Network Working Group                        Internet Architecture Board
Request for Comments: 1360                             J. Postel, Editor
Obsoletes: RFCs 1280, 1250,                               September 1992
1100, 1083, 1130, 1140, 1200
STD: 1



                    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 Architecture 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.  Gateway Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   3.3.  Host Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   3.4.  The MIL-STD Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   4.  Explanation of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   4.1.  Definitions of Protocol State (Maturity Level) . . . . . . 8
   4.1.1.  Standard Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   4.1.2.  Draft Standard Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   4.1.3.  Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   4.1.4.  Experimental Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   4.1.5.  Informational Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   4.1.6.  Historic Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   4.2.  Definitions of Protocol Status (Requirement Level) . . .  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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19



Internet Architecture Board                                     [Page 1]


RFC 1360                     IAB Standards                September 1992


   6.2.  Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   6.3.  Network-Specific Standard Protocols  . . . . . . . . . .  22
   6.4.  Draft Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   6.5.  Proposed Standard Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   6.6.  Telnet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   6.7.  Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   6.8.  Informational Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   6.9.  Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   7.  Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   7.1.  IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   7.1.1.  Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact  . . . . . .  29
   7.1.2.  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . .  29
   7.1.3.  Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact  . . . . .  30
   7.2.  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . .  31
   7.3.  Request for Comments Editor Contact  . . . . . . . . . .  32
   7.4.  Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   7.5.  Sources for Requests for Comments  . . . . . . . . . . .  33
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
   9.  Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33

Introduction

   Discussion of the standardization process and the RFC document series
   is presented first, followed by an explanation of the terms.
   Sections 6.2 - 6.9 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 approximately 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 15-Jan-93.

   See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes.  In the official
   lists in sections 6.2 - 6.9, an asterisk (*) next to a protocol
   denotes that it is new to this document or has been moved from one
   protocol level to another, or differs from the previous edition of
   this document.

1.  The Standardization Process

   The Internet Architecture Board maintains this list of documents that
   define standards for the Internet protocol suite.  See RFC-1358 for
   the charter of the IAB and RFC-1160 for an explanation of the role
   and organization of the IAB and its subsidiary groups, the Internet
   Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force
   (IRTF).  Each of these groups has a steering group called the IESG



Internet Architecture Board                                     [Page 2]


RFC 1360                     IAB Standards                September 1992


   and IRSG, respectively.  The IAB 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.  The definitive
   description of the Internet standards process is found in RFC-1310.

   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 or maturity levels (proposed standard, draft
   standard, and standard) involving increasing amounts of scrutiny and
   testing.  When a protocol completes this process it is assigned a STD
   number (see RFC-1311).  At each step, the Internet Engineering
   Steering Group (IESG) of the IETF must make a recommendation for
   advancement of the protocol 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 6
   months before a proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard
   and 4 months before a draft standard can be promoted to standard.

   It is general 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".




Internet Architecture Board                                     [Page 3]


RFC 1360                     IAB Standards                September 1992


   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
   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,



Internet Architecture Board                                     [Page 4]


RFC 1360                     IAB Standards                September 1992


   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,
   this document contains an additional status paragraph (an
   applicability statement).  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, and see RFC 1111).

   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



Internet Architecture Board                                     [Page 5]


RFC 1360                     IAB Standards                September 1992


   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
   about obtaining RFCs, see Sections 7.4 and 7.5.

3.  Other Reference Documents

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

   Also, one should be aware of the MIL-STD publications on IP, TCP,
   Telnet, FTP, and SMTP.  These are described in Section 3.4.

3.1.  Assigned Numbers

   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-1340.

   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.  Gateway Requirements

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

3.3.  Host Requirements

   This pair of documents reviews and updates the specifications that
   apply to hosts, and it supplies guidance and clarification for any
   ambiguities.  Host Requirements was issued as RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.

3.4.  The MIL-STD Documents

   The Internet community specifications for IP (RFC-791) and TCP (RFC-
   793) and the DoD MIL-STD specifications are intended to describe
   exactly the same protocols.  Any difference in the protocols



Internet Architecture Board                                     [Page 6]


RFC 1360                     IAB Standards                September 1992


   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 and RFC-1123.

   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).

   Note that these MIL-STD are now somewhat out of date.  The Gateway
   Requirements (RFC-1009) and Host Requirements (RFC-1122, RFC-1123)
   take precedence over both earlier RFCs and the MIL-STDs.

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

   These documents are available from the Naval Publications and Forms
   Center.  Requests can be initiated by telephone, telegraph, or mail;
   however, it is preferred that private industry use form DD1425, if
   possible.

          Naval Publications and Forms Center, Code 3015
          5801 Tabor Ave
          Philadelphia, PA 19120
          Phone: 1-215-697-3321 (order tape)
                 1-215-697-4834 (conversation)

4.  Explanation of Terms

   There are two independent categorization of protocols.  The first is
   the "maturity level" or STATE of standardization, one of "standard",
   "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental",
   "informational" or "historic".  The second is the "requirement level"
   or STATUS of this protocol, one of "required", "recommended",
   "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".

   The status or requirement level is difficult to portray in a one word
   label.  These status labels should be considered only as an
   indication, and a further description, or applicability statement,
   should be consulted.

   When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard,
   it is labeled with a current status and when possible, the IAB also



Internet Architecture Board                                     [Page 7]


RFC 1360                     IAB Standards                September 1992


   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 |     |     |
       A           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Info    |     |  X  | XXX |  XX |  X  |
       T           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Expr    |     |     |  X  | XXX |  XX |
       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 "maturity
   level" or 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 protocols are assigned STD numbers (see RFC-
      1311).  These are separated into two groups: (1) IP protocol and
      above, protocols that apply to the whole Internet; and (2)
      network-specific protocols, generally specifications of how to do
      IP on particular types of networks.




Internet Architecture Board                                     [Page 8]


RFC 1360                     IAB Standards                September 1992


   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 Architecture Board                                     [Page 9]


RFC 1360                     IAB Standards                September 1992


4.2.  Definitions of Protocol Status

      This document lists a "requirement level" or STATUS for each
      protocol.  The status is one of "required", "recommended",
      "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".

   4.2.1.  Required Protocol

      A system must implement the required protocols.

   4.2.2.  Recommended Protocol

      A system should implement the recommended protocols.

   4.2.3.  Elective Protocol

      A system may or may not implement an elective protocol. The
      general notion is that if you are going to do something like this,
      you must do exactly this.  There may be several elective protocols
      in a general area, for example, there are several electronic mail
      protocols, and several routing protocols.

   4.2.4.  Limited Use Protocol

      These protocols are for use in limited circumstances.  This may be
      because of their experimental state, specialized nature, limited
      functionality, or historic state.

   4.2.5.  Not Recommended Protocol

      These protocols are not recommended for general use.  This may be
      because of their limited functionality, specialized nature, or
      experimental or historic state.

5.  The Standards Track

   This section discusses in more detail the procedures used by the RFC
   Editor and the 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 Architecture Board                                    [Page 10]


RFC 1360                     IAB Standards                September 1992


      +==========================================================+
      |**************|               S O U R C E                 |
      +==========================================================+
      | Desired      |    IAB   |   IESG   |   IRSG   |  Other   |
      | Status       |          |          |          |          |
      +==========================================================+
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      | Standard     |  Publish |  Vote    |  Bogus   |  Bogus   |
      | or           |   (1)    |   (3)    |   (2)    |   (2)    |
      | Draft        |          |          |          |          |
      | 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 concerns are raised in
          two weeks then do Discretion (6), else RFC Editor to resolve
          the concerns or do Refer (4).

      (6) RFC Editor's discretion.  The RFC Editor decides if a review



Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 11]


RFC 1360                     IAB Standards                September 1992


          is needed and if so by whom.  RFC Editor decides to publish or
          not.

   Of course, in all cases the RFC Editor can request or make minor
   changes for style, format, and presentation purposes.

   The IESG has designated the IESG Secretary as its agent for
   forwarding documents with IESG approval and for registering concerns
   in response to notifications (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 six months for proposed standard, minimum
   four months for draft standard).  A protocol may be in a long term
   state for many years.

   A protocol may enter the standards track only on the recommendation
   of the IESG and 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, requirement level or applicability
   (elective, recommended, or required) the protocol will have, although
   a somewhat less stringent current status may be assigned, and it then
   is placed in the the proposed standard STATE with that status.  So
   the initial placement of a protocol is into state 1.  At any time the
   STATUS decision may be revisited.












Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 12]


RFC 1360                     IAB Standards                September 1992


         |
         +<----------------------------------------------+
         |                                               ^
         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
   six 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 four months.

   Occasionally, the decision may be that the protocol is not ready for
   standardization and will be assigned to the experimental state (4).
   This is off the standards track, and the protocol may be resubmitted
   to enter the standards track after further work.  There are other
   paths into the experimental and historic states that do not involve
   IAB action.

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



Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 13]


RFC 1360                     IAB Standards                September 1992


6.  The Protocols

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

6.1.  Recent Changes

6.1.1.  New RFCs:

      1361 - Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP)

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

      1360 - This memo.

      1359 - Connecting to the Internet What Connecting Institutions
             Should Anticipate

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

      1358 - Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)

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

      1357 - A Format for E-mailing Bibliographic Records

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

      1356 - Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 and ISDN in the Packet
             Mode

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1355 - Privacy and Accuracy Issues in Network Information Center
             Databases

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

      1354 - IP Forwarding Table MIB

             A Proposed Standard protocol.





Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 14]


RFC 1360                     IAB Standards                September 1992


      1353 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Administration of SNMP
             Parties

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1352 - SNMP Security Protocols

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1351 - SNMP Administrative Model

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1350 - The TFTP Protocol (Revision 2)

             A Standard protocol.

      1349 - Type of Service in the Internet Protocol Suite

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1348 - DNS NSAP RRs

             An Experimental protocol.

      1347 - TCP and UDP with Bigger Addresses (TUBA), A Simple Proposal
             for Internet Addressing and Routing

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

      1346 - Resource Allocation, Control, and Accounting for the Use of
             Network Resources

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

      1345 - Character Mnemonics & Character Sets

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

      1344 - Implications of MIME for Internet Mail Gateways

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





Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 15]


RFC 1360                     IAB Standards                September 1992


      1343 - A User Agent Configuration Mechanism For Multimedia Mail
             Format Information

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

      1342 - Representation of Non-ASCII Text in Internet Message
             Headers

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1341 - MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions): Mechanisms
             for Specifying and Describing the Format of Internet
             Message Bodies

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1340 - Assigned Numbers

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

      1339 - Remote Mail Checking Protocol

             An Experimental protocol.

      1338 - Supernetting: an Address Assignment and Aggregation
             Strategy

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

      1337 - TIME-WAIT Assassination Hazards in TCP

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

      1336 - Who's Who in the Internet - Biographies of IAB, IESG and
             IRSG Members

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

      1335 - A Two-Tier Address Structure for the Internet: A Solution
             to the Problem of Address Space Exhaustion

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



Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 16]


RFC 1360                     IAB Standards                September 1992


      1334 - Not yet issued.

      1333 - PPP Link Quality Monitoring

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1332 - The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol (IPCP)

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1331 - The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) for the Transmission of
             Multi-protocol Datagrams over Point-to-Point Links

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1330 - Recommendations for the Phase I Deployment of OSI Directory
             Services (X.500) and OSI Message Handling Services (X.400)

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

      1329 - Thoughts on Address Resolution for Dual MAC FDDI Networks

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

      1328 - X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1327 - Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 and RFC 822

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1326 - Mutual Encapsulation Considered Dangerous

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

      1325 - 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.







Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 17]


RFC 1360                     IAB Standards                September 1992


      1324 - A Discussion on Computer Network Conferencing

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

      1323 - TCP Extensions for High Performance

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1322 - A Unified Approach to Inter-Domain Routing

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

      1321 - The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm

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

      1320 - The MD4 Message-Digest Algorithm

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

      1319 - The MD2 Message-Digest Algorithm

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

      1318 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Parallel-printer-like
             Hardware Devices

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1317 - Definitions of Managed Objects RS-232-like Hardware Devices

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1316 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Character Stream Devices

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1315 - Management Information Base for Frame Relay DTEs

             A Proposed Standard protocol.






Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 18]


RFC 1360                     IAB Standards                September 1992


      1314 - A File Format for the Exchange of Images in the Internet

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1313 - Today's Programming for KRFC AM 1313 Internet Talk Radio

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

      1312 - Message Send Protocol 2

             An Experimental protocol.

6.1.2.  Other Changes:

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

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

             Moved to Historic (obsoleted by RFC-1331).

      1113 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part I --
             Message Encipherment and Authentication Procedures

             Moved to Historic.

      1114 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part II
             -- Certificate-Based Key Management

             Moved to Historic.

      1115 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part III
             -- Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers

             Moved to Historic.

      1056 - PCMAIL: A Distributed Mail System for Personal Computers

             Moved to Historic.

      1058 - Routing Information Protocol

             Advanced to Standard protocol.






Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 19]


RFC 1360                     IAB Standards                September 1992


      1037 - NFILE -  A File Access Protocol

             Moved to Historic.

      1026 - Addendum to RFC 987 (Mapping between X.400 and RFC-822)

             Moved to Historic (obsoleted by RFC-1327).

      987 - Mapping between X.400 and RFC-822

             Moved to Historic (obsoleted by RFC-1327).

      953 - Hostname Server

             Moved to Historic.

      913 - Simple File Transfer Protocol

             Moved to Historic.

      734 - SUPDUP

             Moved to Historic.




























Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 20]


RFC 1360                     IAB Standards                September 1992


6.2.  Standard Protocols

Protocol   Name                                      Status    RFC STD *
========   =====================================     ======== ==== === =
--------   IAB Official Protocol Standards           Req      1360   1 *
--------   Assigned Numbers                          Req      1340   2 *
--------   Host Requirements - Communications        Req      1122   3
--------   Host Requirements - Applications          Req      1123   3
--------   Gateway Requirements                      Req      1009   4
IP         Internet Protocol                         Req       791   5
            as amended by:--------
--------     IP Subnet Extension                     Req       950   5
--------     IP Broadcast Datagrams                  Req       919   5
--------     IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets     Req       922   5
ICMP       Internet Control Message Protocol         Req       792   5
IGMP       Internet Group Multicast Protocol         Rec      1112   5
UDP        User Datagram Protocol                    Rec       768   6
TCP        Transmission Control Protocol             Rec       793   7
TELNET     Telnet Protocol                           Rec   854,855   8
FTP        File Transfer Protocol                    Rec       959   9
SMTP       Simple Mail Transfer Protocol             Rec       821  10
MAIL       Format of Electronic Mail Messages        Rec       822  11
CONTENT    Content Type Header Field                 Rec      1049  11
NTP        Network Time Protocol                     Rec      1119  12
DOMAIN     Domain Name System                        Rec 1034,1035  13
DNS-MX     Mail Routing and the Domain System        Rec       974  14
SNMP       Simple Network Management Protocol        Rec      1157  15
SMI        Structure of Management Information       Rec      1155  16
MIB-II     Management Information Base-II            Rec      1213  17
EGP        Exterior Gateway Protocol                 Rec       904  18
NETBIOS    NetBIOS Service Protocols                 Ele 1001,1002  19
ECHO       Echo Protocol                             Rec       862  20
DISCARD    Discard Protocol                          Ele       863  21
CHARGEN    Character Generator Protocol              Ele       864  22
QUOTE      Quote of the Day Protocol                 Ele       865  23
USERS      Active Users Protocol                     Ele       866  24
DAYTIME    Daytime Protocol                          Ele       867  25
TIME       Time Server Protocol                      Ele       868  26
TFTP       Trivial File Transfer Protocol            Ele      1350  33*
RIP        Routing Information Protocol              Ele      1058  34*

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the
previous edition of this document.]

Applicability Statements:

   IGMP -- The Internet Architecture Board intends to move towards
   general adoption of IP multicasting, as a more efficient solution



Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 21]


RFC 1360                     IAB Standards                September 1992


   than broadcasting for many applications.  The host interface has been
   standardized in RFC-1112; however, multicast-routing gateways are in
   the experimental stage and are not widely available.  An Internet
   host should support all of RFC-1112, except for the IGMP protocol
   itself which is optional; see RFC-1122 for more details.  Even
   without IGMP, implementation of RFC-1112 will provide an important
   advance: IP-layer access to local network multicast addressing.  It
   is expected that IGMP will become recommended for all hosts and
   gateways at some future date.

   SMI, MIB-II SNMP -- The Internet Architecture Board recommends that
   all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable.  At the current
   time, this implies implementation of the Internet MIB-II (RFC-1213),