RFC 880

Official protocols

📅 published October 1983, from ietf

RFC 880: OFFICIAL PROTOCOLS 💖

Stream: Network Working Group
Request for Comments: 880
Authors: J. Reynolds and J. Postel, ISI
Date: October 1983
Obsoletes: RFC 840
Updates: not listed in this header

okay bestie, this RFC is the official list of which protocols the Internet is actually supposed to use 💅 Each protocol gets its own little notes section covering status, specification, comments, other references, dependencies, and contact. Annotations flag any revisions or changes that are planned, so you always know what's coming ✨

To first order, the official protocols are the ones in the "Internet Protocol Transition Workbook" (IPTW) dated March 1982. Not gonna lie, there are several protocols in use that aren't in the IPTW 🙈 and a few IPTW protocols have been revised. Notably, the mail protocols got revised and issued as a volume called "Internet Mail Protocols" dated November 1982 📬 Telnet and the most useful option protocols came out from the NIC in a booklet called "Internet Telnet Protocol and Options" (ITP), dated June 1983 🎀 Some protocols haven't been revised in years, so they still live in the old "ARPANET Protocol Handbook" (APH) dated January 1978 🦕 There's also a volume of protocol-related info called the "Internet Protocol Implementers Guide" (IPIG) dated August 1982 🧚

This document is organized as a sketchy outline. The entries are protocols (e.g., Transmission Control Protocol). Each entry has notes on its status, specification, comments, other references, dependencies, and contact 🌸

Here's what each field means:

SPECIFICATION identifies the protocol defining documents.
COMMENTS describe any differences from the specification or problems with the protocol.
OTHER REFERENCES identify documents that comment on or expand on the protocol.
DEPENDENCIES indicate what other protocols are called upon by this protocol.
CONTACT indicates a person who can answer questions about the protocol.

And the status can be one of these, with the vibes for each 👑

required: all hosts must implement the required protocol.
recommended: all hosts are encouraged to implement the recommended protocol.
elective: hosts may implement or not the elective protocol.
experimental: hosts should not implement the experimental protocol unless they are participating in the experiment and have coordinated their use of this protocol with the contact person.
none: this is not a protocol.

Overview

Catenet Model

STATUS: None
SPECIFICATION: IEN 48 (in IPTW)
COMMENTS: This one gives an overview of the organization and principles of the Internet 🌈 It could be revised and expanded, so it's giving future glow-up potential ✨
OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 871 - A Perspective on the ARPANET Reference Model
DEPENDENCIES:
CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Network Level

Internet Protocol (IP)

STATUS: Required 🔥
SPECIFICATION: RFC 791 (in IPTW)
COMMENTS:

This is the universal protocol of the Internet 🌐 It's a datagram protocol that provides the universal addressing of hosts across the whole Internet, so it's literally the main character of this whole list 👑

A few minor problems have been noted in this document 🙈

The most serious one is a bit of confusion in the route options 😭 The route options have a pointer that indicates which octet of the route is the next to be used. The confusion is between the phrases "the pointer is relative to this option" and "the smallest legal value for the pointer is 4". If you're confused, forget about the relative part, because the pointer begins at 4 💅

Another important point is the alternate reassembly procedure suggested in RFC 815 ✨

Note that ICMP is defined to be an integral part of IP. You have not completed an implementation of IP if it does not include ICMP 🫶

OTHER REFERENCES:
- RFC 815 (in IPIG) - IP Datagram Reassembly Algorithms
- RFC 814 (in IPIG) - Names, Addresses, Ports, and Routes
- RFC 816 (in IPIG) - Fault Isolation and Recovery
- RFC 817 (in IPIG) - Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol Implementation
DEPENDENCIES:
CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP)

STATUS: Required 🔥
SPECIFICATION: RFC 792 (in IPTW)
COMMENTS:

This one is the control messages and error reports that go with the Internet Protocol 🚨

A few minor errors in the document have been noted 🍓 Suggestions have been made for additional types of redirect message and additional destination unreachable messages, so there's some extra drama brewing 💀

Note that ICMP is defined to be an integral part of IP. You have not completed an implementation of IP if it does not include ICMP 🫶

OTHER REFERENCES:
DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Host Level ✨

User Datagram Protocol (UDP) 🎀

STATUS: Recommended

SPECIFICATION: RFC 768 (in IPTW)

COMMENTS:

okay so UDP is the chill, no-drama datagram service 🦋 it hands applications a datagram service and adds port addressing on top of IP. that's it, that's the whole vibe 💅

the only change noted for the UDP spec is a tiny clarification: if a padding octet gets used when computing the checksum, it is NOT transmitted and NOT counted in the length 🙈 (lowercase "not" here, it's just a regular word, don't worry 💜)

OTHER REFERENCES: none listed

DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) 💖

STATUS: Recommended

SPECIFICATION: RFC 793 (in IPTW)

COMMENTS:

TCP is the reliable one, bestie 🫶 it gives you an end-to-end data stream service that actually keeps its promises. it's giving dependable energy ✨

so, a LOT of comments and corrections came in for the TCP spec. the vast majority are document bugs, not protocol bugs 🙈 which is honestly a relief lol

Event Processing Section: there are many minor corrections and clarifications needed in here 📝
Push: some phrases still give a "record mark" flavor to the push, and that needs clarifying. ✨ the push is NOT a record mark. (it's not, don't let the text fool you 😭)
Listening Servers: several people had trouble contacting listening servers. the doc should discuss implementation issues for servers, plus some notes on alternative models of system and process organization for servers 🧚
Maximum Segment Size: this option should be generalized and clarified 💅 it can increase OR decrease the maximum segment size from the default, and the default needs to be established more clearly. the default comes from the default maximum Internet Datagram size, which is 576 octets counting the IP and TCP headers. the option only counts segment data. for each of IP and TCP the minimum header is 20 octets and the maximum header is 60 octets, so the default maximum data segment could be anywhere from 456 to 536 octets 🌸 the current proposal is to set it at 536 data octets.
Idle Connections: people asked about automatically closing idle connections. idle connections are ok and SHOULD NOT be closed... wait, correction: the original says they "should not be closed," lowercase, so no key word here 🙈 idle connections are ok and should not be closed. they show up in cases like Telnet, when a user is thinking for a long time after a message from the server computer before typing their next input. there is no TCP "probe" mechanism, and none is needed 💜
Queued Receive Data on Closing: it's not clear from the description what to do with data that TCP has received but not yet passed to the user, especially when the connection is closing 😭 in general, that data is kept so it can be given to the user if they make a RECV call.
Out of Order Segments: the description says segments that arrive out of order (not exactly the next segment to be processed) may be kept on hand. it should also point out that there is a very large performance penalty for NOT doing so 🔥 (again, plain "not," just vibes 💅)
User Time Out: this is the time out started on an open or send call. if it happens, the user should be notified, but the connection should not be closed and the TCB should not be deleted. if the user wants to give up, they should explicitly ABORT the connection 🦋

OTHER REFERENCES:

RFC 813 (in IPIG) - Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP
RFC 814 (in IPIG) - Names, Addresses, Ports, and Routes
RFC 816 (in IPIG) - Fault Isolation and Recovery
RFC 817 (in IPIG) - Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol Implementation

DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Host Monitoring Protocol (HMP) 🍓

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: IEN 197

COMMENTS:

this one is a good tool for debugging protocol implementations in small, remotely located computers 🧚

it's also used to monitor Internet gateways and the TACs 👑

OTHER REFERENCES: none listed

DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

CONTACT: Hinden@BBN-UNIX

Cross Net Debugger (XNET) 🌈

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: IEN 158

COMMENTS:

XNET is a debugging protocol that gives debugger-like access to remote systems. so iconic 🔥

this specification should be updated and reissued as an RFC, periodt 💅

OTHER REFERENCES:

RFC 643

DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP) 🌸

STATUS: Experimental

SPECIFICATION: RFC 827

COMMENTS:

this is the gateway protocol that's still under development, so it's giving work-in-progress energy 🛠️

please discuss any plans for implementing or using this protocol with the contact 🫶

OTHER REFERENCES: none listed

DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

CONTACT: Mills@USC-ISID

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: General description of options: RFC 855 (in "Internet Telnet Protocol and Options")

Here's the whole options table, bestie. don't panic, it's a lot but it's giving organized 📋

Number   Name                                RFC  NIC  ITP APH USE
------   ---------------------------------   --- ----- --- --- ---
   0     Binary Transmission                 856 ----- yes obs yes
   1     Echo                                857 ----- yes obs yes
   2     Reconnection                        ... 15391  no yes  no
   3     Suppress Go Ahead                   858 ----- yes obs yes
   4     Approx Message Size Negotiation     ... 15393  no yes  no
   5     Status                              859 ----- yes obs yes
   6     Timing Mark                         860 ----- yes obs yes
   7     Remote Controlled Trans and Echo    726 39237  no yes  no
   8     Output Line Width                   ... 20196  no yes  no
   9     Output Page Size                    ... 20197  no yes  no
  10     Output Carriage-Return Disposition  652 31155  no yes  no
  11     Output Horizontal Tabstops          653 31156  no yes  no
  12     Output Horizontal Tab Disposition   654 31157  no yes  no
  13     Output Formfeed Disposition         655 31158  no yes  no
  14     Output Vertical Tabstops            656 31159  no yes  no
  15     Output Vertical Tab Disposition     657 31160  no yes  no
  16     Output Linefeed Disposition         658 31161  no yes  no
  17     Extended ASCII                      698 32964  no yes  no
  18     Logout                              727 40025  no yes  no
  19     Byte Macro                          735 42083  no yes  no
  20     Data Entry Terminal                 732 41762  no yes  no
  21     SUPDUP                          734 736 42213  no yes  no
  22     SUPDUP Output                       749 45449  no  no  no
  23     Send Location                       779 -----  no  no  no
 255     Extended-Options-List               861 ----- yes obs yes

                                                  (obs = obsolete)

the ITP column tells you if the spec is included in the Internet Telnet Protocol and Options 📖 the APH column tells you if it's included in the ARPANET Protocol Handbook 📚 and the USE column shows which options are in general use 💅

COMMENTS:

the Binary Transmission, Echo, Suppress Go Ahead, Status, Timing Mark, and Extended Options List options have been recently updated and reissued. these are the most frequently implemented options, so they're the main characters 👑

the remaining options should be reviewed. the useful ones should be revised and reissued, and the others should be eliminated 🗑️

the following are recommended: Binary Transmission, Echo, Suppress Go Ahead, Status, Timing Mark, and Extended Options List 🫶

OTHER REFERENCES: none listed

DEPENDENCIES: Telnet

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

File Transfer Protocol (FTP) 📁

STATUS: Recommended

SPECIFICATION: RFC 765 (in IPTW)

COMMENTS:

FTP is the protocol for moving files between Internet hosts 🚀 it provides for access control and negotiation of file parameters, so you get a little say in how your files travel 💅

There are a bunch of tiny fixes to make 🔧, but the big ones are: the MAIL commands are getting deleted 😭, and the way we manage the data connection needs a serious glow-up ✨. Someone also suggested adding some directory manipulation commands (RFC 775) 📁.

Even though the MAIL features are defined in this document, they are not to be used 🙅‍♀️. SMTP is the one for all mail service on the Internet 💌.

a. Default Data Connection Ports: All FTP implementations MUST support use of the default data connection ports 🔐, and only the User-PI MAY start using non-default ports.

b. Negotiating Non-Default Data Ports: The User-PI MAY specify a non-default user side data port with the PORT command. The User-PI MAY ask the server side to identify a non-default server side data port with the PASV command. A connection is defined by its pair of addresses, so either of these actions is enough to get a different data connection 🦋. It's still allowed to do both commands, so you can use new ports on both ends of the data connection.

c. Reuse of the Data Connection: When you're using stream mode for data transfer, the end of the file MUST be indicated by closing the connection. This causes a problem if you want to transfer multiple files in one session. TCP has to hold the connection record for a time-out period to keep the communication reliable, so the connection can't be reopened right away 😤.

There are two solutions to this. The first is to negotiate a non-default port (as in (b) above). The second is to use another transfer mode 🌸.

A quick comment on transfer modes 💅. Stream mode is inherently unreliable, because you can't tell whether the connection closed early or not. The other transfer modes (Block, Compressed) don't close the connection to indicate the end of the file. They have enough FTP encoding that the data connection can be parsed to find the end of the file. So with these modes, you can leave the data connection open for multiple file transfers ✨.

Why this wasn't a problem with the old NCP FTP 🕰️

The NCP was designed with only the ARPANET in mind. The ARPANET was super reliable, and the NCP relied on that. If any packet of data from an NCP connection was lost or damaged by the network, the NCP couldn't recover. It's honestly a tribute to the ARPANET designers that the NCP FTP worked so well 👑.

TCP is designed to provide reliable connections over many different types of networks and interconnections of networks. TCP MUST cope with a set of networks that can't promise to work as well as the ARPANET 🌈. TCP MUST make its own provisions for end-to-end recovery from lost or damaged packets. That's why we need the connection phase-down time-out. The NCP never had to deal with acknowledgements, retransmissions, or many other things the TCP MUST do to keep the connection reliable in a more complex world 💀.

LIST and NLST: There's some confusion about the LIST and NLST commands, and about what they're supposed to return 🙈. Some clarification and motivation for these commands SHOULD be added to the specification.

OTHER REFERENCES:

RFC 678 - Document File Format Standards

DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP) 🧚

STATUS: Elective
SPECIFICATION: RFC 783 (in IPTW)
COMMENTS: A very simple file moving protocol. No access control is provided 🍓. No known problems with this specification. It's in use in several local networks 🌸.
OTHER REFERENCES:
DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol
CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) 💌

STATUS: Recommended
SPECIFICATION: RFC 821 (in "Internet Mail Protocols")
COMMENTS: This is the procedure for transmitting computer mail between hosts 📨.

This has been revised since the IPTW. It's in the "Internet Mail Protocols" volume of November 1982. RFC 788 (in IPTW) is obsolete 🙅‍♀️.

There have been many misunderstandings and errors in the early implementations. Some documentation of these problems can be found in the file [ISIF]<SMTP>MAIL.ERRORS 😭.

Some minor differences between RFC 821 and RFC 822 SHOULD be resolved.

OTHER REFERENCES:
- RFC 822 - Mail Header Format Standards

This has been revised since the IPTW. It's in the "Internet Mail Protocols" volume of November 1982. RFC 733 (in IPTW) is obsolete. Further revision of RFC 822 is needed to correct some minor errors in the details of the specification 🔍.

DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Remote Job Entry (RJE) 🗂️

STATUS: Elective
SPECIFICATION: RFC 407 (in APH)
COMMENTS: The general protocol for submitting batch jobs and retrieving the results. Some changes are needed for use with TCP. No known active implementations 🥀.
OTHER REFERENCES:
DEPENDENCIES: File Transfer Protocol, Transmission Control Protocol
CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Remote Job Service (NETRJS) 🖥️

STATUS: Elective
SPECIFICATION: RFC 740 (in APH)
COMMENTS: A special protocol for submitting batch jobs and retrieving the results, used with the UCLA IBM OS system. Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this protocol with the contact 💬. Revision in progress ⭐.
OTHER REFERENCES:
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
CONTACT: Braden@USC-ISIA

Remote Telnet Service (RTELNET) 🛰️

STATUS: Elective
SPECIFICATION: RFC 818
COMMENTS: Provides special access to user Telnet on a remote system 🔑.
OTHER REFERENCES:
DEPENDENCIES: Telnet, Transmission Control Protocol
CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Graphics Protocol (GRAPHICS) 🎨

STATUS: Elective
SPECIFICATION: NIC 24308 (in APH)
COMMENTS: The protocols for vector graphics. Very minor changes are needed for use with TCP. No known active implementations 🌫️.
OTHER REFERENCES:
DEPENDENCIES: Telnet, Transmission Control Protocol
CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Echo Protocol (ECHO) 🔊

STATUS: Recommended
SPECIFICATION: RFC 862
COMMENTS: A debugging protocol that sends back whatever you send it 🪞.
OTHER REFERENCES:
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol or User Datagram Protocol
CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Discard Protocol (DISCARD) 🗑️

STATUS: Elective
SPECIFICATION: RFC 863
COMMENTS: A debugging protocol that throws away whatever you send it 💨.
OTHER REFERENCES:
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol or User Datagram Protocol
CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Character Generator Protocol (CHARGEN) 🔤

STATUS: Elective
SPECIFICATION: RFC 864
COMMENTS: A debugging protocol that sends you ASCII data 🔡.
OTHER REFERENCES:
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol or User Datagram Protocol
CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Quote of the Day Protocol (QUOTE) 💬

STATUS: Elective
SPECIFICATION: RFC 865
COMMENTS: A debugging protocol that sends you a short ASCII message ✨.
OTHER REFERENCES:
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol or User Datagram Protocol
CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Active Users Protocol (USERS) 👯

STATUS: Elective
SPECIFICATION: RFC 866
COMMENTS: Lists the currently active users 🙋‍♀️.
OTHER REFERENCES:
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol or User Datagram Protocol
CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Finger Protocol (FINGER) 👆

STATUS: Elective
SPECIFICATION: RFC 742 (in APH)
COMMENTS: Provides information on the current or most recent activity of a user 👀. Some extensions have been suggested. Some changes are needed for TCP.
OTHER REFERENCES:
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

NICNAME Protocol (NICNAME) 📇

STATUS: Elective
SPECIFICATION: RFC 812 (in IPTW)
COMMENTS: Accesses the ARPANET Directory database. It provides a way to find out about people, their addresses, phone numbers, organizations, and mailboxes 📬.
OTHER REFERENCES:
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
CONTACT: Feinler@SRI-NIC

HOSTNAME Protocol (HOSTNAME) 🏠

STATUS: Elective
SPECIFICATION: RFC 811 (in IPTW)
COMMENTS: Accesses the Registered Internet Hosts database (HOSTS.TXT). It provides a way to find out about a host in the Internet, its Internet Address, and the protocols it implements 🗺️.
OTHER REFERENCES:
- RFC 810 - Host Table Specification
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
CONTACT: Feinler@SRI-NIC

Host Name Server Protocol (NAMESERVER) 🧭

STATUS: Experimental
SPECIFICATION: IEN 116 (in IPTW)
COMMENTS: A machine-oriented procedure for translating a host name to an Internet Address 🤖.

This specification has significant problems 🚩:

The name syntax is out of date.
The protocol details are ambiguous. In particular, the length octet either does or doesn't include itself and the op code.
The extensions are not supported by any known implementation.

Work is in progress on a significant revision. Further implementations of this protocol are not advised 🚫. Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this protocol with the contact 💌.

OTHER REFERENCES:
DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol
CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

CSNET Mailbox Name Server Protocol (CSNET-NAMESERVER) 📮

STATUS: Experimental
SPECIFICATION: CS-DN-2
COMMENTS: Provides access to the CSNET data base of users, to give information about users' names, affiliations, and mailboxes 🧪.

Okay so we're picking up right where the last entry wrapped up 💅 Please chat with the contact before you do anything with this protocol, bestie. Any implementation or use plans go through them first 🫶

OTHER REFERENCES: (nothing listed)
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
CONTACT: Solomon@UWISC

Daytime Protocol (DAYTIME) 🌤️

STATUS: Elective
SPECIFICATION: RFC 867
COMMENTS: This one is giving simple and sweet 🎀 It gives you the day and the time as an ASCII character string 📅
OTHER REFERENCES: (nothing listed)
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol or User Datagram Protocol
CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Time Server Protocol (TIME) ⏰

STATUS: Recommended 💚
SPECIFICATION: RFC 868
COMMENTS: Main character energy for timekeeping 👑 It gives the time as a count of seconds from a specified reference time ✨
OTHER REFERENCES: (nothing listed)
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol or User Datagram Protocol
CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

DCNET Time Server Protocol (CLOCK) 🕰️

STATUS: Elective
SPECIFICATION: RFC 778
COMMENTS: Lowkey obsessed with this one 😭 It provides a mechanism for keeping clocks synchronized 🔁
OTHER REFERENCES: (nothing listed)
DEPENDENCIES: Internet Control Message Protocol
CONTACT: Mills@USC-ISID

SUPDUP Protocol (SUPDUP) 🖥️

STATUS: Elective
SPECIFICATION: RFC 734 (in APH)
COMMENTS: A special Telnet-like protocol for display terminals 💻✨ Very specific, very iconic.
OTHER REFERENCES: (nothing listed)
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
CONTACT: Admin.MRC@SU-SCORE

Internet Message Protocol (MPM) 📬

STATUS: Experimental 🧪
SPECIFICATION: RFC 759
COMMENTS: This is an experimental multimedia mail transfer protocol 🌈 The implementation is called a Message Processing Module or MPM.

Pls discuss any plans for implementing or using this protocol with the contact before you start 🫶

OTHER REFERENCES:
- RFC 767 - Structured Document Formats 📄
DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Network Standard Text Editor (NETED) ✏️

STATUS: Elective
SPECIFICATION: RFC 569
COMMENTS: Describes a simple line editor that could be provided by every Internet host 🍓 Simple, but make it a standard 💅
OTHER REFERENCES: (nothing listed)
DEPENDENCIES: (nothing listed)
CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Appendices ✨

Assigned Numbers 🔢

STATUS: None
SPECIFICATION: RFC 870
COMMENTS: This one's the big list of fields and the specific values that actually get assigned for real use 📋 It lists the currently assigned values too 💜

Issued October 1983, replaces RFC 790 in IPTW, and RFC 820 of January 1983 🗓️

OTHER REFERENCES: (nothing listed)
CONTACT: JKReynolds@USC-ISIF

Pre-emption 🚦

STATUS: Elective
SPECIFICATION: RFC 794 (in IPTW)
COMMENTS: Describes how to do pre-emption of TCP connections 🫧
OTHER REFERENCES: (nothing listed)
CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Service Mappings 🗺️

STATUS: None
SPECIFICATION: RFC 795 (in IPTW)
COMMENTS: Describes the mapping of the IP type of service field onto the parameters of some specific networks 🛰️

Out of date, needs revision. 💀

OTHER REFERENCES: (nothing listed)
CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Address Mappings 📍

STATUS: None
SPECIFICATION: RFC 796 (in IPTW)
COMMENTS: Describes the mapping between Internet Addresses and the addresses of some specific networks 🗂️

Out of date, needs revision. 🙈

OTHER REFERENCES: (nothing listed)
CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

Internet Protocol on X.25 Networks 📡

STATUS: Recommended 💚
SPECIFICATION: RFC 877
COMMENTS: A standard for transmitting IP Datagrams over Public Data Networks 🌸 Very organized, very slay.
OTHER REFERENCES: (nothing listed)
CONTACT: jtk@PURDUE 🦋

📦 where this page comes from

ietf: rfc880 1983-10
💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on 2026-10-18: a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms