Network Working Group Internet Activities Board
Request for Comments: 1130 J. Postel, Editor
Obsoletes: RFCs 1100, 1083 October 1989
IAB OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS
Status of this Memo
This memo describes the state of standardization of protocols used in
the Internet as determined by the Internet Activities Board (IAB).
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Introduction
An overview of the standards procedures is presented first, followed
by discussions of the standardization process and the RFC document
series, then the explanation of the terms is presented, the lists of
protocols in each stage of standardization follows, and finally
pointers to references and contacts for further information.
This memo is issued quarterly, please be sure the copy you are
reading is dated within the last three months. Current copies may be
obtained from the Network Information Center or from the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (see the contact information at the end of
this memo). Do not use this memo after 31-Jan-90.
See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes.
1. Overview of Standards Procedures
The Internet Activities Board maintains a list of documents that
define standards for the Internet protocol suite (see RFC-1120 for an
explanation of the role and organization of the IAB). The IAB
provides these standards with the goal of co-ordinating the evolution
of the Internet protocols; this co-ordination has become quite
important as the Internet protocols are increasingly in general
commercial use.
Protocol standards may be suggested by anyone in the Internet
community, by writing and submitting an RFC. In general, any
suggested protocol will be reviewed or developed in the context of
some Task Force of the IAB, or some research group or working group
within that Task Force. The IAB will assign a suggested protocol to
a working group or research group if official delegation is
necessary.
Internet Activities Board [Page 1]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
Given the important role of the Internet Engineering Task Force in
the evolution of the Internet Architecture, all proposed protocols
will be reviewed by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)
which is composed of the Technical Area Directors.
The recommendation of the IESG and working group or research group is
given major consideration in the decision by the IAB to assign a
state and status to the protocol. The general policy is to gain
implementation experience with a protocol before considering a
possible designation as an official standard.
In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper decision
concerning a protocol, the IAB may convene a special review committee
consisting of interested parties from the working group and members
of the IAB itself, with the purpose of recommending some explicit
action to the IAB.
A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without the
approval of the IAB. For example, some vendor protocols have become
very important to the Internet community even though they have not
been proposed or reviewed by the IAB. However, the IAB strongly
recommends that the IAB standards process be used in the evolution of
the protocol suite to maximize interoperability (and to prevent
incompatible protocol requirements from arising). The IAB reserves
the use of the term "standard" in any RFC to only those protocols
which the IAB has approved.
2. The Standardization Process
Anyone can invent a protocol, document it, implement it, test it, and
so on. The IAB believes that it is very useful to document a
protocol at an early stage to promote suggestions from others
interested in the functionality the of protocol and from those
interested in protocol design. Once a protocol is implemented and
tested it is useful to report the results. The RFC document series
is the preferred place for publishing these protocol documents and
testing results.
The IAB encourages the documenting of every protocol developed in the
Internet (that is, the publication of the protocol specification as
an RFC), even if it is never intended that the protocol become an
Internet standard. A protocol that is not intended to become a
standard is called "experimental".
Protocols that are intended to become standards are first designated
as "proposed" protocols. It is expected that while in this state the
protocol will be implemented and tested by several groups. It is
likely that an improved version of the protocol will result from this
Internet Activities Board [Page 2]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
activity.
Once a proposed protocol has become stable and has a sponsor (an
individual willing to speak for the protocol to the IAB) it may
advance to the "draft standard" state. In this state, it should be
reviewed by the entire Internet community. This draft standard state
is essentially a warning to the community that unless an objection is
raised or a flaw is found this protocol will become a "standard".
Once a protocol has been a draft standard for a sufficient time
(usually 6 months) without serious objections the IAB may act to
declare the protocol an official Internet standard.
Some protocols have been superseded by better protocols or are
otherwise unused. Such protocols are designated "historic".
In addition to a state (like proposed or standard) a protocol is also
assigned a status. A protocol can be required, meaning that all
systems in the Internet must implement it. For example, the Internet
Protocol (IP) is required. A protocol may be recommended, meaning
that systems should implement this protocol. A protocol may be
elective, meaning that systems may implement this protocol; that is,
if (and only if) the functionality of this protocol is needed or
useful for a system it must use this protocol to provide the
functionality. A protocol may be termed not recommended if it is not
intended to be generally implemented; for example, experimental or
historic protocols.
Few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems. This is
because there is such a variety of possible systems; for example,
gateways, terminal servers, workstations, multi-user hosts. It is
not necessary for a gateway to implement TCP and the protocols that
use TCP (though it may be useful). It is expected that general
purpose hosts will implement at least IP (including ICMP), TCP and
UDP, Telnet, FTP, SMTP, Mail, and the Domain Name System (DNS).
3. The Request for Comments Documents
The documents called Request for Comments (or RFCs) are the working
notes of the Internet research and development community. A document
in this series may be on essentially any topic related to computer
communication, and may be anything from a meeting report to the
specification of a standard.
Notice:
All standards are published as RFCs, but not all RFCs specify
standards.
Internet Activities Board [Page 3]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
Anyone can submit a document for publication as an RFC. Submissions
must be made via electronic mail to the RFC Editor (see the contact
information at the end of this memo).
While RFCs are not refereed publications, they do receive technical
review from the task forces, individual technical experts, or the RFC
Editor, as appropriate.
Once a document is assigned an RFC number and published, that RFC is
never revised or re-issued with the same number. There is never a
question of having the most recent version of a particular RFC.
However, a protocol (such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP)) may be
improved and re-documented many times in several different RFCs. It
is important to verify that you have the most recent RFC on a
particular protocol. This "IAB Official Protocol Standards" memo is
the reference for determining the correct RFC to refer to for the
current specification of each protocol.
The RFCs are available from the Network Information Center at SRI
International. For more information about obtaining RFCs see the
contact information at the end of this memo.
4. Other Reference Documents
There are four other reference documents of interest in checking the
current status of protocol specifications and standardization. These
are the Assigned Numbers, the Official Protocols, the Gateway
Requirements, and the Host Requirements. Note that these documents
are revised and updated at different times; in case of differences
between these documents, the most recent must prevail.
Also one should be aware of the MIL-STD publications on IP, TCP,
Telnet, FTP, and SMTP. These are described in section 4.5.
4.1. Assigned Numbers
This document lists the assigned values of the parameters used in the
various protocols. For example, IP protocol codes, TCP port numbers,
Telnet Option Codes, ARP hardware types, and Terminal Type names.
Assigned Numbers was most recently issued as RFC-1010.
Another document, Internet Numbers, lists the assigned IP network
numbers, and the autonomous system numbers. Internet Numbers was
most recently issued as RFC-1117.
4.2. Official Protocols
This document list the protocols and describes any known problems and
Internet Activities Board [Page 4]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
ongoing experiments. Official Protocols was most recently issued as
RFC-1011.
4.3. Gateway Requirements
This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways and
supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities. Gateway
Requirements is RFC-1009.
4.4. Host Requirements
This pair of document reviews the specifications that apply to hosts
and supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities. Host
Requirements was recently issued as RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.
4.5. The MIL-STD Documents
The Internet community specifications for IP (RFC-791) and TCP (RFC-
793) and the DoD MIL-STD specifications are intended to describe
exactly the same protocols. Any difference in the protocols
specified by these sets of documents should be reported to DCA and to
the IAB. The RFCs and the MIL-STDs for IP and TCP differ in style
and level of detail. It is strongly advised that the two sets of
documents be used together.
The IAB and the DoD MIL-STD specifications for the FTP, SMTP, and
Telnet protocols are essentially the same documents (RFCs 765, 821,
854). The MIL-STD versions have been edited slightly. Note that the
current Internet specification for FTP is RFC-959.
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-1782
5. Explanation of Terms
There are two independent categorizations of protocols. The first is
the state of standardization which is one of "standard", "draft
standard", "proposed", "experimental", or "historic". The second is
the status of this protocol which is one of "required",
"recommended", "elective", or "not recommended". One could expect a
particular protocol to move along the scale of status from elective
to required at the same time as it moves along the scale of
standardization from proposed to standard.
Internet Activities Board [Page 5]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
At any given time a protocol is a cell of the following matrix.
Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the following
proportions (indicated by the number of Xs). Most will be on the
main diagonal. A new protocol is most likely to start in the
(proposed, elective) cell, or the (experimental, not recommended)
cell.
Req Rec Ele Not
+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Std | XXX | XX | X | |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Draft | | X | XX | |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Prop | | | XXX | X |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Expr | | | X | XXX |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Hist | | | | XXX |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Some protocol are particular to hosts and some to gateways; a few
protocols are used in both. The definitions of the terms below will
refer to a "system" which is either a host or a gateway (or both).
It should be clear from the context of the particular protocol which
types of systems are intended.
5.1. Definitions of Protocol State
5.1.1. Standard Protocol
The IAB has established this as an official standard protocol for
the Internet. These are separated into two groups: (1) IP
protocol and above, protocols that apply to the whole Internet;
and (2) network-specific protocols, generally specifications of
how to do IP on particular types of networks.
5.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol
The IAB is actively considering this protocol as a possible
Standard Protocol. Substantial and widespread testing and comment
is desired. Comments and test results should be submitted to the
IAB. There is a possibility that changes will be made in a Draft
Standard Protocol before it becomes a Standard Protocol.
Internet Activities Board [Page 6]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
5.1.3. Proposed Protocol
These are protocol proposals that may be considered by the IAB for
standardization in the future. Implementation and testing by
several groups is desirable. Revisions of the protocol
specification are likely.
5.1.4. Experimental Protocol
A system should not implement an experimental protocol unless it
is participating in the experiment and has coordinated its use of
the protocol with the developer of the protocol.
Typically, experimental protocols are those that are developed as
part of a specific ongoing research project not related to an
operational service offering. While they may be proposed as a
service protocol at a later stage, and thus become proposed,
draft, and then standard protocols, the designation of a protocol
as experimental is meant to suggest that the protocol, although
perhaps mature, is not intended for operational use.
5.1.5. Historic Protocol
These are protocols that are unlikely to ever become standards in
the Internet either because they have been superseded by later
developments or due to lack of interest. These are protocols that
are at an evolutionary dead end.
5.2. Definitions of Protocol Status
5.2.1. Required Protocol
All systems must implement the required protocols.
5.2.2. Recommended Protocol
All systems should implement the recommended protocols.
5.2.3. Elective Protocol
A system may or may not implement an elective protocol. The
general notion is that if you are going to do something like this,
you must do exactly this.
5.2.4. Not Recommended Protocol
These protocols are not recommended for general use. This may be
because of their limited functionality, specialized nature, or
Internet Activities Board [Page 7]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
experimental or historic state.
6. The Protocols
This section list the standards in groups by protocol state.
6.1. Recent Changes:
The Host Requirements [RFC-1122, RFC-1123] is now a Required
Standard.
The Network Time Protocol [RFC-1119] is now a Recommended Standard.
The Internet Group Multicast Protocol [RFC-1112] is now a Recommended
Standard.
The mail Content Type Header Field [RFC-1049] is now a Recommended
Standard.
The "Internet Numbers" list was recently issued as RFC-1117.
The Telnet Linemode Option [RFC-1116] is now a Elective Proposed
standard.
The mail Privacy procedures [RFC-1113, RFC-1114, and RFC-1115] are
now Elective Draft Standards.
The Border Gateway Protocol [RFC-1105] is a Not-Recommended
Experimental protocol.
A procedure for sending IP over FDDI networks [RFC-1103] is now a
Specific Standard.
The Trivial File Transfer Protocol [RFC-783] is now a Elective Draft
Standard.
Internet Activities Board [Page 8]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
6.2. Standard Protocols
Protocol Name Status RFC
-------- ---- ------ ---
Assigned Numbers Required 1010
Gateway Requirements Required 1009
Host Requirements - Communications Required 1122
Host Requirements - Applications Required 1123
IP Internet Protocol Required 791
as amended by:
IP Subnet Extension Required 950
IP Broadcast Datagrams Required 919
IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets Required 922
ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol Required 792
IGMP Internet Group Multicast Protocol Recommended 1054
UDP User Datagram Protocol Recommended 768
TCP Transmission Control Protocol Recommended 793
DOMAIN Domain Name System Recommended 1034,1035
TELNET Telnet Protocol Recommended 854
FTP File Transfer Protocol Recommended 959
SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol Recommended 821
MAIL Format of Electronic Mail Messages Recommended 822
CONTENT Content Type Header Field Recommended 1049
EGP Exterior Gateway Protocol Recommended 904
ECHO Echo Protocol Recommended 862
NTP Network Time Protocol Recommended 1119
NETBIOS NetBIOS Service Protocols Elective 1001,1002
DISCARD Discard Protocol Elective 863
CHARGEN Character Generator Protocol Elective 864
QUOTE Quote of the Day Protocol Elective 865
USERS Active Users Protocol Elective 866
DAYTIME Daytime Protocol Elective 867
TIME Time Server Protocol Elective 868
Internet Activities Board [Page 9]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
6.3. Specific Standard Protocols
Protocol Name Status RFC
-------- ---- ------ ---
ARP Address Resolution Protocol Elective 826
RARP A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol Elective 903
IP-ARPA Internet Protocol on ARPANET Elective BBN 1822
IP-WB Internet Protocol on Wideband Network Elective 907
IP-X25 Internet Protocol on X.25 Networks Elective 877
IP-E Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks Elective 894
IP-EE Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets Elective 895
IP-IEEE Internet Protocol on IEEE 802 Elective 1042
IP-DC Internet Protocol on DC Networks Elective 891
IP-HC Internet Protocol on Hyperchannnel Elective 1044
IP-ARC Internet Protocol on ARCNET Elective 1051
IP-SLIP Transmission of IP over Serial Lines Elective 1055
IP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS Elective 1088
IP-FDDI Transmission of IP over FDDI Elective 1103
Note: 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 is, it is
elective to support any particular type of physical network, and for the
physical networks actually supported it is required that they be
supported exactly according to the protocols in the above list.
Internet Activities Board [Page 10]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
6.4. Draft Standard Protocols
Protocol Name Status RFC
-------- ---- ------ ---
Mail Privacy: Procedures Elective 1113
Mail Privacy: Key Management Elective 1114
Mail Privacy: Algorithms Elective 1115
SNMP Simple Network Management Protocol Recommended 1098
CMOT Common Management Information Services Recommended 1095
and Protocol over TCP/IP
MIB Management Information Base Recommended 1066
SMI Structure of Management Information Recommended 1065
BOOTP Bootstrap Protocol Recommended 951,1048,1084
TFTP Trivial File Transfer Protocol Elective 783
The Internet Activities Board has designated two different network
management protocols with the same status of "Draft Standard" and
"Recommended". The two protocols are the Common Management Information
Services and Protocol over TCP/IP (CMOT) [RFC-1095] and the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMP) [RFC-1098]. The IAB intends each of
these two protocols to receive the attention of implementers and
experimenters. The IAB seeks reports of experience with these two
protocols from system builders and users. By this action, the IAB
recommends that all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable
(e.g., implement the Internet MIB [RFC-1066], and that implementations
that are network manageable are expected to adopt and implement at least
one of these two Internet Draft Standards. The motivation for this
position is discussed in RFCs 1052 and 1109.
Internet Activities Board [Page 11]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
6.5. Proposed Protocols
Protocol Name Status RFC
-------- ---- ------ ---
SUN-NFS Network File System Protocol Elective 1094
POP3 Post Office Protocol, Version 3 Elective 1081,1082
RIP Routing Information Protocol Elective 1058
SUN-RPC Remote Procedure Call Protocol Elective 1057
PCMAIL Pcmail Transport Protocol Elective 1056
VMTP Versatile Message Transaction Protocol Elective 1045
NFILE A File Access Protocol Elective 1037
Mapping between X.400 and RFC-822 Elective 987,1026
STATSRV Statistics Server Elective 996
NNTP Network News Transfer Protocol Elective 977
NICNAME WhoIs Protocol Elective 954
HOSTNAME HOSTNAME Protocol Elective 953
POP2 Post Office Protocol, Version 2 Elective 937
SFTP Simple File Transfer Protocol Elective 913
RLP Resource Location Protocol Elective 887
RTELNET Remote Telnet Service Elective 818
FINGER Finger Protocol Elective 742
SUPDUP SUPDUP Protocol Elective 734
NETED Network Standard Text Editor Elective 569
RJE Remote Job Entry Elective 407
6.6. Experimental Protocols
Protocol Name Status RFC
-------- ---- ------ ---
BGP Border Gateway Protocol Not Recommended 1105
IP-DVMRP IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing Not Recommended 1075
TCP-LDP TCP Extensions for Long Delay Paths Not Recommended 1072
IP-MTU IP MTU Discovery Options Not Recommended 1063
NETBLT Bulk Data Transfer Protocol Not Recommended 998
IMAP2 Interactive Mail Access Protocol Not Recommended 1064
COOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme Not Recommended 1004
IRTP Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol Not Recommended 938
AUTH Authentication Service Not Recommended 931
RATP Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol Not Recommended 916
THINWIRE Thinwire Protocol Not Recommended 914
LDP Loader Debugger Protocol Not Recommended 909
RDP Reliable Data Protocol Not Recommended 908
ST Stream Protocol Not Recommended IEN 119
NVP-II Network Voice Protocol Not Recommended ISI memo
Internet Activities Board [Page 12]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
6.7. Historic Protocols
Protocol Name Status RFC
-------- ---- ------ ---
SGMP Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol Not Recommended 1028
HEMS High Level Entity Management Protocol Not Recommended 1021
HMP Host Monitoring Protocol Not Recommended 869
GGP Gateway Gateway Protocol Not Recommended 823
CLOCK DCNET Time Server Protocol Not Recommended 778
MPM Internet Message Protocol Not Recommended 759
NETRJS Remote Job Service Not Recommended 740
XNET Cross Net Debugger Not Recommended IEN 158
NAMESERVER Host Name Server Protocol Not Recommended IEN 116
MUX Multiplexing Protocol Not Recommended IEN 90
GRAPHICS Graphics Protocol Not Recommended NIC 24308
7. Contacts
7.1. Internet Activities Board Contact
Contact:
Jon Postel
USC Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-213-822-1511
Postel@ISI.EDU
Please send your comments about this list of protocols and especially
about the Draft Standard Protocols to the Internet Activities Board.
7.2. 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
1-213-822-1511
JKRey@ISI.EDU
Internet Activities Board [Page 13]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
The protocol standards are managed for the IAB by the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority.
Please refer to the documents "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1010) and
"Official Internet Protocols" (RFC-1011) for further information
about the status of protocol documents. There are two documents that
summarize the requirements for host and gateways in the Internet,
"Host Requirements" (RFC-1122 and RFC-1123) and "Gateway
Requirements" (RFC-1009).
How to obtain the most recent edition of this "IAB Official
Protocol Standards" memo:
The file "in-notes/iab-standards.txt" may be copied via FTP
from the VENERA.ISI.EDU computer using the FTP username
"anonymous" and FTP password "guest".
7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact
Contact:
Jon Postel
RFC Editor
USC Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-213-822-1511
Postel@ISI.EDU
Documents may be submitted via electronic mail to the RFC Editor for
consideration for publication as RFC. If you are not familiar with
the format or style requirements please request the "Instructions for
RFC Authors". In general, the style of any recent RFC may be used as
a guide.
Internet Activities Board [Page 14]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
7.4. The Network Information Center and
Requests for Comments Distribution Contact
Contact:
DDN Network Information Center
SRI International
Room EJ291
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025
1-800-235-3155
1-415-859-3695
NIC@NIC.DDN.MIL
The Network Information Center (NIC) provides many information
services for the Internet community. Among them is maintaining the
Requests for Comments (RFC) library.
RFCs can be obtained via FTP from NIC.DDN.MIL with the pathname
RFC:RFCnnnn.TXT where "nnnn" refers to the number of the RFC. A list
of all RFCs may be obtained by copying the file RFC:RFC-INDEX.TXT.
Log in with FTP username ANONYMOUS and password GUEST.
The NIC also provides an automatic mail service for those sites which
cannot use FTP. Address the request to SERVICE@NIC.DDN.MIL and in
the subject field of the message indicate the RFC number, as in
"Subject: RFC nnnn".
How to obtain the most recent edition of this "IAB Official
Protocol Standards" memo:
The file RFC:IAB-STANDARDS.TXT may be copied via FTP from the
NIC.DDN.MIL computer following the same procedures used to
obtain RFCs.
Internet Activities Board [Page 15]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
7.5. Other Sources for Requests for Comments
NSF Network Service Center (NNSC)
NSF Network Service Center (NNSC)
BBN Systems and Technology Corporation
10 Moulton St.
Cambridge, MA 02238
617-873-3400
NNSC@NNSC.NSF.NET
NSF Network Information Service (NIS)
NSF Network Information Service
Merit Inc.
University of Michigan
1075 Beal Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
313-763-4897
INFO@NIS.NSF.NET
CSNET Coordination and Information Center (CIC)
CSNET Coordination and Information Center
Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.
10 Moulton Street
Cambridge, MA 02238
617-873-2777
INFO@SH.CS.NET
8. Security Considerations:
Security issues are not addressed in this memo.
Internet Activities Board [Page 16]
RFC 1130 IAB Standards October 1989
9. Author's Address:
Jon Postel
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Phone: (213) 822-1511
Email: Postel@ISI.EDU
Internet Activities Board [Page 17]
|
![[Chaos CD]](../../../images/chaoscd.jpg)
![[ -- ]](../../../images/prev.jpg)
![[ ++ ]](../../../images/next.jpg)
![[Suchen]](../../../images/search.jpg)