This memo describes the state of standardization of protocols used in the Internet as determined by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). This memo is an Internet Standard. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.
A discussion of the standardization process and the RFC document series is presented first, followed by an explanation of the terms. Sections 6.2 - 6.10 contain the lists of protocols in each stage of standardization. Finally are pointers to references and contacts for further information.
This memo is intended to be issued every one hundred RFCs; please be sure the copy you are reading is current. Current copies may be obtained from the Requests for Comments Editor (RFC-EDITOR) or from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (see the contact information at the end of this memo).
See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes. In the official lists in sections 6.2 - 6.10, an asterisk (*) next to a protocol denotes that it is new to this document or has been moved from one protocol level to another, or differs from the previous edition of this document.
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 2]
The Internet Architecture Board maintains this list of documents that define standards for the Internet protocol suite. See RFC-1601 for the charter of the IAB and RFC-1160 for an explanation of the role and organization of the IAB and its subsidiary groups, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). Each of these groups has a steering group called the IESG and IRSG, respectively. The IETF develops these standards 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. The definitive description of the Internet standards process is found in RFC-1602.
The majority of Internet protocol development and standardization activity takes place in the working groups of the IETF.
Protocols which are to become standards in the Internet go through a series of states or maturity levels (proposed standard, draft standard, and standard) involving increasing amounts of scrutiny and testing. When a protocol completes this process it is assigned a STD number (see RFC-1311). At each step, the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) of the IETF must make a recommendation for advancement of the protocol.
To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react to standardization proposals, a minimum delay of 6 months before a proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard and 4 months before a draft standard can be promoted to standard.
It is general practice that no proposed standard can be promoted to draft standard without at least two independent implementations (and the recommendation of the IESG). Promotion from draft standard to standard generally requires operational experience and demonstrated interoperability of two or more implementations (and the recommendation of the IESG).
In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper decision concerning a protocol a special review committee may be appointed consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB with the purpose of recommending an explicit action.
Advancement of a protocol to proposed standard is an important step since it marks a protocol as a candidate for eventual standardization (it puts the protocol "on the standards track"). Advancement to draft standard is a major step which warns the community that, unless major objections are raised or flaws are discovered, the protocol is likely to be advanced to standard.
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 2300 Internet Standards May 1998
Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are otherwise unused. Such protocols are still documented in this memorandum with the designation "historic".
Because it is useful to document the results of early protocol research and development work, some of the RFCs document protocols which are still in an experimental condition. The protocols are designated "experimental" in this memorandum. They appear in this report as a convenience to the community and not as evidence of their standardization.
Other protocols, such as those developed by other standards organizations, or by particular vendors, may be of interest or may be recommended for use in the Internet. The specifications of such protocols may be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community. These protocols are labeled "informational" in this memorandum.
In addition to the working groups of the IETF, protocol development and experimentation may take place as a result of the work of the research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or the work of other individuals interested in Internet protocol development. The the documentation of such experimental work in the RFC series is encouraged, but none of this work is considered to be on the track for standardization until the IESG has made a recommendation to advance the protocol to the proposed standard state.
A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without the approval of the IESG. For example, some vendor protocols have become very important to the Internet community even though they have not been recommended by the IESG. However, the IAB strongly recommends that the standards process be used in the evolution of the protocol suite to maximize interoperability (and to prevent incompatible protocol requirements from arising). The use of the terms "standard", "draft standard", and "proposed standard" are reserved in any RFC or other publication of Internet protocols to only those protocols which the IESG has approved.
In addition to a state (like "Proposed Standard"), a protocol is also assigned a status, or requirement level, in this document. The possible requirement levels ("Required", "Recommended", "Elective", "Limited Use", and "Not Recommended") are defined in Section 4.2. When a protocol is on the standards track, that is in the proposed standard, draft standard, or standard state (see Section 5), the status shown in Section 6 is the current status.
Few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems; this is because there is such a variety of possible systems, for example,
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 2300 Internet Standards May 1998
gateways, routers, terminal servers, workstations, and multi-user hosts. The requirement level shown in this document is only a one word label, which may not be sufficient to characterize the implementation requirements for a protocol in all situations. For some protocols, this document contains an additional status paragraph (an applicability statement). In addition, more detailed status information may be contained in separate requirements documents (see Section 3).
The documents called Request for Comments (or RFCs) are the working notes of the "Network Working Group", that is 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.
Anyone can submit a document for publication as an RFC. Submissions must be made via electronic mail to the RFC Editor (see the contact information at the end of this memo, and see RFC 2223).
While RFCs are not refereed publications, they do receive technical review from the task forces, individual technical experts, or the RFC Editor, as appropriate.
The RFC series comprises a wide range of documents, ranging from informational documents of general interests to specifications of standard Internet protocols. In cases where submission is intended to document a proposed standard, draft standard, or standard protocol, the RFC Editor will publish the document only with the approval of the IESG. For documents describing experimental work, the RFC Editor will notify the IESG before publication, allowing for the possibility of review by the relevant IETF working group or IRTF research group and provide those comments to the author. See Section 5.1 for more detail.
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 "Internet Official Protocol Standards"
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 2300 Internet Standards May 1998
memo is the reference for determining the correct RFC for the current specification of each protocol.
The RFCs are available from the RFC-EDITOR, and a number of other sites. For more information about obtaining RFCs, see Sections 7.4 and 7.5.
There are three other reference documents of interest in checking the current status of protocol specifications and standardization. These are the Assigned Numbers, 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 3.4.
The "Assigned Numbers" document lists the assigned values of the parameters used in the various protocols. For example, IP protocol codes, TCP port numbers, Telnet Option Codes, ARP hardware types, and Terminal Type names. Assigned Numbers was most recently issued as RFC-1700.
This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways and supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities. Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers is RFC-1812.
This pair of documents reviews and updates the specifications that apply to hosts, and it supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities. Host Requirements was issued as RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.
The DoD MIL-STD Internet specifications are out of date and have been discontinued. The DoD's Joint Technical Architecture (JTA) lists the current set of IETF STDs and RFCs that the DoD intends to use in all new and upgraded Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence (C4I) acquisitions. A copy of the JTA can be obtained from http://www-jta.itsi.disa.mil.
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 6]
There are two independent categorization of protocols. The first is the "maturity level" or STATE of standardization, one of "standard", "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", "informational" or "historic". The second is the "requirement level" or STATUS of this protocol, one of "required", "recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".
The status or requirement level is difficult to portray in a one word label. These status labels should be considered only as an indication, and a further description, or applicability statement, should be consulted.
When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard, it is labeled with a current status.
At any given time a protocol occupies a cell of the following matrix. Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the following proportions (indicated by the relative number of Xs). A new protocol is most likely to start in the (proposed standard, elective) cell, or the (experimental, limited use) cell.
S T A T U S Req Rec Ele Lim Not +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Std | X | XXX | XXX | | | S +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Draft | X | X | XXX | | | T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Prop | | X | XXX | | | A +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Info | | | | | | T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Expr | | | | XXX | | E +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Hist | | | | | XXX | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
What is a "system"?
Some protocols are particular to hosts and some to gateways; 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.
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 7]
Every protocol listed in this document is assigned to a "maturity level" or STATE of standardization: "standard", "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic".
The IESG has established this as an official standard protocol for the Internet. These protocols are assigned STD numbers (see RFC- 1311). 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.
The IESG is actively considering this protocol as a possible Standard Protocol. Substantial and widespread testing and comment are desired. Comments and test results should be submitted to the IESG. There is a possibility that changes will be made in a Draft Standard Protocol before it becomes a Standard Protocol.
These are protocol proposals that may be considered by the IESG for standardization in the future. Implementation and testing by several groups is desirable. Revision of the protocol specification is likely.
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 an 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 standard, draft standard, and then standard protocols, the designation of a protocol as experimental may sometimes be meant to suggest that the protocol, although perhaps mature, is not intended for operational use.
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 8]
Protocols developed by other standard organizations, or vendors, or that are for other reasons outside the purview of the IESG, may be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community as informational protocols.
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.
This document lists a "requirement level" or STATUS for each protocol. The status is one of "required", "recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".
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. There may be several elective protocols in a general area, for example, there are several electronic mail protocols, and several routing protocols.
These protocols are for use in limited circumstances. This may be because of their experimental state, specialized nature, limited functionality, or historic state.
These protocols are not recommended for general use. This may be because of their limited functionality, specialized nature, or experimental or historic state.
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 9]
This section discusses in more detail the procedures used by the RFC Editor and the IESG in making decisions about the labeling and publishing of protocols as standards.
Here is the current decision table for processing submissions by the RFC Editor. The processing depends on who submitted it, and the status they want it to have.
(2) Bogus. Inform the source of the rules. RFCs specifying Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IESG, only.
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 2300 Internet Standards May 1998
(3) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG. Expect to see the document again only after approval by the IESG.
(4) Notify both the IESG and IRSG. If no concerns are raised in two weeks then do Discretion (5), else RFC Editor to resolve the concerns or do Refer (3).
(5) RFC Editor's discretion. The RFC Editor decides if a review is needed and if so by whom. RFC Editor decides to publish or not.
Of course, in all cases the RFC Editor can request or make minor changes for style, format, and presentation purposes.
The IESG has designated the IESG Secretary as its agent for forwarding documents with IESG approval and for registering concerns in response to notifications (4) to the RFC Editor. Documents from Area Directors or Working Group Chairs may be considered in the same way as documents from "other".
There is a part of the STATUS and STATE categorization that is called the standards track. Actually, only the changes of state are significant to the progression along the standards track, though the status assignments may change as well.
The states illustrated by single line boxes are temporary states, those illustrated by double line boxes are long term states. A protocol will normally be expected to remain in a temporary state for several months (minimum six months for proposed standard, minimum four months for draft standard). A protocol may be in a long term state for many years.
A protocol may enter the standards track only on the recommendation of the IESG; and may move from one state to another along the track only on the recommendation of the IESG. That is, it takes action by the IESG to either start a protocol on the track or to move it along.
Generally, as the protocol enters the standards track a decision is made as to the eventual STATUS, requirement level or applicability (elective, recommended, or required) the protocol will have, although a somewhat less stringent current status may be assigned, and it then is placed in the the proposed standard STATE with that status. So the initial placement of a protocol is into state 1. At any time the STATUS decision may be revisited.
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 2300 Internet Standards May 1998
| +<----------------------------------------------+ | ^ V 0 | 4 +-----------+ +===========+ | enter |-->----------------+-------------->|experiment | +-----------+ | +=====+=====+ | | V 1 | +-----------+ V | proposed |-------------->+ +--->+-----+-----+ | | | | | V 2 | +<---+-----+-----+ V | draft std |-------------->+ +--->+-----+-----+ | | | | | V 3 | +<---+=====+=====+ V | standard |-------------->+ +=====+=====+ | | V 5 +=====+=====+ | historic | +===========+
The transition from proposed standard (1) to draft standard (2) can only be by action of the IESG and only after the protocol has been proposed standard (1) for at least six months.
The transition from draft standard (2) to standard (3) can only be by action of the IESG and only after the protocol has been draft standard (2) for at least four months.
Occasionally, the decision may be that the protocol is not ready for standardization and will be assigned to the experimental state (4). This is off the standards track, and the protocol may be resubmitted to enter the standards track after further work. There are other paths into the experimental and historic states that do not involve IESG action.
Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus becomes historic, or it may happen that a protocol on the standards track is in a sense overtaken by another protocol (or other events) and becomes historic (state 5).
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 12]
Protocol Name Status RFC STD * ======== ===================================== ======== ==== === = -------- Internet Official Protocol Standards Req 2300 1 -------- Assigned Numbers Req 1700 2 -------- Host Requirements - Communications Req 1122 3 -------- Host Requirements - Applications Req 1123 3 IP Internet Protocol Req 791 5 as amended by:-------- -------- IP Subnet Extension Req 950 5 -------- IP Broadcast Datagrams Req 919 5 -------- IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets Req 922 5 ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol Req 792 5 IGMP Internet Group Multicast Protocol Rec 1112 5 UDP User Datagram Protocol Rec 768 6 TCP Transmission Control Protocol Rec 793 7 TELNET Telnet Protocol Rec 854,855 8 FTP File Transfer Protocol Rec 959 9 SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol Rec 821 10 SMTP-SIZE SMTP Service Ext for Message Size Rec 1870 10 SMTP-EXT SMTP Service Extensions Rec 1869 10 MAIL Format of Electronic Mail Messages Rec 822 11 CONTENT Content Type Header Field Rec 1049 11 NTPV2 Network Time Protocol (Version 2) Rec 1119 12 DOMAIN Domain Name System Rec 1034,1035 13 DNS-MX Mail Routing and the Domain System Rec 974 14 SNMP Simple Network Management Protocol Rec 1157 15 SMI Structure of Management Information Rec 1155 16 Concise-MIB Concise MIB Definitions Rec 1212 16 MIB-II Management Information Base-II Rec 1213 17 NETBIOS NetBIOS Service Protocols Ele 1001,1002 19 ECHO Echo Protocol Rec 862 20 DISCARD Discard Protocol Ele 863 21 CHARGEN Character Generator Protocol Ele 864 22 QUOTE Quote of the Day Protocol Ele 865 23 USERS Active Users Protocol Ele 866 24 DAYTIME Daytime Protocol Ele 867 25 TIME Time Server Protocol Ele 868 26 TFTP Trivial File Transfer Protocol Ele 1350 33 TP-TCP ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP Ele 1006 35 ETHER-MIB Ethernet MIB Ele 1643 50 PPP Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Ele 1661 51 PPP-HDLC PPP in HDLC Framing Ele 1662 51 IP-SMDS IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service Ele 1209 52 POP3 Post Office Protocol, Version 3 Ele 1939 53 OSPF2 Open Shortest Path First Routing V2 Ele 2328 54 *
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 34]
RFC 2300 Internet Standards May 1998
[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.]
Applicability Statements:
IGMP -- The Internet Architecture Board intends to move towards general adoption of IP multicasting, as a more efficient solution than broadcasting for many applications. The host interface has been standardized in RFC-1112; however, multicast-routing gateways are in the experimental stage and are not widely available. An Internet host should support all of RFC-1112, except for the IGMP protocol itself which is optional; see RFC-1122 for more details. Even without IGMP, implementation of RFC-1112 will provide an important advance: IP-layer access to local network multicast addressing. It is expected that IGMP will become recommended for all hosts and gateways at some future date.
SMI, MIB-II SNMP -- The Internet Architecture Board recommends that all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable. At the current time, this implies implementation of the Internet MIB-II (RFC-1213), and at least the recommended management protocol SNMP (RFC-1157).
RIP -- The Routing Information Protocol (RIP) is widely implemented and used in the Internet. However, both implementors and users should be aware that RIP has some serious technical limitations as a routing protocol. The IETF is currently devpeloping several candidates for a new standard "open" routing protocol with better properties than RIP. The IAB urges the Internet community to track these developments, and to implement the new protocol when it is standardized; improved Internet service will result for many users.
TP-TCP -- As OSI protocols become more widely implemented and used, there will be an increasing need to support interoperation with the TCP/IP protocols. The Internet Engineering Task Force is formulating strategies for interoperation. RFC-1006 provides one interoperation mode, in which TCP/IP is used to emulate TP0 in order to support OSI applications. Hosts that wish to run OSI connection-oriented applications in this mode should use the procedure described in RFC- 1006. In the future, the IAB expects that a major portion of the Internet will support both TCP/IP and OSI (inter-)network protocols in parallel, and it will then be possible to run OSI applications across the Internet using full OSI protocol "stacks".
OSPF -- RFC 1370 is an applicability statement for OSPF.
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 35]
All Network-Specific Standards have Elective status.
Protocol Name State RFC STD * ======== ===================================== ===== ===== === = IP-ATM Classical IP and ARP over ATM Prop 2225 * IP-FR Multiprotocol over Frame Relay Draft 1490 ATM-ENCAP Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Prop 1483 IP-TR-MC IP Multicast over Token-Ring LANs Prop 1469 IP-FDDI Transmission of IP and ARP over FDDI Net Std 1390 36 IP-X.25 X.25 and ISDN in the Packet Mode Draft 1356 ARP Address Resolution Protocol Std 826 37 RARP A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol Std 903 38 IP-ARPA Internet Protocol on ARPANET Std BBN1822 39 IP-WB Internet Protocol on Wideband Network Std 907 40 IP-E Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks Std 894 41 IP-EE Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets Std 895 42 IP-IEEE Internet Protocol on IEEE 802 Std 1042 43 IP-DC Internet Protocol on DC Networks Std 891 44 IP-HC Internet Protocol on Hyperchannel Std 1044 45 IP-ARC Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Nets Std 1201 46 IP-SLIP Transmission of IP over Serial Lines Std 1055 47 IP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS Std 1088 48 IP-IPX Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks Std 1132 49 IP-HIPPI IP over HIPPI Draft 2067
[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.]
Applicability Statements:
It is expected that a system will support one or more physical networks and for each physical network supported the appropriate protocols from the above list must be supported. That 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. See also the Host and Gateway Requirements RFCs for more specific information on network-specific ("link layer") protocols.
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 36]
Protocol Name Status RFC ======== ===================================== ============== ===== TFTP-Opt TFTP Options Elective 2349* TFTP-Blk TFTP Blocksize Option Elective 2348* TFTP-Ext TFTP Option Extension Elective 2347* ONE-PASS One-Time Password System Elective 2289* SMTP-Pipe SMTP Serv. Ext. for Command Pipelining Elective 2197* BOOTP DHCP Options and BOOTP Extensions Recommended 2132 DHCP Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Elective 2131 FRAME-MIB Management Information Base for Frame Elective 2115* ------- Clarifications and Extensions BOOTP Elective 1542 DHCP-BOOTP Interoperation Between DHCP and BOOTP Elective 1534 BOOTP Bootstrap Protocol Recommended 951,1497 MIME-CONF MIME Conformance Criteria Elective 2049 MIME-MSG MIME Msg Header Ext for Non-ASCII Elective 2047 MIME-MEDIA MIME Media Types Elective 2046 MIME Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions Elective 2045 PPP-CHAP PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication Elective 1994 PPP-MP PPP Multilink Protocol Elective 1990 PPP-LINK PPP Link Quality Monitoring Elective 1989 COEX-MIB Coexistence between SNMPV1 & SNMPV2 Elective 1908 SNMPv2-MIB MIB for SNMPv2 Elective 1907 TRANS-MIB Transport Mappings for SNMPv2 Elective 1906 OPS-MIB Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 Elective 1905 CONF-MIB Conformance Statements for SNMPv2 Elective 1904 CONV-MIB Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 Elective 1903 SMIV2 SMI for SNMPv2 Elective 1902 CON-MD5 Content-MD5 Header Field Elective 1864 OSPF-MIB OSPF Version 2 MIB Elective 1850 STR-REP String Representation ... Elective 1779 X.500syn X.500 String Representation ... Elective 1778 X.500lite X.500 Lightweight ... Elective 1777 BGP-4-APP Application of BGP-4 Elective 1772 BGP-4 Border Gateway Protocol 4 Elective 1771 PPP-DNCP PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol Elective 1762 RMON-MIB Remote Network Monitoring MIB Elective 1757 802.5-MIB IEEE 802.5 Token Ring MIB Elective 1748 RIP2-MIB RIP Version 2 MIB Extension Elective 1724 RIP2 RIP Version 2-Carrying Additional Info. Elective 1723 RIP2-APP RIP Version 2 Protocol App. Statement Elective 1722 SIP-MIB SIP Interface Type MIB Elective 1694 ------- Def Man Objs Parallel-printer-like Elective 1660 ------- Def Man Objs RS-232-like Elective 1659 ------- Def Man Objs Character Stream Elective 1658 BGP-4-MIB BGP-4 MIB Elective 1657 SMTP-8BIT SMTP Service Ext or 8bit-MIMEtransport Elective 1652
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 37]
RFC 2300 Internet Standards May 1998
OSI-NSAP Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation Elective 1629 ISO-TS-ECHO Echo for ISO-8473 Elective 1575 DECNET-MIB DECNET MIB Elective 1559 BRIDGE-MIB BRIDGE-MIB Elective 1493 NTPV3 Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Elective 1305 IP-MTU Path MTU Discovery Elective 1191 FINGER Finger Protocol Elective 1288 NICNAME WhoIs Protocol Elective 954
[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.]
Applicability Statements:
PPP -- Point to Point Protocol is a method of sending IP over serial lines, which are a type of physical network. It is anticipated that PPP will be advanced to the network-specifics standard protocol state in the future.
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 38]
All Experimental protocols have the Limited Use status.
Protocol Name RFC ======== ===================================== ===== ------- Domain Names and Company Name Retrieva 2345* RTP-MPEG RTP Payload Format for Bundled MPEG 2343* ------- Intra-LIS IP Multicast/Routers over ATM using PIM 2337* ------- Safe Response Header Field 2310* LDAP-NIS Approach Using LDAP as a Network Information Service 2307* HTTP-RVSA HTTP Remote Variant Selection Algorithm 2296* TCN-HTTP Transparent Content Negotiation in HTTP 2295* ------- Core Based Trees (CBT) Multicast Routing Architecture 2201* ------- Core Based Trees (CBT version 2) Multicast Routing 2189* ------- Trivial Convention using HTTP in URN Resolution 2169* ------- Resolution of URIs using DNS 2168* MAP-MAIL X.400 Mapping and Mail-11 2162* MIME-ODA A MIME Body Part for ODA 2161* OSPF-DIG OSPF with Digital Signature 2154* GKMP-ARCH Group Key Management Protocol (GKMP) Architecture 2094* GKMP-SPEC Group Key Management Protocol (GKMP) Specification 2093* IP-SCSI Encapsulating IP with the SCSI 2143 X.500-NAME Managing the X.500 Root Naming Context 2120 TFTP-MULTI TFTP Multicast Option 2090 IP-Echo IP Echo Host Service 2075 METER-MIB Traffic Flow Measurement Meter MIB 2064 TFM-ARCH Traffic Flow Measurement Architecture 2063 DNS-SRV Location of Services in the DNS 2052 URAS Uniform Resource Agents 2016 GPS-AR GPS-Based Addressing and Routing 2009 ETFTP Enhanced Trivial File Transfer Protocol 1986 BGP-RR BGP Route Reflection 1966 BGP-ASC Autonomous System Confederations for BGP 1965 SMKD Scalable Multicast Key Distribution 1949 HTML-TBL HTML Tables 1942 MIME-VP Voice Profile for Internet Mail 1911 SNMPV2SM User-based Security Model for SNMPv2 1910 SNMPV2AI SNMPv2 Administrative Infrastructure 1909 SNMPV2CB Introduction to Community-based SNMPv2 1901
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 47]
RFC 2300 Internet Standards May 1998
------- IPv6 Testing Address Allocation 1897 DNS-LOC Location Information in the DNS 1876 SGML-MT SGML Media Types 1874 CONT-MT Access Type Content-ID 1873 UNARP ARP Extension - UNARP 1868 ------- Form-based File Upload in HTML 1867 ------- BGP/IDRP Route Server Alternative 1863 ------- IP Authentication using Keyed SHA 1852 ESP3DES ESP Triple DES Transform 1851 ------- SMTP 521 Reply Code 1846 ------- SMTP Serv. Ext. for Checkpoint/Restart 1845 ------- SMTP Serv. Ext. Large and Binary MIME Msgs. 1830 ST2 Stream Protocol Version 2 1819 ------- Content-Disposition Header 1806 ------- Schema Publishing in X.500 Directory 1804 ------- X.400-MHS use X.500 to support X.400-MHS Routing 1801 ------- Class A Subnet Experiment 1797 TCP/IPXMIB TCP/IPX Connection Mib Specification 1792 ------- TCP And UDP Over IPX Networks With Fixed Path MTU 1791 ICMP-DM ICMP Domain Name Messages 1788 CLNP-MULT Host Group Extensions for CLNP Multicasting 1768 OSPF-OVFL OSPF Database Overflow 1765 RWP Remote Write ProtocolL - Version 1.0 1756 NARP NBMA Address Resolution Protocol 1735 DNS-ENCODE DNS Encoding of Geographical Location 1712 TCP-POS An Extension to TCP: Partial Order Service 1693 T/TCP TCP Extensions for Transactions 1644 MIME-UNI Using Unicode with MIME 1641 FOOBAR FTP Operation Over Big Address Records 1639 X500-CHART Charting Networks in the X.500 Directory 1609 X500-DIR Representing IP Information in the X.500 Directory 1608 SNMP-DPI SNMP Distributed Protocol Interface 1592 CLNP-TUBA Use of ISO CLNP in TUBA Environments 1561 REM-PRINT TPC.INT Subdomain Remote Printing - Technical 1528 EHF-MAIL Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages 1505 RAP Internet Route Access Protocol 1476 TP/IX TP/IX: The Next Internet 1475 X400 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services 1465 DNS Storing Arbitrary Attributes in DNS 1464 IRCP Internet Relay Chat Protocol 1459 TOS-LS Link Security TOS 1455 SIFT/UFT Sender-Initiated/Unsolicited File Transfer 1440 DIR-ARP Directed ARP 1433 TEL-SPX Telnet Authentication: SPX 1412 TEL-KER Telnet Authentication: Kerberos V4 1411 TRACE-IP Traceroute Using an IP Option 1393 DNS-IP Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing 1383 RMCP Remote Mail Checking Protocol 1339
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 48]
RFC 2300 Internet Standards May 1998
TCP-HIPER TCP Extensions for High Performance 1323 MSP2 Message Send Protocol 2 1312 DSLCP Dynamically Switched Link Control 1307 -------- X.500 and Domains 1279 IN-ENCAP Internet Encapsulation Protocol 1241 CLNS-MIB CLNS-MIB 1238 CFDP Coherent File Distribution Protocol 1235 IP-AX.25 IP Encapsulation of AX.25 Frames 1226 ALERTS Managing Asynchronously Generated Alerts 1224 MPP Message Posting Protocol 1204 SNMP-BULK Bulk Table Retrieval with the SNMP 1187 DNS-RR New DNS RR Definitions 1183 IMAP2 Interactive Mail Access Protocol 1176 NTP-OSI NTP over OSI Remote Operations 1165 DMF-MAIL Digest Message Format for Mail 1153 RDP Reliable Data Protocol 908,1151 TCP-ACO TCP Alternate Checksum Option 1146 IP-DVMRP IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing 1075 VMTP Versatile Message Transaction Protocol 1045 COOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme 1004 NETBLT Bulk Data Transfer Protocol 998 IRTP Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol 938 LDP Loader Debugger Protocol 909 RLP Resource Location Protocol 887 NVP-II Network Voice Protocol ISI-memo PVP Packet Video Protocol ISI-memo
[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.]
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 49]
Protocol Name RFC ======= ==================================== ===== -------- Mapping Airline Reservation, Ticketing, Messaging 2351* KOI8-U Ukrainian Character Set KOI8-U 2319* TEXT-CSS The text/css Media Type 2318* PKCS-7 PKCS #7: Cryptographic Message Syntax Version 1.5 2315* PKCS-10 PKCS #10: Certification Request Syntax Version 1.5 2314* PKCS-1 PKCS #1: RSA Encryption Version 1.5 2313* SMIME-CERT S/MIME Version 2 Certificate Handling 2312* SMIME-MSG S/MIME Version 2 Message Specification 2311* TIFF Tag Image File Format F Profile for Facsimile 2302* GSMP Ipsilon's General Switch Management Protocol 2297* HSRP Cisco Hot Standby Router Protocol (HSRP) 2281* RC2-ENCRP A Description of the RC2(r) Encryption Algorithm 2268* SNQP Simple Nomenclator Query Protocol 2259* -------- Japanese Character Encoding for Internet Messages 2237* KEYX-DNS Key Exchange Delegation Record for the DNS 2230* DSP A Dictionary Server Protocol 2229* NFS-URL NFS URL Scheme 2224* APP-MARC The Application/MARC Content-type 2220* ODETTE-FTP ODETTE File Transfer Protocol 2204* ESRO AT&T/Neda's Efficient Short Remote Operations Protocol 2188* ICP Internet Cache Protocol Version 2 2186* IPV4-MAPOS IPv4 over MAPOS Version 1 2176* MAPOS-SONET Multiple Access Protocol over SONET/SDH Version 1 2171* RWHOIS Referral Whois Protocol 2167* PPP-EXT PPP Vendor Extensions 2153 UTF-7 UTF-7 2152 CAST-128 CAST-128 Encryption Algorithm 2144 DLSCAP Data Link Switching Client Access Protocol 2114 PNG Portable Network Graphics Version 1.0 2083 RC5 RC5, RC5-CBC, RC5-CBC-Pad, and RC5-CTS Algorithms 2040 SNTP Simple Network Time Protocol v4 for IPv4, IPv6 and OSI 2030 PGP-MEF PGP Message Exchange Formats 1991 PPP-DEFL PPP Deflate Protocol 1979 PPP-PRED PPP Predictor Compression Protocol 1978 PPP-BSD PPP BSD Compression Protocol 1977 PPP-DCE PPP for Data Compression in DCE 1976 PPP-MAG PPP Magnalink Variable Resource Compression 1975 PPP-STAC PPP Stac LZS Compression Protocol 1974 GZIP GZIP File Format Specification Version 4.3 1952 DEFLATE DEFLATE Compressed Data Format Specification V. 1.3 1951 ZLIB ZLIB Compressed Data Format Specification V. 3.3 1950 HTTP-1.0 Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0 1945
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 50]
RFC 2300 Internet Standards May 1998
-------- text/enriched MIME Content-type 1896 -------- Application/CALS-1840 Content-type 1895 -------- PPP IPCP Extensions for Name Server Addresses 1877 SNPP Simple Network Paging Protocol - Version 2 1861 -------- ISO Transport Class 2 Non-use Explicit Flow Control 1859 over TCP RFC1006 extension -------- IP in IP Tunneling 1853 -------- PPP Network Control Protocol for LAN Extension 1841 TESS The Exponential Security System 1824 NFSV3 NFS Version 3 Protocol Specification 1813 -------- A Format for Bibliographic Records 1807 ------- Data Link Switching: Switch-to-Switch Protocol 1795 BGP-4 Experience with the BGP-4 Protocol 1773 SDMD IPv4 Option for Sender Directed MD Delivery 1770 SNOOP Snoop Version 2 Packet Capture File Format 1761 BINHEX MIME Content Type for BinHex Encoded Files 1741 DNS-NSAP DNS NSAP Resource Records 1706 RADIO-PAGE TPC.INT Subdomain: Radio Paging -- Technical Procedures 1703 GRE-IPv4 Generic Routing Encapsulation over IPv4 1702 GRE Generic Routing Encapsulatio 1701 ADSNA-IP Advanced SNA/IP: A Simple SNA Transport Protocol 1538 TACACS Terminal Access Control Protocol 1492 MD4 MD4 Message Digest Algorithm 1320 SUN-NFS Network File System Protocol 1094 SUN-RPC Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 1057 GOPHER The Internet Gopher Protocol 1436 LISTSERV Listserv Distribute Protocol 1429 ------- Replication Requirements 1275 PCMAIL Pcmail Transport Protocol 1056 MTP Multicast Transport Protocol 1301 BSD Login BSD Login 1282 DIXIE DIXIE Protocol Specification 1249 IP-X.121 IP to X.121 Address Mapping for DDN 1236 OSI-HYPER OSI and LLC1 on HYPERchannel 1223 HAP2 Host Access Protocol 1221 SUBNETASGN On the Assignment of Subnet Numbers 1219 SNMP-TRAPS Defining Traps for use with SNMP 1215 DAS Directory Assistance Service 1202 LPDP Line Printer Daemon Protocol 1179
[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.]
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 51]
Some of the protocols listed in this memo are described in RFCs that are obsoleted by newer RFCs. "Obsolete" or "obsoleted" is not an official state or status of protocols. This subsection is for information only.
While it may seem to be obviously wrong to have an obsoleted RFC in the list of standards, there may be cases when an older standard is in the process of being replaced. This process may take a year or two.
Many obsoleted protocols are of little interest and are dropped from this memo altogether. Some obsoleted protocols have received enough recognition that it seems appropriate to list them under their current status and with the following reference to their current replacement.
RFC RFC Status Title * ==== ==== ========= =================================== = 1305 obsoletes 1119 Stan/Rec Network Time Protocol version 2
Thanks to Lynn Wheeler for compiling the information in this subsection.
[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the previous edition of this document.]
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 53]
Please send your comments about this list of protocols and especially about the Draft Standard Protocols to the Internet Architecture Board care of Abel Winerib, IAB Executive Director.
Contacts:
Abel Winerib Executive Director of the IAB Intel, JF2-64 2111 NE 25th Avenue Hillsboro, OR 97124
1-503-696-8972
AWinerib@ibeam.jf.intel.com
Brian E. Carpenter Chair of the IAB IBM United Kingdon Laboratories Hursley Park Winchester Hampshire SO21 2JN
+44 1962 816833
brian@hursley.ibm.com
7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact
Contacts:
Fred Baker Chair of the IETF cisco Systems, Inc. 519 Lado Drive Santa Barbara, CA 93111
1-805-681-0115
fred@cisco.com
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 54]
RFC 2300 Internet Standards May 1998
Steve Coya IESG Secretary Corporation for National Research Initiatives 1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100 Reston, VA 22091
1-703-620-8990
scoya@IETF.ORG
Steve Coya Executive Director of the IETF Corporation for National Research Initiatives 1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100 Reston, VA 22091
1-703-620-8990
scoya@IETF.ORG
7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact
Contact:
Abel Winerib Chair of the IRTF Intel, JF2-64 2111 NE 25th Avenue Hillsboro, OR 97124
1-503-696-8972
AWinerib@ibeam.jf.intel.com
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 55]
Joyce K. Reynolds Internet Assigned Numbers Authority USC/Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-310-822-1511
IANA@IANA.ORG
The protocol standards are managed by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.
Please refer to the document "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1700) 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 "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers" (RFC-1812).
How to obtain the most recent edition of this "Internet Official Protocol Standards" memo:
The file "in-notes/std/std1.txt" may be copied via FTP from the FTP.ISI.EDU computer using the FTP username "anonymous" and FTP password "guest".
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 56]
Jon Postel RFC Editor USC/Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-310-822-1511
RFC-Editor@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.
7.4. The Network Information Center and Requests for Comments Distribution Contact
RFCs can be obtained via FTP from FTP.ISI.EDU, with the pathname in- notes/rfcnnnn.txt (where "nnnn" refers to the number of the RFC). Login with FTP username "anonymous" and password "name@host.domain".
RFCs can also be obtained via electronic mail from ISI.EDU by using the RFC-INFO service. Address the request to "rfc-info@isi.edu" with a message body of:
Retrieve: RFC Doc-ID: RFCnnnn
(Where "nnnn" refers to the number of the RFC (always use 4 digits - the DOC-ID of RFC 822 is "RFC0822")). The RFC-INFO@ISI.EDU server provides other ways of selecting RFCs based on keywords and such; for more information send a message to "rfc-info@isi.edu" with the message body "help: help".
contact: RFC-Manager@ISI.EDU
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 57]
Details on many sources of RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to "rfc-info@ISI.EDU" with the message body "help: ways_to_get_rfcs". For example:
Jon Postel USC/Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Phone: 310-822-1511 Fax: 310-823-6714
EMail: Postel@ISI.EDU
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 58]
RFC 2300 Internet Standards May 1998
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 59]