    Network Working Group                          Internet Activities Board
    Request for Comments: 1200                             J. Postel, Editor
    Obsoletes: RFCs 1140,                                         April 1991
         1100, 1083, 1130

                        IAB OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS

    Status of this Memo

       This memo describes the state of standardization of protocols used in
       the Internet as determined by the Internet Activities Board (IAB).
       Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

    Table of Contents

       Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
       1.  The Standardization Process  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
       2.  The Request for Comments Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
       3.  Other Reference Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
       3.1.  Assigned Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
       3.2.  Annotated Internet Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
       3.3.  Gateway Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
       3.4.  Host Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
       3.5.  The MIL-STD Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
       4.  Explanation of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
       4.1.  Definitions of Protocol State  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
       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 RFC Processing 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20

    Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 1]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

       6.2.  Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       6.3.  Network-Specific Standard Protocols  . . . . . . . . . .  23
       6.4.  Draft Standard Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       6.5.  Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
       6.6.  Experimental Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       6.7.  Informational Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       6.8.  Historic Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       7.  Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       7.1.  IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       7.1.1.  Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact  . . . . . . .  27
       7.1.2.  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . .  28
       7.1.3.  Internet Research  Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . .  28
       7.2.  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . .  28
       7.3.  Request for Comments Editor Contact  . . . . . . . . . .  29
       7.4.  Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . .  29
       7.5.  Other Sources for Requests for Comments  . . . . . . . .  30
       7.5.1.  NSF Network Service Center (NNSC)  . . . . . . . . . .  30
       7.5.2.  NSF Network Information Service (NIS)  . . . . . . . .  30
       7.5.3.  CSNET Coordination and Information Center (CIC)  . . .  31
       8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
       9.  Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31

    Introduction

       Discussion of the standardization process and the RFC document series
       is presented first, followed by an explanation of the terms.
       Sections 6.2 - 6.8 contain the lists of protocols in each stage of
       standardization.  Finally come pointers to references and contacts
       for further information.

       This memo is intended to be issued quarterly; please be sure the copy
       you are reading is current.  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 edition after 30-Jun-91.

       See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes.  In the official
       lists in sections 6.2 - 6.8, an asterisk (*) next to a protocol
       denotes that it is new to this document or has been moved from one
       protocol level to another.

    1.  The Standardization Process

       The Internet Activities Board maintains this list of documents that
       define standards for the Internet protocol suite (see 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)).  The IAB provides these

    Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 2]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

       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 majority of Internet protocol development and standardization
       activity takes place in the working groups of the Internet
       Engineering Task Force.

       Protocols which are to become standards in the Internet go through a
       series of states (proposed standard, draft standard, and standard)
       involving increasing amounts of scrutiny and experimental testing.
       At each step, the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) of the
       IETF must make a recommendation for advancement of the protocol and
       the IAB must ratify it.  If a recommendation is not ratified, the
       protocol is remanded to the IETF for further work.

       To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react to
       standardization proposals, the IAB imposes a minimum delay of 4
       months before a proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard
       and 6 months before a draft standard can be promoted to standard.

       It is general IAB 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 the IAB may convene a special review committee
       consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB with the
       purpose of recommending an explicit action to the IAB.

       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 the IAB believes 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

    Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 3]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

       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
       IAB encourages the documentation of such experimental work in the RFC
       series, 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, and the IAB has approved
       this step.

       A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without the
       approval of the IESG and the IAB.  For example, some vendor protocols
       have become very important to the Internet community even though they
       have not been recommended by the IESG or ratified 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 terms "standard",
       "draft standard", and "proposed standard" in any RFC or other
       publication of Internet protocols to only those protocols which the
       IAB 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.  For a proposed or
       draft standard, however, the IAB will also endeavor to indicate the
       eventual status this protocol will have after adoption as a standard.

       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, 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,

    Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 4]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

       this document contains an additional status paragraph.  In addition,
       more detailed status information is 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 RFC Editor (see the contact
       information at the end of this memo).

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

       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 both the IESG and the IAB.  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 "IAB 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 Network Information Center at SRI
       International, and a number of other sites.  For more information

    Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 5]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

       about obtaining RFCs, see Sections 7.4 and 7.5.

    3.  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 Annotated Internet 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 3.5.

    3.1.  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-1060.

       Another document, Internet Numbers, lists the assigned IP network
       numbers, and the autonomous system numbers.  Internet Numbers was
       most recently issued as RFC-1166.

    3.2.  Annotated Internet Protocols

       This document lists the protocols and describes any known problems
       and ongoing experiments.  This document was most recently issued as
       RFC-1011.

    3.3.  Gateway Requirements

       This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways and
       supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities.  Gateway
       Requirements is RFC-1009.  A working group of the IETF is actively
       preparing a revision.

    3.4.  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.

    Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 6]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

    3.5.  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, along with RFC-1122.

       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 (as modified by
       RFC-1123).

              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.  These five documents are included in the 1985 DDN Protocol
       Handbook (available from the Network Information Center, see Section
       7.4).

              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 STATE of standardization, one of "standard", "draft standard",
       "proposed standard", "experimental", "informational" or "historic".
       The second is the 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.

    Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 7]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

       When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard,
       it is labeled with a current status and when possible, the IAB also
       notes the status that the protocol is expected to have when it
       reaches the standard state.

       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 |  X  |     |
           A           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
               Info    |     |  X  | XXX |  X  |  X  |
           T           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
               Expr    |     |     |  X  | XXX |  X  |
           E           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
               Hist    |     |     |     |  X  | 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 STATE of
       standardization: "standard", "draft standard", "proposed standard",
       "experimental", or "historic".

       4.1.1.  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.

    Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 8]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

       4.1.2.  Draft Standard Protocol

          The IAB 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
          IAB.  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 IAB 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 IAB, may
          be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community
          as informational protocols.  Such protocols may in some cases also
          be recommended for use in the Internet by the IAB.

       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.

    Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 9]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

    4.2.  Definitions of Protocol Status

          This document lists a 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 IAB in making decisions about the labeling and
       publishing of protocols as standards.

    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.

    Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 10]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

          +==========================================================+
          |**************|               S O U R C E                 |
          +==========================================================+
          | Desired      |    IAB   |   IESG   |   IRSG   |  Other   |
          | Status       |          |          |  or RG   |          |
          +==========================================================+
          |              |          |          |          |          |
          | Full or      |  Publish |  Vote    |  Bogus   |  Bogus   |
          | Draft        |   (1)    |   (3)    |   (2)    |   (2)    |
          | Standard     |          |          |          |          |
          |              |          |          |          |          |
          +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
          |              |          |          |          |          |
          |              |  Publish |  Vote    |  Refer   |  Refer   |
          | Proposed     |   (1)    |   (3)    |   (4)    |   (4)    |
          | Standard     |          |          |          |          |
          |              |          |          |          |          |
          +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
          |              |          |          |          |          |
          |              |  Publish |  Notify  |  Notify  |  Notify  |
          | Experimental |   (1)    |   (5)    |   (5)    |   (5)    |
          | Protocol     |          |          |          |          |
          |              |          |          |          |          |
          +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
          |              |          |          |          |          |
          | Information  |  Publish |Discretion|Discretion|Discretion|
          | or Opinion   |   (1)    |   (6)    |   (6)    |   (6)    |
          | Paper        |          |          |          |          |
          |              |          |          |          |          |
          +==========================================================+

          (1) Publish.

          (2) Bogus.  Inform the source of the rules.  RFCs specifying
              Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IAB, only.

          (3) Vote by the IAB.  If approved then do Publish (1), else do
              Refer (4).

          (4) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG.  Expect to see
              the document again only after approval by the IESG and the
              IAB.

          (5) Notify both the IESG and IRSG.  If no protest in 1 week then
              do Discretion (6), else do Refer (4).

          (6) RFC Editor's discretion.  The RFC Editor decides if a review
              is needed and if so by whom.  RFC Editor decides to publish or

    Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 11]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

              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 protest
       in response to notifications (5) to the RFC Editor.  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 be changed 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 four months for proposed standard, minimum
       six 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 by action of the IAB; and may move from one state to
       another along the track only on the recommendation of the IESG and by
       action of the IAB.  That is, it takes both the IESG and the IAB 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 (elective, recommended, or required)
       the protocol will have, although a somewhat less stringent current
       status may be assigned, and it then is placed in the the proposed
       standard STATE with that status.  So the initial placement of a
       protocol is into state 1.  At any time the STATUS decision may be
       revisited.

    Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 12]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

             |
             +<----------------------------------------------+
             |                                               ^
             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 IAB on the recommendation of the IESG and
       only after the protocol has been proposed standard (1) for at least
       four months.

       The transition from draft standard (2) to standard (3) can only be by
       action of the IAB on the recommendation of the IESG and only after
       the protocol has been draft standard (2) for at least six 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
       IAB action.

       Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus becomes
       historic, it may happen that a protocol on the standards track is in
       a sense overtaken by another protocol (or other events) and becomes
       historic (state 5).

    Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 13]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

    6.  The Protocols

       Subsection 6.1 lists recent RFCs and other changes.  Subsections 6.2
       - 6.8 list the standards in groups by protocol state.

    6.1.  Recent Changes

    6.1.1.  New RFCs:

          1218 - Naming Scheme for c=US

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

          1217 - Memo from the Consortium for Slow Commotion Research (CSCR)

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

          1216 - Gigabit Network Economics and Paradigm Shifts

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

          1215 - A Convention for Defining Traps for use with the SNMP

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

          1214 - OSI Internet Management: Management Information Base

                 A Proposed Standard protocol.

          1213 - Management Information Base for Network Management
                 of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II

                 Advanced to Draft Standard protocol.

          1212 - Concise MIB Definitions

                 This is a new Proposed Standard protocol.

          1211 - Problems with the Maintenance of Large Mailing Lists

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

    Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 14]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

          1210 - Network and Infrastructure User Requirements for
                 Transatlantic Research Collaboration - Brussels,
                 July 16-18, and Washington July 24-25, 1990

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

          1209 - The Transmission of IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service

                 This is a new Proposed Standard protocol.

          1208 - A Glossary of Networking Terms

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

          1207 - FYI on Questions and Answers - Answers to Commonly asked
                 "Experienced Internet User" Questions

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

          1206 - FYI on Questions and Answers - Answers to Commonly asked
                 "New Internet User" Questions

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

          1205 - 5250 Telnet Interface

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

          1204 - Message Posting Protocol (MPP)

                 This is a new Experimental protocol.

          1203 - Interactive Mail Access Protocol - Version 3 (IMAP3)

                 This is a new Experimental protocol.

          1202 - Directory Assistance Service

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

    Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 15]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

          1201 - Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Networks

                 A Proposed Standard protocol.

          1200 - IAB Official Protocol Standards

                 This memo.

          1199 - <not issued yet>

          1198 - FYI on the X Window System

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

          1197 - Using ODA for Translating Multimedia Information

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

          1196 - The Finger User Information Protocol

                 A Draft Standard protocol.  This edition corrects and
                 clarifies in a minor way, RFC 1194.

          1195 - Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual
                 Environments

                 A Proposed Standard protocol.

          1194 - The Finger User Information Protocol

                 A Draft Standard protocol.

          1193 - Client Requirements for Real-Time Communication Services

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

          1192 - Commercialization of the Internet Summary Report

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

          1191 - Path MTU Discovery (MTU)

                 A Proposed Standard protocol.

    Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 16]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

          1190 - Experimental Internet Stream Protocol, Version 2 (ST-II)

                 A Limited-Use Experimental protocol.

          1189 - The Common Management Information Services and Protocols
                 for the Internet

                 A Proposed Standard protocol.

          1188 - A Proposed Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams
                 over FDDI Networks

                 A Draft Standard protocol.

          1187 - Bulk Table Retrieval with the SNMP

                 A new Experimental protocol.

          1186 - The MD4 Message Digest Algorithm

                 A specification of the MD4 Digest Algorithm.  This is an
                 information document and does not specify any level of
                 standard.

          1185 - TCP Extension for High-Speed Paths

                 An Experimental protocol extension to TCP.

          1184 - Telnet Linemode Option

                 A Draft Standard protocol.

          1183 - New DNS RR Definitions

                 A new Experimental protocol.

          1182 - <not issued yet>

          1181 - RIPE Terms of Reference

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

          1180 - A TCP/IP Tutorial

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

    Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 17]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

          1179 - Line Printer Daemon Protocol

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

          1178 - Choosing a Name for Your Computer

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

          1177 - FYI on Questions and Answers - Answers to Commonly asked
                 "New Internet User" Questions

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

          1176 - Interactive Mail Access Protocol - Version 2 (IMAP2)

                 This is a new Experimental protocol.

          1175 - FYI on Where to Start - A Bibliography of
                 Internetworking Information

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

          1174 - IAB Recommended Policy on Distributing Internet Identifier
                 Assignment and IAB Recommended Policy Change to Internet
                 "Connected" Status

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

          1173 - Responsibilities of Host and Network Managers: A Summary of
                 the "Oral Tradition" of the Internet

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

          1172 - The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Initial Configuration
                 Options

                 A Proposed Standard protocol.

    Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 18]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

          1171 - The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) for the
                 Transmission of Multi-Protocol Datagrams
                 Over Point-to-Point Links

                 A Draft Standard protocol.

          1170 - Public Key Standards and Licenses

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

          1169 - Explaining the Role of GOSIP

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

          1168 - Intermail and Commercial Mail Relay Services

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

          1167 - Thoughts on the National Research and Education Network

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

          1166 - Internet Numbers

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

          1165 - Network Time Protocol (NTP) over the OSI Remote Operations
                 Service

                 An Experimental protocol.

          1164 - Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet

                 A Proposed Standard protocol.

          1163 - A Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)

                 A Proposed Standard protocol.

    Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 19]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

          1162 - Connectionless Network Protocol (ISO 8473)
                 and End System to Intermediate System (ISO 9542)
                 Management Information Base

                 This memo does not specify a standard for the Internet
                 community.  However, after experimentation, if sufficient
                 consensus is reached in the Internet community, then a
                 subsequent revision of this document...

          1161 - SNMP over OSI

                 An experimental means for running the Simple Network
                 Management Protocol (SNMP) over OSI transports.

          1160 - The Internet Activities Board

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

          1159 - Message Send Protocol

                 An Experimental protocol.

    6.1.2.  Other Changes:

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

          1213 - Management Information Base for Network Management
                 of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II

                 Advanced to Draft Standard protocol.

          1196 - The Finger User Information Protocol

                 Advanced to Draft Standard protocol.

          1191 - Path MTU Discovery

                 Advanced to Proposed Standard protocol.

          1189 - The Common Management Information Services and Protocols
                 for the Internet

                 Moved to Proposed Standard protocol.

    Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 20]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

          1188 - A Proposed Standard for the Transmission of
                 IP Datagrams over FDDI Networks

                 Advanced to Draft Standard protocol.

          1184 - Telnet Linemode Option

                 Advanced to Draft Standard protocol.

          1171 - The Point-to-Point Protocol for the Transmission of
                 Multi-Protocol Datagrams Over Point-to-Point Links

                 Advanced to Draft Standard protocol.

          1163 - A Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)

                 Advanced to Proposed Standard protocol.

    Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 21]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

    6.2.  Standard Protocols

    Protocol   Name                                      Status          RFC
    ========   =====================================     ============== ====
    --------   Assigned Numbers                          Required       1060
    --------   Gateway Requirements                      Required       1009
    --------   Host Requirements - Communications        Required       1122
    --------   Host Requirements - Applications          Required       1123
    IP         Internet Protocol                         Required        791
                as amended by:
    --------     IP Subnet Extension                     Required        950
    --------     IP Broadcast Datagrams                  Required        919
    --------     IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets     Required        922
    ICMP       Internet Control Message Protocol         Required        792
    IGMP       Internet Group Multicast Protocol         Recommended    1112
    UDP        User Datagram Protocol                    Recommended     768
    TCP        Transmission Control Protocol             Recommended     793
    SMI        Structure of Management Information       Recommended    1155
    MIB        Management Information Base               Recommended    1156
    SNMP       Simple Network Management Protocol        Recommended    1157
    DOMAIN     Domain Name System                     Recommended  1034,1035
    TELNET     Telnet Protocol                           Recommended     854
    FTP        File Transfer Protocol                    Recommended     959
    SMTP       Simple Mail Transfer Protocol             Recommended     821
    MAIL       Format of Electronic Mail Messages        Recommended     822
    CONTENT    Content Type Header Field                 Recommended    1049
    EGP        Exterior Gateway Protocol                 Recommended     904
    ECHO       Echo Protocol                             Recommended     862
    NTP        Network Time Protocol                     Recommended    1119
    NETBIOS    NetBIOS Service Protocols                 Elective  1001,1002
    DISCARD    Discard Protocol                          Elective        863
    CHARGEN    Character Generator Protocol              Elective        864
    QUOTE      Quote of the Day Protocol                 Elective        865
    USERS      Active Users Protocol                     Elective        866
    DAYTIME    Daytime Protocol                          Elective        867
    TIME       Time Server Protocol                      Elective        868

    Notes:

       IGMP -- The Internet Activities 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

    Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 22]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

       is expected that IGMP will become recommended for all hosts and
       gateways at some future date.

       SMI, MIB, SNMP -- The Internet Activities Board recommends that all
       IP and TCP implementations be network manageable.  At the current
       time, this implies implementation of the Internet MIB (RFC-1156), the
       MIB extension MIB-II (RFC-1158, a Draft Standard), and at least the
       recommended management protocol SNMP (RFC-1157).

    6.3.  Network-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 Hyperchannel        Elective        1044
    IP-ARC     Internet Protocol on ARCNET              Elective        1051
    IP-SLIP    Transmission of IP over Serial Lines     Elective        1055
    IP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS          Elective        1088
    IP-FDDI    Transmission of IP over FDDI             Elective        1103
    IP-IPX     Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks  Elective        1132

    Notes:

       It is expected that a system will support one or more physical
       networks and for each physical network supported the appropriate
       protocols from the above list must be supported.  That is, it is
       elective to support any particular type of physical network, and for
       the physical networks actually supported it is required that they be
       supported exactly according to the protocols in the above list.  See
       also the Host and Gateway Requirements RFCs for more specific
       information on network-specific ("link layer") protocols.

    Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 23]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

    6.4.  Draft Standard Protocols

    Protocol   Name                                     Status           RFC
    ========   =====================================    =============== ====
    FINGER     Finger Protocol                          Elective        1196*
    IP-FDDI    Internet Protocol on FDDI Networks       Elective        1188*
    TOPT-LINE  Telnet Linemode Option                   Elective        1184*
    MIB-II     MIB-II                                   Elective        1213*
    PPP        Point to Point Protocol                  Elective        1171*
    --------   Mail Privacy: Procedures                 Elective        1113
    --------   Mail Privacy: Key Management             Elective        1114
    --------   Mail Privacy: Algorithms                 Elective        1115
    BOOTP      Bootstrap Protocol                  Recommended 951,1048,1084
    RIP        Routing Information Protocol             Elective        1058
    TP-TCP     ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP  Elective        1006
    NICNAME    WhoIs Protocol                           Elective         954
    TFTP       Trivial File Transfer Protocol           Elective         783

    Notes:

       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".

       MIB-II -- This memo defines a mandatory extension to the base MIB
       (RFC-1156) and is a Draft Standard for the Internet community.  The
       extensions described here are currently Elective, but when they
       become a standard, they will have the same status as RFC-1156, that
       is, Recommended.  See also the note on SMI, MIB and SNMP under
       Standards.

    Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 24]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

       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-specific standard protocol state
       in the future.

    6.5.  Proposed Standard Protocols

    Protocol   Name                                     Status           RFC
    ========   =====================================    =============== ====
    OIM-MIB-II OSI Internet Management: MIB-II          Elective       1214*
    Concise-MIB Concise MIB Definitions                 Elective       1212*
    IP-SMDS    IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service       Elective       1209*
    IP-ARCNET  Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Networks Elective   1201*
    IS-IS      Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP   Elective       1195*
               and Dual Environments
    IP-MTU     Path MTU Discovery                       Elective       1191*
    CMOT       Common Management Information Services   Elective       1189*
               and Protocol over TCP/IP
    PPP-INIT   PPP Initial Configuration Options        Elective       1172*
    BGP        Border Gateway Protocol                  Elective  1163,1164*
    IP-CMPRS   Compressing TCP/IP Headers               Elective        1144
    --------   Echo for ISO-8473                        Elective        1139
    OSPF       Open Shortest Path First Routing         Elective        1131
    TOPT-ENV   Telnet Environment Option                Elective        1116*
    SUN-NFS    Network File System Protocol             Elective        1094
    POP3       Post Office Protocol, Version 3          Elective   1081,1082
    SUN-RPC    Remote Procedure Call Protocol           Elective        1057
    PCMAIL     Pcmail Transport Protocol                Elective        1056
    NFILE      A File Access Protocol                   Elective        1037
    --------   Mapping between X.400(84) and RFC-822    Elective    987,1026
    NNTP       Network News Transfer Protocol           Elective         977
    HOSTNAME   HOSTNAME Protocol                        Elective         953
    SFTP       Simple File Transfer Protocol            Elective         913
    RLP        Resource Location Protocol               Elective         887
    SUPDUP     SUPDUP Protocol                          Elective         734

    Notes:

       IP-SMDS and IP-ARCNET -- These define methods of sending IP over
       particular network types.  It is anticipated that these will be
       advanced to the network specific standard protocol state in the
       future.

    Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 25]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

    6.6.  Experimental Protocols

    Protocol   Name                                     Status           RFC
    ========   =====================================    =============== ====
    MPP        Message Posting Protocol                 Limited Use    1204*
    ST-II      Stream Protocol                          Limited Use    1190*
    SNMP-BULK  Bulk Table Retrieval with the SNMP       Limited Use    1187*
    DNS-RR     New DNS RR Definitions                   Limited Use    1183*
    NTP-OSI    NTP over OSI Remote Operations           Limited Use    1165*
    MSP        Message Send Protocol                    Limited Use    1159*
    EHF-MAIL   Encoding Header Field for Mail           Elective        1154
    DMF-MAIL   Digest Message Format for Mail           Elective        1153
    RDP        Reliable Data Protocol                  Limited Use  908,1151
    --------   Mapping between X.400(88) and RFC-822    Elective        1148
    TCP-ACO    TCP Alternate Checksum Option            Not Recommended 1146
    --------   Mapping full 822 to Restricted 822       Elective        1137
    IP-DVMRP   IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing     Not Recommended 1075
    TCP-LDP    TCP Extensions for Long Delay Paths      Limited Use     1072
    IMAP2      Interactive Mail Access Protocol        Limited Use 1176,1064
    IMAP3      Interactive Mail Access Protocol         Limited Use    1203*
    VMTP       Versatile Message Transaction Protocol   Elective        1045
    COOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme                    Not Recommended 1004
    NETBLT     Bulk Data Transfer Protocol              Not Recommended  998
    IRTP       Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol   Not Recommended  938
    AUTH       Authentication Service                   Not Recommended  931
    LDP        Loader Debugger Protocol                 Not Recommended  909
    NVP-II     Network Voice Protocol                   Limited Use ISI-memo
    PVP        Packet Video Protocol                    Limited Use ISI-memo

    6.7.  Informational Protocols

    Protocol   Name                                                      RFC
    =======    =====================================                    ====
    SNMP-TRAPS A Convention for Defining Traps for use with SNMP       1215*
    DAS        Directory Assistance Service                            1202*
    -------    FYI on the X Window System                              1198*
    ODA        Office Document Architecture                            1197*
    MD4        MD4 Message Digest Algorithm                            1186*
    LPDP       Line Printer Daemon Protocol                            1179*

    Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 26]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

    6.8.  Historic Protocols

    Protocol   Name                                     Status           RFC
    =======    =====================================    =============== ====
    SGMP       Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol       Not Recommended 1028
    HEMS       High Level Entity Management Protocol    Not Recommended 1021
    STATSRV    Statistics Server                        Not Recommended  996
    POP2       Post Office Protocol, Version 2          Not Recommended  937
    RATP       Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol  Not Recommended  916
    THINWIRE   Thinwire Protocol                        Not Recommended  914
    HMP        Host Monitoring Protocol                 Not Recommended  869
    GGP        Gateway Gateway Protocol                 Not Recommended  823
    RTELNET    Remote Telnet Service                    Not Recommended  818
    CLOCK      DCNET Time Server Protocol               Not Recommended  778
    MPM        Internet Message Protocol                Not Recommended  759
    NETRJS     Remote Job Service                       Not Recommended  740
    NETED      Network Standard Text Editor             Not Recommended  569
    RJE        Remote Job Entry                         Not Recommended  407
    XNET       Cross Net Debugger                    Not Recommended IEN-158
    NAMESERVER Host Name Server Protocol             Not Recommended IEN-116
    MUX        Multiplexing Protocol                  Not Recommended IEN-90
    GRAPHICS   Graphics Protocol                   Not Recommended NIC-24308

    7.  Contacts

    7.1.  IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts

       7.1.1.  Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact

          Contact:

             Bob Braden
             Executive Director of the IAB
             USC/Information Sciences Institute
             4676 Admiralty Way
             Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695

             1-213-822-1511

             Braden@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 Bob Braden, IAB Executive Director.

    Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 27]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

       7.1.2.  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact

          Contact:

             Phill Gross
             Chair of the IETF
             Corporation for National Research Initiatives (NRI)
             1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
             Reston, VA 22091

             1-703-620-8990

             PGross@NRI.RESTON.VA.US

       7.1.3.  Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact

          Contact:

             David D. Clark
             Chair of the IRTF
             Massachusetts Institute of Technology
             Laboratory for Computer Science
             545 Main Street
             Cambridge, MA 02139

             1-617-253-6003

             ddc@LCS.MIT.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

             1-213-822-1511

             IANA@ISI.EDU

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

       Please refer to the documents "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1060) and
       "Official Internet Protocols" (RFC-1011) for further information

    Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 28]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

       about the status of protocol documents.  There are two documents that
       summarize the requirements for host and gateways in the Internet,
       "Host Requirements" (RFC-1122 and RFC-1123) and "Gateway
       Requirements" (RFC-1009).

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

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

    7.3.  Request for Comments Editor Contact

          Contact:

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

             1-213-822-1511

             Postel@ISI.EDU

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

    7.4.  The Network Information Center and
          Requests for Comments Distribution Contact

          Contact:

             DDN Network Information Center
             SRI International
             Room EJ291
             333 Ravenswood Avenue
             Menlo Park, CA  94025

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

             NIC@NIC.DDN.MIL

    Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 29]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

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

       RFCs can be obtained via FTP from NIC.DDN.MIL, with the pathname
       RFC:RFCnnnn.TXT where "nnnn" refers to the number of the RFC.  A list
       of all RFCs may be obtained by copying the file RFC:RFC-INDEX.TXT.
       Log in with FTP username ANONYMOUS and password GUEST.

       The NIC also provides an automatic mail service for those sites which
       cannot use FTP.  Address the request to SERVICE@NIC.DDN.MIL and in
       the subject field of the message indicate the file name, as in
       "Subject: SEND RFC:RFCnnnn.TXT".

       Some RFCs are now available in PostScript, these may be obtained from
       the NIC in a similar fashion by substituting ".PS" for ".TXT".

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

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

    7.5.  Other Sources for Requests for Comments

       7.5.1.  NSF Network Service Center (NNSC)

             NSF Network Service Center (NNSC)
             BBN Laboratories, Inc.
             10 Moulton St.
             Cambridge, MA 02238

             617-873-3400

             NNSC@NNSC.NSF.NET

       7.5.2.  NSF Network Information Service (NIS)

             NSF Network Information Service
             Merit Computer Network
             University of Michigan
             1075 Beal Avenue
             Ann Arbor, MI 48109

             313-763-4897

             INFO@NIS.NSF.NET

    Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 30]

    RFC 1200                     IAB Standards                    April 1991

       7.5.3.  CSNET Coordination and Information Center (CIC)

             CSNET Coordination and Information Center
             BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation
             10 Moulton Street
             Cambridge, MA 02238

             617-873-2777

             INFO@SH.CS.NET

    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: 213-822-1511
       Fax:   213-823-6714

       Email: Postel@ISI.EDU

    Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 31]