RFC 991

Official ARPA-Internet protocols

📅 published November 1986, from ietf

RFC 991: Official ARPA-Internet Protocols ✨

Okay bestie, let's get into it 💖 This is RFC 991, titled Official ARPA-Internet Protocols. It was written in November 1986 by J. Reynolds and J. Postel from ISI, for the Network Working Group 🎀 The header doesn't list a category. It says this RFC obsoletes RFCs 961, 943, 924, 901, 880, and 840, and it doesn't update anything.

Status of This Memo 🌸

This is an official status report on the protocols used in the ARPA-Internet community. Anyone can share it, no limits 🫶

Introduction 🦋

So this RFC basically tells you which documents define the official protocols of the Internet. It also says when revisions or changes are planned, which is giving "stay updated" energy 💅

To first order, the official protocols are the ones in the "DDN Protocol Handbook" (DPH), dated December 1985. Fair warning: it's a three-volume set about 5 inches thick. Yes, really 😭

There are older collections that cover a lot of the same specs too:

  • The "Internet Protocol Transition Workbook" (IPTW), dated March 1982
  • The "Internet Mail Protocols", dated November 1982
  • The "Internet Telnet Protocols and Options", dated June 1983
  • The "Internet Protocol Implementers Guide" (IPIG), dated August 1982, which is more of a protocol info volume
  • The even older "ARPANET Protocol Handbook" (APH), dated January 1978

The good news is that nearly all the relevant stuff from these collections has already been reproduced in the current DPH 🧚

This document is a sketchy outline, so each entry is a protocol (for example, Transmission Control Protocol). Every entry has notes on these things:

  • STATUS 👑 Each protocol gets one of these: required, recommended, elective, experimental, or none.
  • SPECIFICATION 📜 Which protocol-defining documents to read.
  • COMMENTS 💬 Any differences from the spec, or problems with the protocol.
  • OTHER REFERENCES 📚 Documents that comment on or expand on the protocol.
  • DEPENDENCIES 🔗 Other protocols this one calls on.
  • CONTACT 📞 A person who can answer your questions.

Now the status values, because these matter a lot:

  • required: all hosts must implement the required protocol. No skipping! 🔥
  • recommended: all hosts are encouraged to implement the recommended protocol. It's a strong "please do" 🌈
  • elective: hosts may implement the elective protocol or not. Your call, babe 💜
  • experimental: hosts should not implement the experimental protocol unless they're taking part in the experiment and have coordinated their use of it with the contact person. Basically, get permission first 🙈
  • none: this is not a protocol. 💀

For more info about protocols in general, you can reach out to:

Joyce K. Reynolds
USC - Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, California  90292-6695

Phone: (213) 822-1511

ARPA mail: JKREYNOLDS@ISI.EDU

Overview 🌈

Catenet Model 🦋

Catenet Model  ------------------------------------------------------

STATUS: None

SPECIFICATION: IEN 48 (in DPH)

COMMENTS:

This one gives an overview of the organization and principles of the Internet. It's literally the big-picture vibe check ✨ It could be revised and expanded, so keep an eye out 👀

OTHER REFERENCES:

  • Leiner, B., Cole R., Postel, J., and D. Mills, "The DARPA Protocol Suite", IEEE INFOCOM 85, Washington, D.C., March 1985. Also in IEEE Communications Magazine, and as ISI/RS-85-153, March 1985.
  • Postel, J., "Internetwork Applications Using the DARPA Protocol Suite", IEEE INFOCOM 85, Washington, D.C., March 1985. Also in IEEE Communications Magazine, and as ISI/RS-85-151, April 1985.
  • Padlipsky, M.A., "The Elements of Networking Style and other Essays and Animadversions on the Art of Intercomputer Networking", Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1985.
  • RFC 871 - A Perspective on the ARPANET Reference Model

DEPENDENCIES: (blank in this RFC)

CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU 💌

HOST LEVEL ✨

Okay bestie, now we're going down to the host level, where the protocols actually live in the machines 💻🎀

User Datagram Protocol (UDP) 🦋

   User Datagram Protocol  --------------------------------------- (UDP)
  • STATUS: Recommended
  • SPECIFICATION: RFC 768 (in DPH)
  • COMMENTS:

UDP gives applications a datagram service, and it adds port addressing on top of the IP services. Slay 💅

The only change noted for the UDP spec is a small clarification. If a padding octet gets used when computing the checksum, it doesn't get transmitted or counted in the length. Tiny detail, but it's the kind of thing that matters 🙈

  • OTHER REFERENCES: none listed
  • DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
  • CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) 💖

   Transmission Control Protocol  -------------------------------- (TCP)
  • STATUS: Recommended
  • SPECIFICATION: RFC 793 (in DPH)
  • COMMENTS:

TCP is the reliable end-to-end data stream service. It's the queen of the stack 👑

A lot of comments and corrections came in for the TCP spec doc. Mostly these are document bugs, not protocol bugs, so don't panic 😭

  • Event Processing Section: There are a bunch of minor corrections and clarifications needed in this section.
  • Push: Some phrases still give off a "record mark" vibe. They should be clarified more. The push is not a record mark, period 🫶
  • Urgent: Page 17 is wrong. The urgent pointer points to the last octet of urgent data, not to the first octet of non-urgent data. Read that twice 🙃
  • Listening Servers: People have had trouble contacting listening servers. The doc should discuss implementation issues for servers, plus some notes on alternative models for organizing systems and processes on the server side 🧚
  • Maximum Segment Size: The maximum segment size option should be generalized and clarified. It can be used to either increase or decrease the maximum segment size from the default. The TCP Maximum Segment Size is the IP Maximum Datagram Size minus forty. The default IP Maximum Datagram Size is 576. The default TCP Maximum Segment Size is 536. For more on this, see RFC 879 🍓
  • Idle Connections: People have asked about automatically closing idle connections. Idle connections are ok and should not be closed. They pop up all the time. For example, in Telnet, a user might be 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 always clear what to do with data the 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 handed to the user if they do a RECV call 📦
  • Out of Order Segments: The description says segments that arrive out of order (meaning they aren't 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. Keep those segments, bestie 💅
  • User Time Out: This is the time out started on an open or send call. If this user time out occurs, 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 DPH) - Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP
    • RFC 814 (in DPH) - Names, Addresses, Ports, and Routes
    • RFC 816 (in DPH) - Fault Isolation and Recovery
    • RFC 817 (in DPH) - Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol Implementation
    • RFC 879 - TCP Maximum Segment Size
    • RFC 889 - Internet Delay Experiments
    • RFC 896 - TCP/IP Congestion Control
    • MIL-STD-1778 (in DPH) - Military Standard Transmission Control Protocol
    • RFC 964 - Some Problems with the Specification of the Military Standard Transmission Control Protocol
    • Zhang, Lixia, "Why TCP Timers Don't Work Well", Communications Architectures and Protocols, ACM SIGCOMM Proceedings, Computer Communications Review, V.16, N.3, August 1986.
  • DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
  • CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Host Monitoring Protocol (HMP) 🔍

   Host Monitoring Protocol  ------------------------------------- (HMP)
  • STATUS: Elective
  • SPECIFICATION: RFC 869 (in DPH)
  • COMMENTS:

This is a great tool for debugging protocol implementations on remotely located computers 🎀

This protocol is used to monitor Internet gateways and the TACs 👀

  • OTHER REFERENCES: none listed
  • DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
  • CONTACT: Hinden@BBN.COM

Cross Net Debugger (XNET) 🐞

   Cross Net Debugger  ------------------------------------------ (XNET)
  • STATUS: Elective
  • SPECIFICATION: IEN 158 (in DPH)
  • COMMENTS:

This is a debugging protocol that gives debugger-like access to remote systems. Main character debugging energy 🧑‍💻

This spec should be updated and reissued as an RFC 📝

  • OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 643
  • DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
  • CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP) 🌐

   Exterior Gateway Protocol  ------------------------------------ (EGP)

This is the protocol gateways use to swap routing info when they belong to different administrations 🤝

If you have plans to implement or use this protocol, please discuss them with the contact 💌

  • OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 827, RFC 890
  • DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
  • CONTACT: Mills@ISI.EDU

Gateway Gateway Protocol (GGP) 🚪

   Gateway Gateway Protocol  ------------------------------------- (GGP)
  • STATUS: Experimental
  • SPECIFICATION: RFC 823 (in DPH)
  • COMMENTS:

This is the gateway protocol the core gateways use right now. Iconic 👑

If you have plans to implement or use this protocol, please discuss them with the contact 🫶

  • OTHER REFERENCES: none listed
  • DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
  • CONTACT: Brescia@BBN.COM

Multiplexing Protocol (MUX) 🧩

   Multiplexing Protocol  ---------------------------------------- (MUX)
  • STATUS: Experimental
  • SPECIFICATION: IEN 90 (in DPH)
  • COMMENTS:

This defines a way to combine several segments from different higher level protocols into one IP datagram. Packing the group chat into one message 📦

There's no current experiment in progress. There's some question about how much of the sharing this protocol envisions can actually happen. There are also some issues with the information in the multiplexing header being either (a) insufficient or (b) over specific 🤔

If you have plans to implement or use this protocol, please discuss them with the contact 💜

  • OTHER REFERENCES: none listed
  • DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
  • CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Stream Protocol (ST) 🌊

   Stream Protocol  ----------------------------------------------- (ST)
  • STATUS: Experimental
  • SPECIFICATION: IEN 119 (in DPH)
  • COMMENTS:

This is a gateway resource allocation protocol made for multihost real time applications ⏱️

The implementation has evolved and may no longer match this spec. The document should be updated and issued as an RFC. Growth arc 🌱

If you have plans to implement or use this protocol, please discuss them with the contact 💅

  • OTHER REFERENCES: none listed
  • DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
  • CONTACT: jwf@LL-EN.ARPA

Network Voice Protocol (NVP-II) 🎙️

   Network Voice Protocol  ------------------------------------ (NVP-II)
  • STATUS: Experimental
  • SPECIFICATION: ISI Internal Memo
  • COMMENTS:

This defines the procedures for real time voice conferencing. Hello, group call 📞

The spec is an ISI Internal Memo that should be updated and issued as an RFC 📝

If you have plans to implement or use this protocol, please discuss them with the contact 🎀

  • OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 741 (in DPH)
  • DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol, Stream Protocol
  • CONTACT: Casner@ISI.EDU

Reliable Data Protocol (RDP) 📦

   Reliable Data Protocol  --------------------------------------- (RDP)
  • STATUS: Experimental
  • SPECIFICATION: RFC 908 (in DPH)
  • COMMENTS:

This protocol is built to efficiently support bulk data transfer for host monitoring and control applications like loading/dumping and remote debugging. It's meant to be simple to implement but still efficient where there may be long transmission delays and loss or non-sequential delivery of message segments. Simple but still strong, very relatable 🦋

If you have plans to implement or use this protocol, please discuss them with the contact 💖

  • OTHER REFERENCES: none listed
  • DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
  • CONTACT: CWelles@BBN.COM

Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol (IRTP) 🔁

   Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol  ---------------------- (IRTP)
  • STATUS: Experimental
  • SPECIFICATION: RFC 938
  • COMMENTS:

This is a transport level host to host protocol designed for an internet environment. The issues discussed might not be directly relevant to the DARPA community's research problems, but a bunch of researchers and implementors might find them interesting 🤓

  • OTHER REFERENCES: none listed
  • DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
  • CONTACT: Trudy@ACC.ARPA

APPLICATION LEVEL 🌈

Last stop, the application level, where the protocols are the ones people actually touch 💅

Telnet Protocol (TELNET) 🖥️

   Telnet Protocol  ------------------------------------------- (TELNET)
  • STATUS: Recommended
  • SPECIFICATION: RFC 854 (in DPH)
  • COMMENTS:

This is the protocol for remote terminal access. The classic 🍓

This has been revised since the IPTW. RFC 764 in IPTW is now obsolete 📜

  • OTHER REFERENCES:
    • MIL-STD-1782 (in DPH) - Telnet Protocol
  • DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
  • CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Telnet Options (TELNET-OPTIONS) ⚙️

   Telnet Options  ------------------------------------ (TELNET-OPTIONS)
  • STATUS: Elective
  • SPECIFICATION: General description of options: RFC 855 (in DPH)

Okay bestie, the Telnet options table is the first thing here. Let's go 🦋

      Number   Name                                    RFC  NIC  DPH USE
      ------   ---------------------------------       --- ----- --- ---
         0     Binary Transmission                     856 ----- yes yes
         1     Echo                                    857 ----- yes yes
         2     Reconnection                            ... 15391 yes  no
         3     Suppress Go Ahead                       858 ----- yes yes
         4     Approx Message Size Negotiation         ... 15393 yes  no
         5     Status                                  859 ----- yes yes
         6     Timing Mark                             860 ----- yes yes
         7     Remote Controlled Trans and Echo        726 39237 yes  no
         8     Output Line Width                       ... 20196 yes  no
         9     Output Page Size                        ... 20197 yes  no
        10     Output Carriage-Return Disposition      652 31155 yes  no
        11     Output Horizontal Tabstops              653 31156 yes  no
        12     Output Horizontal Tab Disposition       654 31157 yes  no
        13     Output Formfeed Disposition             655 31158 yes  no
        14     Output Vertical Tabstops                656 31159 yes  no
        15     Output Vertical Tab Disposition         657 31160 yes  no
        16     Output Linefeed Disposition             658 31161 yes  no
        17     Extended ASCII                          698 32964 yes  no
        18     Logout                                  727 40025 yes  no
        19     Byte Macro                              735 42083 yes  no
        20     Data Entry Terminal                     732 41762 yes  no
        21     SUPDUP                              734 736 42213 yes  no
        22     SUPDUP Output                           749 45449 yes  no
        23     Send Location                           779 ----- yes  no
        24     Terminal Type                           930 ----- yes  no
        25     End of Record                           885 ----- yes  no
        26     TACACS User Identification              927 ----- yes  no
        27     Output Marking                          933 ----- yes  no
        28     Terminal Location Number                946 -----  no  no
       255     Extended-Options-List                   861 ----- yes yes

The DHP column tells you if the spec is in the DDN Protocol Handbook 📚✨ and the USE column tells you which options are in general use 💅

COMMENTS:

Okay so the Binary Transmission, Echo, Suppress Go Ahead, Status, Timing Mark, and Extended Options List options were recently updated and reissued 🎀 They're the most frequently implemented ones, so they're the main characters 👑

The remaining options should be reviewed, and the useful ones should be revised and reissued. 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@ISI.EDU

File Transfer Protocol (FTP) 📂

STATUS: Recommended

SPECIFICATION: RFC 959 (in DPH)

COMMENTS:

FTP is the protocol for moving files between Internet hosts 🚀 It's giving access control AND negotiation of file parameters, iconic behavior 💅

The following new optional commands are included in this edition of the specification: Change to Parent Directory (CDUP), Structure Mount (SMNT), Store Unique (STOU), Remove Directory (RMD), Make Directory (MKD), Print Directory (PWD), and System (SYST) ✨ Also, this specification is compatible with the previous edition (RFC 765) 🫶

Ngl there was a discrepancy in the examples of Appendix II 😭 On page 63, a response code of 200 is shown as the response to a CWD command. But under the list of Command-Reply Sequences cited on page 50, CWD is shown to only accept a 250 response code. So if you'd interpret a CWD command as being excluded from the File System functional category, you may assume that the response code of 200 is correct, since CDUP as a special case of CWD does use 200 🧚

OTHER REFERENCES:

  • RFC 678 (in DPH) - Document File Format Standards
  • MIL-STD-1780 (in DPH) - File Transfer Protocol

DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP) 🌸

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: RFC 783 (in IPTW)

COMMENTS:

TFTP is a very simple file moving protocol, and no access control is provided 🍓 It's in use in several local networks, so it's got friends everywhere 🌈

Ambiguities in the interpretation of several of the transfer modes should be clarified, and additional transfer modes could be defined. Additional error codes could be defined to more clearly identify problems 🔥

Note: The DPH contains IEN-133, which is an obsolete version of this protocol. Don't let the old version trick you 🙈

OTHER REFERENCES: none listed

DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Simple File Transfer Protocol (SFTP) 🧪

STATUS: Experimental

SPECIFICATION: RFC 913 (in DPH)

COMMENTS:

SFTP is a simple file transfer protocol, and it fills the need of people who want something more useful than TFTP but easier to implement (and less powerful) than FTP 🎀 It supports user access control, file transfers, directory listing, directory changing, file renaming and deleting 💖

SFTP can be implemented with any reliable 8-bit byte stream oriented protocol. This document describes its TCP specification. SFTP uses only one TCP connection, whereas TFTP implements a connection over UDP, and FTP uses two TCP connections (one using the TELNET protocol) 🦋

Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this protocol with the contact 🫶

OTHER REFERENCES: none listed

DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

CONTACT: MKL@SRI-NIC.ARPA

Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) 💌

STATUS: Recommended

SPECIFICATION: RFC 821 (in DPH)

COMMENTS:

SMTP is the procedure for transmitting computer mail between hosts 💅

This has been revised since the IPTW, and it is 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 [ISIB]<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, and it is 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 🙈
    • Note: RFC 822 is not included in the DPH (an accident, it should have been) 💀
  • MIL-STD-1781 (in DPH) - Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)

DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) 📰

STATUS: Experimental

SPECIFICATION: RFC 977

COMMENTS:

NNTP specifies a protocol for the distribution, inquiry, retrieval, and posting of news articles, using a reliable stream-based transmission of news among the ARPA-Internet community 🌐 It's designed so that news articles are stored in a central database, letting a subscriber select only those items they wish to read 👑 Indexing, cross-referencing, and expiration of aged messages are also provided ✨

Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this protocol with the contact 🫶

OTHER REFERENCES: none listed

DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

CONTACT: Brian@SDCSVAX.UCSD.EDU

Bulk Data Transfer Protocol (NETBLT) 🚛

STATUS: Experimental

SPECIFICATION: RFC 969

COMMENTS:

This is a preliminary discussion of the Network Block Transfer (NETBLT) protocol. NETBLT is intended for the rapid transfer of a large quantity of data between computers. It provides a transfer that is reliable and flow controlled, and it's structured to provide maximum throughput over a wide variety of networks 🏎️💨

Note: A new RFC on the revised NETBLT is coming soon 👀

OTHER REFERENCES: none listed

DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol, User Datagram Protocol

CONTACT: DClark@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA

Resource Location Protocol (RLP) 🔍

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: RFC 887 (in DPH)

COMMENTS:

A resource location protocol for use in the ARPA-Internet. It utilizes the User Datagram Protocol (UDP), which in turn calls on the Internet Protocol to deliver its datagrams 🦋

OTHER REFERENCES: none listed

DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol

CONTACT: Accetta@A.CS.CMU.EDU

Loader Debugger Protocol (LDP) 🛠️

STATUS: Experimental

SPECIFICATION: RFC 909

COMMENTS:

LDP specifies a protocol for loading, dumping, and debugging target machines from hosts in a network environment 💻 It's designed to accommodate a variety of target CPU types, and it provides a powerful set of debugging services 🌟 At the same time, it's structured so that a simple subset may be implemented in applications like boot loading, where efficiency and space are at a premium 🧚

Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this protocol with the contact 🫶

OTHER REFERENCES: none listed

DEPENDENCIES: Reliable Data Protocol

CONTACT: Hinden@BBN.COM

Remote Job Entry (RJE) 🗂️

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: RFC 407 (in DPH)

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: none listed

DEPENDENCIES: File Transfer Protocol, Transmission Control Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Remote Job Service (NETRJS) 🖥️

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: RFC 740 (in DPH)

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: none listed

DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

CONTACT: Braden@ISI.EDU

Remote Telnet Service (RTELNET) 📞

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: RFC 818 (in DPH)

COMMENTS:

Provides special access to user Telnet on a remote system 🌸

OTHER REFERENCES: none listed

DEPENDENCIES: Telnet, Transmission Control Protocol

CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Okay bestie, we're picking up right where the big protocol roster left off 💖 Here's the rest of the application-level list, exactly as the registry has it. Look at all those little protocols 🦋

   Graphics Protocol  --------------------------------------- (GRAPHICS)

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  NIC 24308 (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         The protocol for vector graphics.

         Very minor changes needed for use with TCP.

         No known active implementations.

         Note:  The DPH claims that this is RFC 493, but RFC 493 is
         actually a different earlier specification.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Telnet, Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

   Echo Protocol  ----------------------------------------------- (ECHO)

      STATUS:  Recommended

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 862 (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         Debugging protocol, sends back whatever you send it.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                    or User Datagram Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

   Discard Protocol  ----------------------------------------- (DISCARD)

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 863 (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         Debugging protocol, throws away whatever you send it.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                    or User Datagram Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

   Character Generator Protocol  ----------------------------- (CHARGEN)

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 864 (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         Debugging protocol, sends you ASCII data.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                    or User Datagram Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

   Quote of the Day Protocol  ---------------------------------- (QUOTE)

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 865 (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         Debugging protocol, sends you a short ASCII message.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                    or User Datagram Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

   Active Users Protocol  -------------------------------------- (USERS)

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 866 (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         Lists the currently active users.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                    or User Datagram Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

   Finger Protocol  ------------------------------------------- (FINGER)

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 742 (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         Provides information on the current or most recent activity of
         a user.

         Some extensions have been suggested.

         Some changes are are needed for TCP.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

   WhoIs Protocol  ------------------------------------------- (NICNAME)

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 954 (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         Accesses the ARPANET Directory database.  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.ARPA

   Domain Name Protocol  -------------------------------------- (DOMAIN)

      STATUS:  Recommended

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 881, RFC 882, RFC 883 (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

      OTHER REFERENCES:

         RFC 920 - Domain Requirements

         RFC 921 - Domain Name Implementation Schedule - Revised

         RFC 973 - Domain System Changes and Observations

         RFC 974 - Mail Routing and the Domain System

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                    or User Datagram Protocol

      CONTACT: Mockapetris@ISI.EDU

   HOSTNAME Protocol  --------------------------------------- (HOSTNAME)

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 953 (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         Accesses the Registered Internet Hosts database (HOSTS.TXT).
         Provides a way to find out about a host in the Internet, its
         Internet Address, and the protocols it implements.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

         RFC 952 - Host Table Specification

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT: Feinler@SRI-NIC.ARPA

   Host Name Server Protocol  ----------------------------- (NAMESERVER)

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  IEN 116 (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         Provides machine oriented procedure for translating a host name
         to an Internet Address.

         This specification has significant problems:  1) The name
         syntax is out of date.  2) The protocol details are ambiguous,
         in particular, the length octet either does or doesn't include
         itself and the op code.  3) The extensions are not supported by
         any known implementation.

         This protocol is now abandoned in favor of the DOMAIN protocol.
         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@ISI.EDU

   CSNET Mailbox Name Server Protocol  ---------------------- (CSNET-NS)

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  CS-DN-2 (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         Provides access to the CSNET data base of users to give
         information about users names, affiliations, and mailboxes.

         Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
         protocol with the contact.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT: Solomon@WISC.EDU

   Daytime Protocol  ----------------------------------------- (DAYTIME)

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 867 (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         Provides the day and time in ASCII character string.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                    or User Datagram Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

   Network Time Protocol  ---------------------------------------- (NTP)

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 958

      COMMENTS:

         A proposed protocol for synchronizing a set of network clocks
         using a set of distributed clients and servers.

         Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
         protocol with the contact.

      OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 778, RFC 891, RFC 956, and RFC 957.

      DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol

      CONTACT: Mills@ISI.EDU

   Time Server Protocol  ---------------------------------------- (TIME)

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 868 (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         Provides the time as the number of seconds from a specified
         reference time.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                    or User Datagram Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

   DCNET Time Server Protocol  --------------------------------- (CLOCK)

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 778

      COMMENTS:

         Provides a mechanism for keeping synchronized clocks.

         Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
         protocol with the contact.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Internet Control Message Protocol

      CONTACT: Mills@ISI.EDU

   SUPDUP Protocol  ------------------------------------------- (SUPDUP)

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 734 (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         A special Telnet like protocol for display terminals.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT: Crispin@SU-SCORE.STANFORD.EDU

   Internet Message Protocol  ------------------------------------ (MPM)

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 759 (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         This is an experimental multimedia mail transfer protocol.  The
         implementation is called a Message Processing Module or MPM.

         Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
         protocol with the contact.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

         RFC 767 - Structured Document Formats

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

   Post Office Protocol - Version 2  ---------------------------- (POP2)

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 937 (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         The intent of the Post Office Protocol - Version 2 (POP2) is to
         allow a user's workstation to access mail from a mailbox
         server.  It is expected that mail will be posted from the
         workstation to the mailbox server via the Simple Mail Transfer
         Protocol (SMTP).

         Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
         protocol with the contact.

      OTHER REFERENCES:  Obsoletes RFC 918

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT: JKReynolds@ISI.EDU

   Network Standard Text Editor  ------------------------------- (NETED)

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 569 (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         Describes a simple line editor which could be provided by every
         Internet host.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES:

      CONTACT:  Postel@ISI.EDU

   Authentication Service  -------------------------------------- (AUTH)

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 931

      COMMENTS:

         This server provides a means to determine the identity of a
         user of a particular TCP connection.  Given a TCP port number
         pair, it returns a character string which identifies the owner
         of that connection on the server's system.

         Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
         protocol with the contact.

      OTHER REFERENCES:  Supercedes RFC 912

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT: StJohns@SRI-NIC.ARPA

   Bootstrap Protocol  ----------------------------------------- (BOOTP)

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 951

      COMMENTS:

         This proposed protocol provides an IP/UDP bootstrap protocol
         which allows a diskless client machine to discover its own IP
         address, the address of a server host, and the name of a file
         to be loaded into memory and executed.

         Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
         protocol with the contact.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol, User Datagram Protocol

      CONTACT: Croft@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU

APPENDICES 🌈

Now we're in the appendices, and the registry keeps the same vibe, just with a few fewer protocols to gossip about 🍓

   Assigned Numbers  ---------------------------------------------------

      STATUS:  None

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 990

      COMMENTS:

         Describes the fields of various protocols that are assigned
         specific values for actual use, and lists the currently
         assigned values.

         Issued November 1986, replaces RFC 960, RFC 790 in IPTW, and
         RFC 943.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      CONTACT: JKReynolds@ISI.EDU

   Pre-emption  --------------------------------------------------------

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 794 (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         Describes how to do pre-emption of TCP connections.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

   Service Mappings  ---------------------------------------------------

      STATUS:  None

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 795 (in DPH)

      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:

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

   Address Mappings  ---------------------------------------------------

      STATUS:  None

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 796 (in DPH)

okay so this part is the protocol roll-call bestie 📋✨ every entry has a status, a spec, and a contact, and the IEEE 802 one is lowkey the main character 🦋

COMMENTS: Describes the mapping between Internet Addresses and the addresses of some specific networks. Out of date, needs revision. 🕰️

  • OTHER REFERENCES: (none)
  • CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Document Formats

  • STATUS: None
  • SPECIFICATION: RFC 678 (in DPH)
  • COMMENTS: Describes standard format rules for several types of documents. 📄
  • OTHER REFERENCES: (none)
  • CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Bitmap Formats

  • STATUS: None
  • SPECIFICATION: RFC 797 (in DPH)
  • COMMENTS: Describes a standard format for bitmap data. 🖼️
  • OTHER REFERENCES: (none)
  • CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Facsimile Formats

  • STATUS: None
  • SPECIFICATION: RFC 804
  • COMMENTS: Describes a standard format for facsimile data. 📠
  • OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 769 (in DPH)
  • CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Host-Front End Protocol (HFEP)

  • STATUS: Experimental 🧪
  • SPECIFICATION: RFC 929
  • COMMENTS: Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this protocol with the contact. 💬
  • OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 928
  • DEPENDENCIES: (none listed)
  • CONTACT: Padlipsky@ISI.EDU

Internet Protocol on ARPANET (IP-ARPA)

  • STATUS: Recommended 💖
  • SPECIFICATION: BBN Report 1822
  • COMMENTS: Describes a standard for the transmission of IP Datagrams over the ARPANET. 🛰️
  • OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 851, RFC 852, RFC 878 (in DPH), RFC 979
  • CONTACT: Malis@BBN.COM

Internet Protocol on WBNET (IP-WB)

  • STATUS: Recommended 💖
  • SPECIFICATION: RFC 907 (in DPH)
  • COMMENTS:

Describes a standard for the transmission of IP Datagrams over the Wideband Net. 🌊

This protocol specifies the network-access level communication between an arbitrary computer, called a host, and a packet-switched satellite network, e.g., SATNET or WBNET.

Note: Implementations of HAP should be performed in coordination with satellite network development and operations personnel. 🛰️
  • OTHER REFERENCES: (none)
  • CONTACT: Blumenthal@BBN.COM

Host Access Protocol (IP-SAT)

  • STATUS: Recommended 💖
  • SPECIFICATION: RFC 907 (in DPH)
  • COMMENTS:

Describes a standard for the transmission of IP Datagrams over the SATNET. 🌌

This protocol specifies the network-access level communication between an arbitrary computer, called a host, and a packet-switched satellite network, e.g., SATNET or WBNET.

Note: Implementations of HAP should be performed in coordination with satellite network development and operations personnel. 🛰️
  • OTHER REFERENCES: (none)
  • DEPENDENCIES: (none listed)
  • CONTACT: Schoen@BBN.COM

Internet Protocol on X.25 Networks (IP-X25)

  • STATUS: Recommended 💖
  • SPECIFICATION: RFC 877 (in DPH)
  • COMMENTS: Describes a standard for the transmission of IP Datagrams over Public Data Networks. 📡
  • OTHER REFERENCES: (none)
  • CONTACT: jtk@PURDUE.EDU

Internet Protocol on DC Networks (IP-DC)

  • STATUS: Elective 🎀
  • SPECIFICATION: RFC 891 (in DPH)
  • COMMENTS: (none)
  • OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 778 - DCNET Internet Clock Service ⏰
  • CONTACT: Mills@ISI.EDU

Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks (IP-E)

  • STATUS: Recommended 💖
  • SPECIFICATION: RFC 894 (in DPH)
  • COMMENTS: (none)
  • OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 893
  • CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Internet Protocol on Experimental Ethernet Networks (IP-EE)

  • STATUS: Recommended 💖
  • SPECIFICATION: RFC 895 (in DPH)
  • COMMENTS: (none)
  • OTHER REFERENCES: (none)
  • CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Internet Protocol on IEEE 802 (IP-IEEE)

  • STATUS: Recommended 💖
  • SPECIFICATION: RFC 948 (in DPH)
  • COMMENTS:

A proposed protocol of two methods of encapsulating Internet Protocol (IP) datagrams on an IEEE 802.3 network. It's currently being revised to be generalised for all 802 networks. 🔧

At an ad hoc special session on "IEEE 802 Networks and ARP" held during the TCP Vendors Workshop (August 1986), an approach to a consistent way to sent DOD-IP datagrams and other IP related protocols on 802 networks was developed. 🤝

Due to some evolution of the IEEE 802.2 standards and the need to provide for a standard way to do additional DOD-IP related protocols (such as Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)) on IEEE 802 networks, the following new policy is established, which will replace the current policy (see RFC-990 section on IEEE 802 Numbers of Interest, and RFC-948). 📜

The policy is for DDN and ARPA-Internet community to use IEEE 802.2 encapsulation on 802.3, 802.4, and 802.5 networks by using the SNAP with an organization code indicating that the following 16 bits specify the Ethertype code (where IP = 2048 (0800 hex), see RFC-990 section on Ethernet Numbers of Interest). 💅

                                                                  Header

   ...--------+--------+--------+
    MAC Header|      Length     |               802.{3/4/5} MAC
   ...--------+--------+--------+

   +--------+--------+--------+
   | Dsap=K1| Ssap=K1| control|                       802.2 SAP
   +--------+--------+--------+

   +--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
   |protocol id or org code =K2|    Ether Type   |   802.2 SNAP
   +--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+

The values of K1 and K2 must be assigned by the IEEE. There is already assigned a value of K1 that indicates that the 5-octet SNAP header follows. We can use this value. There may be a value of K2 that is already assigned that indicates that the last two octets of the SNAP header holds the EtherType. If so we may be able to use this value. 🔍

The total length of the SAP Header and the SNAP header is 8-octets, making the 802.2 protocol overhead come out on a nice octet boundary. 🎯

K1 is 170. The IEEE like to talk about things in bit transmission order and specifies this value as 01010101. In big-endian order, as used in Internet specifications, this becomes 10101010 binary, or AA hex, or 170 decimal. 🔢

We believe that K2 is 0 (zero). This must be further investigated, but as an interim measure use K2 = 0. 🧐

  • OTHER REFERENCES: (none)
  • CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Internet Subnet Protocol (IP-SUB)

  • STATUS: Recommended 💖
  • SPECIFICATION: RFC 950
  • COMMENTS:

This is a very important feature and should be included in all IP implementations. 👑

Specifies procedures for the use of subnets, which are logical sub-sections of a single Internet network. 🧩

Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)

  • STATUS: Recommended 💖
  • SPECIFICATION: RFC 826 (IN DPH)
  • COMMENTS: This is a procedure for finding the network hardware address corresponding to an Internet Address. 🔎
  • OTHER REFERENCES: (none)
  • CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol (RARP)

  • STATUS: Elective 🎀
  • SPECIFICATION: RFC 903 (IN DPH)
  • COMMENTS: This is a procedure for workstations to dynamically find their protocol address (e.g., their Internet Address), when they only only know their hardware address (e.g., their attached physical network address). 🖥️
  • OTHER REFERENCES: (none)
  • CONTACT: Mogul@SU-SCORE.STANFORD.EDU

Multi-LAN Address Resolution Protocol (MARP)

  • STATUS: Experimental 🧪
  • SPECIFICATION: RFC 925
  • COMMENTS:

Discussion of the various problems and potential solutions of "transparent subnets" in a multi-LAN environment. 🌐

Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this protocol with the contact. 💬

  • OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 917, RFC 826
  • DEPENDENCIES: (none listed)
  • CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

Broadcasting Internet Datagrams (IP-BROAD)

  • STATUS: Recommended 💖
  • SPECIFICATION: RFC 919
  • COMMENTS:

A proposed protocol of simple rules for broadcasting Internet datagrams on local networks that support broadcast, for addressing broadcasts, and for how gateways should handle them. 📣

Recommended in the sense of "if you do broadcasting at all then do it this way". 💅

Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this protocol with the contact. 💬

  • OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 922
  • DEPENDENCIES: (none listed)
  • CONTACT: Mogul@SU-SCORE.STANFORD.EDU

Broadcasting Internet Datagrams with Subnets (IP-SUB-BROAD)

  • STATUS: Recommended 💖
  • SPECIFICATION: RFC 922
  • COMMENTS:

A proposed protocol of simple rules for broadcasting Internet datagrams on local networks that support broadcast, for addressing broadcasts, and for how gateways should handle them. 📣

Recommended in the sense of "if you do broadcasting with subnets at all then do it this way". 💅

Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this protocol with the contact. 💬

  • OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 919
  • DEPENDENCIES: (none listed)
  • CONTACT: Mogul@SU-SCORE.STANFORD.EDU

Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol (RATP)

  • STATUS: Experimental 🧪
  • SPECIFICATION: RFC 916
  • COMMENTS:

This paper specifies a protocol which allows two programs to reliably communicate over a communication link. It ensures that the data entering one end of the link if received arrives at the other end intact and unaltered. 🔁

This proposed protocol is designed to operate over a full duplex point-to-point connection. It contains some features which tailor it to the RS-232 links now in current use. 🔌

Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this protocol with the contact. 💬

  • OTHER REFERENCES: (none)
  • DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
  • CONTACT: Finn@ISI.EDU

Thinwire Protocol (THINWIRE)

  • STATUS: Experimental 🧪
  • SPECIFICATION: RFC 914
  • COMMENTS:

This paper discusses a Thinwire Protocol for connecting personal computers to the ARPA-Internet. It primarily focuses on the particular problems in the ARPA-Internet of low speed network interconnection with personal computers, and possible methods of solution. 💻

Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this protocol with the contact. 💬

  • OTHER REFERENCES: (none)
  • DEPENDENCIES: (none listed)
  • CONTACT: Farber@HUEY.UDEL.EDU

That's the whole list, bestie 🌈🦋💖

📦 where this page comes from