Request for Comments: 2000 J. Postel, Editor
Obsoletes: 1920, 1880, 1800, 1780, 1720, February 1997
1610, 1600, 1540, 1500, 1410, 1360,
1280, 1250, 1200, 1140, 1130, 1100, 1083
STD: 1
Category: Standards Track
INTERNET 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).
This memo is an Internet Standard. Distribution of this memo is
unlimited.
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1. The Standardization Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.4. Experimental Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.5. Informational Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.6. Historic Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status (Requirement Level) . . . 9
4.2.1. Required Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.2. Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.3. Elective Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.4. Limited Use Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.5. Not Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. The Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. The RFCProcessing Decision Table . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. The Standards Track Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. The Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. Recent Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1.1. New RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1.2. Other Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.2. Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 36
6.4. Draft Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.6. Telnet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
6.7. Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6.8. Informational Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
6.9. Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.10 Obsolete Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
7. Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
7.1.1. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact . . . . . . 52
7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . 53
7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact . . . . . 54
7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . . 54
7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact . . . . . . . . . . 55
7.4. Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . . 55
7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments . . . . . . . . . . . 56
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
9. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Introduction
A discussion of the standardization process and the RFCdocument
series is presented first, followed by an explanation of the terms.
Sections 6.2 - 6.10 contain the lists of protocols in each stage of
standardization. Finally are 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 (INTERNIC) or from the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (see the contact
information at the end of this memo). Do not use this edition after
16-Jun-97.
See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes. In the official
lists in sections 6.2 - 6.10, an asterisk (*) next to a protocol
denotes that it is new to this document or has been moved from one
protocol level to another, or differs from the previous edition of
this document.
1. The Standardization Process
The Internet Architecture Board maintains this list of documents that
define standards for the Internet protocol suite. See RFC-1601 for
the charter of the IAB and RFC-1160 for an explanation of the role
and organization of the IAB and its subsidiary groups, the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force
(IRTF). Each of these groups has a steering group called the IESG
and IRSG, respectively. The IETF develops these standards with the
goal of co-ordinating the evolution of the Internet protocols; this
co-ordination has become quite important as the Internet protocols
are increasingly in general commercial use. The definitive
description of the Internet standards process is found in RFC-1602.
The majority of Internet protocol development and standardization
activity takes place in the working groups of the IETF.
Protocols which are to become standards in the Internet go through a
series of states or maturity levels (proposed standard, draft
standard, and standard) involving increasing amounts of scrutiny and
testing. When a protocol completes this process it is assigned a STD
number (see RFC-1311). At each step, the Internet Engineering
Steering Group (IESG) of the IETF must make a recommendation for
advancement of the protocol.
To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react to
standardization proposals, a minimum delay of 6 months before a
proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard and 4 months
before a draft standard can be promoted to standard.
It is general practice that no proposed standard can be promoted to
draft standard without at least two independent implementations (and
the recommendation of the IESG). Promotion from draft standard to
standard generally requires operational experience and demonstrated
interoperability of two or more implementations (and the
recommendation of the IESG).
In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper decision
concerning a protocol a special review committee may be appointed
consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB with the
purpose of recommending an explicit action.
Advancement of a protocol to proposed standard is an important step
since it marks a protocol as a candidate for eventual standardization
(it puts the protocol "on the standards track"). Advancement to
draft standard is a major step which warns the community that, unless
major objections are raised or flaws are discovered, the protocol is
likely to be advanced to standard in six months.
Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are otherwise
unused. Such protocols are still documented in this memorandum with
the designation "historic".
Because it is useful to document the results of early protocol
research and development work, some of the RFCs document protocols
which are still in an experimental condition. The protocols are
designated "experimental" in this memorandum. They appear in this
report as a convenience to the community and not as evidence of their
standardization.
Other protocols, such as those developed by other standards
organizations, or by particular vendors, may be of interest or may be
recommended for use in the Internet. The specifications of such
protocols may be published as RFCs for the convenience of the
Internet community. These protocols are labeled "informational" in
this memorandum.
In addition to the working groups of the IETF, protocol development
and experimentation may take place as a result of the work of the
research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or the work of
other individuals interested in Internet protocol development. The
the documentation of such experimental work in the RFCseries is
encouraged, but none of this work is considered to be on the track
for standardization until the IESG has made a recommendation to
advance the protocol to the proposed standard state.
A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without the
approval of the IESG. For example, some vendor protocols have become
very important to the Internet community even though they have not
been recommended by the IESG. However, the IAB strongly recommends
that the standards process be used in the evolution of the protocol
suite to maximize interoperability (and to prevent incompatible
protocol requirements from arising). The use of the terms
"standard", "draft standard", and "proposed standard" are reserved in
any RFCor other publication of Internet protocols to only those
protocols which the IESG has approved.
In addition to a state (like "Proposed Standard"), a protocol is also
assigned a status, or requirement level, in this document. The
possible requirement levels ("Required", "Recommended", "Elective",
"Limited Use", and "Not Recommended") are defined in Section 4.2.
When a protocol is on the standards track, that is in the proposed
standard, draft standard, or standard state (see Section 5), the
status shown in Section 6 is the current status.
Few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems; this is
because there is such a variety of possible systems, for example,
gateways, routers, terminal servers, workstations, and multi-user
hosts. The requirement level shown in this document is only a one
word label, which may not be sufficient to characterize the
implementation requirements for a protocol in all situations. For
some protocols, this document contains an additional status paragraph
(an applicability statement). In addition, more detailed status
information may be contained in separate requirements documents (see
Section 3).
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 RFCEditor (see the contact
information at the end of this memo, and see RFC1543).
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 RFCseries 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 RFCEditor will publish the document only with the
approval of the IESG. For documents describing experimental work,
the RFCEditor 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 RFCnumber and published, that RFCis
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 RFCon a
particular protocol. This "Internet Official Protocol Standards"
memo is the reference for determining the correct RFCfor the current
specification of each protocol.
The RFCs are available from the INTERNIC, 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
The "Assigned Numbers" document lists the assigned values of the
parameters used in the various protocols. For example, IP protocol
codes, TCP port numbers, Telnet Option Codes, ARP hardware types, and
Terminal Type names. Assigned Numbers was most recently issued as
RFC-1700.
3.2. Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers
This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways and
supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities.
Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers is RFC-1812.
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 DoD MIL-STD Internet specifications are out of date and have been
discontinued. The DoD's Joint Technical Architecture (JTA) lists the
current set of IETF STDs and RFCs that the DoD intends to use in all
new and upgraded Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and
Intelligence (C4I) acquisitions. A copy of the JTA can be obtained
from http://www-jta.itsi.disa.mil.
4. Explanation of Terms
There are two independent categorization of protocols. The first is
the "maturity level" or STATE of standardization, one of "standard",
"draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental",
"informational" or "historic". The second is the "requirement level"
or STATUS of this protocol, one of "required", "recommended",
"elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".
The status or requirement level is difficult to portray in a one word
label. These status labels should be considered only as an
indication, and a further description, or applicability statement,
should be consulted.
When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard,
it is labeled with a current status.
At any given time a protocol occupies a cell of the following matrix.
Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the following
proportions (indicated by the relative number of Xs). A new protocol
is most likely to start in the (proposed standard, elective) cell, or
the (experimental, limited use) cell.
S T A T U S
Req Rec Ele Lim Not
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Std | X | XXX | XXX | | |
S +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Draft | X | X | XXX | | |
T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Prop | | X | XXX | | |
A +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Info | | | | | |
T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Expr | | | | XXX | |
E +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Hist | | | | | XXX |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
What is a "system"?
Some protocols are particular to hosts and some to gateways; a few
protocols are used in both. The definitions of the terms below
will refer to a "system" which is either a host or a gateway (or
both). It should be clear from the context of the particular
protocol which types of systems are intended.
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 IESG has established this as an official standard protocol for
the Internet. These protocols are assigned STD numbers (see RFC-
1311). These are separated into two groups: (1) IP protocol and
above, protocols that apply to the whole Internet; and (2)
network-specific protocols, generally specifications of how to do
IP on particular types of networks.
4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol
The IESG is actively considering this protocol as a possible
Standard Protocol. Substantial and widespread testing and comment
are desired. Comments and test results should be submitted to the
IESG. There is a possibility that changes will be made in a Draft
Standard Protocol before it becomes a Standard Protocol.
4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol
These are protocol proposals that may be considered by the IESG
for standardization in the future. Implementation and testing by
several groups is desirable. Revision of the protocol
specification is likely.
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 IESG, may
be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community
as informational protocols.
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.
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 IESG in making decisions about the labeling and
publishing of protocols as standards.
5.1. The RFCProcessing Decision Table
Here is the current decision table for processing submissions by the
RFCEditor. The processing depends on who submitted it, and the
status they want it to have.
+==========================================================+
|**************| S O U R C E |
+==========================================================+
| Desired | IAB | IESG | IRSG | Other |
| Status | | | | |
+==========================================================+
| | | | | |
| Standard | Bogus | Publish | Bogus | Bogus |
| or | (2) | (1) | (2) | (2) |
| Draft | | | | |
| Standard | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| | Refer | Publish | Refer | Refer |
| Proposed | (3) | (1) | (3) | (3) |
| Standard | | | | |
| | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| | Notify | Publish | Notify | Notify |
| Experimental | (4) | (1) | (4) | (4) |
| Protocol | | | | |
| | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| Information | Publish | Publish |Discretion|Discretion|
| or Opinion | (1) | (1) | (5) | (5) |
| Paper | | | | |
| | | | | |
+==========================================================+
(1) Publish.
(2) Bogus. Inform the source of the rules. RFCs specifying
Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IESG, only.
(3) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG. Expect to see
the document again only after approval by the IESG.
(4) Notify both the IESG and IRSG. If no concerns are raised in
two weeks then do Discretion (5), else RFCEditor to resolve
the concerns or do Refer (3).
(5) RFCEditor's discretion. The RFCEditor decides if a review
is needed and if so by whom. RFCEditor decides to publish or
not.
Of course, in all cases the RFCEditor can request or make minor
changes for style, format, and presentation purposes.
The IESG has designated the IESG Secretary as its agent for
forwarding documents with IESG approval and for registering concerns
in response to notifications (4) to the RFCEditor. 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 change as well.
The states illustrated by single line boxes are temporary states,
those illustrated by double line boxes are long term states. A
protocol will normally be expected to remain in a temporary state for
several months (minimum six months for proposed standard, minimum
four months for draft standard). A protocol may be in a long term
state for many years.
A protocol may enter the standards track only on the recommendation
of the IESG; and may move from one state to another along the track
only on the recommendation of the IESG. That is, it takes action by
the IESG to either start a protocol on the track or to move it along.
Generally, as the protocol enters the standards track a decision is
made as to the eventual STATUS, requirement level or applicability
(elective, recommended, or required) the protocol will have, although
a somewhat less stringent current status may be assigned, and it then
is placed in the the proposed standard STATE with that status. So
the initial placement of a protocol is into state 1. At any time the
STATUS decision may be revisited.
|
+<----------------------------------------------+
| ^
V 0 | 4
+-----------+ +===========+
| enter |-->----------------+-------------->|experiment |
+-----------+ | +=====+=====+
| |
V 1 |
+-----------+ V
| proposed |-------------->+
+--->+-----+-----+ |
| | |
| V 2 |
+<---+-----+-----+ V
| draft std |-------------->+
+--->+-----+-----+ |
| | |
| V 3 |
+<---+=====+=====+ V
| standard |-------------->+
+=====+=====+ |
|
V 5
+=====+=====+
| historic |
+===========+
The transition from proposed standard (1) to draft standard (2) can
only be by action of the IESG and only after the protocol has been
proposed standard (1) for at least six months.
The transition from draft standard (2) to standard (3) can only be by
action of the IESG and only after the protocol has been draft
standard (2) for at least four months.
Occasionally, the decision may be that the protocol is not ready for
standardization and will be assigned to the experimental state (4).
This is off the standards track, and the protocol may be resubmitted
to enter the standards track after further work. There are other
paths into the experimental and historic states that do not involve
IESG action.
Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus becomes
historic, or it may happen that a protocol on the standards track is
in a sense overtaken by another protocol (or other events) and
becomes historic (state 5).
6. The Protocols
Subsection 6.1 lists recent RFCs and other changes. Subsections 6.2
- 6.10 list the standards in groups by protocol state.
6.1. Recent Changes
6.1.1. New RFCs:
2109 - HTTP State Management Mechanism
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2108 - Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.3 Repeater
Devices using SMIv2
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2107 - Ascend Tunnel Management Protocol - ATMP
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2106 - Data Link Switching Remote Access Protocol
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2105 - Cisco Systems' Tag Switching Architecture Overview
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2103 - Mobility Support for Nimrod : Challenges and Solution
Approaches
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2102 - Multicast Support for Nimrod : Requirements and Solution
Approaches
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2101 - IPv4 Address Behaviour Today
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2100 - not yet issued.
2099 - not yet issued.
2098 - Toshiba's Router Architecture Extensions for ATM : Overview
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2097 - The PPP NetBIOS Frames Control Protocol (NBFCP)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2096 - IP Forwarding Table MIB
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2095 - IMAP/POP AUTHorize Extension for Simple Challenge/Response
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2094 - not yet issued.
2093 - not yet issued.
2092 - Protocol Analysis for Triggered RIP
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2091 - Triggered Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2090 - TFTP Multicast Option
An Experimental protocol.
2089 - V2ToV1 Mapping SNMPv2 onto SNMPv1 within a bi-lingual SNMP
agent
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2088 - IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2087 - IMAP4 QUOTA extension
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2086 - IMAP4 ACL extension
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2085 - HMAC-MD5 IP Authentication with Replay Prevention
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2084 - Considerations for Web Transaction Security
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2083 - PNG (Portable Network Graphics) Specification Version 1.0
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2082 - RIP-2 MD5 Authentication
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2081 - RIPng Protocol Applicability Statement
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2080 - RIPng for IPv6
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2079 - Definition of an X.500 Attribute Type and an Object Class
to Hold Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2078 - Generic Security Service Application Program Interface,
Version 2
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2077 - The Model Primary Content Type for Multipurpose Internet
Mail Extension
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2076 - not yet issued.
2075 - IP Echo Host Service
An Experimental protocol.
2074 - Remote Network Monitoring MIB Protocol Identifiers
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2073 - An IPv6 Provider-Based Unicast Address Format
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2072 - Router Renumbering Guide
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2071 - Network Renumbering Overview: Why would I want it and what
is it anyway?
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2070 - Internationalization of the Hypertext Markup Language
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2069 - An Extension to HTTP : Digest Access Authentication
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2068 - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2067 - IP over HIPPI
A Draft Standard protocol.
2066 - TELNET CHARSET Option
An Experimental protocol.
2065 - Domain Name System Security Extensions
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2064 - Traffic Flow Measurement: Meter MIB
An Experimental protocol.
2063 - Traffic Flow Measurement: Architecture
An Experimental protocol.
2062 - Internet Message Access Protocol - Obsolete Syntax
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2061 - IMAP4 Compatibility with IMAP2BIS
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2060 - Internet Message Access Protocol - Version 4rev1
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2059 - RADIUS Accounting
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2058 - Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2057 - Source Directed Access Control on the Internet
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2056 - Uniform Resource Locators for Z39.50
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2055 - WebNFS Server Specification
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2054 - WebNFS Client Specification
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2053 - The AM (Armenia) Domain
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2052 - A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)
An Experimental protocol.
2051 - Definitions of Managed Objects for APPC using SMIv2
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2050 - Internet Registry IP Allocation Guidelines
This is a Best Current Practices document and does not
specify any level of standard.
2049 - Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Five:
Conformance Criteria and Examples
A Draft Standard protocol.
2048 - Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four:
Registration Procedures
This is a Best Current Practices document and does not
specify any level of standard.
2047 - MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part Three:
Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text
A Draft Standard protocol.
2046 - Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two:
Media Types
A Draft Standard protocol.
2045 - Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One:
Format of Internet Message Bodies
A Draft Standard protocol.
2044 - UTF-8, a transformation format of Unicode and ISO 10646
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2043 - The PPP SNA Control Protocol (SNACP)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2042 - Registering New BGP Attribute Types
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2041 - Mobile Network Tracing
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2040 - The RC5, RC5-CBC, RC5-CBC-Pad, and RC5-CTS Algorithms
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2039 - Applicablity of Standards Track MIBs to Management of World
Wide Web Servers
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2038 - RTP Payload Format for MPEG1/MPEG2 Video
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2037 - Entity MIB using SMIv2
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2036 - Observations on the use of Components of the Class A
Address Space within the Internet
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2035 - RTP Payload Format for JPEG-compressed Video
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2034 - SMTP Service Extension for Returning Enhanced Error Codes
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2033 - Local Mail Transfer Protocol
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2032 - RTP Payload Format for H.261 Video Streams
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2031 - IETF-ISOC relationship
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2030 - Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP) Version 4 for IPv4,
IPv6 and OSI
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2029 - RTP Payload Format of Sun's CellB Video Encoding
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2028 - The Organizations Involved in the IETF Standards Process
This is a Best Current Practices document and does not
specify any level of standard.
2027 - IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process:
Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees
This is a Best Current Practices document and does not
specify any level of standard.
2026 - The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3
This is a Best Current Practices document and does not
specify any level of standard.
2025 - The Simple Public-Key GSS-API Mechanism (SPKM)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2024 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Data Link Switching
using SMIv2
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2023 - IP Version 6 over PPP
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2022 - Support for Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based ATM Networks
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2021 - Remote Network Monitoring Management Information Base
Version 2 using SMIv2
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2020 - IEEE 802.12 Interface MIB
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2019 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets Over FDDI
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2018 - TCP Selective Acknowledgement Options
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2017 - Definition of the URL MIME External-Body Access-Type
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2016 - Uniform Resource Agents (URAs)
An Experimental protocol.
2015 - MIME Security with Pretty Good Privacy (PGP)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2014 - IRTF Research Group Guidelines and Procedures
This is a Best Current Practices document and does not
specify any level of standard.
2013 - SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the User Datagram
Protocol using SMIv2
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2012 - SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the Transmission
Control Protocol using SMIv2
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2011 - SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the Internet
Protocol using SMIv2
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2010 - Operational Criteria for Root Name Servers
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2009 - GPS-Based Addressing and Routing
An Experimental protocol.
2008 - Implications of Various Address Allocation Policies for
Internet Routing
This is a Best Current Practices document and does not
specify any level of standard.
2007 - Catalogue of Network Training Materials
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2006 - The Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Mobility Support
using SMIv2
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2005 - Applicability Statement for IP Mobility Support
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2004 - Minimal Encapsulation within IP
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2003 - IP Encapsulation within IP
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2002 - IP Mobility Support
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2001 - TCP Slow Start, Congestion Avoidance, Fast Retransmit, and
Fast Recovery Algorithms
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2000 - Internet Official Protocol Standards
This memo.
1999 - Request for Comments Summary RFCNumbers 1900-1999
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1998 - An Application of the BGP Community Attribute in Multi-home
Routing
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1997 - BGP Communities Attribute
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1996 - A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone Changes (DNS
NOTIFY)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1995 - Incremental Zone Transfer in DNS
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1994 - PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol (CHAP)
A Draft Standard protocol.
1993 - PPP Gandalf FZA Compression Protocol
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1992 - The Nimrod Routing Architecture
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1991 - PGP Message Exchange Formats
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1990 - The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP)
A Draft Standard protocol.
1989 - PPP Link Quality Monitoring
A Draft Standard protocol.
1988 - Conditional Grant of Rights to Specific Hewlett-Packard
Patents In Conjunction With the Internet Engineering Task
Force's Internet-Standard Network Management Framework
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1987 - Ipsilon's General Switch Management Protocol Specification
Version 1.1
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1986 - Experiments with a Simple File Transfer Protocol for Radio
Links using Enhanced Trivial File Transfer Protocol (ETFTP)
An Experimental protocol.
1985 - SMTP Service Extension for Remote Message Queue Starting
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1984 - IAB and IESG Statement on Cryptographic Technology and the
Internet
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1983 - Internet Users' Glossary
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1982 - Serial Number Arithmetic
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1981 - Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1980 - A Proposed Extension to HTML : Client-Side Image Maps
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1979 - PPP Deflate Protocol
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1978 - PPP Predictor Compression Protocol
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1977 - PPP BSD Compression Protocol
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1976 - PPP for Data Compression in Data Circuit-Terminating
Equipment (DCE)
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1975 - PPP Magnalink Variable Resource Compression
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1974 - PPP Stac LZS Compression Protocol
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1973 - PPP in Frame Relay
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1972 - A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
Networks
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1971 - IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1970 - Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1969 - The PPP DES Encryption Protocol (DESE)
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1968 - The PPP Encryption Control Protocol (ECP)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1967 - PPP LZS-DCP Compression Protocol (LZS-DCP)
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1966 - BGP Route Reflection An alternative to full mesh IBGP
An Experimental protocol.
1965 - Autonomous System Confederations for BGP
An Experimental protocol.
1964 - The Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API Mechanism
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1963 - PPP Serial Data Transport Protocol (SDTP)
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1962 - The PPP Compression Control Protocol (CCP)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1961 - GSS-API Authentication Method for SOCKS Version 5
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1960 - A String Representation of LDAP Search Filters
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1959 - An LDAP URL Format
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1958 - Architectural Principles of the Internet
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1957 - Some Observations on Implementations of the Post Office
Protocol (POP3)
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1956 - Registration in the MIL Domain
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1955 - New Scheme for Internet Routing and Addressing (ENCAPS) for
IPNG
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1954 - Transmission of Flow Labelled IPv4 on ATM Data Links
Ipsilon Version 1.0
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1953 - Ipsilon Flow Management Protocol Specification for IPv4
Version 1.0
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1952 - GZIP file format specification version 4.3
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1951 - DEFLATE Compressed Data Format Specification version 1.3
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1950 - ZLIB Compressed Data Format Specification version 3.3
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1949 - Scalable Multicast Key Distribution
An Experimental protocol.
1948 - Defending Against Sequence Number Attacks
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1947 - Greek Character Encoding for Electronic Mail Messages
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1946 - Native ATM Support for ST2+
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1945 - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1944 - Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1943 - Building an X.500 Directory Service in the US
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1942 - HTML Tables
An Experimental protocol.
1941 - Frequently Asked Questions for Schools
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1940 - Source Demand Routing: Packet Format and Forwarding
Specification
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1939 - Post Office Protocol - Version 3
A Standard protocol.
1938 - A One-Time Password System
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1937 - "Local/Remote" Forwarding Decision in Switched Data Link
Subnetworks
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1936 - Implementing the Internet Checksum in Hardware
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1935 - What is the Internet, Anyway?
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1934 - Ascend's Multilink Protocol Plus (MP+)
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1933 - Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1932 - IP over ATM: A Framework Document
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1931 - Dynamic RARP Extensions for Automatic Network Address
Acquisition
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1930 - Guidelines for creation, selection, and registration of an
Autonomous System (AS)
This is a Best Current Practices document and does not
specify any level of standard.
1929 - Username/Password Authentication for SOCKS V5
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1928 - SOCKS Protocol Version 5
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1927 - Suggested Additional MIME Types for Associating Documents
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1926 - An Experimental Encapsulation of IP Datagrams on Top of ATM
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1925 - The Twelve Networking Truths
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1924 - A Compact Representation of IPv6 Addresses
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1923 - RIPv1 Applicability Statement for Historic Status
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1922 - Chinese Character Encoding for Internet Messages
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1921 - TNVIP Protocol
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1919 - Classical versus Transparent IP Proxies
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1899 - Request for Comments Summary RFCNumbers 1800-1899
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1799 - Request for Comments Summary RFCNumbers 1700-1799