked STD: 1.
It obsoletes RFCs 1410, 1360, 1280, 1250, 1100, 1083, 1130, 1140, and 1200 💅 Those older lists are superseded now. There's no Updates line in the header.
Status of this Memo 📜
This memo is the IAB's official word on the state of standardization for the protocols used on the Internet 🌸 Distribution is unlimited, so share it with everyone 💜
Table of Contents 🗂️
Here's the full map, copied exactly so every page number lines up 🧭
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.2. Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.3. Elective Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.4. Limited Use Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.5. Not Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. The Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. The RFC Processing Decision Table . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. The Standards Track Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. The Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1. Recent Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.1. New RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.2. Other Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.2. Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.4. Draft Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.6. Telnet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.7. Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.8. Informational Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.9. Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7. Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.1.1. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact . . . . . . 32
7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . 33
7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact . . . . . 34
7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . . 34
7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.4. Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments . . . . . . . . . . . 36
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
9. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Introduction 🎀
So the plan goes like this ✨ First we talk about the standardization process and the RFC document series, then we explain the terms. Sections 6.2 - 6.9 hold the lists of protocols at each stage of standardization. The last bits are pointers to references and contacts for more info 🫶
This memo is meant to come out approximately quarterly, so make sure the copy you're reading is current 🙈 You can get current copies from the Network Information Center (INTERNIC) or from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). The contact info is at the end of this memo.
do not use this edition after 31-October-93 💀
Check Section 6.1 for 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 the standards for the Internet protocol suite 💖 RFC-1358 has the IAB's charter, 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 IRSG, respectively. The IETF develops these standards with the goal of co-ordinating the evolution of the Internet protocols. That co-ordination has become super important because the protocols are increasingly in general commercial use 💅 The definitive description of the Internet standards process is in RFC-1310.
Most of the Internet protocol development and standardization activity happens in the working groups of the IETF 🧚
Protocols that are going to become Internet standards move through a series of states or maturity levels (proposed standard, draft standard, and standard), with more scrutiny and testing at each step 🔍 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 must make a recommendation for advancement of the protocol.
To give the Internet community time to consider and react to standardization proposals, there's a minimum delay: 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 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 there's uncertainty about the proper decision for a protocol, a special review committee may be appointed. It would consist of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB, with the purpose of recommending an explicit action 🕵️
Advancing a protocol to proposed standard is a big deal, because it marks the protocol as a candidate for eventual standardization (it puts the protocol "on the standards track") 🚀 Advancing to draft standard is a major step too. 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. These are still documented in this memo with the designation "historic" 🕰️
Because it's useful to document the results of early protocol research and development work, some RFCs describe protocols that are still in an experimental condition. Those protocols are designated "experimental" in this memo. They appear in this report as a convenience to the community, 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 in the Internet. Their specifications may be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community. These protocols are labeled "informational" in this memo 📚
Beyond the IETF working groups, protocol development and experimentation may happen through the work of the research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or through other individuals interested in Internet protocol development. Documenting that experimental work in the RFC series is encouraged, 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 🌈
A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without the approval of the IESG. For example, some vendor protocols have become very important to the Internet community even though the IESG hasn't recommended them. Still, the IAB strongly recommends using the standards process to evolve the protocol suite, so you maximize interoperability (and prevent incompatible protocol requirements from arising) ✨ The terms "standard", "draft standard", and "proposed standard" are reserved, in any RFC or other publication of Internet protocols, for only those protocols the IESG has approved 🙅
Besides a state (like "Proposed Standard"), a protocol also gets a status, or requirement level, in this document. The possible requirement levels ("Required", "Recommended", "Elective", "Limited Use", and "Not Recommended") are defined in Section 4.2. When a protocol is on the standards track, meaning it's in the proposed standard, draft standard, or standard state (see Section 5), the status shown in Section 6 is the current status 💖
Few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems, because there's such a variety of possible systems, like gateways, routers, 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 characterize the implementation requirements for a protocol in every situation. For some protocols, this document has an extra status paragraph (an applicability statement). More detailed status information may also be in separate requirements documents (see Section 3) ✨ okay the vibes are set, we're just getting started
2. The Request for Comments Documents ✨
okay so RFCs (Request for Comments) are 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 topic in computer communication, from a meeting report all the way up to a full spec for a standard 💅
Notice: All standards are published as RFCs, but not all RFCs specify standards.
anyone can submit a doc for publication as an RFC 💖 submissions go by electronic mail to the RFC Editor (check the contact info at the end of this memo, and see RFC 1111 📧)
RFCs are not refereed publications, ngl 🙈 but they do get technical review from the task forces, individual technical experts, or the RFC Editor, depending on what fits 🧐
the RFC series is super varied, with informational docs of general interest on one end and specs for standard Internet protocols on the other 🌈 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 the IESG 🔥 for experimental work, the RFC Editor notifies the IESG before publication, which gives the relevant IETF working group or IRTF research group a chance to review it, and 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 is never a question of having the most recent version of a particular RFC ✨ however, a protocol (such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP)) can be improved and re-documented many times in several different RFCs 🦋 it is important to verify that you have the most recent RFC on a particular protocol. this "Internet 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 INTERNIC, and a number of other sites. for more info about getting RFCs, see Sections 7.4 and 7.5 🎀
3. Other Reference Documents 🧚
there are three other reference docs worth checking when you want the current status of protocol specs and standardization 📚 they are the Assigned Numbers, the Gateway Requirements, and the Host Requirements. these docs get revised and updated at different times, so if they disagree, the most recent one must prevail 🕰️
also, keep the MIL-STD publications on IP, TCP, Telnet, FTP, and SMTP on your radar 👀 they're described in Section 3.4.
3.1. Assigned Numbers 🍓
the "Assigned Numbers" doc lists the assigned values of the parameters used in the various protocols. for example: IP protocol codes, TCP port numbers, Telnet Option Codes, ARP hardware types, and Terminal Type names 💜 Assigned Numbers was most recently issued as RFC-1340.
3.2. Gateway Requirements 🌷
this doc reviews the specs that apply to gateways and gives guidance and clarification for any ambiguities 🧠 Gateway Requirements is RFC-1009, and a working group of the IETF is actively preparing a revision ✨
3.3. Host Requirements 💻
this pair of docs reviews and updates the specs that apply to hosts, and gives guidance and clarification for any ambiguities too 🫧 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 these sets of docs specify should be reported to DISA and to the IESG. the RFCs and the MIL-STDs for IP and TCP differ in style and level of detail, so it is strongly advised that you use the two sets of docs together, along with RFC-1122 and RFC-1123 📖
the Internet and DoD MIL-STD specs for FTP, SMTP, and Telnet are basically the same docs (RFCs 765, 821, 854) 🙌 the MIL-STD versions have been edited slightly. the current Internet spec for FTP is RFC-959 (as modified by RFC-1123) 🍭
ok, these MIL-STD docs are now a bit 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-1782you can get these docs from the Naval Publications and Forms Center 📮 requests can be made 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 🩷
okay this part is all about labels 🏷️ there are two independent ways to categorize protocols. the first is the "maturity level" or STATE of standardization, which is one of "standard", "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", "informational" or "historic". the second is the "requirement level" or STATUS of the protocol, which is one of "required", "recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended" 💅
the status or requirement level is hard to fit into a one word label, so treat these status labels as just an indication 🫠 for the full picture, check a further description or applicability statement.
when a protocol advances to proposed standard or draft standard, it gets labeled with a current status 🌟
at any given time, a protocol sits in one cell of the matrix below 🧩 protocols tend to land in cells in about the proportions shown by the relative number of Xs. a new protocol is most likely to start in the (proposed standard, elective) cell, or the (experimental, not recommended) cell 🌱
S T A T U S
Req Rec Ele Lim Not
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
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, some are particular to gateways, and a few are used in both 🖥️ the definitions below refer to a "system," which is either a host or a gateway (or both). 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 doc is assigned to a "maturity level" or STATE of standardization: "standard", "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic" ✨
4.1.1. Standard Protocol 👑
the IESG has established this as an official standard protocol for the Internet 🎉 these protocols get STD numbers (see RFC-1311). they fall into two groups: (1) IP protocol and above, which apply to the whole Internet; and (2) network-specific protocols, which are generally specs for how to do IP on particular types of networks 🌐
4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol 🧪
the IESG 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 IESG. changes could still happen to a Draft Standard Protocol before it becomes a Standard Protocol 🔧
4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol 🌱
these are protocol proposals that may be considered by the IESG for standardization in the future 💭 implementation and testing by several groups is desirable, and revision of the protocol specification is likely 🪄
4.1.4. Experimental Protocol 🧫
a system should not implement an experimental protocol unless it is participating in the experiment and has coordinated its use of the protocol with the developer of the protocol 🙅♀️
typically, experimental protocols come out of ongoing research projects that aren't tied to an operational service offering 🔬 they can be proposed as a service protocol later on, and then become proposed standard, draft standard, and eventually standard protocols. but calling a protocol experimental can also suggest that it's not meant for operational use, even if it's pretty mature 🙈
4.1.5. Informational Protocol 📰
protocols developed by other standards organizations or vendors, or protocols that are outside the purview of the IESG for other reasons, 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 on the Internet, either because later developments have superseded them or because nobody's interested anymore 🥀
4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status 💫
this doc 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 vibe is that if you're going to do something like this, you must do exactly this 🧠 there can 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. that might 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. that might 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 IESG use when they decide how protocols get labeled as standards and published as such 📜✨
5.1. The RFC Processing Decision Table 💅
Okay so this is the current decision table for how the RFC Editor processes submissions 🎀 The outcome depends on who submitted it and what status they want it to have 💖
+==========================================================+
|**************| S O U R C E |
+==========================================================+
| Desired | IAB | IESG | IRSG | Other |
| Status | | | | |
+==========================================================+
| | | | | |
| Standard | Bogus | Publish | Bogus | Bogus |
| or | (2) | (1) | (2) | (2) |
| Draft | | | | |
| Standard | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| | Refer | Publish | Refer | Refer |
| Proposed | (3) | (1) | (3) | (3) |
| Standard | | | | |
| | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| | Notify | Publish | Notify | Notify |
| Experimental | (4) | (1) | (4) | (4) |
| Protocol | | | | |
| | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| Information | Publish | Publish |Discretion|Discretion|
| or Opinion | (1) | (1) | (5) | (5) |
| Paper | | | | |
| | | | | |
+==========================================================+Now for the notes that go with the table 🧁
- (1) Publish. Literally just publish it 🌸
- (2) Bogus. Tell the source the rules 🙈 RFCs specifying Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IESG, only. No one else gets to do it 🔥
- (3) Refer. Send it to an Area Director for review by a WG 🧚 Expect to see the document again only after the IESG approves it ✨
- (4) Notify. Tell both the IESG and IRSG 📣 If no concerns come up in two weeks, then do Discretion (5). Otherwise, the RFC Editor resolves the concerns or does Refer (3) 🫶
- (5) Discretion. This is the RFC Editor's call 👑 The RFC Editor decides if a review is needed and, if so, by whom. The RFC Editor also decides whether to publish or not 💅
Of course, in every case the RFC Editor can request or make minor changes for style, format, and presentation purposes 🎀
The IESG picked the IESG Secretary as its agent 📮 That person forwards documents with IESG approval and registers concerns from notifications (4) to the RFC Editor. Documents from Area Directors or Working Group Chairs may be considered in the same way as documents from "other" 🌈
5.2. The Standards Track Diagram 🦋
There's a part of the STATUS and STATE categorization called the standards track 🛤️ Here's the tea: only the changes of state really matter for moving along the track, though the status assignments may change too 💅
The states drawn as single line boxes are temporary states, and the ones drawn as double line boxes are long term states 📦 A protocol will normally stay 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 🫠
A protocol may enter the standards track only on the recommendation of the IESG, and it may move from one state to another along the track only on that same recommendation 👑 So the IESG has to take action to either start a protocol on the track or move it along 🫶
Generally, as a protocol enters the standards track, a decision is made about the eventual STATUS, requirement level, or applicability (elective, recommended, or required) it will have 🎯 A somewhat less stringent current status may be assigned, and then it's placed in the proposed standard STATE with that status 🎀 So the initial placement of a protocol is into state 1 🌸 At any time, the STATUS decision may be revisited 🔁
|
+<----------------------------------------------+
| ^
V 0 | 4
+-----------+ +===========+
| enter |-->----------------+-------------->|experiment |
+-----------+ | +=====+=====+
| |
V 1 |
+-----------+ V
| proposed |-------------->+
+--->+-----+-----+ |
| | |
| V 2 |
+<---+-----+-----+ V
| draft std |-------------->+
+--->+-----+-----+ |
| | |
| V 3 |
+<---+=====+=====+ V
| standard |-------------->+
+=====+=====+ |
|
V 5
+=====+=====+
| historic |
+===========+The transition from proposed standard (1) to draft standard (2) can only be by action of the IESG, and only after the protocol has been proposed standard (1) for at least six months 🔥
The transition from draft standard (2) to standard (3) can only be by action of the IESG, and only after the protocol has been draft standard (2) for at least four months 🌈
Occasionally, the decision may be that the protocol isn't ready for standardization, so it gets assigned to the experimental state (4) 🧪 This is off the standards track, but the protocol may be resubmitted to enter the track again after further work 🔄 There are other paths into the experimental and historic states that don't involve IESG action 🚪
Sometimes one protocol gets replaced by another and becomes historic 🕰️ Or a protocol on the standards track gets overtaken by another protocol (or other events) and becomes historic too (state 5) 📜
6. The Protocols 🌈
Okay so 6.1 is the tea on recent RFCs and other changes ☕ and 6.2 - 6.9 sort the standards into groups by protocol state 🗂️
6.1. Recent Changes ✨
6.1.1. New RFCs: ✨
- 1501 - OS/2 User Group
- Info doc, so it doesn't specify any level of standard 💅
- 1500 - This memo (aka this very doc 🙈)
- 1499 - Not yet issued. 👀
- 1498 - On the Naming and Binding of Network Destinations
- Info doc, so it doesn't specify any level of standard 💅
- 1497 - BOOTP Vendor Information Extensions
- This one's a status report on BOOTP types 📋. It's part of the BOOTP specification, which is currently a Draft Standard 🔥.
- 1496 - Rules for Downgrading Messages from X.400/88 to X.400/84 When MIME Content-Types are Present in the Messages
- A Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1495 - Mapping between X.400 and RFC-822 Message Bodies
- A Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1494 - Equivalences between 1988 X.400 and RFC-822 Message Bodies
- A Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1493 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges
- A Draft Standard protocol 🔥
- 1492 - An Access Control Protocol, Sometimes Called TACACS
- Info doc, so it doesn't specify any level of standard 💅
- 1491 - A Survey of Advanced Usages of X.500
- Info doc, so it doesn't specify any level of standard 💅
- 1490 - Multiprotocol Interconnect over Frame Relay
- A Draft Standard protocol 🔥
- 1489 - Registration of a Cyrillic Character Set
- This doc defines a character set, and it's referenced by "Assigned Numbers" (STD 2) 🌸
- 1488 - The X.500 String Representation of Standard Attribute Syntaxes
- A Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1487 - X.500 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
- A Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1486 - An Experiment in Remote Printing
- An Experimental protocol 🧪
- 1485 - A String Representation of Distinguished Names (OSI-DS 23 (v5))
- A Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1484 - Using the OSI Directory to achieve User Friendly Naming (OSI-DS 24 (v1.2))
- An Experimental protocol 🧪
- 1483 - Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Adaptation Layer 5
- A Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1482 - Aggregation Support in the NSFNET Policy-Based Routing Database
- Info doc, so it doesn't specify any level of standard 💅
- 1481 - IAB Recommendation for an Intermediate Strategy to Address the Issue of Scaling
- Info doc, so it doesn't specify any level of standard 💅
- 1480 - The US Domain
- Info doc, so it doesn't specify any level of standard 💅
- 1479 - Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Specification: Version-1
- A Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1478 - An Architecture for Inter-Domain Policy Routing
- A Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1477 - IDPR as a Proposed Standard
- Info doc, so it doesn't specify any level of standard 💅
- 1476 - RAP: Internet Route Access Protocol
- An Experimental protocol 🧪
- 1475 - TP/IX: The Next Internet
- An Experimental protocol 🧪
- 1474 - The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Bridge Network Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol
- A Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1473 - The Definitions of Managed Objects for the IP Network Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol
- A Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1472 - The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Security Protocols of the Point-to-Point Protocol
- A Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1471 - The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Link Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol
- A Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1470 - FYI on a Network Management Tool Catalog: Tools for Monitoring and Debugging TCP/IP Internets and Interconnected Devices
- Info doc, so it doesn't specify any level of standard 💅
- 1469 - IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks
- A Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1468 - Japanese Character Encoding for Internet Messages
- This doc defines a character set, and it's referenced by "Assigned Numbers" (STD 2) 🌸
- 1467 - Status of CIDR Deployment in the Internet
- Info doc, so it doesn't specify any level of standard 💅
- 1466 - Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space
- Info doc, so it doesn't specify any level of standard 💅
- 1465 - Routing Coordination for X.400 MHS Services Within a Multi Protocol / Multi Network Environment Table Format V3 for Static Routing
- An Experimental protocol 🧪
- 1464 - Using the Domain Name System To Store Arbitrary String Attributes
- An Experimental protocol 🧪
- 1463 - FYI on Introducing the Internet-- A Short Bibliography of Introductory Internetworking Readings
- Info doc, so it doesn't specify any level of standard 💅
- 1462 - FYI on "What is the Internet?"
- Info doc, so it doesn't specify any level of standard 💅
- 1461 - SNMP MIB extension for Multiprotocol Interconnect over X.25
- A Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1460 - Post Office Protocol - Version-3
- A Draft Standard protocol 🔥
- 1459 - Internet Relay Chat Protocol
- An Experimental protocol 🧪
- 1458 - Requirements for Multicast Protocols
- Info doc, so it doesn't specify any level of standard 💅
- 1457 - Security Label Framework for the Internet
- Info doc, so it doesn't specify any level of standard 💅
- 1456 - Conventions for Encoding the Vietnamese Language - VISCII: VIetnamese Standard Code for Information Interchange - VIQR: VIetnamese Quoted-Readable Specification
- This doc defines a character set, and it's referenced by "Assigned Numbers" (STD 2) 🌸
- 1455 - Physical Link Security Type of Service
- An Experimental protocol 🧪
- 1454 - Comparison of Proposals for Next Version of IP
- Info doc, so it doesn't specify any level of standard 💅
- 1453 - A Comment on Packet Video Remote Conferencing and the Transport/Network Layers
- Info doc, so it doesn't specify any level of standard 💅
- 1452 - Coexistence between version-1 and version-2 of the Internet-standard Network Management Framework
- A Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1451 - Manager-to-Manager Management Information Base
- A Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1450 - Management Information Base for version-2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
- A Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1449 - Transport Mappings for version-2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
- A Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1448 - Protocol Operations for version-2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
- A Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1447 - Party MIB for version-2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
- A Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1446 - Security Protocols for version-2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2
- A Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1445 - Administrative Model for version-2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
- A Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1444 - Conformance Statements for version-2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
- A Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1443 - Textual Conventions for version-2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
- A Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1442 - Structure of Management Information for version-2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
- A Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1441 - Introduction to version-2 of the Internet-standard Network Management Framework
- A Proposed Standard protocol ✨
- 1440 - SIFT/UFT: Sender-Initiated/Unsolicited File Transfer
- An Experimental protocol 🧪
- 1439 - The Uniqueness of Unique Identifiers
- Info doc, so it doesn't specify any level of standard 💅
- 1438 - Internet Engineering Task Force Statements Of Boredom (SOBs)
- Info doc, so it doesn't specify any level of standard 💅 (the boredom is real 🥱)
- 1437 - The Extension of MIME Content-Types to a New Medium
- Info doc, so it doesn't specify any level of standard 💅
6.1.2. Other Changes: 🦋
The following are changes to protocols listed in the previous edition. 📜
- 1298 - SNMP over IPX
- Obsoleted by 1420.
- 1284 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-like Interface Types
- Moved to Historic. 🕰️
- 1283 - SNMP over OSI
- Obsoleted by 1418.
- 1214 - "OSI Internet Management: Management Information Base
- Moved to Historic. 🕰️
- 1203 - Interactive Mail Access Protocol - Version-3
- Moved to Historic. 🕰️
- 1201 - Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Networks
- Moved to Historic. 🕰️
- 1094 - NFS: Network File System Protocol Specification
- Moved to Informational. ℹ️
- 1057 - RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version-2
- Moved to Informational. ℹ️
- RFC 1050 - RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification
- Moved to Historic. 🕰️
6.2. Standard Protocols ✨
Okay bestie, here's the big list of the Standard protocols 💅 Every row gives you the protocol, its name, its status, the RFC number, and the STD number. It's giving organized 🎀
Protocol Name Status RFC STD *
======== ===================================== ======== ==== === =
-------- Internet Official Protocol Standards Req 1500 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 line changed from the previous edition of this document.
Now the applicability statements, which are the juicy bits 🧃
IGMP: The Internet Architecture Board wants to move toward general adoption of IP multicasting 📡 because it's a more efficient solution than broadcasting for many applications 🦋. The host interface was standardized in RFC-1112 🎀, but multicast-routing gateways are still in the experimental stage and aren't widely available 😭. An Internet host should support all of RFC-1112, except for the IGMP protocol itself, which is optional (see RFC-1122 for more details). Even without IGMP, implementing RFC-1112 is a big win, because you get IP-layer access to local network multicast addressing 💖. IGMP is expected to become recommended for all hosts and gateways at some future date 🔮.
SMI, MIB-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), plus at least the recommended management protocol SNMP (RFC-1157) 💜.
RIP: The Routing Information Protocol is widely implemented and used across the Internet 🌐. But 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 once it's standardized, because improved Internet service will result for many users 🌈.
TP-TCP: As OSI protocols become more widely implemented and used, there will be an increasing need to support interoperation with the TCP/IP protocols 🤝. The Internet Engineering Task Force is formulating strategies for that. RFC-1006 provides one interoperation mode, where 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. The IAB expects that, in the future, a major portion of the Internet will support both TCP/IP and OSI (inter-)network protocols in parallel, 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 tea ☕: every Network-Specific Standard has Elective status.
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-SMDS IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service Prop 1209
ARP Address Resolution Protocol Std 826 37
RARP A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol Std 903 38
IP-ARPA Internet Protocol on ARPANET Std BBN1822 39
IP-WB Internet Protocol on Wideband Network Std 907 40
IP-E Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks Std 894 41
IP-EE Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets Std 895 42
IP-IEEE Internet Protocol on IEEE 802 Std 1042 43
IP-DC Internet Protocol on DC Networks Std 891 44
IP-HC Internet Protocol on Hyperchannel Std 1044 45
IP-ARC Internet Protocol on ARCNET Std 1051 46
IP-SLIP Transmission of IP over Serial Lines Std 1055 47
IP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS Std 1088 48
IP-IPX Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks Std 1132 49📝 Same deal as before: an asterisk at the end of a line means that line changed from the previous edition of this document.
The vibe for this one: it's expected that a system will support one or more physical networks 🔌. For each physical network a system supports, the appropriate protocols from the list above must be supported 💅. So it's elective to support any particular type of physical network, but for the physical networks you actually do support, they're required to be supported exactly according to the protocols in the above list 🎀. For more specific info on network-specific ("link layer") protocols, check out the Host and Gateway Requirements RFCs 🔗.
6.4. Draft Standard Protocols 🧚
Protocol Name Status RFC
======== ===================================== ============== =====
BRIDGE-MIB BRIDGE-MIB Elective 1493*
IP-FR Multiprotocol over Frame Relay Prop 1490*
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 1460*
IP-FDDI Internet Protocol on FDDI Networks Elective 1188
PPP Point to Point Protocol Elective 1171
BOOTP Bootstrap Protocol Recommended 951,1497*
NICNAME WhoIs Protocol Elective 954📝 The asterisk rule still applies: an asterisk at the end of a line means that line changed from the previous edition of this document.
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, this is the Proposed Standard protocol lineup 📋 every single one sits at Elective status, and each one has its RFC number lined up next to it. the asterisks mark the ones that changed from the previous edition 👀
Protocol Name Status RFC
======== ===================================== ============== =====
HARPOON Rules for Downgrading Messages... Elective 1496*
Mapping MHS/RFC-822 Message Body Mapping Elective 1495*
Equiv X.400/MIME Body Equivalences Elective 1494*
X.500syn X.500 String Representation ... Elective 1488*
X.500lite X.500 Lightweight ... Elective 1487*
STR-REP String Representation ... Elective 1485*
OSI-Dir OSI User Friendly Naming ... Elective 1484*
ATM-ENCAP Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Elective 1483*
IDPR Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Elective 1479*
IDPR-ARCH Architecture for IDPR Elective 1478*
PPP/Bridge MIB Bridge PPP MIB Elective 1474*
PPP/IP MIB IP Network Control Protocol of PPP MIB Elective 1473*
PPP/SEC MIB Security Protocols of PPP MIB Elective 1472*
PPP/LCP MIB Link Control Protocol of PPP MIB Elective 1471*
IP-TR-MC IP Multicast over Token-Ring LANs Elective 1469*
X25-MIB Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 MIB Elective 1461*
SNMPv2 Coexistence between SNMPv1 and SNMPv2 Elective 1452*
SNMPv2 Manager-to-Manager MIB Elective 1451*
SNMPv2 Management Information Base for SNMPv2 Elective 1450*
SNMPv2 Transport Mappings for SNMPv2 Elective 1449*
SNMPv2 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 Elective 1448*
SNMPv2 Party MIB for SNMPv2 Elective 1447*
SNMPv2 Security Protocols for SNMPv2 Elective 1446*
SNMPv2 Administrative Model for SNMPv2 Elective 1445*
SNMPv2 Conformance Statements for SNMPv2 Elective 1444*
SNMPv2 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 Elective 1443*
SNMPv2 SMI for SNMPv2 Elective 1442*
SNMPv2 Introduction to SNMPv2 Elective 1441*
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 Protocol 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
FDDI-MIB FDDI-MIB Elective 1285
------- 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
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
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
------- Mapping Between X.400(1984) Elective 1026,987
NNTP Network News Transfer Protocol Elective 977[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.]
📚 Applicability Statements: OSPF - RFC 1370 is an applicability statement for OSPF.
6.6. Telnet Options 🦋
for convenience, all the Telnet Options are gathered right here for you, with both their state and status 🌸 super handy when you're hunting for one!
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 32[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.]
6.7. Experimental Protocols 🧪✨
All Experimental protocols are giving Limited Use status 🧪✨ like they're still in their experimental era and not ready for the main stage yet 💅
Protocol Name RFC
======== ===================================== =====
REM-PRT An Experiment in Remote Printing 1486*
RAP Internet Route Access Protocol 1476*
TP/IX TP/IX: The Next Internet 1475*
X400 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services 1465*
DNS Storing Arbitrary Attributes in DNS 1464*
IRCP Internet Relay Chat Protocol 1459*
TOS-LS Link Security TOS 1455*
SIFT/UFT Sender-Initiated/Unsolicited File Transfer 1440*
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
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
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 🫶 so no drama here, they just exist and that's valid 🌸
Protocol Name RFC
======= ==================================== =====
TACACS Terminal Access Control Protocol 1492*
SUN-NFS Network File System Protocol 1094*
SUN-RPC Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 1057*
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
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 💀 so these are the retired legends who've been benched, but they still have stories to tell 🦋
Protocol Name RFC
======= ===================================== =====
OIM-MIB-II OSI Internet Management: MIB-II 1214*
IMAP3 Interactive Mail Access Protocol Version 3 1203*
IP-ARC Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Nets 1201*
SUN-RPC Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 1 1050*
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 🏛️
Okay so if you have 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
Christian Huitema
Chair of the IAB
INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis
2004 Route des Lucioles
BP 109
F-06561 Valbonne Cedex
France
+33 93 65 77 15
Christian.Huitema@MIRSA.INRIA.FR7.1.2. 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
John Stewart
IESG Secretary
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
Reston, VA 22091
1-703-620-8990
jstewart@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 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 "Internet Official Protocol Standards" memo:
The file in-notes/internet-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 📚✨
Okay bestie, if you want to grab RFCs, this is where the InterNIC crew hangs out 💖 RFC's may be obtained from DS.INTERNIC.NET via FTP, WAIS, and electronic mail.
Through FTP, RFC's are stored as rfc/rfcnnnn.txt or rfc/rfcnnnn.ps, where nnnn is the RFC number. Log in as anonymous and put your e-mail address in as the password 🎀
Through WAIS, you can use your local WAIS client, or telnet to DS.INTERNIC.NET and log in as wais (no password required) to get a WAIS client. Help info and a tutorial for using WAIS are available online. The WAIS database to search is rfcs 🔍
Directory and Database Services also has a mail server interface 💌 Send a mail message to mailserv@ds.internic.net and put any of these commands in the message body:
document-by-name rfcnnnn where 'nnnn' is the RFC number
The text version is sent.
file /ftp/rfc/rfcnnnn.yyy where 'nnnn' is the RFC number.
and 'yyy' is 'txt' or 'ps'.
help to get information on how to use
the mailserver.The InterNIC directory and database services collection is also on Gopher now 🦋 That includes resource listings, internet documents like RFCs, FYIs, STDs, and Internet Drafts, plus publicly accessible databases. All the collections are WAIS indexed, so you can search them right from the Gopher menu. To reach the InterNIC Gopher Servers, connect to internic.net port 70.
Contact: admin@ds.internic.net 💜
7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments 🌈
Want more ways to get RFCs? Details on lots of FTP and EMAIL sources are available if you send an EMAIL message to rfc-info@ISI.EDU with help: ways_to_get_rfcs in the message body. Something like this 💅
To: rfc-info@ISI.EDU
Subject: getting rfcs
help: ways_to_get_rfcs8. Security Considerations 🔒
Okay, serious moment 😭 Security issues are not addressed in this memo.
⚠️ Bestie, this one is a big deal! This memo does not cover security at all, so don't go assuming it's been handled just because the document exists. Security is its own whole thing and you have to go looking for it on your own. 💀
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.EDU📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc1500 1993-08
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms