分享
 
 
 

RFC1720 - Internet Official Protocol Standards

王朝other·作者佚名  2008-05-31
窄屏简体版  字體: |||超大  

Network Working Group Internet Architecture Board

Request for Comments: 1720 J. Postel, Editor

Obsoletes: RFCs 1610, 1600, 1540, 1500, November 1994

1410, 1360, 1280, 1250, 1100, 1083,

1130, 1140, 1200

STD: 1

Category: Standards Track

INTERNET 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 Architecture Board (IAB).

This memo is an Internet Standard. Distribution of this memo is

unlimited.

Table of Contents

IntrodUCtion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1. The Standardization Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. The Request for Comments Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3. Other Reference Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.1. Assigned Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.2. Gateway Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.3. Host Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.4. The MIL-STD Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

4. EXPlanation of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4.1. Definitions of Protocol State (Maturity Level) . . . . . . 8

4.1.1. Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4.1.4. Experimental Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4.1.5. Informational Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4.1.6. Historic Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status (Requirement Level) . . . 9

4.2.1. Required Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4.2.2. Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4.2.3. Elective Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4.2.4. Limited Use Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4.2.5. Not Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

5. The Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

5.1. The RFCProcessing Decision Table . . . . . . . . . . . 10

5.2. The Standards Track Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

6. The Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

6.1. Recent Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

6.1.1. New RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

6.1.2. Other Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

6.2. Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 26

6.4. Draft Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

6.6. Telnet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

6.7. Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

6.8. Informational Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

6.9. Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

6.10 Obsolete Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

7. Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

7.1.1. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact . . . . . . 37

7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . 38

7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact . . . . . 39

7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . . 39

7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact . . . . . . . . . . 40

7.4. Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . . 40

7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments . . . . . . . . . . . 41

8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

9. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Introduction

A discussion of the standardization process and the RFCdocument

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 approximately quarterly; please be

sure the copy you are reading is current. Current copies may be

oBTained from the Network Information Center (INTERNIC) or from the

Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (see the contact

information at the end of this memo). Do not use this edition after

1-Mar-95.

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.

1. The Standardization Process

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 in six months.

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 RFCseries 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 RFCor 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,

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).

2. The Request for Comments Documents

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 RFCEditor (see the contact

information at the end of this memo, and see RFC1543).

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 RFCseries 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 RFCEditor will publish the document only with the

approval of the IESG. For documents describing experimental work,

the RFCEditor 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 RFCnumber and published, that RFCis

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 RFCon a

particular protocol. This "Internet Official Protocol Standards"

memo is the reference for determining the correct RFCfor the current

specification of each protocol.

The RFCs are available from the INTERNIC, and a number of other

sites. For more information about obtaining RFCs, see Sections 7.4

and 7.5.

3. Other Reference Documents

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.

3.1. Assigned Numbers

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.

3.2. Gateway Requirements

This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways and

supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities. Gateway

Requirements is RFC-1009. A working group of the IETF is actively

preparing a revision.

3.3. Host Requirements

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.

3.4. 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 DISA and

to the IESG. 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, along with RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.

The Internet 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 (as

modified by RFC-1123).

Note that these MIL-STD are now somewhat out of date. The Gateway

Requirements (RFC-1009) and Host Requirements (RFC-1122, RFC-1123)

take precedence over both earlier RFCs and the MIL-STDs.

Internet Protocol (IP) MIL-STD-1777

Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) MIL-STD-1778

File Transfer Protocol (FTP) MIL-STD-1780

Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) MIL-STD-1781

Telnet Protocol and Options (TELNET) MIL-STD-1782

These documents are available from the Naval Publications and Forms

Center. Requests can be initiated by telephone, telegraph, or mail;

however, it is preferred that private industry use form DD1425, if

possible.

Naval Publications and Forms Center, Code 3015

5801 Tabor Ave

PhilaDelphia, PA 19120

Phone: 1-215-697-3321 (order tape)

1-215-697-4834 (conversation)

4. Explanation of Terms

There are two independent 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, not recommended) cell.

S T A T U S

Req Rec Ele Lim Not

+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

Std X XXX XXX

S +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

Draft X X XXX

T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

Prop X XXX

A +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

Info

T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

Expr XXX

E +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

Hist XXX

+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

What is a "system"?

Some protocols are particular to hosts 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.

4.1. Definitions of Protocol State

Every protocol listed in this document is assigned to a "maturity

level" or STATE of standardization: "standard", "draft standard",

"proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic".

4.1.1. Standard Protocol

The IESG has 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.

4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol

The IESG is actively considering this protocol as a possible

Standard Protocol. Substantial and widespread testing and comment

are desired. 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.

4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol

These are protocol proposals that may be considered by the IESG

for standardization in the future. Implementation and testing by

several groups is desirable. Revision of the protocol

specification is likely.

4.1.4. Experimental Protocol

A system should not implement an experimental protocol unless it

is participating in the experiment and has coordinated its use of

the protocol with the developer of the protocol.

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.

4.1.5. Informational Protocol

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.

4.1.6. 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.

4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status

This document lists a "requirement level" or STATUS for each

protocol. The status is one of "required", "recommended",

"elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".

4.2.1. Required Protocol

A system must implement the required protocols.

4.2.2. Recommended Protocol

A system should implement the recommended protocols.

4.2.3. Elective Protocol

A system may or may not implement an elective protocol. The

general 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.

4.2.4. Limited Use Protocol

These protocols are for use in limited circumstances. This may be

because of their experimental state, specialized nature, limited

functionality, or historic state.

4.2.5. Not Recommended Protocol

These protocols are not recommended for general use. This may be

because of their limited functionality, specialized nature, or

experimental or historic state.

5. The Standards Track

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.

5.1. The RFCProcessing Decision Table

Here is the current decision table for processing submissions by the

RFCEditor. The processing depends on who submitted it, and the

status they want it to have.

+==========================================================+

************** S O U R C E

+==========================================================+

Desired IAB IESG IRSG Other

Status

+==========================================================+

Standard Bogus Publish Bogus Bogus

or (2) (1) (2) (2)

Draft

Standard

+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

Refer Publish Refer Refer

Proposed (3) (1) (3) (3)

Standard

+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

Notify Publish Notify Notify

Experimental (4) (1) (4) (4)

Protocol

+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

Information Publish Publish DiscretionDiscretion

or Opinion (1) (1) (5) (5)

Paper

+==========================================================+

(1) Publish.

(2) Bogus. Inform the source of the rules. RFCs specifying

Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IESG, only.

(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 RFCEditor to resolve

the concerns or do Refer (3).

(5) RFCEditor's discretion. The RFCEditor decides if a review

is needed and if so by whom. RFCEditor decides to publish or

not.

Of course, in all cases the RFCEditor 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 RFCEditor. Documents from

Area Directors or Working Group Chairs may be considered in the same

way as documents from "other".

5.2. The Standards Track Diagram

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.

+<----------------------------------------------+

^

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).

6. The Protocols

Subsection 6.1 lists recent RFCs and other changes. Subsections 6.2

- 6.10 list the standards in groups by protocol state.

6.1. Recent Changes

6.1.1. New RFCs:

1725 - Post Office Protocol - Version 3

A Draft Standard protocol.

1724 - RIP Version 2 MIB Extension

A Draft Standard protocol.

1723 - RIP Version 2 - Carrying Additional Information

A Draft Standard protocol.

1722 - RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement

A Draft Standard protocol.

1721 - RIP Version 2 Protocol Analysis

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1720 - Internet Official Protocol Standards

This memo.

1719 - Not yet issued.

1718 - The Tao of IETF - A Guide for New Attendees of the Internet

Engineering Task Force

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1717 - The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP)

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1716 - Towards Requirements for IP Routers

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1715 - The H Ratio for Address Assignment Efficiency

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1714 - Referral Whois Protocol (RWhois)

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1713 - Tools for DNS debugging

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1712 - DNS Encoding of Geographical Location

An Experimental protocol.

1711 - Classifications in E-mail Routing

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1710 - Simple Internet Protocol Plus White Paper

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1709 - K-12 Internetworking Guidelines

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1708 - NTP PICS PROFORMA - For the Network Time Protocol Version 3

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1707 - CATNIP: Common Architecture for the Internet

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1706 - DNS NSAP Resource Records

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1705 - Six Virtual Inches to the Left: The Problem with IPng

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1704 - On Internet Authentication

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1703 - Principles of Operation for the TPC.INT Subdomain: Radio

Paging -- Technical Procedures

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1702 - Generic Routing Encapsulation over IPv4 networks

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1701 - Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1700 - Assigned Numbers

A status report on the parameters (i.e., numbers and

keywords) used in protocols in the Internet community.

1699 - Not yet issued.

1698 - Octet Sequences for Upper-Layer OSI to Support Basic

Communications Applications

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1697 - Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) Management

Information Base (MIB) using SMIv2

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1696 - Modem Management Information Base (MIB) using SMIv2

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1695 - Definitions of Managed Objects for ATM Management Version

8.0 using SMIv2

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1694 - Definitions of Managed Objects for SMDS Interfaces using

SMIv2

A Draft Standard protocol.

1693 - An Extension to TCP : Partial Order Service

An Experimental protocol.

1692 - Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux)

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1691 - The Document Architecture for the Cornell Digital Library

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1690 - Introducing the Internet Engineering and Planning Group

(IEPG)

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1689 - A Status Report on Networked Information Retrieval: Tools

and Groups

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1688 - IPng Mobility Considerations

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1687 - A Large Corporate User's View of IPng

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1686 - IPng Requirements: A Cable Television Industry Viewpoint

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1685 - Writing X.400 O/R Names

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1684 - Introduction to White Pages Services based on X.500

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1683 - Multiprotocol Interoperability In IPng

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1682 - IPng BSD Host Implementation Analysis

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1681 - On Many Addresses per Host

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1680 - IPng Support for ATM Services

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1679 - HPN Working Group Input to the IPng Requirements

Solicitation

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1678 - IPng Requirements of Large Corporate Networks

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1677 - Tactical Radio Frequency Communication Requirments for IPng

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1676 - INFN Requirements for an IPng

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1675 - Security Concerns for IPng

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1674 - Electric Power Research Institute Comments on IPng

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1673 - Electric Power Research Institute Comments on IPng

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1672 - Accounting Requirements for IPng

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1671 - IPng White Paper on Transition and Other Considerations

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1670 - Input to IPng Engineering Considerations

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1669 - Market Viability as a IPng Criteria

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1668 - Unified Routing Requirements for IPng

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1667 - Modeling and Simulation Requirements for IPng

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1666 - Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA NAUs using SMIv2

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1665 - Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA NAUs using SMIv2

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1664 - Using the Internet DNS to Distribute RFC1327 Mail Address

Mapping Tables

An Experimental protocol.

1663 - PPP Reliable Transmission

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1662 - The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)

A Standard protocol.

1661 - The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)

A Standard protocol.

1660 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Parallel-printer-like

Hardware Devices using SMIv2

A Draft Standard protocol.

1659 - Definitions of Managed Objects for RS-232-like Hardware

Devices using SMIv2

A Draft Standard protocol.

1658 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Character Stream Devices

using SMIv2

A Draft Standard protocol.

1657 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the Fourth Version of

the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4) using SMIv2

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1656 - BGP-4 Protocol Document Roadmap and Implementation

Experience

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1655 - Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1654 - A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1653 - SMTP Service Extension for Message Size Declaration

A Draft Standard protocol.

1652 - SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport

A Draft Standard protocol.

1651 - SMTP Service Extensions

A Draft Standard protocol.

1650 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-like

Interface Types using SMIv2

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1649 - Operational Requirements for X.400 Management Domains in

the GO-MHS Community

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1648 - Postmaster Convention for X.400 Operations

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1647 - TN3270 Enhancements

A Proposed Standard protocol.

1646 - TN3270 Extensions for LUname and Printer Selection

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1645 - Simple Network Paging Protocol - Version 2

This is an information document and does not specify any

level of standard.

1644 - T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions Functional

Specification

An Experimental protocol.

1643 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-like

Interface Type

A Standard protocol.

1642 - UTF-7 - A Mail-Safe Transformation Format of Unicode

An Experimental protocol.

1641 - Using Unicode with MIME

An Experimental protocol.

6.1.2. Other Changes:

The following are changes to protocols listed in the previous

edition.

904 - Exterior Gateway Protocol

Moved to Historic.

6.2. Standard Protocols

Protocol Name Status RFCSTD *

======== ===================================== ======== ==== === =

-------- Internet Official Protocol Standards Req 1720 1

-------- Assigned Numbers Req 1700 2

-------- Host Requirements - Communications Req 1122 3

-------- Host Requirements - Applications Req 1123 3

-------- Gateway Requirements Req 1009 4

IP Internet Protocol Req 791 5

as amended by:--------

-------- IP Subnet Extension Req 950 5

-------- IP Broadcast Datagrams Req 919 5

-------- IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets Req 922 5

ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol Req 792 5

IGMP Internet Group Multicast Protocol Rec 1112 5

UDP User Datagram Protocol Rec 768 6

TCP Transmission Control Protocol Rec 793 7

TELNET Telnet Protocol Rec 854,855 8

FTP File Transfer Protocol Rec 959 9

SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol Rec 821 10

MAIL Format of Electronic Mail Messages Rec 822 11

CONTENT Content Type Header Field Rec 1049 11

NTPV2 Network Time Protocol (Version 2) Rec 1119 12

DOMAIN Domain Name System Rec 1034,1035 13

DNS-MX Mail Routing and the Domain System Rec 974 14

SNMP Simple Network Management Protocol Rec 1157 15

SMI Structure of Management Information Rec 1155 16

Concise-MIB Concise MIB Definitions Rec 1212 16

MIB-II Management Information Base-II Rec 1213 17

NETBIOS NetBIOS Service Protocols Ele 1001,1002 19

ECHO Echo Protocol Rec 862 20

DISCARD Discard Protocol Ele 863 21

CHARGEN Character Generator Protocol Ele 864 22

QUOTE Quote of the Day Protocol Ele 865 23

USERS Active Users Protocol Ele 866 24

DAYTIME Daytime Protocol Ele 867 25

TIME Time Server Protocol Ele 868 26

TFTP Trivial File Transfer Protocol Ele 1350 33

RIP Routing Information Protocol Ele 1058 34

TP-TCP ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP Ele 1006 35

ETHER-MIB Ethernet MIB Ele 1643 50*

PPP Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Ele 1661 51*

PPP-HDLC PPP in HDLC Framing Ele 1662 51*

[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 developing several

candidates for a new standard "open" routing protocol with better

properties than RIP. The IAB urges the Internet community to track

these developments, and to implement the new protocol when it 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".

6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols

All Network-Specific Standards have Elective status.

Protocol Name State RFCSTD *

======== ===================================== ===== ===== === =

IP-ATM Classical IP and ARP over ATM Prop 1577

IP-FR Multiprotocol over Frame Relay Draft 1490

ATM-ENCAP Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Prop 1483

IP-TR-MC IP Multicast over Token-Ring LANs Prop 1469

IP-FDDI Transmission of IP and ARP over FDDI Net Std 1390 36

IP-HIPPI IP and ARP on HIPPI Prop 1374

IP-X.25 X.25 and ISDN in the Packet Mode Draft 1356

IP-SMDS IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service Prop 1209

IP-FDDI Internet Protocol on FDDI Networks Draft 1188

ARP Address Resolution Protocol Std 826 37

RARP A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol Std 903 38

IP-ARPA Internet Protocol on ARPANET Std BBN1822 39

IP-WB Internet Protocol on Wideband Network Std 907 40

IP-E Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks Std 894 41

IP-EE Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets Std 895 42

IP-IEEE Internet Protocol on IEEE 802 Std 1042 43

IP-DC Internet Protocol on DC Networks Std 891 44

IP-HC Internet Protocol on Hyperchannel Std 1044 45

IP-ARC Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Nets Std 1201 46

IP-SLIP Transmission of IP over Serial Lines Std 1055 47

IP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS Std 1088 48

IP-IPX Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks Std 1132 49

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the

previous edition of this document.]

Applicability Statements:

It is expected that a system will support one or more physical

networks and for each physical network supported the appropriate

protocols from the above list must be supported. That 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.

6.4. Draft Standard Protocols

Protocol Name Status RFC

======== ===================================== ============== =====

POP3 Post Office Protocol, Version 3 Elective 1725*

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*

SMTP-SIZE SMTP Service Ext for Message Size Elective 1653*

SMTP-8BIT SMTP Service Ext or 8bit-MIMEtransport Elective 1652*

SMTP-EXT SMTP Service Extensions Elective 1651*

OSI-NSAP Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation Elective 1629

OSPF2 Open Shortest Path First Routing V2 Elective 1583

ISO-TS-ECHO Echo for ISO-8473 Elective 1575

DECNET-MIB DECNET MIB Elective 1559

------- Message Header Ext. of Non-ASCII Text Elective 1522

MIME Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions Elective 1521

802.3-MIB IEEE 802.3 Repeater MIB Elective 1516

BRIDGE-MIB BRIDGE-MIB Elective 1493

NTPV3 Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Elective 1305

IP-MTU Path MTU Discovery Elective 1191

FINGER Finger Protocol Elective 1288

BGP3 Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3) Elective 1267,1268

BOOTP Bootstrap Protocol Recommended 951,1497

NICNAME WhoIs Protocol Elective 954

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the

previous edition of this document.]

Applicability Statements:

PPP -- Point to Point Protocol is a method of sending IP over serial

lines, which are a type of physical network. It is anticipated that

PPP will be advanced to the network-specifics standard protocol state

in the future.

6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols

Protocol Name Status RFC

======== ===================================== ============== =====

PPP-MP PPP Multilink Protocol Elective 1717*

RDBMS-MIB RDMS MIB - using SMIv2 Elective 1697*

MODEM-MIB Modem MIB - using SMIv2 Elective 1696*

ATM-MIB ATM Management Version 8.0 using SMIv2 Elective 1695*

SNANAU-MIB SNA NAUs MIB using SMIv2 Elective 1665*

PPP-TRANS PPP Reliable Transmission Elective 1663*

BGP-4-MIB BGP-4 MIB Elective 1657*

BGP-4-IMP BGP-4 Roadmap and Implementation Elective 1656*

BGP-4-APP Application of BGP-4 Elective 1655*

BGP-4 Border Gateway Protocol 4 Elective 1654*

-------- Postmaster Convention X.400 Operations Elective 1648*

TN3270-En TN3270 Enhancements Elective 1647*

PPP-BCP PPP Bridging Control Protocol Elective 1638

UPS-MIB UPS Management Information Base Elective 1628

AAL5-MTU Default IP MTU for use over ATM AAL5 Elective 1626

PPP-SONET PPP over SONET/SDH Elective 1619

PPP-ISDN PPP over ISDN Elective 1618

DNS-R-MIB DNS Resolver MIB Extensions Elective 1612

DNS-S-MIB DNS Server MIB Extensions Elective 1611

FR-MIB Frame Relay Service MIB Elective 1604

PPP-X25 PPP in X.25 Elective 1598

OSPF-NSSA The OSPF NSSA Option Elective 1587

OSPF-Multi Multicast Extensions to OSPF Elective 1584

SONET-MIB MIB SONET/SDH Interface Type Elective 1595

RIP-DC Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Cir. Elective 1582

-------- Evolution of the Interfaces Group of MIB-II Elective 1573

PPP-LCP PPP LCP Extensions Elective 1570

X500-MIB X.500 Directory Monitoring MIB Elective 1567

MAIL-MIB Mail Monitoring MIB Elective 1566

NSM-MIB Network Services Monitoring MIB Elective 1565

CIPX Compressing IPX Headers Over WAM Media Elective 1553

IPXCP PPP Internetworking Packet Exchange Control Elective 1552

CON-MD5 Content-MD5 Header Field Elective 1544

DHCP-BOOTP Interoperation Between DHCP and BOOTP Elective 1534

DHCP-BOOTP DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor Extensions Elective 1533

BOOTP Clarifications and Extensions BOOTP Elective 1532

DHCP Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Elective 1531

SRB-MIB Source Routing Bridge MIB Elective 1525

CIDR-STRA CIDR Address Assignment... Elective 1519

CIDR-ARCH CIDR Architecture... Elective 1518

CIDR-APP CIDR Applicability Statement Elective 1517

-------- 802.3 MAU MIB Elective 1515

HOST-MIB Host Resources MIB Elective 1514

-------- Token Ring Extensions to RMON MIB Elective 1513

FDDI-MIB FDDI Management Information Base Elective 1512

KERBEROS Kerberos Network Authentication Ser (V5) Elective 1510

GSSAPI Generic Security Service API: C-bindings Elective 1509

GSSAPI Generic Security Service Application... Elective 1508

DASS Distributed Authentication Security... Elective 1507

-------- X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets Elective 1502

HARPOON Rules for Downgrading Messages... Elective 1496

Mapping MHS/RFC-822 Message Body Mapping Elective 1495

Equiv X.400/MIME Body Equivalences Elective 1494

X.500syn X.500 String Representation ... Elective 1488

X.500lite X.500 Lightweight ... Elective 1487

STR-REP String Representation ... Elective 1485

OSI-Dir OSI User Friendly Naming ... Elective 1484

IDPR Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Elective 1479

IDPR-ARCH Architecture for IDPR Elective 1478

PPP/Bridge MIB Bridge PPP MIB Elective 1474

PPP/IP MIB IP Network Control Protocol of PPP MIB Elective 1473

PPP/SEC MIB Security Protocols of PPP MIB Elective 1472

PPP/LCP MIB Link Control Protocol of PPP MIB Elective 1471

X25-MIB Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 MIB Elective 1461

SNMPv2 Coexistence between SNMPv1 and SNMPv2 Elective 1452

SNMPv2 Manager-to-Manager MIB Elective 1451

SNMPv2 Management Information Base for SNMPv2 Elective 1450

SNMPv2 Transport Mappings for SNMPv2 Elective 1449

SNMPv2 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 Elective 1448

SNMPv2 Party MIB for SNMPv2 Elective 1447

SNMPv2 Security Protocols for SNMPv2 Elective 1446

SNMPv2 Administrative Model for SNMPv2 Elective 1445

SNMPv2 Conformance Statements for SNMPv2 Elective 1444

SNMPv2 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 Elective 1443

SNMPv2 SMI for SNMPv2 Elective 1442

SNMPv2 Introduction to SNMPv2 Elective 1441

PEM-KEY PEM - Key Certification Elective 1424

PEM-ALG PEM - Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers Elective 1423

PEM-CKM PEM - Certificate-Based Key Management Elective 1422

PEM-ENC PEM - Message Encryption and Auth Elective 1421

SNMP-IPX SNMP over IPX Elective 1420

SNMP-AT SNMP over AppleTalk Elective 1419

SNMP-OSI SNMP over OSI Elective 1418

FTP-FTAM FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification Elective 1415

IDENT-MIB Identification MIB Elective 1414

IDENT Identification Protocol Elective 1413

DS3/E3-MIB DS3/E3 Interface Type Elective 1407

DS1/E1-MIB DS1/E1 Interface Type Elective 1406

BGP-OSPF BGP OSPF Interaction Elective 1403

-------- Route Advertisement In BGP2 And BGP3 Elective 1397

SNMP-X.25 SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 Packet Layer Elective 1382

SNMP-LAPB SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 LAPB Elective 1381

PPP-ATCP PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol Elective 1378

PPP-OSINLCP PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol Elective 1377

PPP-DNCP PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol Elective 1376

TABLE-MIB IP Forwarding Table MIB Elective 1354

SNMP-PARTY-MIB Administration of SNMP Elective 1353

SNMP-SEC SNMP Security Protocols Elective 1352

SNMP-ADMIN SNMP Administrative Model Elective 1351

TOS Type of Service in the Internet Elective 1349

PPP-AUTH PPP Authentication Elective 1334

PPP-LINK PPP Link Quality Monitoring Elective 1333

PPP-IPCP PPP Control Protocol Elective 1332

------- X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading Elective 1328

------- Mapping between X.400(1988) Elective 1327

TCP-EXT TCP Extensions for High Performance Elective 1323

FRAME-MIB Management Information Base for Frame Elective 1315

NETFAX File Format for the Exchange of Images Elective 1314

IARP Inverse Address Resolution Protocol Elective 1293

FDDI-MIB FDDI-MIB Elective 1285

------- Encoding Network Addresses Elective 1277

------- Replication and Distributed Operations Elective 1276

------- COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema Elective 1274

RMON-MIB Remote Network Monitoring MIB Elective 1271

BGP-MIB Border Gateway Protocol MIB (Version 3) Elective 1269

ICMP-ROUT ICMP Router Discovery Messages Elective 1256

OSPF-MIB OSPF Version 2 MIB Elective 1253

IPSO DoD Security Options for IP Elective 1108

AT-MIB Appletalk MIB Elective 1243

OSI-UDP OSI TS on UDP Elective 1240

STD-MIBs Reassignment of Exp MIBs to Std MIBs Elective 1239

IPX-IP Tunneling IPX Traffic through IP Nets Elective 1234

802.5-MIB IEEE 802.5 Token Ring MIB Elective 1231

GINT-MIB Extensions to the Generic-Interface MIB Elective 1229

PPP-EXT PPP Extensions for Bridging Elective 1220

IS-IS OSI IS-IS for TCP/IP Dual Environments Elective 1195

IP-CMPRS Compressing TCP/IP Headers Elective 1144

NNTP Network News Transfer Protocol Elective 977

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the

previous edition of this document.]

Applicability Statements:

OSPF - RFC1370 is an applicability statement for OSPF.

6.6. Telnet Options

For convenience, all the Telnet Options are collected here with both

their state and status.

Protocol Name Number State Status RFCSTD

======== ===================================== ===== ====== ==== ===

TOPT-BIN Binary Transmission 0 Std Rec 856 27

TOPT-ECHO Echo 1 Std Rec 857 28

TOPT-RECN Reconnection 2 Prop Ele ...

TOPT-SUPP Suppress Go Ahead 3 Std Rec 858 29

TOPT-APRX Approx Message Size Negotiation 4 Prop Ele ...

TOPT-STAT Status 5 Std Rec 859 30

TOPT-TIM Timing Mark 6 Std Rec 860 31

TOPT-REM Remote Controlled Trans and Echo 7 Prop Ele 726

TOPT-OLW Output Line Width 8 Prop Ele ...

TOPT-OPS Output Page Size 9 Prop Ele ...

TOPT-OCRD Output Carriage-Return Disposition 10 Prop Ele 652

TOPT-OHT Output Horizontal Tabstops 11 Prop Ele 653

TOPT-OHTD Output Horizontal Tab Disposition 12 Prop Ele 654

TOPT-OFD Output Formfeed Disposition 13 Prop Ele 655

TOPT-OVT Output Vertical Tabstops 14 Prop Ele 656

TOPT-OVTD Output Vertical Tab Disposition 15 Prop Ele 657

TOPT-OLD Output Linefeed Disposition 16 Prop Ele 658

TOPT-EXT Extended ASCII 17 Prop Ele 698

TOPT-LOGO Logout 18 Prop Ele 727

TOPT-BYTE Byte Macro 19 Prop Ele 735

TOPT-DATA Data Entry Terminal 20 Prop Ele 1043

TOPT-SUP SUPDUP 21 Prop Ele 736

TOPT-SUPO SUPDUP Output 22 Prop Ele 749

TOPT-SNDL Send Location 23 Prop Ele 779

TOPT-TERM Terminal Type 24 Prop Ele 1091

TOPT-EOR End of Record 25 Prop Ele 885

TOPT-TACACS TACACS User Identification 26 Prop Ele 927

TOPT-OM Output Marking 27 Prop Ele 933

TOPT-TLN Terminal Location Number 28 Prop Ele 946

TOPT-3270 Telnet 3270 Regime 29 Prop Ele 1041

TOPT-X.3 X.3 PAD 30 Prop Ele 1053

TOPT-NAWS Negotiate About Window Size 31 Prop Ele 1073

TOPT-TS Terminal Speed 32 Prop Ele 1079

TOPT-RFCRemote Flow Control 33 Prop Ele 1372

TOPT-LINE Linemode 34 Draft Ele 1184

TOPT-XDL X Display Location 35 Prop Ele 1096

TOPT-ENVIR Telnet Environment Option 36 Hist Not 1408

TOPT-AUTH Telnet Authentication Option 37 Exp Ele 1416

TOPT-ENVIR Telnet Environment Option 39 Prop Ele 1572

TOPT-EXTOP Extended-Options-List 255 Std Rec 861 32

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the

previous edition of this document.]

6.7. Experimental Protocols

All Experimental protocols have the Limited Use status.

Protocol Name RFC

======== ===================================== =====

DNS-DEBUG Tools for DNS debugging 1713*

DNS-ENCODE DNS Encoding of Geographical Location 1712*

TCP-POS An Extension to TCP: Partial Order Service 1693*

------- DNS to Distribute RFC1327 Mail Address Mapping Tables 1664*

T/TCP TCP Extensions for Transactions 1644*

UTF-7 A Mail-Safe Transformation Format of Unicode 1642*

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

REM-PRT An Experiment in Remote Printing 1486

RAP Internet Route Access Protocol 1476

TP/IX TP/IX: The Next Internet 1475

X400 Routing Coordination for X.400 Services 1465

DNS Storing Arbitrary Attributes in DNS 1464

IRCP Internet Relay Chat Protocol 1459

TOS-LS Link Security TOS 1455

SIFT/UFT Sender-Initiated/Unsolicited File Transfer 1440

DIR-ARP Directed ARP 1433

TEL-SPX Telnet Authentication: SPX 1412

TEL-KER Telnet Authentication: Kerberos V4 1411

MAP-MAIL X.400 Mapping and Mail-11 1405

TRACE-IP Traceroute Using an IP Option 1393

DNS-IP Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing 1383

RMCP Remote Mail Checking Protocol 1339

TCP-HIPER TCP Extensions for High Performance 1323

MSP2 Message Send Protocol 2 1312

DSLCP Dynamically Switched Link Control 1307

-------- X.500 and Domains 1279

IN-ENCAP Internet Encapsulation Protocol 1241

CLNS-MIB CLNS-MIB 1238

CFDP Coherent File Distribution Protocol 1235

SNMP-DPI SNMP Distributed Program Interface 1228

IP-AX.25 IP Encapsulation of AX.25 Frames 1226

ALERTS Managing Asynchronously Generated Alerts 1224

MPP Message Posting Protocol 1204

ST-II Stream Protocol 1190

SNMP-BULK Bulk Table Retrieval with the SNMP 1187

DNS-RR New DNS RR Definitions 1183

IMAP2 Interactive Mail Access Protocol 1176

NTP-OSI NTP over OSI Remote Operations 1165

DMF-MAIL Digest Message Format for Mail 1153

RDP Reliable Data Protocol 908,1151

TCP-ACO TCP Alternate Checksum Option 1146

-------- Mapping full 822 to Restricted 822 1137

IP-DVMRP IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing 1075

VMTP Versatile Message Transaction Protocol 1045

COOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme 1004

NETBLT Bulk Data Transfer Protocol 998

IRTP Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol 938

LDP Loader Debugger Protocol 909

RLP Resource Location Protocol 887

NVP-II Network Voice Protocol ISI-memo

PVP Packet Video Protocol ISI-memo

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the

previous edition of this document.]

6.8. Informational Protocols

Information protocols have no status.

Protocol Name RFC

======= ==================================== =====

RWHOIS Referral Whois Protocol 1714*

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*

TMUX Transport Multiplexing Protocol 1692*

SNPP Simple Network Paging Protocol - Version 2 1645*

IPXWAN Novell IPX Over Various WAN Media 1634

ADSNA-IP Advanced SNA/IP: A Simple SNA Transport Protocol 1538

AUBR Appletalk Update-Based Routing Protocol... 1504

TACACS Terminal Access Control Protocol 1492

SUN-NFS Network File System Protocol 1094

SUN-RPC Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 2 1057

GOPHER The Internet Gopher Protocol 1436

------- Data Link Switching: Switch-to-Switch Protocol 1434

LISTSERV Listserv Distribute Protocol 1429

------- Replication Requirements 1275

PCMAIL Pcmail Transport Protocol 1056

MTP Multicast Transport Protocol 1301

BSD Login BSD Login 1282

DIXIE DIXIE Protocol Specification 1249

IP-X.121 IP to X.121 Address Mapping for DDN 1236

OSI-HYPER OSI and LLC1 on HYPERchannel 1223

HAP2 Host Access Protocol 1221

SUBNETASGN On the Assignment of Subnet Numbers 1219

SNMP-TRAPS Defining Traps for use with SNMP 1215

DAS Directory Assistance Service 1202

MD4 MD4 Message Digest Algorithm 1186

LPDP Line Printer Daemon Protocol 1179

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the

previous edition of this document.]

6.9. Historic Protocols

All Historic protocols have Not Recommended status.

Protocol Name RFCSTD

======== ===================================== ===== ===

EGP Exterior Gateway Protocol Rec 904 18*

SNMP-MUX SNMP MUX Protocol and MIB 1227

OIM-MIB-II OSI Internet Management: MIB-II 1214

IMAP3 Interactive Mail Access Protocol Version 3 1203

SUN-RPC Remote Procedure Call Protocol Version 1 1050

802.4-MIP IEEE 802.4 Token Bus MIB 1230

CMOT Common Management Information Services 1189

-------- Mail Privacy: Procedures 1113

-------- Mail Privacy: Key Management 1114

-------- Mail Privacy: Algorithms 1115

NFILE A File Access Protocol 1037

HOSTNAME HOSTNAME Protocol 953

SFTP Simple File Transfer Protocol 913

SUPDUP SUPDUP Protocol 734

BGP Border Gateway Protocol 1163,1164

MIB-I MIB-I 1156

SGMP Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol 1028

HEMS High Level Entity Management Protocol 1021

STATSRV Statistics Server 996

POP2 Post Office Protocol, Version 2 937

RATP Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol 916

HFEP Host - Front End Protocol 929

THINWIRE Thinwire Protocol 914

HMP Host Monitoring Protocol 869

GGP Gateway Gateway Protocol 823

RTELNET Remote Telnet Service 818

CLOCK DCNET Time Server Protocol 778

MPM Internet Message Protocol 759

NETRJS Remote Job Service 740

NETED Network Standard Text Editor 569

RJE Remote Job Entry 407

XNET Cross Net Debugger IEN-158

NAMESERVER Host Name Server Protocol IEN-116

MUX Multiplexing Protocol IEN-90

GRAPHICS Graphics Protocol NIC-24308

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the

previous edition of this document.]

6.10. Obsolete Protocols

Some of the protocols listed in this memo are described in RFCs that are

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 RFCin 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.

For example, the Network Time Protocol (NTP) [RFC1119] is in its

version 2 a full Standard, and in its version 3 is a Draft Standard [RFC

1305]. Once version 3 is a full Standard, version 2 will be made

Historic.

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.

RFCRFCStatus Title *

==== ==== ========= =================================== =

1305 obsoletes 1119 Std /Rec Network Time Protocol (Version 2)

1533 obsoletes 1497 Draft/Rec Bootstrap Protocol

1331 obsoletes 1171 Draft/Ele Point to Point Protocol

1574 obsoletes 1139 Prop /Ele Echo for ISO-8473

1573 obsoletes 1229 Prop /Ele Extensions to the Generic-IF MIB

1559 obsoletes 1289 Prop /Ele DECNET MIB

1548 obsoletes 1331 Prop /Ele Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)

1541 obsoletes 1531 Prop /Ele Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol

1592 obsoletes 1228 Exper/Lim SNMP Distributed Program Interface

1528 obsoletes 1486 Exper/Lim An Experiment in Remote Printing

1320 obsoletes 1186 Info / MD4 Message Digest Algorithm

1057 obsoletes 1050 Hist /Not Remote Procedure Call Version 1

1421 obsoletes 1113 Hist /Not Mail Privacy: Procedures

1422 obsoletes 1114 Hist /Not Mail Privacy: Key Management

1423 obsoletes 1115 Hist /Not Mail Privacy: Algorithms

1267 obsoletes 1163 Hist /Not Border Gateway Protocol

1268 obsoletes 1164 Hist /Not Border Gateway Protocol

Thanks to Lynn Wheeler of Britton Lee 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.]

7. Contacts

7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts

7.1.1. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact

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

AWeinrib@ibeam.intel.com

Christian Huitema

Chair of the IAB

INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis

2004 Route des Lucioles

BP 109

F-06561 Valbonne Cedex

France

+33 93 65 77 15

Christian.Huitema@MIRSA.INRIA.FR

7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact

Contacts:

Paul Mockapetris

Chair of the IETF

USC/Information Sciences Institute

4676 Admiralty Way

Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695

1-310-822-1511

pvm@ISI.EDU

John Stewart

IESG Secretary

Corporation for National Research Initiatives

1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100

Reston, VA 22091

1-703-620-8990

jstewart@CNRI.RESTON.VA.US

Steve Coya

Executive Director of the IETF

Corporation for National Research Initiatives

1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100

Reston, VA 22091

1-703-620-8990

scoya@CNRI.RESTON.VA.US

7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact

Contact:

Jon Postel

Chair of the IRTF

USC/Information Sciences Institute

4676 Admiralty Way

Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695

1-310-822-1511

Postel@ISI.EDU

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

1-310-822-1511

IANA@ISI.EDU

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 "Gateway Requirements" (RFC-1009).

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".

7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact

Contact:

Jon Postel

RFCEditor

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 RFCEditor for

consideration for publication as RFC. If you are not familiar with

the format or style requirements please request the "Instructions for

RFCAuthors". In general, the style of any recent RFCmay be used as

a guide.

7.4. The Network Information Center and

Requests for Comments Distribution Contact

RFC's may be obtained from DS.INTERNIC.NET via FTP, WAIS, and

electronic mail. Through FTP, RFC's are stored as rfc/rfcnnnn.txt

or rfc/rfcnnnn.ps where 'nnnn' is the RFCnumber. Login as

"anonymous" and provide your e-mail address as the password.

Through WAIS, you may use either your local WAIS client or telnet

to DS.INTERNIC.NET and login as "wais" (no password required) to

access a WAIS client. Help information and a tutorial for using

WAIS are available online. The WAIS database to search is "rfcs".

Directory and Database Services also provides a mail server

interface. Send a mail message to mailserv@ds.internic.net and

include any of the following commands in the message body:

document-by-name rfcnnnn where 'nnnn' is the RFCnumber

The text version is sent.

file /ftp/rfc/rfcnnnn.yyy where 'nnnn' is the RFCnumber.

and 'yyy' is 'txt' or 'ps'.

help to get information on how to use

the mailserver.

The InterNIC directory and database services collection of

resource listings, internet documents such as RFCs, FYIs, STDs,

and Internet Drafts, and publicly accessible databases are also

now available via Gopher. All our collections are WAIS indexed

and can be searched from the Gopher menu.

To access the InterNIC Gopher Servers, please connect to

"internic.net" port 70.

Contact: admin@ds.internic.net

7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments

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:

To: rfc-info@ISI.EDU

Subject: getting rfcs

help: ways_to_get_rfcs

8. Security Considerations

Security issues are not addressed in this memo.

9. Author's Address

Jon Postel

USC/Information Sciences Institute

4676 Admiralty Way

Marina del Rey, CA 90292

Phone: 310-822-1511

Fax: 310-823-6714

Email: Postel@ISI.EDU

 
 
 
免责声明:本文为网络用户发布,其观点仅代表作者个人观点,与本站无关,本站仅提供信息存储服务。文中陈述内容未经本站证实,其真实性、完整性、及时性本站不作任何保证或承诺,请读者仅作参考,并请自行核实相关内容。
2023年上半年GDP全球前十五强
 百态   2023-10-24
美众议院议长启动对拜登的弹劾调查
 百态   2023-09-13
上海、济南、武汉等多地出现不明坠落物
 探索   2023-09-06
印度或要将国名改为“巴拉特”
 百态   2023-09-06
男子为女友送行,买票不登机被捕
 百态   2023-08-20
手机地震预警功能怎么开?
 干货   2023-08-06
女子4年卖2套房花700多万做美容:不但没变美脸,面部还出现变形
 百态   2023-08-04
住户一楼被水淹 还冲来8头猪
 百态   2023-07-31
女子体内爬出大量瓜子状活虫
 百态   2023-07-25
地球连续35年收到神秘规律性信号,网友:不要回答!
 探索   2023-07-21
全球镓价格本周大涨27%
 探索   2023-07-09
钱都流向了那些不缺钱的人,苦都留给了能吃苦的人
 探索   2023-07-02
倩女手游刀客魅者强控制(强混乱强眩晕强睡眠)和对应控制抗性的关系
 百态   2020-08-20
美国5月9日最新疫情:美国确诊人数突破131万
 百态   2020-05-09
荷兰政府宣布将集体辞职
 干货   2020-04-30
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案逍遥观:鹏程万里
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案神机营:射石饮羽
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案昆仑山:拔刀相助
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案天工阁:鬼斧神工
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案丝路古道:单枪匹马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:与虎谋皮
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:李代桃僵
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:指鹿为马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:小鸟依人
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:千金买邻
 干货   2019-11-12
 
推荐阅读
 
 
 
>>返回首頁<<
 
靜靜地坐在廢墟上,四周的荒凉一望無際,忽然覺得,淒涼也很美
© 2005- 王朝網路 版權所有