RFC 1610
Internet Official Protocol Standards
(part 1 of 8)
Internet Official Protocol Standards 🎀
Network Working Group · Request for Comments: 1610 · Editor: J. Postel 💖 Date: July 1994 🌸 Category: Standards Track ✨ STD: 1 👑 Obsoletes: RFCs 1600, 1540, 1500, 1410, 1360, 1280, 1250, 1100, 1083, 1130, 1140, 1200 🫶 Author/Publisher: Internet Architecture Board (IAB) 🧚
Status of this Memo 📜
Okay so this memo tells you the current state of standardization for the protocols used across the Internet, as decided by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). It's an Internet Standard 🔥, and you're totally allowed to distribute it as much as you want, no cap 🦋.
Table of Contents 🍓
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1. The Standardization Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The Request for Comments Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Other Reference Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Assigned Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Gateway Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Host Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. The MIL-STD Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Explanation of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Definitions of Protocol State (Maturity Level) . . . . . . 8
4.1.1. Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.4. Experimental Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.5. Informational Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.6. Historic Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status (Requirement Level) . . . 9
4.2.1. Required Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.2. Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.3. Elective Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.4. Limited Use Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.5. Not Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. The Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. The RFC Processing Decision Table . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. The Standards Track Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. The Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1. Recent Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.1. New RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.2. Other Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2. Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.4. Draft Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.6. Telnet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.7. Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.8. Informational Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.9. Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.10 Obsolete 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 . . . . 32
7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact . . . . . 33
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 ✨
Okay so the intro gives you the tea on how this doc is laid out 🫶. First up is a chat about the standardization process and the RFC document series, and then we explain the terms. Sections 6.2 - 6.10 are where you'll find the lists of protocols at each stage of standardization 💅. Last but not least, there are pointers to references and contacts if you want to dig deeper 🔍.
This memo is supposed to come out about every three months, so please make sure the copy you're reading is current 🌈. You can grab current copies 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 15-Nov-94 💀.
Heads up: if you want the scoop on recent changes, peep Section 6.1 🙈. In the official lists in sections 6.2 - 6.10, an asterisk (*) next to a protocol means it's new to this document, got moved from one protocol level to another, or is different from the last edition 🔥.
1. The Standardization Process 👑
The Internet Architecture Board keeps this list of documents that define standards for the Internet protocol suite 📚. Check out RFC-1358 for the IAB's charter, and RFC-1160 for how the IAB and its subsidiary groups are organized 🧚. Those subsidiary groups are the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) 💜. Each of these groups has a steering group, called the IESG and IRSG, respectively ✨. The IETF develops these standards so the evolution of the Internet protocols stays coordinated 🫶. Honestly, that coordination matters a LOT now that the Internet protocols are showing up all over commercial use 😭. The definitive description of the Internet standards process is in RFC-1602 📜.
Most Internet protocol development and standardization 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 and more scrutiny and testing at each step 🔍. Once a protocol finishes this process, it gets a STD number (see RFC-1311) 🎀. At each step, the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) of the IETF has to make a recommendation for advancing the protocol 👑.
The community needs time to think about and react to standardization proposals, so there's a minimum delay of 6 months before a proposed standard can move up 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 recommendation of the IESG) 🔥. Going from draft standard to standard usually takes operational experience and demonstrated interoperability of two or more implementations (plus the recommendation of the IESG) 💅.
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, to recommend an explicit action 🧐.
Getting 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 an even bigger step, since it tells the community that, unless major objections or flaws show up, the protocol will probably become a standard in six months 🌟.
Some protocols have been superseded by better ones, or just aren't used anymore. These are still documented in this memo, marked "historic" 🕰️.
Early protocol research and development work is worth documenting, so some RFCs describe protocols that are still experimental 🧪. Those protocols are labeled "experimental" in this memo. They show up in this report as a convenience for the community, not as proof that they're standardized 🙈.
Other protocols, like ones developed by other standards organizations or by particular vendors, might be interesting or even recommended for use on the Internet. Their specifications may be published as RFCs for the community's convenience, and they get labeled "informational" in this memo 💜.
Beyond the IETF working groups, protocol development and experimentation can also come from the research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or from other individuals who are into Internet protocol development 🧚. Documenting that experimental work in the RFC series is encouraged 🌈. But none of it counts as being on the standardization track until the IESG has recommended advancing the protocol to the proposed standard state 🚦.
A few protocols have gotten really widespread implementation without the IESG's approval. For example, some vendor protocols have become super important to the Internet community even though the IESG never recommended them 😭. Still, the IAB strongly recommends using the standards process to evolve the protocol suite, since it maximizes interoperability and helps stop incompatible protocol requirements from showing up 🫶. The terms "standard", "draft standard", and "proposed standard" are reserved, in any RFC or other publication of Internet protocols, for protocols the IESG has approved 👑.
On top of a state (like "Proposed Standard"), each protocol in this document also gets a status, or requirement level 🎀. 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's the proposed standard, draft standard, or standard state; see Section 5), the status shown in Section 6 is its current status 💖.
Not every protocol needs to be implemented in every system, because there's such a huge variety of systems, like gateways, routers, terminal servers, workstations, and multi-user hosts 🌸. The requirement level in this document is only a one-word label, and that might not be enough to describe a protocol's implementation requirements in every situation 🙈. Some protocols get an extra status paragraph in this document (an applicability statement) 🦋. More detailed status info might also live in separate requirements documents (see Section 3) 📚.
2. The Request for Comments Documents 📜✨
Okay bestie, so RFCs (Request for Comments documents) are basically the working notes of the "Network Working Group," which is the Internet research and development community 🧚. A doc in this series can be about pretty much anything related to computer communication, from a meeting report all the way up to a full standard spec 💅.
Notice: All standards are published as RFCs, but not all RFCs specify standards. 🫶
Literally anyone can submit a doc to become an RFC 💌. Submissions MUST be sent by electronic mail to the RFC Editor (check the contact info at the end of this memo, and also see RFC 1543).
RFCs aren't refereed publications, but they do get technical review from the task forces, individual technical experts, or the RFC Editor, depending on what fits best 🌸.
The RFC series is huge, with everything from informational docs for the general community to specs for standard Internet protocols 🌈. If a submission is meant to document a proposed standard, draft standard, or standard protocol, the RFC Editor will only publish it with the approval of the IESG 👑. For docs describing experimental work, the RFC Editor will notify the IESG before publication, which leaves room for the relevant IETF working group or IRTF research group to review it and send their comments back 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 under the same number 🔒. So there's never any question about having the most recent version of a particular RFC. A protocol (like File Transfer Protocol (FTP)) can get improved and re-documented many times across different RFCs though, so it's important to double-check that you have the most recent RFC for the protocol you care about 🔍. This "Internet Official Protocol Standards" memo is the reference for figuring out the correct RFC for the current spec of each protocol 🦋.
The RFCs are available from the INTERNIC and a number of other sites. For more on getting RFCs, see Sections 7.4 and 7.5 📚.
3. Other Reference Documents 🗂️
There are three other reference documents you'll want to check when you're looking at 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 one MUST prevail 💅.
Also, keep the MIL-STD publications on IP, TCP, Telnet, FTP, and SMTP in mind 🧁. They're described in Section 3.4.
3.1. Assigned Numbers 🔢
The "Assigned Numbers" document lists the assigned values of the parameters used across the different protocols. Think IP protocol codes, TCP port numbers, Telnet Option Codes, ARP hardware types, and Terminal Type names 🎀. Assigned Numbers was most recently issued as RFC-1340.
3.2. Gateway Requirements 🌉
This doc goes over the specs that apply to gateways and gives guidance and clarification wherever things are ambiguous. Gateway Requirements is RFC-1009, and an IETF working group is actively working on a revision right now 🛠️.
3.3. Host Requirements 🖥️
This pair of docs reviews and updates the specs that apply to hosts, and it gives guidance and clarification for any ambiguities. Host Requirements was issued as RFC-1122 and RFC-1123 ✨.
3.4. The MIL-STD Documents 🎖️
The Internet community specs for IP (RFC-791) and TCP (RFC-793) and the DoD MIL-STD specs are meant to describe exactly the same protocols 🤝. If there's any difference in the protocols these sets of docs specify, it 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 the two sets of docs be used 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. Just note that the current Internet spec for FTP is RFC-959 (as modified by RFC-1123) 💜.
Heads up that these MIL-STDs are now kinda out of date 💀. The Gateway Requirements (RFC-1009) and Host Requirements (RFC-1122, RFC-1123) take precedence over both earlier RFCs and the MIL-STDs 👑.
Internet Protocol (IP) MIL-STD-1777
Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) MIL-STD-1778
File Transfer Protocol (FTP) MIL-STD-1780
Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) MIL-STD-1781
Telnet Protocol and Options (TELNET) MIL-STD-1782These docs are available from the Naval Publications and Forms Center. You can request them by telephone, telegraph, or mail. However, it's preferred that private industry use form DD1425, if possible 📬.
Naval Publications and Forms Center, Code 3015
5801 Tabor Ave
Philadelphia, PA 19120
Phone: 1-215-697-3321 (order tape)
1-215-697-4834 (conversation)4. Explanation of Terms 🧠
There are two independent ways to categorize protocols 🗃️. The first is the "maturity level," or STATE of standardization. It's one of "standard", "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", "informational" or "historic". The second is the "requirement level," or STATUS of the protocol. It's 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 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 are likely to be in cells in about the proportions shown (the more Xs, the more common). 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 term 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 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 made this an official standard protocol for the Internet 🏆. These protocols get STD numbers (see RFC-1311). They're split into two groups: (1) IP protocol and above, 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, so comments and test results should be sent to the IESG 📝. Changes might be made to a Draft Standard Protocol before it becomes a Standard Protocol, so keep an eye out 👀.
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 🚫. Experimental protocols are usually developed as part of an ongoing research project that isn't tied to an operational service offering 🧫. They may be proposed as a service protocol later on and thus become proposed standard, draft standard, and then standard protocols. But calling a protocol experimental can also mean 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 that are outside the purview of the IESG for other reasons, MAY be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community. These are informational protocols 💌.
4.1.6. Historic Protocol 🕰️
These are protocols that are unlikely to ever become Internet standards, either because they've been superseded by later developments or because nobody's interested anymore 🥀.
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 idea 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 on the procedures the RFC Editor and the IESG use when they decide how to label protocols and whether to publish them as standards 🎀.
5.1. The RFC Processing Decision Table 📋
Okay so, here's the current decision table the RFC Editor uses to process submissions 💅. Whether a submission gets published depends on who sent 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 | | | | |
| | | | | |
+==========================================================+Here's what the numbers mean 🔍:
- (1) Publish.
- (2) Bogus. Tell the source where the rules are. Standard or Draft Standard RFCs have to come from the IESG, and only the IESG 🙅♀️.
- (3) Refer it to an Area Director so a WG can review it. The document only comes back to us after the IESG approves it 🔁.
- (4) Notify both the IESG and the IRSG. If nobody raises concerns within two weeks, go with Discretion (5). If there are concerns, the RFC Editor either resolves them or does Refer (3) 😤.
- (5) RFC Editor's discretion 👑. The RFC Editor decides whether a review is needed and, if so, who does it. They also decide whether to publish or not.
Of course, the RFC Editor can always ask for, or make, minor changes for style, format, and presentation ✏️. Totally normal, no drama 💖.
The IESG has appointed the IESG Secretary as its agent 📬. That person forwards documents that have IESG approval, and also records any concerns raised in response to notifications (4) to the RFC Editor. Documents from Area Directors or Working Group Chairs get handled the same way as documents from "other" 🫶.
5.2. The Standards Track Diagram 🛤️
There's a part of the STATUS and STATE categorization called the standards track 🦋. Here's the tea: only changes of state matter for moving along the track, although the status assignments can change too ✨.
Single-line boxes are temporary states, and double-line boxes are long-term states 📦. A protocol is normally expected to sit in a temporary state for several months (at least six months for proposed standard, and at least four months for draft standard) ⏳. A protocol can stay in a long-term state for many years 🌸.
A protocol can enter the standards track only on the recommendation of the IESG, and it can move from one state to another along the track only on the recommendation of the IESG 🙏. Basically, the IESG has to act to either start a protocol on the track or move it along.
When a protocol enters the standards track, a decision gets made about its eventual STATUS and its requirement level or applicability (elective, recommended, or required) 📝. A somewhat less strict current status can be assigned in the meantime. Then it gets placed in the proposed standard STATE with that status 🍓. So the first placement is always 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 happen only 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 happen only by IESG action, and only after the protocol has been draft standard (2) for at least four months 💫.
Sometimes the call is that a protocol isn't ready for standardization yet 🙈. In that case it gets assigned to the experimental state (4). That's off the standards track, but the protocol can be resubmitted to enter the track again after more work 🔧. There are other routes into the experimental and historic states that don't involve IESG action 🧚.
Sometimes one protocol gets replaced by another, so it becomes historic 📜. Other times, a protocol on the standards track gets overtaken by another protocol (or other events) and becomes historic too (state 5) 💀.
6. The Protocols 🎀
Subsection 6.1 lists recent RFCs and other changes 📣. Subsections 6.2 through 6.10 list the standards grouped by protocol state 🗂️.
6.1. Recent Changes ✨
6.1.1. New RFCs ✨
okay bestie, here's the new RFC drop 💅 each one is a number, a title, and what kind of doc it is
- 1640 - The Process for Organization of Internet Standards Working Group (POISED)
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
- 1639 - FTP Operation Over Big Address Records (FOOBAR)
- An Experimental protocol. 🧪
- 1638 - PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP)
- A Proposed Standard protocol. 🌸
- 1637 - DNS NSAP Resource Records
- An Experimental protocol. 🧪
- 1636 - Report of IAB Workshop on Security in the Internet Architecture - February 8-10, 1994
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
- 1635 - How to Use Anonymous FTP
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
- 1634 - Novell IPX Over Various WAN Media (IPXWAN)
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
- 1633 - Integrated Services in the Internet Architecture: an Overview
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
- 1632 - A Revised Catalog of Available X.500 Implementations
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
- 1631 - The IP Network Address Translator (NAT)
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
- 1630 - Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW: A Unifying Syntax for the Expression of Names and Addresses of Objects on the Network as used in the World-Wide Web
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
- 1629 - Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation in the Internet
- A Draft Standard protocol. 👑
- 1628 - UPS Management Information Base
- A Proposed Standard protocol. 🌸
- 1627 - Network 10 Considered Harmful (Some Practices Shouldn't be Codified)
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
- 1626 - Default IP MTU for use over ATM AAL5
- A Proposed Standard protocol. 🌸
- 1625 - WAIS over Z39.50-1988
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
- 1624 - Computation of the Internet Checksum via Incremental Update
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
- 1623 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-like Interface Types
- A Standard protocol. 👑
- 1622 - Pip Header Processing
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
- 1621 - Pip Near-term Architecture
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
- 1620 - Internet Architecture Extensions for Shared Media
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
- 1619 - PPP over SONET/SDH
- A Proposed Standard protocol. 🌸
- 1618 - PPP over ISDN
- A Proposed Standard protocol. 🌸
- 1617 - Naming and Structuring Guidelines for X.500 Directory Pilots
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
- 1616 - X.400(1988) for the Academic and Research Community in Europe
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
- 1615 - Migrating from X.400(84) to X.400(88)
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
- 1614 - Network Access to Multimedia Information
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
- 1613 - cisco Systems X.25 over TCP (XOT)
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
- 1612 - DNS Resolver MIB Extensions
- A Proposed Standard protocol. 🌸
- 1611 - DNS Server MIB Extensions
- A Proposed Standard protocol. 🌸
- 1610 - This memo. 🫣 (that's this very doc, iykyk)
- 1609 - Charting Networks in the X.500 Directory
- An Experimental protocol. 🧪
- 1608 - Representing IP Information in the X.500 Directory
- An Experimental protocol. 🧪
- 1607 - A View from the 21st Century
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
- 1606 - A Historical Perspective On The Usage Of IP Version 9
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
- 1605 - SONET to Sonnet Translation
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
- 1604 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Frame Relay Service
- A Proposed Standard protocol. 🌸
- 1603 - IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
- 1602 - The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 2
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
- 1601 - Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
- 1599 - Not yet issued. 🫥
- 1598 - PPP in X.25
- A Proposed Standard protocol. 🌸
- 1597 - Address Allocation for Private Internets
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
- 1596 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Frame Relay Service
- A Proposed Standard protocol. 🌸
- 1587 - The OSPF NSSA Option
- A Proposed Standard protocol. 🌸
- 1586 - Guidelines for Running OSPF Over Frame Relay Networks
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
- 1585 - MOSPF: Analysis and Experience
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
- 1584 - Multicast Extensions to OSPF
- A Proposed Standard protocol. 🌸
- 1583 - OSPF Version 2
- A Draft Standard protocol. 👑
- 1580 - Guide to Network Resource Tools
- This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 📚
6.1.2. Other Changes
the changes to protocols from the last edition are... nothing 🫠
- None to report.
6.2. Standard Protocols
okay now the big one 🎀 this table is the whole vibe of the standard protocols. don't touch the columns, they're sacred 🙏
Protocol Name Status RFC STD *
======== ===================================== ======== ==== === =
-------- Internet Official Protocol Standards Req 1610 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
ETHER-MIB Ethernet MIB Req 1623 50 *[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.] 💜
Applicability Statements:
okay so IGMP 🦋 the Internet Architecture Board is lowkey trying to get everyone onto general IP multicasting, bc it's way more efficient than broadcasting for a lot of apps 💅. The host interface got standardized in RFC-1112, but multicast-routing gateways are still experimental and not widely available yet 🥺. An Internet host SHOULD support all of RFC-1112, except the IGMP protocol itself, which is OPTIONAL ✨. Check RFC-1122 for more deets. Even without IGMP, implementing RFC-1112 is a huge glow-up because you get IP-layer access to local network multicast addressing 🌸. It is expected that IGMP will become RECOMMENDED for all hosts and gateways at some future date 👑.
SMI, MIB-II SNMP -- okay this one is giving management energy 🍓. The Internet Architecture Board recommends that all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable. Rn that means implementing the Internet MIB-II (RFC-1213), plus at least the RECOMMENDED management protocol SNMP (RFC-1157) 🎀.
RIP -- RIP is everywhere in the Internet, fr fr 🌈. 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 when it gets standardized, bc improved Internet service will result for many users 🫶.
TP-TCP -- as OSI protocols get more widely implemented and used, there's going to be a growing need to support interoperation with the TCP/IP protocols 🧚. The Internet Engineering Task Force is working out strategies for that. RFC-1006 gives one interoperation mode, where TCP/IP is used to emulate TP0 so OSI applications can run. Hosts that wish to run OSI connection-oriented applications in this mode SHOULD use the procedure described in RFC-1006 ✨. In the future, the IAB expects that a major chunk 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. 🌸
Protocol Name State RFC STD *
======== ===================================== ===== ===== === =
IP-ATM Classical IP and ARP over ATM Prop 1577
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 Draft 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:
It is expected that a system will support one or more physical networks, and for each physical network supported, the appropriate protocols from the above list MUST be supported 🫶. That means it's elective to support any particular type of physical network, but for the physical networks you actually support, it is REQUIRED that they be supported exactly according to the protocols in the above list 💅. 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
======== ===================================== ============== =====
OSI-NSAP Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation Elective 1629*
OSPF2 Open Shortest Path First Routing V2 Elective 1583*
ISO-TS-ECHO Echo for ISO-8473 Elective 1575
DECNET-MIB DECNET MIB Elective 1559
PPP_HDLC PPP in HDLC Framing Elective 1549
PPP Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Elective 1548
------- 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
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
POP3 Post Office Protocol, Version 3 Elective 1460
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:
PPP -- Point to Point Protocol is a method of sending IP over serial lines, which are a type of physical network 🧃. It is anticipated that PPP will be advanced to the network-specifics standard protocol state in the future 🔮✨.
6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols ✨
okay bestie, this is the list of protocols that were sitting at Proposed Standard status 💅 every single one is Elective, so nobody is forced to implement any of them. Here's the full table, copied exactly as it's written:
Protocol Name Status RFC
======== ===================================== ============== =====
PPP-BCP PPP Bridging Control Protocol Elective 1638*
UPS-MIB UPS Management Information Base Elective 1628*
AAL5-MTU Default IP MTU for use over ATM AAL5 Elective 1626*
PPP-SONET PPP over SONET/SDH Elective 1619*
PPP-ISDN PPP over ISDN Elective 1618*
DNS-R-MIB DNS Resolver MIB Extensions Elective 1612*
DNS-S-MIB DNS Server MIB Extensions Elective 1611*
FR-MIB Frame Relay Service MIB Elective 1604*
PPP-X25 PPP in X.25 Elective 1598*
OSPF-NSSA The OSPF NSSA Option Elective 1587*
OSPF-Multi Multicast Extensions to OSPF Elective 1584
SONET-MIB MIB SONET/SDH Interface Type Elective 1595
RIP-DC Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Cir. Elective 1582
-------- Evolution of the Interfaces Group of MIB-II Elective 1573
PPP-LCP PPP LCP Extensions Elective 1570
X500-MIB X.500 Directory Monitoring MIB Elective 1567
MAIL-MIB Mail Monitoring MIB Elective 1566
NSM-MIB Network Services Monitoring MIB Elective 1565
CIPX Compressing IPX Headers Over WAM Media Elective 1553
IPXCP PPP Internetworking Packet Exchange Control Elective 1552
CON-MD5 Content-MD5 Header Field Elective 1544
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
------- 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
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
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
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 🦋
okay so, for convenience, all the Telnet Options are collected right here, with both
Okay bestie, here's the full Telnet Options lineup with their state and status 🦋✨
Protocol Name Number State Status RFC STD
======== ===================================== ===== ====== ==== ===
TOPT-BIN Binary Transmission 0 Std Rec 856 27
TOPT-ECHO Echo 1 Std Rec 857 28
TOPT-RECN Reconnection 2 Prop Ele ...
TOPT-SUPP Suppress Go Ahead 3 Std Rec 858 29
TOPT-APRX Approx Message Size Negotiation 4 Prop Ele ...
TOPT-STAT Status 5 Std Rec 859 30
TOPT-TIM Timing Mark 6 Std Rec 860 31
TOPT-REM Remote Controlled Trans and Echo 7 Prop Ele 726
TOPT-OLW Output Line Width 8 Prop Ele ...
TOPT-OPS Output Page Size 9 Prop Ele ...
TOPT-OCRD Output Carriage-Return Disposition 10 Prop Ele 652
TOPT-OHT Output Horizontal Tabstops 11 Prop Ele 653
TOPT-OHTD Output Horizontal Tab Disposition 12 Prop Ele 654
TOPT-OFD Output Formfeed Disposition 13 Prop Ele 655
TOPT-OVT Output Vertical Tabstops 14 Prop Ele 656
TOPT-OVTD Output Vertical Tab Disposition 15 Prop Ele 657
TOPT-OLD Output Linefeed Disposition 16 Prop Ele 658
TOPT-EXT Extended ASCII 17 Prop Ele 698
TOPT-LOGO Logout 18 Prop Ele 727
TOPT-BYTE Byte Macro 19 Prop Ele 735
TOPT-DATA Data Entry Terminal 20 Prop Ele 1043
TOPT-SUP SUPDUP 21 Prop Ele 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 Hist Not 1408
TOPT-AUTH Telnet Authentication Option 37 Exp Ele 1416
TOPT-ENVIR Telnet Environment Option 39 Prop Ele 1572
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
Every single Experimental protocol here has the Limited Use status 🧪💜 It's giving "handle with care, still cooking."
Protocol Name RFC
======== ===================================== =====
FOOBAR FTP Operation Over Big Address Records 1639*
DNS-NSAP DNS NSAP RRs 1637*
X500-CHART Charting Networks in the X.500 Directory 1609*
X500-DIR Representing IP Information in the X.500 Directory 1608*
SNMP-DPI SNMP Distributed Protocol Interface 1592
CLNP-TUBA Use of ISO CLNP in TUBA Environments 1561
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
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[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.]
6.8. Informational Protocols
Informational protocols don't get a status at all, so there's nothing to rank them on 🌸
Protocol Name RFC
======= ==================================== =====
IPXWAN Novell IPX Over Various WAN Media 1634*
SNPP Simple Network Paging Protocol - Version 1(b) 1568
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[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.]
6.9. Historic Protocols
Historic protocols are the retired legends 🕰️ Every single one of them has Not Recommended status, so don't go building anything new on these, bestie 💀
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
-------- 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.]
6.10. Obsolete Protocols
Some of the protocols listed in this memo are described in RFCs that are RFC>>>
Okay so 6.10 is about RFCs that got replaced by newer ones 🦋. "Obsolete" or "obsoleted" isn't an official state or status for a protocol, ngl, so this subsection is just for info 🧚
It might seem totally wrong to have an obsoleted RFC on the list of standards, but sometimes an older standard is still in the middle of getting replaced 💅 That process can take a year or two.
For example, NTP (the Network Time Protocol) [RFC 1119] is a full Standard in version 2, and in version 3 it's a Draft Standard [RFC 1305]. Once version 3 becomes a full Standard, version 2 will be made Historic 🕰️
Lots of obsoleted protocols are kinda boring and get dropped from this memo altogether 😴 But some have gotten enough recognition that it makes sense to list them with their current status and a reference to their replacement 🌸
RFC RFC Status Title *
==== ==== ========= =================================== =
1305 obsoletes 1119 Std /Rec Network Time Protocol (Version 2)
1533 obsoletes 1497 Draft/Rec Bootstrap Protocol
1331 obsoletes 1171 Draft/Ele Point to Point Protocol
1574 obsoletes 1139 Prop /Ele Echo for ISO-8473
1573 obsoletes 1229 Prop /Ele Extensions to the Generic-IF MIB
1559 obsoletes 1289 Prop /Ele DECNET MIB
1548 obsoletes 1331 Prop /Ele Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)
1541 obsoletes 1531 Prop /Ele Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
1592 obsoletes 1228 Exper/Lim SNMP Distributed Program Interface
1528 obsoletes 1486 Exper/Lim An Experiment in Remote Printing
1320 obsoletes 1186 Info / MD4 Message Digest Algorithm
1057 obsoletes 1050 Hist /Not Remote Procedure Call Version 1
1421 obsoletes 1113 Hist /Not Mail Privacy: Procedures
1422 obsoletes 1114 Hist /Not Mail Privacy: Key Management
1423 obsoletes 1115 Hist /Not Mail Privacy: Algorithms
1267 obsoletes 1163 Hist /Not Border Gateway Protocol
1268 obsoletes 1164 Hist /Not Border Gateway ProtocolHuge thanks to Lynn Wheeler of Britton Lee for pulling all this info together for this subsection 🙌✨
[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
Send your comments about this list of protocols, and especially about the Draft Standard Protocols, to the Internet Architecture Board, care of Abel Winerib, IAB Executive Director 💌
Contacts:
Abel Winerib
Executive Director of the IAB
Bellcore
445 South St., MRE2D-298
Morristown, NJ 07960-6438
1-201-829-4454
abel@BELLCORE.COM
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:
Paul Mockapetris
Chair of the IETF
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-310-822-1511
pvm@ISI.EDU
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 info about the status of protocol documents, check out "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1340) 📚 There are also two docs that sum up the requirements for hosts and gateways on the Internet: "Host Requirements" (RFC-1122 and RFC-1123) and "Gateway Requirements" (RFC-1009) 🖥️
How to get the most recent edition of this "Internet Official Protocol Standards" memo: the file in-notes/std/std1.txt can be copied via FTP from the FTP.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.EDUYou can submit documents by email to the RFC Editor for possible publication as an RFC 📨 If you're not sure about the format or style requirements, ask for the "Instructions for RFC Authors". Generally, the style of any recent RFC works 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 email 🌐 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 email 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 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 of resource listings, internet documents such as RFCs, FYIs, STDs, and Internet Drafts, and publicly accessible databases is also available via Gopher 🐿️ All of their collections are WAIS indexed and can be searched from the Gopher menu.
To access the InterNIC Gopher Servers, connect to "internic.net" port 70 🧚
Contact: admin@ds.internic.net7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments
You can find details on many sources of RFCs via FTP or email by sending an email 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. Yikes 💀 Keep this in mind before you rely on anything here.
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.EDUThat's the whole thing, bestie 🌈✨
📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc1610 1994-07
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms