RFC1011

Network Working Group J. Reynolds Request for Comments: 1011 J. Postel

                                                                 ISI

Obsoletes: RFCs 991, 961, 943, 924, 901, 880, 840 May 1987

                  OFFICIAL INTERNET PROTOCOLS

STATUS OF THIS MEMO

This memo is an official status report on the protocols used in the Internet community. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

INTRODUCTION

This RFC identifies the documents specifying the official protocols used in the Internet. Comments indicate any revisions or changes planned.

To first order, the official protocols are those specified in the "DDN Protocol Handbook" (DPH), dated December 1985 (this is a three volume set with a total thickness of about 5 inches).

Older collections that include many of these specifications are the "Internet Protocol Transition Workbook" (IPTW), dated March 1982; the "Internet Mail Protocols", dated November 1982; and the "Internet Telnet Protocols and Options", dated June 1983. There is also a volume of protocol related information called the "Internet Protocol Implementers Guide" (IPIG) dated August 1982. An even older collection is the "ARPANET Protocol Handbook" (APH) dated January 1978. Nearly all the relevant material from these collections has been reproduced in the current DPH.

The following material is organized as a sketchy outline. The entries are protocols (e.g., Transmission Control Protocol). In each entry there are notes on status, specification, comments, other references, dependencies, and contact.

  The STATUS is one of: required, recommended, elective,
  experimental, or none.

  The SPECIFICATION identifies the protocol defining documents.

  The COMMENTS describe any differences from the specification or
  problems with the protocol.

  The OTHER REFERENCES identify documents that comment on or expand
  on the protocol.

  The DEPENDENCIES indicate what other protocols are called upon by
  this protocol.

  The CONTACT indicates a person who can answer questions about the
  protocol.

  In particular, the status may be:

     required

        - all hosts must implement the required protocol,

     recommended

        - all hosts are encouraged to implement the recommended
        protocol,

     elective

        - hosts may implement or not the elective protocol,

     experimental

        - hosts should not implement the experimental protocol
        unless they are participating in the experiment and have
        coordinated their use of this protocol with the contact
        person, and

     none

        - this is not a protocol.

     For further information about protocols in general, please
     contact:

        Joyce K. Reynolds
        USC - Information Sciences Institute
        4676 Admiralty Way
        Marina del Rey, California  90292-6695

        Phone: (213) 822-1511

        Electronic mail: [email protected]

OVERVIEW

Catenet Model ------------------------------------------------------

  STATUS:  None

  SPECIFICATION:  IEN 48 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     Gives an overview of the organization and principles of the
     Internet.

     Could be revised and expanded.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

     Leiner, B., Cole R., Postel, J., and D. Mills, "The DARPA
     Protocol Suite", IEEE INFOCOM 85, Washington, D.C., March 1985.
     Also in IEEE Communications Magazine, and as ISI/RS-85-153,
     March 1985.

     Postel, J., "Internetwork Applications Using the DARPA Protocol
     Suite", IEEE INFOCOM 85, Washington, D.C., March 1985. Also in
     IEEE Communications Magazine, and as ISI/RS-85-151, April 1985.

     Padlipsky, M.A., "The Elements of Networking Style and other
     Essays and Animadversions on the Art of Intercomputer
     Networking", Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1985.

     RFC 871 - A Perspective on the ARPANET Reference Model

  DEPENDENCIES:

  CONTACT: [email protected]

NETWORK LEVEL

Internet Protocol --------------------------------------------- (IP)

  STATUS:  Required

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 791 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     This is the universal protocol of the Internet.  This datagram
     protocol provides the universal addressing of hosts in the
     Internet.

     A few minor problems have been noted in this document.

     The most serious is a bit of confusion in the route options.
     The route options have a pointer that indicates which octet of
     the route is the next to be used.  The confusion is between the
     phrases "the pointer is relative to this option" and "the
     smallest legal value for the pointer is 4".  If you are
     confused, forget about the relative part, the pointer begins
     at 4.  The MIL-STD description of source routing is wrong in
     some of the details.

     Another important point is the alternate reassembly procedure
     suggested in RFC 815.

     Some changes are in the works for the security option.

     Note that ICMP is defined to be an integral part of IP.  You
     have not completed an implementation of IP if it does not
     include ICMP.

     The subnet procedures defined in RFC 950 are now considered an
     essential part of the IP architecture and must be implemented
     by all hosts and gateways.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

     RFC 815 (in DPH) - IP Datagram Reassembly Algorithms

     RFC 814 (in DPH) - Names, Addresses, Ports, and Routes

     RFC 816 (in DPH) - Fault Isolation and Recovery

     RFC 817 (in DPH) - Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol
     Implementation

     MIL-STD-1777 (in DPH) - Military Standard Internet Protocol

     RFC 963 - Some Problems with the Specification of the Military
     Standard Internet Protocol

  DEPENDENCIES:

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Internet Control Message Protocol --------------------------- (ICMP)

  STATUS:  Required

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 792 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     The control messages and error reports that go with the
     Internet Protocol.

     A few minor errors in the document have been noted.
     Suggestions have been made for additional types of redirect
     message and additional destination unreachable messages.

     Two additional ICMP message types are defined in RFC 950
     "Internet Subnets", Address Mask Request (A1=17), and Address
     Mask Reply (A2=18).

     Note that ICMP is defined to be an integral part of IP.  You
     have not completed an implementation of IP if it does not
     include ICMP.

  OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 950

  DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Internet Group Multicast Protocol --------------------------- (IGMP)

  STATUS:  Recommended

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 988

  COMMENTS:

     This protocol specifies the extensions required of a host
     implementation of the Internet Protocol (IP) to support
     internetwork multicasting.  This specification supersedes that
     given in RFC 966, and constitutes a proposed protocol standard
     for IP multicasting in the Internet.  Reference RFC 966 for a
     discussion of the motivation and rationale behind the
     multicasting extension specified here.

  OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 966

  DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

HOST LEVEL

User Datagram Protocol --------------------------------------- (UDP)

  STATUS:  Recommended

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 768 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     Provides a datagram service to applications.  Adds port
     addressing to the IP services.

     The only change noted for the UDP specification is a minor
     clarification that if in computing the checksum a padding octet
     is used for the computation it is not transmitted or counted in
     the length.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Transmission Control Protocol -------------------------------- (TCP)

  STATUS:  Recommended

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 793 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     Provides reliable end-to-end data stream service.

     Many comments and corrections have been received for the TCP
     specification document.  These are primarily document bugs
     rather than protocol bugs.

     Event Processing Section:  There are many minor corrections and
     clarifications needed in this section.

     Push:  There are still some phrases in the document that give a
     "record mark" flavor to the push.  These should be further
     clarified.  The push is not a record mark.

     Urgent:  Page 17 is wrong.  The urgent pointer points to the
     last octet of urgent data (not to the first octet of non-urgent
     data).

     Listening Servers:  Several comments have been received on
     difficulties with contacting listening servers.  There should
     be some discussion of implementation issues for servers, and
     some notes on alternative models of system and process
     organization for servers.

     Maximum Segment Size:  The maximum segment size option should
     be generalized and clarified.  It can be used to either
     increase or decrease the maximum segment size from the default.
     The TCP Maximum Segment Size is the IP Maximum Datagram Size
     minus forty.  The default IP Maximum Datagram Size is 576.  The
     default TCP Maximum Segment Size is 536.  For further
     discussion, see RFC 879.

     Idle Connections:  There have been questions about
     automatically closing idle connections.  Idle connections are
     ok, and should not be closed.  There are several cases where
     idle connections arise, for example, in Telnet when a user is
     thinking for a long time following a message from the server
     computer before his next input.  There is no TCP "probe"
     mechanism, and none is needed.

     Queued Receive Data on Closing:  There are several points where
     it is not clear from the description what to do about data
     received by the TCP but not yet passed to the user,
     particularly when the connection is being closed.  In general,
     the data is to be kept to give to the user if he does a RECV
     call.

     Out of Order Segments:  The description says that segments that
     arrive out of order, that is, are not exactly the next segment
     to be processed, may be kept on hand.  It should also point out
     that there is a very large performance penalty for not doing
     so.

     User Time Out:  This is the time out started on an open or send
     call.  If this user time out occurs the user should be
     notified, but the connection should not be closed or the TCB
     deleted.  The user should explicitly ABORT the connection if he
     wants to give up.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

     RFC 813 (in DPH) - Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP

     RFC 814 (in DPH) - Names, Addresses, Ports, and Routes

     RFC 816 (in DPH) - Fault Isolation and Recovery

     RFC 817 (in DPH) - Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol
     Implementation

     RFC 879 - TCP Maximum Segment Size

     RFC 889 - Internet Delay Experiments

     RFC 896 - TCP/IP Congestion Control

     MIL-STD-1778 (in DPH) - Military Standard Transmission Control
     Protocol

     RFC 964 - Some Problems with the Specification of the Military
     Standard Transmission Control Protocol

     Zhang, Lixia, "Why TCP Timers Don't Work Well", Communications
     Architectures and Protocols, ACM SIGCOMM Proceedings,  Computer
     Communications Review, V.16, N.3, August 1986.

  DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Bulk Data Transfer Protocol ------------------------------- (NETBLT)

  STATUS:  Experimental

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 998

  COMMENTS:

     This is a revised RFC on the discussion of the Network Block
     Transfer (NETBLT) protocol.

     NETBLT (NETwork BLock Transfer) is a transport level protocol
     intended for the rapid transfer of a large quantity of data
     between computers.  It provides a transfer that is reliable and
     flow controlled, and is designed to provide maximum throughput
     over a wide variety of networks.  Although NETBLT currently

     runs on top of the Internet Protocol (IP), it should be able to
     operate on top of any datagram protocol similar in function to
     IP.

     This document is published for discussion and comment, and does
     not constitute a standard.  The proposal may change and certain
     parts of the protocol have not yet been specified;
     implementation of this document is therefore not advised.

  OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 969

  DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol, User Datagram
  Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Exterior Gateway Protocol ------------------------------------ (EGP)

  STATUS:  Recommended for Gateways

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 888, RFC 904 (in DPH), RFC 975, RFC 985

  COMMENTS:

     The protocol used between gateways of different administrations
     to exchange routing information.

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

  OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 827, RFC 890

  DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Gateway Gateway Protocol ------------------------------------- (GGP)

  STATUS:  Experimental

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 823 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     The gateway protocol now used in the core gateways.

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Host Monitoring Protocol ------------------------------------- (HMP)

  STATUS:  Elective

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 869 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     This is a good tool for debugging protocol implementations in
     remotely located computers.

     This protocol is used to monitor Internet gateways and the
     TACs.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Reliable Data Protocol --------------------------------------- (RDP)

  STATUS:  Experimental

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 908 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     This protocol is designed to efficiently support the bulk
     transfer of data for such host monitoring and control
     applications as loading/dumping and remote debugging.  The
     protocol is intended to be simple to implement but still be
     efficient in environments where there may be long transmission
     delays and loss or non-sequential delivery of message segments.

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES:  Internet Protocol

  CONTACT:  [email protected]

Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol ---------------------- (IRTP)

  STATUS:  Experimental

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 938

  COMMENTS:

     This protocol is a transport level host to host protocol
     designed for an internet environment.  While the issues
     discussed may not be directly relevant to the research problems
     of the Internet community, they may be interesting to a number
     of researchers and implementors.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES:  Internet Protocol

  CONTACT:  [email protected]

Cross Net Debugger ------------------------------------------ (XNET)

  STATUS:  Elective

  SPECIFICATION:  IEN 158 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     A debugging protocol, allows debugger like access to remote
     systems.

     This specification should be updated and reissued as an RFC.

  OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 643

  DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Multiplexing Protocol ---------------------------------------- (MUX)

  STATUS:  Experimental

  SPECIFICATION:  IEN 90 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     Defines a capability to combine several segments from different
     higher level protocols in one IP datagram.

     No current experiment in progress.  There is some question as
     to the extent to which the sharing this protocol envisions can
     actually take place.  Also, there are some issues about the
     information captured in the multiplexing header being (a)
     insufficient, or (b) over specific.

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Stream Protocol ----------------------------------------------- (ST)

  STATUS:  Experimental

  SPECIFICATION:  IEN 119 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     A gateway resource allocation protocol designed for use in
     multihost real time applications.

     The implementation of this protocol has evolved and may no
     longer be consistent with this specification.  The document
     should be updated and issued as an RFC.

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Network Voice Protocol ------------------------------------ (NVP-II)

  STATUS:  Experimental

  SPECIFICATION:  ISI Internal Memo

  COMMENTS:

     Defines the procedures for real time voice conferencing.

     The specification is an ISI Internal Memo which should be
     updated and issued as an RFC.

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

  OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 741 (in DPH)

  DEPENDENCIES:  Internet Protocol, Stream Protocol

  CONTACT:  [email protected]

APPLICATION LEVEL

Telnet Protocol ------------------------------------------- (TELNET)

  STATUS:  Recommended

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 854 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     The protocol for remote terminal access.

     This has been revised since the IPTW.  RFC 764 in IPTW is now
     obsolete.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

     MIL-STD-1782 (in DPH) - Telnet Protocol

  DEPENDENCIES:  Transmission Control Protocol

  CONTACT:  [email protected]

Telnet Options ------------------------------------ (TELNET-OPTIONS)

  STATUS:  Elective

  SPECIFICATION:  General description of options:  RFC 855 (in DPH)

  Number   Name                                    RFC  NIC  DPH USE
  ------   ---------------------------------       --- ----- --- ---
     0     Binary Transmission                     856 ----- yes yes
     1     Echo                                    857 ----- yes yes
     2     Reconnection                            ... 15391 yes  no
     3     Suppress Go Ahead                       858 ----- yes yes
     4     Approx Message Size Negotiation         ... 15393 yes  no
     5     Status                                  859 ----- yes yes
     6     Timing Mark                             860 ----- yes yes
     7     Remote Controlled Trans and Echo        726 39237 yes  no
     8     Output Line Width                       ... 20196 yes  no
     9     Output Page Size                        ... 20197 yes  no
    10     Output Carriage-Return Disposition      652 31155 yes  no
    11     Output Horizontal Tabstops              653 31156 yes  no
    12     Output Horizontal Tab Disposition       654 31157 yes  no
    13     Output Formfeed Disposition             655 31158 yes  no
    14     Output Vertical Tabstops                656 31159 yes  no
    15     Output Vertical Tab Disposition         657 31160 yes  no
    16     Output Linefeed Disposition             658 31161 yes  no
    17     Extended ASCII                          698 32964 yes  no
    18     Logout                                  727 40025 yes  no
    19     Byte Macro                              735 42083 yes  no
    20     Data Entry Terminal                     732 41762 yes  no
    21     SUPDUP                              734 736 42213 yes  no
    22     SUPDUP Output                           749 45449 yes  no
    23     Send Location                           779 ----- yes  no
    24     Terminal Type                           930 ----- yes  no
    25     End of Record                           885 ----- yes  no
    26     TACACS User Identification              927 ----- yes  no
    27     Output Marking                          933 ----- yes  no
    28     Terminal Location Number                946 -----  no  no
   255     Extended-Options-List                   861 ----- yes yes

  The DHP column indicates if the specification is included in the
  DDN Protocol Handbook.  The USE column of the table above
  indicates which options are in general use.

  COMMENTS:

     The Binary Transmission, Echo, Suppress Go Ahead, Status,

     Timing Mark, and Extended Options List options have been
     recently updated and reissued.  These are the most frequently
     implemented options.

     The remaining options should be reviewed and the useful ones
     should be revised and reissued.  The others should be
     eliminated.

     The following are recommended:  Binary Transmission, Echo,
     Suppress Go Ahead, Status, Timing Mark, and Extended Options
     List.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: Telnet

  CONTACT: [email protected]

SUPDUP Protocol ------------------------------------------- (SUPDUP)

  STATUS:  Elective

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 734 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     A special Telnet like protocol for display terminals.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

File Transfer Protocol --------------------------------------- (FTP)

  STATUS:  Recommended

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 959 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     The protocol for moving files between Internet hosts.  Provides
     for access control and negotiation of file parameters.

     The following new optional commands are included in this
     edition of the specification:  Change to Parent Directory

     (CDUP), Structure Mount (SMNT), Store Unique (STOU), Remove
     Directory (RMD), Make Directory (MKD), Print Directory (PWD),
     and System (SYST).  Note that this specification is compatible
     with the previous edition (RFC 765).

     A discrepancy has been found in the specification in the
     examples of Appendix II.  On page 63, a response code of 200 is
     shown as the response to a CWD command.  Under the list of
     Command-Reply Sequences cited on page 50, CWD is shown to only
     accept a 250 response code.  Therefore, if one would interpret
     a CWD command as being excluded from the File System functional
     category, one may assume that the response code of 200 is
     correct, since CDUP as a special case of CWD does use 200.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

     RFC 678 (in DPH) - Document File Format Standards

     MIL-STD-1780 (in DPH) - File Transfer Protocol

  DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Trivial File Transfer Protocol ------------------------------ (TFTP)

  STATUS:  Elective

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 783 (in IPTW)

  COMMENTS:

     A very simple file moving protocol, no access control is
     provided.

     This is in use in several local networks.

     Ambiguities in the interpretation of several of the transfer
     modes should be  clarified, and additional transfer modes could
     be defined.  Additional error codes could be defined to more
     clearly identify problems.

     Note: The DPH contains IEN-133, which is an obsolete version of
     this protocol.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Simple File Transfer Protocol ------------------------------- (SFTP)

  STATUS:  Experimental

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 913 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     SFTP is a simple file transfer protocol.  It fills the need of
     people wanting a protocol that is more useful than TFTP but
     easier to implement (and less powerful) than FTP.  SFTP
     supports user access control, file transfers, directory
     listing, directory changing, file renaming and deleting.

     SFTP can be implemented with any reliable 8-bit byte stream
     oriented protocol, this document describes its TCP
     specification.  SFTP uses only one TCP connection; whereas TFTP
     implements a connection over UDP, and FTP uses two TCP
     connections (one using the TELNET protocol).

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Simple Mail Transfer Protocol ------------------------------- (SMTP)

  STATUS:  Recommended

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 821 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     The procedure for transmitting computer mail between hosts.

     This has been revised since the IPTW, it is in the "Internet
     Mail Protocols" volume of November 1982.  RFC 788 (in IPTW) is
     obsolete.

     There have been many misunderstandings and errors in the early
     implementations.  Some documentation of these problems can be
     found in the file [C.ISI.EDU]<SMTP>MAIL.ERRORS.

     Some minor differences between RFC 821 and RFC 822 should be
     resolved.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

     RFC 822 - Mail Header Format Standards

        This has been revised since the IPTW, it is in the "Internet
        Mail Protocols" volume of November 1982.  RFC 733 (in IPTW)
        is obsolete.  Further revision of RFC 822 is needed to
        correct some minor errors in the details of the
        specification.

        Note:  RFC 822 is not included in the DPH (an accident, it
        should have been).

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

  DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Network News Transfer Protocol ------------------------------ (NNTP)

  STATUS:  Experimental

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 977

  COMMENTS:

     NNTP specifies a protocol for the distribution, inquiry,
     retrieval, and posting of news articles using a reliable
     stream-based transmission of news among the Internet community.
     NNTP is designed so that news articles are stored in a central
     database allowing a subscriber to select only those items he
     wishes to read.  Indexing, cross-referencing, and expiration of
     aged messages are also provided.

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Post Office Protocol - Version 2 ---------------------------- (POP2)

  STATUS:  Experimental

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 937 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     The intent of the Post Office Protocol - Version 2 (POP2) is to
     allow a user's workstation to access mail from a mailbox
     server.  It is expected that mail will be posted from the
     workstation to the mailbox server via the Simple Mail Transfer
     Protocol (SMTP).

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

  OTHER REFERENCES:  Obsoletes RFC 918

  DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

NetBIOS Services Protocol -------------------------------- (NETBIOS)

  STATUS:  Recommended

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 1001, 1002

  COMMENTS:

     These documents define a proposed standard protocol to support
     NetBIOS services in a TCP/IP environment.  Both local network
     and internet operation are supported.  Various node types are
     defined to accomodate local and internet topologies and to
     allow operation with or without the use of IP broadcast

     RFC 1001 describes the NetBIOS-over-TCP protocols in a general
     manner, with emphasis on the underlying ideas and techniques.
     RFC 1002 gives the detailed specifications of the
     NetBIOS-over-TCP packets, protocols, and defined constants and
     variables.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol, User Datagram
  Protocol

  CONTACT:  [email protected]

Bootstrap Protocol ----------------------------------------- (BOOTP)

  STATUS:  Experimental

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 951

  COMMENTS:

     This proposed protocol provides an IP/UDP bootstrap protocol
     which allows a diskless client machine to discover its own IP
     address, the address of a server host, and the name of a file
     to be loaded into memory and executed.

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol, User Datagram Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Loader Debugger Protocol ------------------------------------- (LDP)

  STATUS:  Experimental

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 909

  COMMENTS:

     Specifies a protocol for loading, dumping and debugging target
     machines from hosts in a network environment.  It is also
     designed to accommodate a variety of target CPU types.  It
     provides a powerful set of debugging services, while at the
     same time, it is structured so that a simple subset may be
     implemented in applications like boot loading where efficiency
     and space are at a premium.

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES:  Reliable Data Protocol

  CONTACT:  [email protected]

Resource Location Protocol ----------------------------------- (RLP)

  STATUS:   Elective

  SPECIFICATION:   RFC 887 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     A resource location protocol for use in the Internet.  This
     protocol utilizes the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) which in
     turn calls on the Internet Protocol to deliver its datagrams.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol

  CONTACT:   [email protected]

Remote Job Entry --------------------------------------------- (RJE)

  STATUS:  Elective

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 407 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     The general protocol for submitting batch jobs and retrieving
     the results.

     Some changes needed for use with TCP.

     No known active implementations.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: File Transfer Protocol, Transmission Control
  Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Remote Job Service ---------------------------------------- (NETRJS)

  STATUS:  Elective

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 740 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     A special protocol for submitting batch jobs and retrieving the
     results used with the UCLA IBM OS system.

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

     Revision in progress.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Remote Telnet Service ------------------------------------ (RTELNET)

  STATUS:  Elective

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 818 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     Provides special access to user Telnet on a remote system.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: Telnet, Transmission Control Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Graphics Protocol --------------------------------------- (GRAPHICS)

  STATUS:  Elective

  SPECIFICATION:  NIC 24308 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     The protocol for vector graphics.

     Very minor changes needed for use with TCP.

     No known active implementations.

     Note:  The DPH claims that this is RFC 493, but RFC 493 is
     actually a different earlier specification.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: Telnet, Transmission Control Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Echo Protocol ----------------------------------------------- (ECHO)

  STATUS:  Recommended

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 862 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     Debugging protocol, sends back whatever you send it.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                or User Datagram Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Discard Protocol ----------------------------------------- (DISCARD)

  STATUS:  Elective

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 863 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     Debugging protocol, throws away whatever you send it.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                or User Datagram Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Character Generator Protocol ----------------------------- (CHARGEN)

  STATUS:  Elective

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 864 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     Debugging protocol, sends you ASCII data.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                or User Datagram Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Quote of the Day Protocol ---------------------------------- (QUOTE)

  STATUS:  Elective

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 865 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     Debugging protocol, sends you a short ASCII message.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                or User Datagram Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Statistics Server ---------------------------------------- (STATSRV)

  STATUS:  Recommended

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 996

  COMMENTS:

     This RFC specifies a standard for the Internet community.
     Hosts and gateways on the Internet that choose to implement a
     remote statistics monitoring facility may use this protocol to
     send statistics data upon request to a monitoring center or
     debugging host.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Active Users Protocol -------------------------------------- (USERS)

  STATUS:  Elective

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 866 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     Lists the currently active users.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                or User Datagram Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Finger Protocol ------------------------------------------- (FINGER)

  STATUS:  Elective

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 742 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     Provides information on the current or most recent activity of
     a user.

     Some extensions have been suggested.

     Some changes are are needed for TCP.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

WhoIs Protocol ------------------------------------------- (NICNAME)

  STATUS:  Elective

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 954 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     Accesses the ARPANET Directory database.  Provides a way to
     find out about people, their addresses, phone numbers,
     organizations, and mailboxes.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

CSNET Mailbox Name Server Protocol ---------------------- (CSNET-NS)

  STATUS:  Experimental

  SPECIFICATION:  CS-DN-2 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     Provides access to the CSNET data base of users to give
     information about users names, affiliations, and mailboxes.

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Domain Name Protocol -------------------------------------- (DOMAIN)

  STATUS:  Recommended

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 881, RFC 882, RFC 883 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

  OTHER REFERENCES:

     RFC 920 - Domain Requirements

     RFC 921 - Domain Name Implementation Schedule - Revised

     RFC 973 - Domain System Changes and Observations

     RFC 974 - Mail Routing and the Domain System

  DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                or User Datagram Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

HOSTNAME Protocol --------------------------------------- (HOSTNAME)

  STATUS:  Elective

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 953 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     Accesses the Registered Internet Hosts database (HOSTS.TXT).
     Provides a way to find out about a host in the Internet, its
     Internet Address, and the protocols it implements.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

     RFC 952 - Host Table Specification

  DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Host Name Server Protocol ----------------------------- (NAMESERVER)

  STATUS:  Experimental

  SPECIFICATION:  IEN 116 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     Provides machine oriented procedure for translating a host name
     to an Internet Address.

     This specification has significant problems:  1) The name
     syntax is out of date.  2) The protocol details are ambiguous,
     in particular, the length octet either does or doesn't include
     itself and the op code.  3) The extensions are not supported by
     any known implementation.

     This protocol is now abandoned in favor of the DOMAIN protocol.
     Further implementations of this protocol are not advised.

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Daytime Protocol ----------------------------------------- (DAYTIME)

  STATUS:  Elective

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 867 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     Provides the day and time in ASCII character string.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                or User Datagram Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Network Time Protocol ---------------------------------------- (NTP)

  STATUS:  Experimental

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 958

  COMMENTS:

     A proposed protocol for synchronizing a set of network clocks
     using a set of distributed clients and servers.

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

  OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 778, RFC 891, RFC 956, and RFC 957.

  DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Time Server Protocol ---------------------------------------- (TIME)

  STATUS:  Elective

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 868 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     Provides the time as the number of seconds from a specified
     reference time.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                or User Datagram Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

DCNET Time Server Protocol --------------------------------- (CLOCK)

  STATUS:  Experimental

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 778

  COMMENTS:

     Provides a mechanism for keeping synchronized clocks.

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: Internet Control Message Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Authentication Service -------------------------------------- (AUTH)

  STATUS:  Experimental

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 931

  COMMENTS:

     This server provides a means to determine the identity of a
     user of a particular TCP connection.  Given a TCP port number
     pair, it returns a character string which identifies the owner
     of that connection on the server's system.

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

  OTHER REFERENCES:  Supercedes RFC 912

  DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Authentication Scheme --------------------------------- (COOKIE-JAR)

  STATUS:  Experimental

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 1004

  COMMENTS:

     This RFC focuses its discussion on authentication problems in
     the Internet and possible methods of solution.

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES:

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Internet Message Protocol ------------------------------------ (MPM)

  STATUS:  Experimental

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 759 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     This is an experimental multimedia mail transfer protocol.  The
     implementation is called a Message Processing Module or MPM.

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

     RFC 767 - Structured Document Formats

  DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Network Standard Text Editor ------------------------------- (NETED)

  STATUS:  Elective

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 569 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     Describes a simple line editor which could be provided by every
     Internet host.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES:

  CONTACT:  [email protected]

APPENDICES

Internet Numbers ---------------------------------------------------

  STATUS:  None

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 997

  COMMENTS:

     Describes the fields of network numbers and autonomous system
     numbers that are assigned specific values for actual use, and
     lists the currently assigned values.

     Issued March 1987, replaces RFC 990, RFC 790 in IPTW, and
     RFC 960.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Assigned Numbers ---------------------------------------------------

  STATUS:  None

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 1010

  COMMENTS:

     Describes the fields of various protocols that are assigned
     specific values for actual use, and lists the currently
     assigned values.

     Issued May 1987, replaces RFC 990, RFC 790 in IPTW, and
     RFC 960.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Pre-emption --------------------------------------------------------

  STATUS:  Elective

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 794 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     Describes how to do pre-emption of TCP connections.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Service Mappings ---------------------------------------------------

  STATUS:  None

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 795 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     Describes the mapping of the IP type of service field onto the
     parameters of some specific networks.

     Out of date, needs revision.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Address Mappings ---------------------------------------------------

  STATUS:  None

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 796 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     Describes the mapping between Internet Addresses and the
     addresses of some specific networks.

     Out of date, needs revision.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  CONTACT:  [email protected]

Document Formats ---------------------------------------------------

  STATUS:  None

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 678 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     Describes standard format rules for several types of documents.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  CONTACT:  [email protected]

Equations Representation -------------------------------------------

  STATUS:  None

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 1003

  COMMENTS:

     Identifies and explores issues in defining a standard for the
     exchange of mathematical equations.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  CONTACT:  [email protected]

Bitmap Formats -----------------------------------------------------

  STATUS:  None

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 797 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     Describes a standard format for bitmap data.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  CONTACT:  [email protected]

Facsimile Formats --------------------------------------------------

  STATUS:  None

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 804

  COMMENTS:

     Describes a standard format for facsimile data.

  OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 769 (in DPH)

  CONTACT:  [email protected]

Host-Front End Protocol ------------------------------------- (HFEP)

  STATUS:  Experimental

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 929

  COMMENTS:

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

  OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 928

  DEPENDENCIES:

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Internet Protocol on ARPANET ----------------------------- (IP-ARPA)

  STATUS:  Recommended

  SPECIFICATION:  BBN Report 1822

  COMMENTS:

     Describes the interface between a Host and an IMP, and by
     implication the transmission of IP Datagrams over the ARPANET.

  OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 851, RFC 852, RFC 878 (in DPH), RFC 979,
  RFC 1005

  CONTACT:  [email protected]

Internet Protocol on WBNET --------------------------------- (IP-WB)

  STATUS:  Recommended

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 907 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     Describes a standard for the transmission of IP Datagrams over
     the Wideband Net.

     This protocol specifies the network-access level communication
     between an arbitrary computer, called a host, and a
     packet-switched satellite network, e.g., SATNET or WBNET.

     Note:  Implementations of HAP should be performed in
     coordination with satellite network development and operations
     personnel.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  CONTACT:  [email protected]

Internet Protocol on Wideband Network ---------------------- (IP-WB)

  STATUS:  Recommended

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 907  (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     Describes a standard for the transmission of IP Datagrams over
     the WBNET.

     This protocol specifies the network-access level communication
     between an arbitrary computer, called a host, and a
     packet-switched satellite network, e.g., SATNET or WBNET.

     Note:  Implementations of HAP should be performed in
     coordination with satellite network development and operations
     personnel.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES:

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Internet Protocol on X.25 Networks ------------------------ (IP-X25)

  STATUS:  Recommended

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 877 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     Describes a standard for the transmission of IP Datagrams over
     Public Data Networks.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  CONTACT:  [email protected]

Internet Protocol on DC Networks --------------------------- (IP-DC)

  STATUS:  Elective

  SPECIFICATION: RFC 891 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

  OTHER REFERENCES:

     RFC 778 - DCNET Internet Clock Service

  CONTACT:  [email protected]

Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks ---------------------- (IP-E)

  STATUS:  Recommended

  SPECIFICATION: RFC 894 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

  OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 893

  CONTACT:  [email protected]

Internet Protocol on Experimental Ethernet Networks -------- (IP-EE)

  STATUS:  Recommended

  SPECIFICATION: RFC 895 (in DPH)

  COMMENTS:

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  CONTACT:  [email protected]

Internet Protocol on IEEE 802 ---------------------------- (IP-IEEE)

  STATUS:  Recommended

  SPECIFICATION: see comments

  COMMENTS:

     At an ad hoc special session on "IEEE 802 Networks and ARP"
     held during the TCP Vendors Workshop (August 1986), an approach
     to a consistent way to sent DOD-IP datagrams and other IP
     related protocols on 802 networks was developed.

     Due to some evolution of the IEEE 802.2 standards and the need
     to provide for a standard way to do additional DOD-IP related
     protocols (such as Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)) on IEEE
     802 networks, the following new policy is established, which
     will replace the current policy (see RFC-990 section on IEEE
     802 Numbers of Interest, and RFC-948).

     The policy is for DDN and Internet community to use IEEE 802.2
     encapsulation on 802.3, 802.4, and 802.5 networks by using the
     SNAP with an organization code indicating that the following 16
     bits specify the Ethertype code (where IP = 2048 (0800 hex),
     see RFC-1010  section on Ethernet Numbers of Interest).

                                                              Header

        ...--------+--------+--------+
         MAC Header|      Length     |               802.{3/4/5} MAC
        ...--------+--------+--------+

        +--------+--------+--------+
        | Dsap=K1| Ssap=K1| control|                       802.2 SAP
        +--------+--------+--------+

        +--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
        |protocol id or org code =K2|    Ether Type   |   802.2 SNAP
        +--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+

     The total length of the SAP Header and the SNAP header is
     8-octets, making the 802.2 protocol overhead come out on a nice
     boundary.

     K1 is 170.  The IEEE like to talk about things in bit
     transmission order and specifies this value as 01010101.  In
     big-endian order, as used in Internet specifications, this
     becomes 10101010 binary, or AA hex, or 170 decimal.

     K2 is 0 (zero).

     Note:  The method described in RFC 948 (in DPH) is no longer to
     be used.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  CONTACT:  [email protected]

Internet Subnet Protocol ---------------------------------- (IP-SUB)

  STATUS:  Required

  SPECIFICATION: RFC 950

  COMMENTS:

     This is a very important feature and must be included in all IP
     implementations.

     Specifies procedures for the use of subnets, which are logical
     sub-sections of a single Internet network.

  OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 940, RFC 917, RFC 925, RFC 932, RFC 936,
  RFC 922

  DEPENDENCIES:

  CONTACT:  [email protected]

Address Resolution Protocol ---------------------------------- (ARP)

  STATUS:  Recommended

  SPECIFICATION: RFC 826  (IN DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     This is a procedure for finding the network hardware address
     corresponding to an Internet Address.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  CONTACT:  [email protected]

A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol ----------------------- (RARP)

  STATUS:  Elective

  SPECIFICATION: RFC 903 (IN DPH)

  COMMENTS:

     This is a procedure for workstations to dynamically find their
     protocol address (e.g., their Internet Address), when they only
     only know their hardware address (e.g., their attached physical
     network address).

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  CONTACT:  [email protected]

Multi-LAN Address Resolution Protocol ----------------------- (MARP)

  STATUS:  Experimental

  SPECIFICATION: RFC 925

  COMMENTS:

     Discussion of the various problems and potential solutions of
     "transparent subnets" in a multi-LAN environment.

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

  OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 917, RFC 826

  DEPENDENCIES:

  CONTACT:  [email protected]

Broadcasting Internet Datagrams ------------------------- (IP-BROAD)

  STATUS:  Recommended

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 919

  COMMENTS:

     A proposed protocol of simple rules for broadcasting Internet
     datagrams on local networks that support broadcast, for
     addressing broadcasts, and for how gateways should handle them.

     Recommended in the sense of "if you do broadcasting at all then
     do it this way".

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

  OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 922

  DEPENDENCIES:

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Broadcasting Internet Datagrams with Subnets --------- (IP-SUB-BROAD)

  STATUS:  Recommended

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 922

  COMMENTS:

     A proposed protocol of simple rules for broadcasting Internet
     datagrams on local networks that support broadcast, for
     addressing broadcasts, and for how gateways should handle them.

     Recommended in the sense of "if you do broadcasting with
     subnets at all then do it this way".

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

  OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 919

  DEPENDENCIES:

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol --------------------- (RATP)

  STATUS:  Experimental

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 916

  COMMENTS:

     This paper specifies a protocol which allows two programs to
     reliably communicate over a communication link.  It ensures
     that the data entering one end of the link if received arrives
     at the other end intact and unaltered.  This proposed protocol
     is designed to operate over a full duplex point-to-point
     connection.  It contains some features which tailor it to the
     RS-232 links now in current use.

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Thinwire Protocol --------------------------------------- (THINWIRE)

  STATUS:  Experimental

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 914

  COMMENTS:

     This paper discusses a Thinwire Protocol for connecting
     personal computers to the Internet.  It primarily focuses on
     the particular problems in the Internet of low speed network
     interconnection with personal computers, and possible methods
     of solution.

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES:

  CONTACT: [email protected]

ISO and CCITT PROTOCOLS

The International Standards Organization (ISO) and the International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee (CCITT) are defining a set of protocols that may be of interest to the Internet community. Some of these have been published as RFCs for information purposes. This section lists these protocols.

End System to Intermediate System Routing Exchange Protocol --------

  STATUS:

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 995

  COMMENTS:

     This protocol is one of a set of International Standards
     produced to facilitate the interconnection of open systems.
     The set of standards covers the services and protocols required
     to achieve such interconnection.  This protocol is positioned
     with respect to other related standards by the layers defined
     in the Reference Model for Open Systems Interconnection (ISO
     7498) and by the structure defined in the Internal Organization
     of the Network Layer (DIS 8648).  In particular, it is a
     protocol of the Network Layer.  This protocol permits End
     Systems and Intermediate Systems to exchange configuration and
     routing information to facilitate the operation of the routing
     and relaying functions of the Network Layer.

  OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 994

  DEPENDENCIES:

  CONTACT: ANSI

Connectionless Mode Network Service --------------------- (ISO-8473)

  STATUS:

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 994

  COMMENTS:

     This Protocol Standard is one of a set of International
     Standards produced to facilitate the interconnection of open
     systems.  The set of standards covers the services and
     protocols required to achieve such interconnection.  This

     Protocol Standard is positioned with respect to other related
     standards by the layers defined in the Reference Model for Open
     Systems Interconnection (ISO 7498).  In particular, it is a
     protocol of the Network Layer.  This Protocol may be used
     between network-entities in end systems or in Network Layer
     relay systems (or both).  It provides the Connectionless-mode
     Network Service as defined in Addendum 1 to the Network Service
     Definition Covering Connectionless-mode Transmission (ISO
     8348/AD1).

  OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 926

  DEPENDENCIES:

  CONTACT: ANSI

Internet-IP Addressing in ISO-IP -----------------------------------

  STATUS:

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 986

  COMMENTS:

     This RFC suggests a method to allow the existing IP addressing,
     including the IP protocol field, to be used for the ISO
     Connectionless Network Protocol (CLNP).  This is a draft
     solution to one of the problems inherent in the use of
     "ISO-grams" in the DoD Internet.  Related issues will be
     discussed in subsequent RFCs.  This RFC suggests a proposed
     protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion
     and suggestions for improvements.

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES:

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Network Layer Addressing -------------------------------------------

  STATUS:

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 941

  COMMENTS:

     This Addendum to the Network Service Definition Standard, ISO
     8348, defines the abstract syntax and semantics of the Network
     Address (Network Service Access Point Address).  The Network
     Address defined in this Addendum is the address that appears in
     the primitives of the connection-mode Network Service as the
     calling address, called address, and responding address
     parameters, and in the primitives of the connectionless-mode
     Network  Service  as  the source address and destination
     address parameters.

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES:

  CONTACT: ISO

Transport Protocol Specification ------------------------ (ISO-8073)

  STATUS:

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 905

  COMMENTS:

     This is the current specification of the ISO Transport
     Protocol.  This document is the text of ISO/TC97/SC16/N1576 as
     corrected by ISO/TC97/SC16/N1695.  This is the specification
     currently being voted on in ISO as a Draft International
     Standard (DIS).

  OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 892

  DEPENDENCIES:

  CONTACT: ISO

ISO Transport Services on Top of the TCP ---------------------------

  STATUS:

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 1006

  COMMENTS:

     This memo describes a proposed protocol standard for the
     Internet community.  The CCITT and the ISO have defined various
     session, presentation, and application recommendations which
     have been adopted by the international community and numerous
     vendors.  To the largest extent possible, it is desirable to
     offer these higher level services directly to the Internet,
     without disrupting existing facilities.  This permits users to
     develop expertise with ISO and CCITT applications which
     previously were not available in the Internet.  The intention
     is that hosts within the Internet that choose to implement ISO
     TSAP services on top of the TCP be expected to adopt and
     implement this standard.  Suggestions for improvement are
     encouraged.

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

  OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 983

  DEPENDENCIES:

  CONTACT: [email protected]

Mapping Between X.400 and RFC 822 -------------------------- (X.400)

  STATUS:

  SPECIFICATION:  RFC 987

  COMMENTS:

     The X.400 series of protocols have been defined by CCITT to
     provide an Interpersonal Messaging Service (IPMS), making use
     of a store and forward Message Transfer Service.  It is
     expected that this standard will be implemented very widely.
     This document describes a set of mappings which will enable
     interworking between systems operating the X.400 protocols and
     systems using RFC 822 mail protocol or protocols derived from
     RFC 822.

     Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
     protocol with the contact.

  OTHER REFERENCES:

  DEPENDENCIES:

  CONTACT: [email protected]