RFC 
 2400 
 TOC 
Network Working GroupJ. Postel
Request for Comments: 2400J. Reynolds
STD: 1USC/Information Sciences
Obsoletes: 2300, 2200, 2000, 1920, Institute
1880, 1800, 1780, 1720, 1610, 1600, September 1998
1540, 1500, 1410, 1360, 1280, 1250,  
1200, 1140, 1130, 1100, 1083 
Category: Standards Track 


INTERNET OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS

Status of this Memo

This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the “Internet Official Protocol Standards” (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

Copyright © The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

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, there 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.


 RFC 
 2400 
 TOC 

Table of Contents

1.  The Standardization Process
2.  The Request for Comments Documents
3.  Other Reference Documents
    3.1.  Assigned Numbers
    3.2.  Host Requirements
    3.3.  The MIL-STD Documents
4.  Explanation of Terms
    4.1.  Definitions of Protocol State
        4.1.1.  Standard Protocol
        4.1.2.  Draft Standard Protocol
        4.1.3.  Proposed Standard Protocol
        4.1.4.  Experimental Protocol
        4.1.5.  Informational Protocol
        4.1.6.  Historic Protocol
    4.2.  Definitions of Protocol Status
        4.2.1.  Required Protocol
        4.2.2.  Recommended Protocol
        4.2.3.  Elective Protocol
        4.2.4.  Limited Use Protocol
        4.2.5.  Not Recommended Protocol
5.  The Standards Track
    5.1.  The RFC Processing Decision Table
    5.2.  The Standards Track Diagram
6.  The Protocols
    6.1.  Recent Changes
        6.1.1.  New RFCs
        6.1.2.  Other Changes
    6.2.  Standard Protocols
    6.3.  Network-Specific Standard Protocols
    6.4.  Draft Standard Protocols
    6.5.  Proposed Standard Protocols
    6.6.  Telnet Options
    6.7.  Experimental Protocols
    6.8.  Informational Protocols
    6.9.  Historic Protocols
    6.10.  Obsolete Protocols
7.  Contacts
    7.1.  IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts
        7.1.1.  Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact
        7.1.2.  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact
        7.1.3.  Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact
    7.2.  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Contact
    7.3.  Request for Comments Editor Contact
    7.4.  The Network Information Center and Requests for Comments Distribution Contact
    7.5.  Sources for Requests for Comments
8.  Security Considerations
§  Authors' Addresses
§  Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements




 TOC 

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-2026.

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.

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, 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).



 TOC 

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 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" 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.



 TOC 

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.



 TOC 

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. Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers

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.



 TOC 

3.2.  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.



 TOC 

3.3.  The MIL-STD Documents

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.



 TOC 

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, 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.



 TOC 

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".



 TOC 

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.



 TOC 

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.



 TOC 

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.



 TOC 

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.



 TOC 

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.



 TOC 

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.



 TOC 

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".



 TOC 

4.2.1.  Required Protocol

A system must implement the required protocols.



 TOC 

4.2.2.  Recommended Protocol

A system should implement the recommended protocols.



 TOC 

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.



 TOC 

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.



 TOC 

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.



 TOC 

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.



 TOC 

5.1.  The RFC Processing Decision Table

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.

      +==========================================================+
      |**************|               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 |Discretion|Discretion|
      | 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 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".



 TOC 

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).



 TOC 

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.



 TOC 

6.1.  Recent Changes



 TOC 

6.1.1.  New RFCs

2428 - FTP Extensions for IPv6 and NATs

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2427 - Multiprotocol Interconnect over Frame Relay

A Standard protocol.

2426 - vCard MIME Directory Profile

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2425 - A MIME Content-Type for Directory Information

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2424 - Content Duration MIME Header Definition

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2423 - VPIM Voice Message MIME Sub-type Registration

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2422 - Toll Quality Voice - 32 kbit/s ADPCM MIME Sub-type Registration

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2421 - Voice Profile for Internet Mail - version 2

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2420 - The PPP Triple-DES Encryption Protocol (3DESE)

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2419 - The PPP DES Encryption Protocol, Version 2 (DESE-bis)

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2418 - IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures

This is a Best Current Practices document and does not specify any level of standard.

2417 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based ATM Network

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2416 - When TCP Starts Up With Four Packets Into Only Three Buffers

This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.

2415 - Simulation Studies of Increased Initial TCP Window Size

This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.

2414 - Increasing TCP's Initial Window

An Experimental protocol.

2413 - Dublin Core Metadata for Resource Discovery

This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.

2412 - Not yet issued.

2411 - Not yet issued.

2410 - Not yet issued.

2409 - Not yet issued.

2408 - Not yet issued.

2407 - Not yet issued.

2406 - Not yet issued.

2405 - Not yet issued.

2404 - Not yet issued.

2403 - Not yet issued.

2402 - Not yet issued.

2401 - Not yet issued.

2400 - This memo.

2399 - Not yet issued.

2398 - Some Testing Tools for TCP Implementors

This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.

2397 - The "data" URL scheme

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2396 - Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax

A Draft Standard protocol.

2395 - Not yet issued.

2394 - Not yet issued.

2393 - Not yet issued.

2392 - Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource Locators

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2391 - Load Sharing using IP Network Address Translation (LSNAT)

This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.

2390 - Inverse Address Resolution Protocol

A Draft Standard protocol.

2389 - Feature negotiation mechanism for the File Transfer Protocol

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2388 - Returning Values from Forms: multipart/form-data

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2387 - The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2386 - A Framework for QoS-based Routing in the Internet

This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.

2385 - Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5 Signature Option

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2384 - POP URL Scheme

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2383 - ST2+ over ATM Protocol Specification - UNI 3.1 Version

This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.

2382 - A Framework for Integrated Services and RSVP over ATM

This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.

2381 - Interoperation of Controlled-Load Service and Guaranteed Service with ATM

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2380 - RSVP over ATM Implementation Requirements

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2379 - RSVP over ATM Implementation Guidelines

This is a Best Current Practices document and does not specify any level of standard.

2378 - Not yet issued.

2377 - Not yet issued.

2376 - XML Media Types

This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.

2375 - IPv6 Multicast Address Assignments

This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.

2374 - An IPv6 Aggregatable Global Unicast Address Format

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2373 - IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2372 - Transaction Internet Protocol - Requirements and Supplemental Information

This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.

2371 - Transaction Internet Protocol Version 3.0

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2370 - The OSPF Opaque LSA Option

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2369 - The Use of URLs as Meta-Syntax for Core Mail List Commands and their Transport through Message Header Field

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2368 - The mailto URL scheme

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2367 - PF_KEY Key Management API, Version 2

This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.

2366 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based ATM Networks

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2365 - Administratively Scoped IP Multicast

This is a Best Current Practices document and does not specify any level of standard.

2364 - PPP Over AAL

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2363 - PPP Over FUNI

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2362 - Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification

An Experimental protocol.

2361 - WAVE and AVI Codec Registries

This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.

2360 - Guide for Internet Standards Writers

This is a Best Current Practices document and does not specify any level of standard.

2359 - IMAP4 UIDPLUS extension

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2358 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-like Interface Types

A Proposed Standard protocol.

2357 - IETF Criteria for Evaluating Reliable Multicast Transport and Application Protocols

This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.

2356 - Sun's SKIP Firewall Traversal for Mobile IP

This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.

2355 - TN3270 Enhancements

A Draft Standard protocol.

2354 - Options for Repair of Streaming Media

This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.

2353 - APPN/HPR in IP Networks APPN Implementers' Workshop Closed Pages Document

This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.

2350 - Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response

This is a Best Current Practices document and does not specify any level of standard.

2340 - Nortel's Virtual Network Switching (VNS) Overview

This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.

2336 - Classical IP and ARP over ATM to NHRP Transition

This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.



 TOC 

6.1.2.  Other Changes

The following are changes to protocols listed in the previous edition.

2073 - An IPv6 Provider-Based Unicast Address Format

Moved to Historic.

1884 - IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture

Moved to Historic.

0658 - Telnet Output Linefeed Disposition

Moved to Historic.

0657 - Telnet Output Vertical Tab Disposition Option

Moved to Historic.

0656 - Telnet Output Vertical Tabstops Option

Moved to Historic.

0655 - Telnet Output Formfeed Disposition Option

Moved to Historic.

0654 - Telnet Output Horizontal Tab Disposition Option

Moved to Historic.

0653 - Telnet Output Horizontal Tabstops Option

Moved to Historic.

0652 - Telnet Output Carriage-Return Disposition Option

Moved to Historic.



 TOC 

6.2.  Standard Protocols

Protocol   Name                                      Status    RFC STD *
========   =====================================     ======== ==== === =
--------   Internet Official Protocol Standards      Req      2400   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
IP-FR      Multiprotocol over Frame Relay            Ele      2427  55*

[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.



 TOC 

6.3.  Network-Specific Standard Protocols

All Network-Specific Standards have Elective status.

Protocol   Name                                    State    RFC   STD *
========   =====================================   =====   =====  === =
IP-ATM     Classical IP and ARP over ATM            Prop   2225
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.



 TOC 

6.4.  Draft Standard Protocols

Protocol   Name                                     Status          RFC
========   =====================================    ============== =====
URI-GEN    URI: Generic Syntax                      Elective       2396*
IARP       Inverse Address Resolution Protocol      Elective       2390*
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
DHCP-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 951,2132
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
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.



 TOC 

6.5.  Proposed Standard Protocols