    Network Working Group                          Internet Activities Board
    Request for Comments: 1100                                    April 1989
    Obsoletes: RFC 1083

                        IAB OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS

    Status of this Memo

       This memo describes the state of standardization of protocols used in
       the Internet as determined by the Internet Activities Board (IAB).
       An overview of the standards procedures is presented first, followed
       by discussions of the standardization process and the RFC document
       series, then the explanation of the terms is presented, the lists of
       protocols in each stage of standardization follows, and finally
       pointers to references and contacts for further information.

       This memo is issued quarterly, please be sure the copy you are
       reading is dated within the last three months.  Current copies may be
       obtained from the Network Information Center or from the Internet
       Assigned Numbers Authority (see the contact information at the end of
       this memo).  Do not use this memo after 31-July-89.

       Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

    1.  Overview of Standards Procedures

       The Internet Activities Board maintains a list of documents that
       define standards for the Internet protocol suite.  It provides these
       standards with the goal of co-ordinating the evolution of the
       Internet protocols; this co-ordination has become quite important as
       the Internet protocols are increasingly in general commercial use.

       Protocol standards may be proposed by anyone in the Internet
       community, by writing and submitting an RFC.  In general, any
       proposed protocol will be reviewed or developed in the context of
       some Task Force of the IAB, or some working group within that Task
       Force.  The IAB will assign a proposed protocol to a working group if
       official delegation is necessary.

       The recommendation of the working group or task force is given major
       consideration in the decision by the IAB to assign a state and status
       to the protocol.  The general policy is not to designate a protocol
       as an official standard until there is implementation experience with
       it.

    Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 1]

    RFC 1100                     IAB Standards                    April 1989

       In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper decision
       concerning a protocol, the IAB may convene a special review committee
       consisting of interested parties from the working group and members
       of the IAB itself, with the purpose of recommending some explicit
       action to the IAB.

       It is possible to proceed with widespread implementation of a
       standard without the approval of the IAB.  For example, some vendor
       standards have become very important to the Internet community even
       though they have not been proposed or reviewed by the IAB.  However,
       the IAB strongly recommends that the IAB standards process be used in
       the evolution of the protocol suite to maximize interoperability (and
       to prevent incompatible protocol requirements from arising).  The IAB
       reserves the use of the term "standard" in any RFC to only those
       protocols which the IAB has approved.

    2.  The Standardization Process

       Anyone can invent a protocol, document it, implement it, test it, and
       so on.  The IAB believes that it is very useful to document a
       protocol at an early stage to promote suggestions from others
       interested in the functionality the of protocol and from those
       interested in protocol design.  Once a protocol is implemented and
       tested it is useful to report the results.  The RFC document series
       is the preferred place for publishing these protocol documents and
       testing results.

       The IAB encourages the documenting of every protocol developed in the
       Internet (that is, the publication of the protocol specification as
       an RFC), even if it is never intended that the protocol become an
       Internet standard.  A protocol that is not intended to become a
       standard is called "experimental".

       Protocols that are intended to become standards are first designated
       as "proposed" protocols.  It is expected that while in this state the
       protocol will be implemented and tested by several groups.  It is
       likely that an improved version of the protocol will result from this
       activity.

       Once a proposed protocol has become stable and has a sponsor (an
       individual willing to speak for the protocol to the IAB) it may
       advance to the "draft standard" state.  In this state, it should be
       reviewed by the entire Internet community.  This draft standard state
       is essentially a warning to the community that unless an objection is
       raised or a flaw is found this protocol will become a "standard".

       Once a protocol has been a draft standard for a sufficient time
       (usually 6 months) without serious objections the IAB may act to

    Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 2]

    RFC 1100                     IAB Standards                    April 1989

       declare the protocol an official Internet standard.

       Some protocols have been superseded by better protocols or are
       otherwise unused.  Such protocols are designated "historic".

       In addition to a state (like proposed or standard) a protocol is also
       assigned a status.  A protocol can be required, meaning that all
       systems in the Internet must implement it.  For example, the Internet
       Protocol (IP) is required.  A protocol may be recommended, meaning
       that systems should implement this protocol.  A protocol may be
       elective, meaning that systems may implement this protocol; that is,
       if (and only if) the functionality of this protocol is needed or
       useful for a system it must use this protocol to provide the
       functionality.  A protocol may be termed not recommended if it is not
       intended to be generally implemented; for example, experimental or
       historic protocols.

       Few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems.  This is
       because there is such a variety of possible systems; for example,
       gateways, terminal servers, workstations, multi-user hosts.  It is
       not necessary for a gateway to implement TCP and the protocols that
       use TCP (though it may be useful).  It is expected that general
       purpose hosts will implement at least IP (including ICMP), TCP and
       UDP, Telnet, FTP, SMTP, Mail, and the Domain Name System (DNS).

    3.  The Request for Comments Documents

       The documents called Request for Comments (or RFCs) are the working
       notes of the Internet research and development community.  A document
       in this series may be on essentially any topic related to computer
       communication, and may be anything from a meeting report to the
       specification of a standard.  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).

       While RFCs are not refereed publications, they do receive technical
       review form the task forces, individual technical experts, or the RFC
       Editor, as appropriate.

       Once a document is assigned an RFC number and published, that RFC is
       never revised or re-issued with the same number.  There is never a
       question of having the most recent version of a particular RFC.
       However, a protocol (such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP)) may be
       improved and re-documented many times in several different RFCs.  It
       is important to verify that you have the most recent RFC on a

    Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 3]

    RFC 1100                     IAB Standards                    April 1989

       particular protocol.  This "IAB Official Protocol Standards" memo is
       the reference for determining the correct RFC to refer to for the
       current specification of each protocol.

       The RFCs are available from the Network Information Center at SRI
       International.  For more information about obtaining RFCs see the
       contact information at the end of this memo.

    4.  Other Reference Documents

       There are four other reference documents of interest in checking the
       current status of protocol specifications and standardization.  These
       are the Assigned Numbers, the Official Protocols, the Gateway
       Requirements, and the Host Requirements.  Note that these documents
       are revised and updated at different times; in case of differences
       between these documents, the most recent must prevail.

       Also one should be aware of the MIL-STD publications on IP, TCP,
       Telnet, FTP, and SMTP.  These are described in section 4.5.

    4.1.  Assigned Numbers

       This document lists the assigned values of the parameters used in the
       various protocols.  For example, IP protocol codes, TCP port numbers,
       Telnet Option Codes, ARP hardware types, and Terminal Type names.
       Assigned Numbers was most recently issued as RFC-1010.

       Another document, Internet Numbers, lists the assigned IP network
       numbers, and the autonomous system numbers.  Internet Numbers was
       most recently issued as RFC-1062.

    4.2.  Official Protocols

       This document list the protocols and describes any known problems and
       ongoing experiments.  Official Protocols was recently issued as RFC-
       1011.

    4.3.  Gateway Requirements

       This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways and
       supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities. Gateway
       Requirement was recently issued as RFC-1009.

    4.4.  Host Requirements

       This document reviews the specifications that apply to hosts and
       supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities. Host
       Requirements is in preparation and will be issued soon.

    Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 4]

    RFC 1100                     IAB Standards                    April 1989

    4.5.  The MIL-STD Documents

       The Internet community specifications for IP (RFC-791) and TCP (RFC-
       793) and the DoD MIL-STD specifications are intended to describe
       exactly the same protocols.  Any difference in the protocols
       specified by these sets of documents should be reported to DCA and to
       the IAB.  The RFCs and the MIL-STDs for IP and TCP differ in style
       and level of detail.  It is strongly advised that the two sets of
       documents be used together.

       The IAB and the DoD MIL-STD specifications for the FTP, SMTP, and
       Telnet protocols are essentially the same documents (RFCs 765, 821,
       854).The MIL-STD versions have been edited slightly.  Note that the
       current Internet specification for FTP is RFC-959.

              Internet Protocol (IP)                      MIL-STD-1777
              Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)         MIL-STD-1778
              File Transfer Protocol (FTP)                MIL-STD-1780
              Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)        MIL-STD-1781
              Telnet Protocol and Options (TELNET)        MIL-STD-1782

    5.  Explanation of Terms

       There are two independent categorizations of protocols.  The first is
       the state of standardization which is one of "standard", "draft
       standard", "proposed", "experimental", or "historic".  The second is
       the status of this protocol which is one of "required",
       "recommended", "elective", or "not recommended".  One could expect a
       particular protocol to move along the scale of status from elective
       to required at the same time as it moves along the scale of
       standardization from proposed to standard.

       At any given time a protocol is a cell of the following matrix.
       Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the following
       proportions (indicated by the number of Xs).  Most will be on the
       main diagonal.  A new protocol is most likely to start in the
       (proposed, elective) cell, or the (experimental, not recommended)
       cell.

    Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 5]

    RFC 1100                     IAB Standards                    April 1989

                         Req   Rec   Ele   Not
                       +-----+-----+-----+-----+
               Std     | XXX |  XX |  X  |     |
                       +-----+-----+-----+-----+
               Draft   |     |  X  |  XX |     |
                       +-----+-----+-----+-----+
               Prop    |     |     | XXX |  X  |
                       +-----+-----+-----+-----+
               Expr    |     |     |  X  | XXX |
                       +-----+-----+-----+-----+
               Hist    |     |     |     | XXX |
                       +-----+-----+-----+-----+

       Some protocol are particular to hosts and some to gateways; a few
       protocols are used in both.  The definitions of the terms below will
       refer to a "system" which is either a host or a gateway (or both).
       It should be clear from the context of the particular protocol which
       types of systems are intended.

    5.1.  Definitions

       5.1.1.  Standard Protocol

          The IAB has established this as an official standard protocol for
          the Internet.  These are separated into two groups: (1) IP
          protocol and above, protocols that apply to the whole Internet;
          and (2) network-specific protocols, generally specifications of
          how to do IP on particular types of networks.

       5.1.2.  Draft Standard Protocol

          The IAB is actively considering this protocol as a possible
          Standard Protocol.  Substantial and widespread testing and comment
          is desired.  Comments and test results should be submitted to the
          IAB.  There is a possibility that changes will be made in a Draft
          Standard Protocol before it becomes a Standard Protocol.

       5.1.3.  Proposed Protocol

          These are protocol proposals that may be considered by the IAB for
          standardization in the future.  Implementation and testing by
          several groups is desirable.  Revisions of the protocol
          specification are likely.

       5.1.4.  Experimental Protocol

          A system should not implement an experimental protocol unless it

    Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 6]

    RFC 1100                     IAB Standards                    April 1989

          is participating in the experiment and has coordinated its use of
          the protocol with the developer of the protocol.

          Typically, experimental protocols are those that are developed as
          part of a specific ongoing research project not related to an
          operational service offering.  While they may be proposed as a
          service protocol at a later stage, and thus become proposed,
          draft, and then standard protocols, the designation of a protocol
          as experimental is meant to suggest that the protocol, although
          perhaps mature, is not intended for operational use.

       5.1.5.  Historic Protocol

          These are protocols that are unlikely to ever become standards in
          the Internet either because they have been superseded by later
          developments or due to lack of interest.  These are protocols that
          are at an evolutionary dead end.

       5.1.6.  Required Protocol

          All systems must implement the required protocols.

       5.1.7.  Recommended Protocol

          All systems should implement the recommended protocols.

       5.1.8.  Elective Protocol

          A system may or may not implement an elective protocol. The
          general notion is that if you are going to do something like this,
          you must do exactly this.

       5.1.9.  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.

    Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 7]

    RFC 1100                     IAB Standards                    April 1989

    6.  The Protocols

    6.1.  Standard Protocols

    Protocol   Name                                      Status          RFC
    --------   ----                                      ------          ---
               Assigned Numbers                          Required       1010
               Gateway Requirements                      Required       1009
    IP         Internet Protocol                         Required        791
                as amended by:
                 IP Subnet Extension                     Required        950
                 IP Broadcast Datagrams                  Required        919
                 IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets     Required        922
    ICMP       Internet Control Message Protocol         Required        792
    UDP        User Datagram Protocol                    Recommended     768
    TCP        Transmission Control Protocol             Recommended     793
    DOMAIN     Domain Name System                     Recommended  1034,1035
    TELNET     Telnet Protocol                           Recommended     854
    FTP        File Transfer Protocol                    Recommended     959
    SMTP       Simple Mail Transfer Protocol             Recommended     821
    MAIL       Format of Electronic Mail Messages        Recommended     822
    EGP        Exterior Gateway Protocol                 Recommended     904
    NETBIOS    NetBIOS Service Protocols                 Elective  1001,1002
    ECHO       Echo Protocol                             Recommended     862
    DISCARD    Discard Protocol                          Elective        863
    CHARGEN    Character Generator Protocol              Elective        864
    QUOTE      Quote of the Day Protocol                 Elective        865
    USERS      Active Users Protocol                     Elective        866
    DAYTIME    Daytime Protocol                          Elective        867
    TIME       Time Server Protocol                      Elective        868

    Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 8]

    RFC 1100                     IAB Standards                    April 1989

    6.2.  Specific Standard Protocols

    Protocol   Name                                     Status           RFC
    --------   ----                                     ------           ---
    ARP        Address Resolution Protocol              Elective         826
    RARP       A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol    Elective         903
    IP-ARPA    Internet Protocol on ARPANET             Elective    BBN 1822
    IP-WB      Internet Protocol on Wideband Network    Elective         907
    IP-X25     Internet Protocol on X.25 Networks       Elective         877
    IP-E       Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks   Elective         894
    IP-EE      Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets  Elective         895
    IP-IEEE    Internet Protocol on IEEE 802            Elective        1042
    IP-DC      Internet Protocol on DC Networks         Elective         891
    IP-HC      Internet Protocol on Hyperchannnel       Elective        1044
    IP-ARC     Internet Protocol on ARCNET              Elective        1051
    IP-SLIP    Transmission of IP over Serial Lines     Elective        1055
    IP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS          Elective        1088

    Note:  It is expected that a system will support one or more physical
    networks and for each physical network supported the appropriate
    protocols from the above list must be supported.  That is, it is
    elective to support any particular type of physical network, and for the
    physical networks actually supported it is required that they be
    supported exactly according to the protocols in the above list.

    6.3.  Draft Standard Protocols

    Protocol   Name                                     Status           RFC
    --------   ----                                     ------           ---
    SNMP       Simple Network Management Protocol       Recommended     1098
    CMOT       Common Management Information Services   Recommended     1095
               and Protocol over TCP/IP
    MIB        Management Information Base              Recommended     1066
    SMI        Structure of Management Information      Recommended     1065
    NTP        Network Time Protocol                    Elective        1059
    IGMP       Internet Group Multicast Protocol        Recommended     1054
    BOOTP      Bootstrap Protocol                  Recommended 951,1048,1084

    The Internet Activities Board has designated two different network
    management protocols with the same status of "Draft Standard" and
    "Recommended".  The two protocols are the Common Management Information
    Services and Protocol over TCP/IP (CMOT) [RFC-1095] and the Simple
    Network Management Protocol (SNMP) [RFC-1098].  The IAB intends each of
    these two protocols to receive the attention of implementers and
    experimenters.  The IAB seeks reports of experience with these two
    protocols from system builders and users.  By this action, the IAB
    recommends that all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable
    (e.g., implement the Internet MIB [RFC-1066], and that implementations

    Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 9]

    RFC 1100                     IAB Standards                    April 1989

    that are network manageable are expected to adopt and implement at least
    one of these two Internet Draft Standards.

    6.4.  Proposed Protocols

    Protocol   Name                                     Status           RFC
    --------   ----                                     ------           ---
    SUN-NFS    Network File System Protocol             Elective        1094
    POP3       Post Office Protocol, Version 3          Elective   1081,1082
    RIP        Routing Information Protocol             Elective        1058
    SUN-RPC    Remote Procedure Call Protocol           Elective        1057
    PCMAIL     Pcmail Transport Protocol                Elective        1056
    VMTP       Versatile Message Transaction Protocol   Elective        1045
    NFILE      A File Access Protocol                   Elective        1037
               Mapping between X.400 and RFC-822        Elective    987,1026
    STATSRV    Statistics Server                        Elective         996
    NNTP       Network News Transfer Protocol           Elective         977
    NICNAME    WhoIs Protocol                           Elective         954
    HOSTNAME   HOSTNAME Protocol                        Elective         953
    POP2       Post Office Protocol, Version 2          Elective         937
    SFTP       Simple File Transfer Protocol            Elective         913
    RLP        Resource Location Protocol               Elective         887
    RTELNET    Remote Telnet Service                    Elective         818
    TFTP       Trivial File Transfer Protocol           Elective         783
    FINGER     Finger Protocol                          Elective         742
    SUPDUP     SUPDUP Protocol                          Elective         734
    NETED      Network Standard Text Editor             Elective         569
    RJE        Remote Job Entry                         Elective         407

    Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 10]

    RFC 1100                     IAB Standards                    April 1989

    6.5.  Experimental Protocols

    Protocol   Name                                     Status           RFC
    --------   ----                                     ------           ---
    IP-DVMRP   IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing     Not Recommended 1075
    IP-MTU     IP MTU Discovery Options                 Not Recommended 1063
    NETBLT     Bulk Data Transfer Protocol              Not Recommended  998
    IMAP2      Interactive Mail Access Protocol         Not Recommended 1064
    COOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme                    Not Recommended 1004
    IRTP       Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol   Not Recommended  938
    AUTH       Authentication Service                   Not Recommended  931
    RATP       Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol  Not Recommended  916
    THINWIRE   Thinwire Protocol                        Not Recommended  914
    LDP        Loader Debugger Protocol                 Not Recommended  909
    RDP        Reliable Data Protocol                   Not Recommended  908
    ST         Stream Protocol                       Not Recommended IEN 119
    NVP-II     Network Voice Protocol               Not Recommended ISI memo

    6.6.  Historic Protocols

    Protocol   Name                                     Status           RFC
    --------   ----                                     ------           ---
    SGMP       Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol       Not Recommended 1028
    HEMS       High Level Entity Management Protocol    Not Recommended 1021
    HMP        Host Monitoring Protocol                 Not Recommended  869
    GGP        Gateway Gateway Protocol                 Not Recommended  823
    CLOCK      DCNET Time Server Protocol               Not Recommended  778
    MPM        Internet Message Protocol                Not Recommended  759
    NETRJS     Remote Job Service                       Elective         740
    XNET       Cross Net Debugger                       Elective     IEN 158
    NAMESERVER Host Name Server Protocol             Not Recommended IEN 116
    MUX        Multiplexing Protocol                 Not Recommended IEN  90
    GRAPHICS   Graphics Protocol                  Not Recommended  NIC 24308

    Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 11]

    RFC 1100                     IAB Standards                    April 1989

    7.  Contacts

    7.1.  Internet Activities Board Contact

          Contact:

             Jon Postel
             Deputy Internet Architect
             USC Information Sciences Institute
             4676 Admiralty Way
             Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695

             1-213-822-1511

             Postel@ISI.EDU

       Please send your comments about this list of protocols and especially
       about the Draft Standard Protocols to the Internet Activities Board
       care of the Deputy Internet Architect.

    7.2.  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Contact

          Contact:

             Joyce K. Reynolds
             Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
             USC Information Sciences Institute
             4676 Admiralty Way
             Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695

             1-213-822-1511

             JKRey@ISI.EDU

       The protocol standards are managed for the IAB by the Internet
       Assigned Numbers Authority.

       Please refer to the documents "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1010) and
       "Official Internet Protocols" (RFC-1011) for further information
       about the status of protocol documents.  There are two documents that
       summarize the requirements for host and gateways in the Internet,
       "Host Requirements" (RFC in preparation) and "Gateway Requirements"
       (RFC-1009).

    Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 12]

    RFC 1100                     IAB Standards                    April 1989

          How to obtain the most recent edition of this "IAB Official
          Protocol Standards" memo:

             The file "in-notes/iab-standards.txt" may be copied via FTP
             from the VENERA.ISI.EDU computer using the FTP username
             "anonymous" and FTP password "guest".

    7.3.  Request for Comments Editor Contact

          Contact:

             Jon Postel
             RFC Editor
             USC Information Sciences Institute
             4676 Admiralty Way
             Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695

             1-213-822-1511

             Postel@ISI.EDU

       Documents may be submitted via electronic mail to the RFC Editor for
       consideration for publication as RFC.  If you are not familiar with
       the format or style requirements please request the "Instructions for
       RFC Authors".  In general, the style of any recent RFC may be used as
       a guide.

    7.4.  The Network Information Center and Requests for Comments Contact

          Contact:

             SRI International
             DDN Network Information Center
             333 Ravenswood Avenue
             Menlo Park, CA  94025

             1-800-235-3155
             1-415-859-3695

             NIC@SRI-NIC.ARPA

       The Network Information Center (NIC) provides many information
       services for the Internet community.  Among them is maintaining the
       Requests for Comments (RFC) library.

       RFCs can be obtained via FTP from SRI-NIC.ARPA with the pathname
       RFC:RFCnnnn.TXT where "nnnn" refers to the number of the RFC. A list

    Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 13]

    RFC 1100                     IAB Standards                    April 1989

       of all RFCs may be obtained by copying the file RFC:RFC-INDEX.TXT.
       Log in with FTP username ANONYMOUS and password GUEST.

       The NIC also provides an automatic mail service for those sites which
       cannot use FTP.  Address the request to SERVICE@SRI-NIC.ARPA and in
       the subject field of the message indicate the RFC number, as in
       "Subject: RFC nnnn".

          How to obtain the most recent edition of this "IAB Official
          Protocol Standards" memo:

             The file RFC:IAB-STANDARDS.TXT may be copied via FTP from the
             SRI-NIC.ARPA computer following the same procedures used to
             obtain RFCs.

    Author's Address:

       Jon Postel
       USC/Information Sciences Institute
       4676 Admiralty Way
       Marina del Rey, CA 90292

       Phone: (213) 822-1511

       Email: Postel@ISI.EDU

    Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 14]