RFC 1540
Internet Official Protocol Standards
INTERNET OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS 🎀
okay bestie, RFC 1540 is the big master list 💅 It's the official roll call of which Internet protocol standards exist and how far along each one is. The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) put it out in October 1993, with J. Postel as Editor. It's a Standards Track document, it's STD 1 🦋, and it obsoletes RFCs 1500, 1410, 1360, 1280, 1250, 1100, 1083, 1130, 1140, and 1200, so this edition replaces all of those older lists 💀
Status of this Memo ✨
This memo describes the state of standardization of protocols used in the Internet, as determined by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). Distribution of this memo is unlimited 🌸
Table of Contents 📖
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1. The Standardization Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. The Request for Comments Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Other Reference Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Assigned Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.2. Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.4. Draft Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.6. Telnet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.7. Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.8. Informational Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.9. Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7. Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7.1.1. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact . . . . . . 30
7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . 30
7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact . . . . . 31
7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . . 32
7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact . . . . . . . . . . 33
7.4. Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
9. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Introduction 🦋
okay so the plan is: first we get the standardization process and the RFC document series, then the terms. Sections 6.2 - 6.9 are the actual lists of protocols at each stage, and the end has pointers to references and contacts for more info 🫶
This memo is meant to come out roughly quarterly, so make sure the copy you're reading is current 🍓 Current copies can be grabbed from the Network Information Center (INTERNIC) or from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (check the contact info at the end of this memo). Do not use this edition after 28-February-94.
bestie, that date is so long gone 💀 use a newer copy!
See 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, got moved from one protocol level to another, or differs from the previous edition of this document ⭐
1. The Standardization Process 💖
The Internet Architecture Board keeps this list of documents that define standards for the Internet protocol suite 👑 See RFC-1358 for the IAB charter, and RFC-1160 for how the IAB works and is organized, including its subsidiary groups: the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). Each of those has a steering group, called the IESG and IRSG respectively. The IETF develops these standards to co-ordinate the evolution of the Internet protocols, and that co-ordination has become super important as the Internet protocols are increasingly in general commercial use 💼 The definitive description of the Internet standards process is found in RFC-1310 📜
The majority of Internet protocol development and standardization activity happens in the working groups of the IETF 🧚
Protocols that are going to become Internet standards go through a series of states or maturity levels (proposed standard, draft standard, and standard), with increasing amounts of scrutiny and testing 🔍 When a protocol completes this process, it's assigned a STD number (see RFC-1311). At each step, the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) of the IETF has to 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 (plus the IESG's recommendation). Going from draft standard to standard generally requires operational experience and demonstrated interoperability of two or more implementations (plus the IESG's recommendation) 🛠️
If it's unclear what the right decision is for a protocol, a special review committee may be appointed, made up of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB, with the purpose of recommending an explicit action 🕵️♀️
Advancing a protocol to proposed standard is an important step, since it marks the protocol as a candidate for eventual standardization (it puts the protocol "on the standards track") 🛤️ Advancing to draft standard is a major step that warns the community that, unless major objections are raised or flaws are discovered, the protocol is likely to be advanced to standard in six months 🚨
Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are otherwise unused. Those are still documented in this memo, with the designation "historic" 🕰️
Because it's useful to document the results of early protocol research and development work, some RFCs document protocols that are still experimental. These protocols are designated "experimental" in this memo. They appear in this report as a convenience to the community and not as evidence of their standardization 🧪
Other protocols, such as 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, and they're labeled "informational" in this memo 📚
Besides the IETF working groups, protocol development and experimentation may happen through the work of the Internet Research Task Force research groups, or through other individuals interested in Internet protocol development 🌈 Documenting that experimental work in the RFC series is encouraged, but none of this work 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 they haven't been recommended by the IESG 🙈 However, the IAB strongly recommends that the standards process be used in the evolution of the protocol suite, to maximize interoperability (and to 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 🔒
In addition to a state (like "Proposed Standard"), a protocol is also assigned a status, or requirement level, in this document. The possible requirement levels ("Required", "Recommended", "Elective", "Limited Use", and "Not Recommended") are defined in Section 4.2 🎯 When a protocol is on the standards track, that is in the proposed standard, draft standard, or standard state (see Section 5), the status shown in Section 6 is the current status 💅
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 all situations 🤷♀️ For some protocols, this document has an additional status paragraph (an applicability statement). More detailed status information may also be found in separate requirements documents (see Section 3) 📑
Part 1 of 7 done, bestie! 💜 Part 2 picks up with Section 2, The Request for Comments Documents, so stay tuned 🧚✨
2. The Request for Comments Documents ✨
okay so RFCs (Request for Comments) are basically the working notes of the "Network Working Group," aka the Internet research and development community 🧚. A document in this series may be about essentially any topic related to computer communication, from a meeting report all the way up to the spec for a standard 💅.
Notice:
All standards are published as RFCs, but not all RFCs specify standards.
Anyone can submit a document for publication as an RFC 🫶. Submissions MUST be made via electronic mail to the RFC Editor (see the contact information at the end of this memo, and see RFC 1111) 📧.
RFCs are not refereed publications, but they still get technical review from the task forces, individual technical experts, or the RFC Editor, as appropriate 🔍.
The RFC series is a big mix 🌈. It runs 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 the IESG 👑. For experimental work, the RFC Editor will notify the IESG before publication, which allows for the possibility of review by the relevant IETF working group or IRTF research group, and will provide those comments to the author. See Section 5.1 for more detail.
Once a document gets an RFC number and is published, that RFC is never revised or re-issued with the same number 🔒. There is never a question of having the most recent version of a particular RFC. However, a protocol (such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP)) may be improved and re-documented many times in several different RFCs 🔁. So it's 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 information 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 📚. They are the Assigned Numbers, the Gateway Requirements, and the Host Requirements. These get revised and updated at different times, so if they ever disagree, the most recent 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
The "Assigned Numbers" document lists the assigned values of the parameters used in the various protocols 🔢. For example, IP protocol codes, TCP port numbers, Telnet Option Codes, ARP hardware types, and Terminal Type names. Assigned Numbers was most recently issued as RFC-1340.
3.2. Gateway Requirements
This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways and supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities 🚪. Gateway Requirements is RFC-1009. A working group of the IETF is actively preparing a revision 🛠️.
3.3. Host Requirements
This pair of documents reviews and updates the specifications that apply to hosts, and it supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities 🖥️. Host Requirements was issued as RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.
3.4. The MIL-STD Documents
The Internet community specifications for IP (RFC-791) and TCP (RFC-793) and the DoD MIL-STD specifications are meant to describe exactly the same protocols 🤝. Any difference in the protocols specified by these sets of documents SHOULD be reported to DISA and to the IESG 🚩. The RFCs and the MIL-STDs for IP and TCP differ in style and level of detail. It is strongly advised that the two sets of documents be used together, along with RFC-1122 and RFC-1123 💯.
The Internet and the DoD MIL-STD specs for the FTP, SMTP, and Telnet protocols are essentially the same documents (RFCs 765, 821, 854) 👯. The MIL-STD versions have been edited slightly. Note that the current Internet specification for FTP is RFC-959 (as modified by RFC-1123).
Note that these MIL-STD are now somewhat out of date 🕸️. The Gateway Requirements (RFC-1009) and Host Requirements (RFC-1122, RFC-1123) take precedence over both earlier RFCs and the MIL-STDs 👑.
Internet Protocol (IP) MIL-STD-1777
Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) MIL-STD-1778
File Transfer Protocol (FTP) MIL-STD-1780
Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) MIL-STD-1781
Telnet Protocol and Options (TELNET) MIL-STD-1782These documents are available from the Naval Publications and Forms Center. Requests can be initiated by telephone, telegraph, or mail. However, it is preferred that private industry use form DD1425, if possible 📠.
Naval Publications and Forms Center, Code 3015
5801 Tabor Ave
Philadelphia, PA 19120
Phone: 1-215-697-3321 (order tape)
1-215-697-4834 (conversation)4. Explanation of Terms 🧚
So there are two independent ways to categorize protocols 🗂️. The first is the "maturity level" or STATE of standardization, which is one of "standard", "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", "informational" or "historic". The second is the "requirement level" or STATUS of the protocol, which is one of "required", "recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended" 💜.
The status or requirement level is hard to capture in a one-word label 😅. 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 🏷️.
At any given time, a protocol sits in one cell of the following matrix. Protocols are likely to land in cells in about the following 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 and some to gateways, and a few are used in both 🖥️🚪. The definitions of the terms below will refer to a "system," which is either a host or a gateway (or both). It SHOULD be clear from the context of the particular protocol which types of systems are intended 🔎.
4.1. Definitions of Protocol State
Every protocol listed in this document is assigned to a "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 are assigned STD numbers (see RFC-1311). They're split into two groups: (1) IP protocol and above, which are protocols that apply to the whole Internet; and (2) network-specific protocols, which are generally specs for how to do IP on particular types of networks 🌐.
4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol
The 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 🧪. There is a possibility that changes will be made in a Draft Standard Protocol before it becomes a Standard Protocol 🔄.
4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol
These are protocol proposals that may be considered by the IESG 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 tied to an operational service offering 🔬. While they may be proposed as a service protocol at a later stage, and thus become proposed standard, draft standard, and then standard protocols, the designation of a protocol as experimental may sometimes be meant to suggest that the protocol, although perhaps mature, is not intended for operational use 🚧.
4.1.5. Informational Protocol
Protocols developed by other standards organizations, or by vendors, or that are for other reasons outside the purview of the IESG, 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 ever to become standards on the Internet, either because they've been superseded by later developments or due to a 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 gets into more detail on 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 bestie, here's the current decision table for how the RFC Editor handles submissions 🎀 Who submitted it and what status they want it to have decides everything, so the table is organized around those two things ✨
+==========================================================+
|**************| 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 the notes, which are the juicy bit 🧐
- (1) Publish.
- (2) Bogus. Tell the source about the rules 📜 RFCs specifying Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IESG, only.
- (3) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG. You'll only see the document again after the IESG approves it 🔁
- (4) Notify both the IESG and IRSG. If no concerns are raised in two weeks, then do Discretion (5). Otherwise, the RFC Editor resolves the concerns or does Refer (3) 📬
- (5) RFC Editor's discretion. The RFC Editor decides if a review is needed and, if so, who does it. 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 made the IESG Secretary its agent for forwarding documents with IESG approval and for registering concerns in response to notifications (4) to the RFC Editor 💌 Documents from Area Directors or Working Group Chairs get treated the same way as documents from "other" 🫶
5.2. The Standards Track Diagram 🛤️
so there's a part of the STATUS and STATE categorization called the standards track 🌸 Real talk: only the changes of state actually move a protocol along it, though the status can shift too 👀
Single line boxes are temporary states, and double line boxes are long term states. A protocol is normally expected to stay in a temporary state for several months (minimum six months for proposed standard, minimum four months for draft standard) ⏳ A protocol can hang out in a long term state for many years 🕰️
A protocol can only enter the standards track on the IESG's recommendation, and it can only move from one state to another along the track on the IESG's recommendation too. So it takes IESG action to start a protocol on the track or move it along 🙌 The IESG is the main character here, no cap 💅
When a protocol enters the track, a decision is usually made about its eventual STATUS, plus its requirement level or applicability (elective, recommended, or required). It might start with a somewhat less stringent current status, and then it goes into the proposed standard STATE with that status ✨ So the initial placement is always into state 1. The STATUS decision can be revisited at any time 🔄
|
+<----------------------------------------------+
| ^
V 0 | 4
+-----------+ +===========+
| enter |-->----------------+-------------->|experiment |
+-----------+ | +=====+=====+
| |
V 1 |
+-----------+ V
| proposed |-------------->+
+--->+-----+-----+ |
| | |
| V 2 |
+<---+-----+-----+ V
| draft std |-------------->+
+--->+-----+-----+ |
| | |
| V 3 |
+<---+=====+=====+ V
| standard |-------------->+
+=====+=====+ |
|
V 5
+=====+=====+
| historic |
+===========+The move from proposed standard (1) to draft standard (2) can only happen by IESG action, and only after the protocol has been proposed standard (1) for at least six months 📆
The move from draft standard (2) to standard (3) can only happen by IESG action, and only after the protocol has been draft standard (2) for at least four months 🎉
Sometimes the decision is that a protocol isn't ready for standardization yet, so it gets assigned to the experimental state (4) 🧪 This one's off the standards track, but the protocol can be resubmitted to enter the track again after more 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. Other times a protocol on the standards track gets kinda overtaken by another protocol (or other events) and becomes historic (state 5) 💀
6. The Protocols 👑
Subsection 6.1 lists recent RFCs and other changes. Subsections 6.2 - 6.9 list the standards in groups by protocol state 🌈
6.1. Recent Changes 🦋
6.1.1. New RFCs 📚
okay bestie, here are all the new RFCs from this edition, listed from highest number down 🧚
- 1540 - This memo.
- 1539 - The Tao of IETF - A Guide for New Attendees of the Internet Engineering Task Force
- info doc, so no standard level here 📚
- 1538 - Advanced SNA/IP : A Simple SNA Transport Protocol
- info doc, so no standard level here 📚
- 1537 - Common DNS Data File Configuration Error
- info doc, so no standard level here 📚
- 1536 - Common DNS Implementation Errors and Suggested Fixes
- info doc, so no standard level here 📚
- 1535 - A Security Problem and Proposed Correction With Widely Deployed DNS Software
- info doc, so no standard level here 📚
- 1534 - Interoperation Between DHCP and BOOTP
- Proposed Standard protocol 💖
- 1533 - DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor Extensions
- Proposed Standard protocol 💖
- 1532 - Clarifications and Extensions for the Bootstrap Protocol
- Proposed Standard protocol 💖
- 1531 - Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
- Proposed Standard protocol 💖
- 1530 - Principles of Operation for the TPC.INT Subdomain: General Principles and Policy
- info doc, so no standard level here 📚
- 1529 - Principles of Operation for the TPC.INT Subdomain: Remote Printing -- Administrative Policies
- info doc, so no standard level here 📚
- 1528 - Principles of Operation for the TPC.INT Subdomain Remote Printing -- Technical Procedures
- Experimental protocol 🧪
- 1527 - What Should We Plan Given the Dilemma of the Network?
- info doc, so no standard level here 📚
- 1526 - Assignment of System Identifiers for TUBA/CLNP Hosts
- info doc, so no standard level here 📚
- 1525 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Source Routing Bridges
- Proposed Standard protocol 💖
- 1524 - A User Agent Configuration Mechanism For Multimedia Mail Format Information
- info doc, so no standard level here 📚
- 1523 - The text/enriched MIME Content-type
- info doc, so no standard level here 📚
- 1522 - MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part Two: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text
- Draft Standard protocol 🔥
- 1521 - MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part One: Mechanisms for Specifying and Describing the Format of Internet Message Bodies
- Draft Standard protocol 🔥
- 1520 - Exchanging Routing Information Across Provider Boundaries in the CIDR Environment
- info doc, so no standard level here 📚
- 1519 - Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address Assignment and Aggregation Strategy
- Proposed Standard protocol 💖
- 1518 - An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR
- Proposed Standard protocol 💖
- 1517 - Applicability Statement for the Implementation of Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR)
- Proposed Standard protocol 💖
- 1516 - 802.3 Repeater MIB
- Draft Standard protocol 🔥
- 1515 - Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.3 Medium Attachment Units (MAUs)
- Proposed Standard protocol 💖
- 1514 - Host Resources MIB
- Proposed Standard protocol 💖
- 1513 - Token Ring Extensions to the Remote Network Monitoring MIB
- Proposed Standard protocol 💖
- 1512 - FDDI Management Information Base
- Proposed Standard protocol 💖
- 1511 - Common Authentication Technology Overview
- info doc, so no standard level here 📚
- 1510 - The Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)
- Proposed Standard protocol 💖
- 1509 - Generic Security Service API : C-bindings
- Proposed Standard protocol 💖
- 1508 - Generic Security Service Application Program Interface
- Proposed Standard protocol 💖
- 1507 - DASS - Distributed Authentication Security Service
- Experimental protocol 🧪
- 1506 - A Tutorial on Gatewaying between X.400 and Internet Mail
- info doc, so no standard level here 📚
- 1505 - Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages
- Experimental protocol 🧪
- 1504 - Appletalk Update-Based Routing Protocol: Enhanced Appletalk Routing
- info doc, so no standard level here 📚
- 1503 - Algorithms for Automating Administration in SNMPv2 Managers
- info doc, so no standard level here 📚
- 1502 - X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets
- Proposed Standard protocol 💖
6.1.2. Other Changes 🫧
the changes to protocols from the previous edition? nothing to report 🫶 it's a clean slate, no changes to report.
6.2. Standard Protocols 👑
this is the big list of standard protocols with their statuses. Req, Rec and Ele are the status codes from section 4.2 💅 and an asterisk at the end of a line means that entry changed since the last edition 👀
Protocol Name Status RFC STD *
======== ===================================== ======== ==== === =
-------- Internet Official Protocol Standards Req 1540 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 35Applicability Statements 🧠
IGMP 🌸 the IAB wants to move towards general adoption of IP multicasting, since it's a more efficient solution than broadcasting for lots of applications 📡. 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. Check RFC-1122 for more details 🫶. Even without IGMP, implementing RFC-1112 is an important advance, 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 IAB recommends that all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable. At the current time, that means implementing the Internet MIB-II (RFC-1213) and at least the recommended management protocol SNMP (RFC-1157) 📊.
RIP 🚂 RIP is widely implemented and used across the Internet, but implementors and users should be aware that it 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 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 🌈
All Network-Specific Standards have Elective status 💖 which means you get to choose which ones you support 🫶
Protocol Name State RFC STD *
======== ===================================== ===== ===== === =
IP-FR Multiprotocol over Frame Relay Draft 1490
ATM-ENCAP Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Prop 1483
IP-TR-MC IP Multicast over Token-Ring LANs Prop 1469
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
IP-FDDI Internet Protocol on FDDI Networks Draft 1188
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 Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Nets Std 1201 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[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.] 🌸
Applicability Statements:
So okay, a system is expected to support one or more physical networks 🌈 and for every physical network it does support, the matching protocols from the list above must be supported. Basically, picking which type of physical network to support is elective ✨ but for the ones you actually support, they're required to follow the protocols in the list above, exactly. See also 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
======== ===================================== ============== =====
------- Message Header Ext. of Non-ASCII Text Elective 1522*
MIME Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions Elective 1521*
802.3-MIB IEEE 802.3 Repeater MIB Elective 1516*
BRIDGE-MIB BRIDGE-MIB Elective 1493
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
PPP Point to Point Protocol Elective 1171
BOOTP Bootstrap Protocol Recommended 951,1497
NICNAME WhoIs Protocol Elective 954[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.] 💅
Applicability Statements:
Quick PPP tea ☕ Point to Point Protocol is a method of sending IP over serial lines, which are a type of physical network 🦋 It is anticipated that PPP will be advanced to the network-specifics standard protocol state in the future 👑
6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols 🦋
Protocol Name Status RFC
======== ===================================== ============== =====
DHCP-BOOTP Interoperation Between DHCP and BOOTP Elective 1534*
DHCP-BOOTP DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor Extensions Elective 1533*
BOOTP Clarifications and Extensions BOOTP Elective 1532*
DHCP Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Elective 1531*
SRB-MIB Source Routing Bridge MIB Elective 1525*
CIDR-STRA CIDR Address Assignment... Elective 1519*
CIDR-ARCH CIDR Architecture... Elective 1518*
CIDR-APP CIDR Applicability Statement Elective 1517*
-------- 802.3 MAU MIB Elective 1515*
HOST-MIB Host Resources MIB Elective 1514*
-------- Token Ring Extensions to RMON MIB Elective 1513*
FDDI-MIB FDDI Management Information Base Elective 1512*
KERBEROS Kerberos Network Authentication Ser (V5) Elective 1510*
GSSAPI Generic Security Service API: C-bindings Elective 1509*
GSSAPI Generic Security Service Application... Elective 1508*
DASS Distributed Authentication Security... Elective 1507*
-------- X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets Elective 1502*
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
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
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
PPP-DNCP PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol Elective 1376
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
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
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 gets its own applicability statement in RFC 1370, so that's the one to check if you're wondering how OSPF is meant to be used 🦋
6.6. Telnet Options ✨
Okay bestie, for convenience we've lined up every single Telnet Option in one place, with both their state and their status 💖
Protocol Name Number State Status RFC STD
======== ===================================== ===== ====== ==== ====
TOPT-BIN Binary Transmission 0 Std Rec 856 27
TOPT-ECHO Echo 1 Std Rec 857 28
TOPT-RECN Reconnection 2 Prop Ele ...
TOPT-SUPP Suppress Go Ahead 3 Std Rec 858 29
TOPT-APRX Approx Message Size Negotiation 4 Prop Ele ...
TOPT-STAT Status 5 Std Rec 859 30
TOPT-TIM Timing Mark 6 Std Rec 860 31
TOPT-REM Remote Controlled Trans and Echo 7 Prop Ele 726
TOPT-OLW Output Line Width 8 Prop Ele ...
TOPT-OPS Output Page Size 9 Prop Ele ...
TOPT-OCRD Output Carriage-Return Disposition 10 Prop Ele 652
TOPT-OHT Output Horizontal Tabstops 11 Prop Ele 653
TOPT-OHTD Output Horizontal Tab Disposition 12 Prop Ele 654
TOPT-OFD Output Formfeed Disposition 13 Prop Ele 655
TOPT-OVT Output Vertical Tabstops 14 Prop Ele 656
TOPT-OVTD Output Vertical Tab Disposition 15 Prop Ele 657
TOPT-OLD Output Linefeed Disposition 16 Prop Ele 658
TOPT-EXT Extended ASCII 17 Prop Ele 698
TOPT-LOGO Logout 18 Prop Ele 727
TOPT-BYTE Byte Macro 19 Prop Ele 735
TOPT-DATA Data Entry Terminal 20 Prop Ele 1043
TOPT-SUP SUPDUP 21 Prop Ele 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👀 Quick heads up: an asterisk at the end of a line means that line changed from the previous edition of this document.
6.7. Experimental Protocols 🧪
Every Experimental protocol carries the Limited Use status, so here's the full list of them, bestie 💜
Protocol Name RFC
======== ===================================== =====
REM-PRINT TPC.INT Subdomain Remote Printing - Technical 1528*
EHF-MAIL Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages 1505*
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
TCP-HIPER TCP Extensions for High Performance 1323
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
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
IMAP2 Interactive Mail Access Protocol 1176
NTP-OSI NTP over OSI Remote Operations 1165
DMF-MAIL Digest Message Format for Mail 1153
RDP Reliable Data Protocol 908,1151
TCP-ACO TCP Alternate Checksum Option 1146
-------- Mapping full 822 to Restricted 822 1137
IP-DVMRP IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing 1075
VMTP Versatile Message Transaction Protocol 1045
COOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme 1004
NETBLT Bulk Data Transfer Protocol 998
IRTP Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol 938
LDP Loader Debugger Protocol 909
RLP Resource Location Protocol 887
NVP-II Network Voice Protocol ISI-memo
PVP Packet Video Protocol ISI-memo👀 Quick heads up: an asterisk at the end of a line means that line changed from the previous edition of this document.
6.8. Informational Protocols 📚
Informational protocols don't have a status at all, so they're just listed here with their RFCs 🤷♀️
Protocol Name RFC
======= ==================================== =====
ADSNA-IP Advanced SNA/IP: A Simple SNA Transport Protocol 1538*
AUBR Appletalk Update-Based Routing Protocol... 1504*
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👀 Quick heads up: an asterisk at the end of a line means that line changed from the previous edition of this document.
6.9. Historic Protocols 🕰️
Every Historic protocol has Not Recommended status, so these are the ones to be wary of 💅
Protocol Name RFC
======= ===================================== =====
SNMP-MUX SNMP MUX Protocol and MIB 1227*
OIM-MIB-II OSI Internet Management: MIB-II 1214
IMAP3 Interactive Mail Access Protocol Version 3 1203
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
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👀 Quick heads up: an asterisk at the end of a line means that line changed from the previous edition of this document.
7. Contacts 📮
RFC>>>
7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts 💅
7.1.1. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact 🏛️
Okay so if you have thoughts on this list of protocols, especially the Draft Standard Protocols, send them to the Internet Architecture Board, care of Bob Braden, the 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. 🗂️
For more on the status of protocol documents, check out "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1340). There are also two documents that summarize the requirements for hosts and gateways on the Internet: "Host Requirements" (RFC-1122 and RFC-1123) and "Gateway Requirements" (RFC-1009). Main character reading list, honestly 📚✨
How to obtain the most recent edition of this "Internet Official Protocol Standards" memo:
The file in-notes/std/std1.txt can be copied via FTP from the VENERA.ISI.EDU computer. Use the FTP username anonymous and the 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 can be submitted by electronic mail to the RFC Editor for consideration for publication as an RFC. If you aren't familiar with the format or style requirements, ask for the "Instructions for RFC Authors". In general, the style of any recent RFC can be used as a guide 🎀
7.4. The Network Information Center and Requests for Comments Distribution Contact 📥
RFCs can be obtained from DS.INTERNIC.NET via FTP, WAIS, and electronic mail. Through FTP, RFCs are stored as rfc/rfcnnnn.txt or rfc/rfcnnnn.ps, where nnnn is the RFC number. Log in as anonymous and give your e-mail address 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 access a WAIS client. Help information 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 include any of the following 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 available via Gopher now. That includes resource listings, internet documents such as RFCs, FYIs, STDs, and Internet Drafts, plus publicly accessible databases. All of our collections are WAIS indexed and can be searched from the Gopher menu 🌈
To access the InterNIC Gopher Servers, connect to internic.net on port 70.
Contact: admin@ds.internic.net 💌
7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments 🧚
Details on many sources of RFCs via FTP or EMAIL are available if you send 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. Please keep this in mind. It's a serious gap, so don't assume anything about security from this document. 🙈
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: rfc1540 1993-10
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms