





Network Working Group                          Internet Activities Board
Request for Comments: 1250                             J. Postel, Editor
Obsoletes: RFCs 1200,                                        August 1991
1100, 1083, 1130, 1140



                    IAB OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS


Status of this Memo

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

Table of Contents

   Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
   1.  The Standardization Process  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
   2.  The Request for Comments Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   3.  Other Reference Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   3.1.  Assigned Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   3.2.  Annotated Internet Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   3.3.  Gateway Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   3.4.  Host Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   3.5.  The MIL-STD Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   4.  Explanation of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   4.1.  Definitions of Protocol State  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   4.1.1.  Standard Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   4.1.2.  Draft Standard Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   4.1.3.  Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   4.1.4.  Experimental Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   4.1.5.  Informational Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   4.1.6.  Historic Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   4.2.  Definitions of Protocol Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
   4.2.1.  Required Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
   4.2.2.  Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.2.3.  Elective Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.2.4.  Limited Use Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.2.5.  Not Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  The Standards Track  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.1.  The RFC Processing Decision Table  . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.2.  The Standards Track Diagram  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  The Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.1.  Recent Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.1.1.  New RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.1.2.  Other Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17



Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 1]

RFC 1250                     IAB Standards                   August 1991


   6.2.  Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   6.3.  Network-Specific Standard Protocols  . . . . . . . . . .  19
   6.4.  Draft Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   6.5.  Proposed Standard Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   6.6.  Telnet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   6.7.  Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   6.8.  Informational Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   6.9.  Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   7.  Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   7.1.  IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   7.1.1.  Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact  . . . . . . .  24
   7.1.2.  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . .  25
   7.1.3.  Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact  . . . . .  25
   7.2.  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . .  26
   7.3.  Request for Comments Editor Contact  . . . . . . . . . .  27
   7.4.  Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   7.5.  Other Sources for Requests for Comments  . . . . . . . .  28
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   9.  Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28

Introduction

   Discussion of the standardization process and the RFC document series
   is presented first, followed by an explanation of the terms.
   Sections 6.2 - 6.9 contain the lists of protocols in each stage of
   standardization.  Finally come pointers to references and contacts
   for further information.

   This memo is intended to be issued quarterly; please be sure the copy
   you are reading is current.  Current copies may be obtained from the
   Network Information Center or from the Internet Assigned Numbers
   Authority (see the contact information at the end of this memo).  Do
   not use this edition after 30-Nov-91.

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

1.  The Standardization Process

   The Internet Activities Board maintains this list of documents that
   define standards for the Internet protocol suite (see RFC-1160 for an
   explanation of the role and organization of the IAB and its
   subsidiary groups, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the
   Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)).  The IAB provides these
   standards with the goal of co-ordinating the evolution of the
   Internet protocols; this co-ordination has become quite important as



Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 2]

RFC 1250                     IAB Standards                   August 1991


   the Internet protocols are increasingly in general commercial use.

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

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

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

   It is general IAB practice that no proposed standard can be promoted
   to draft standard without at least two independent implementations
   (and the recommendation of the IESG).  Promotion from draft standard
   to standard generally requires operational experience and
   demonstrated interoperability of two or more implementations (and the
   recommendation of the IESG).

   In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper decision
   concerning a protocol the IAB may convene a special review committee
   consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB with the
   purpose of recommending an explicit action to the IAB.

   Advancement of a protocol to proposed standard is an important step
   since it marks a protocol as a candidate for eventual standardization
   (it puts the protocol "on the standards track").  Advancement to
   draft standard is a major step which warns the community that, unless
   major objections are raised or flaws are discovered, the protocol is
   likely to be advanced to standard in six months.

   Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are otherwise
   unused.  Such protocols are still documented in this memorandum with
   the designation "historic".

   Because the IAB believes it is useful to document the results of
   early protocol research and development work, some of the RFCs
   document protocols which are still in an experimental condition.  The
   protocols are designated "experimental" in this memorandum.  They
   appear in this report as a convenience to the community and not as
   evidence of their standardization.



Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 3]

RFC 1250                     IAB Standards                   August 1991


   Other protocols, such as those developed by other standards
   organizations, or by particular vendors, may be of interest or may be
   recommended for use in the Internet.  The specifications of such
   protocols may be published as RFCs for the convenience of the
   Internet community.  These protocols are labeled "informational" in
   this memorandum.

   In addition to the working groups of the IETF, protocol development
   and experimentation may take place as a result of the work of the
   research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or the work of
   other individuals interested in Internet protocol development.  The
   IAB encourages the documentation of such experimental work in the RFC
   series, but none of this work is considered to be on the track for
   standardization until the IESG has made a recommendation to advance
   the protocol to the proposed standard state, and the IAB has approved
   this step.

   A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without the
   approval of the IESG and the IAB.  For example, some vendor protocols
   have become very important to the Internet community even though they
   have not been recommended by the IESG or ratified by the IAB.
   However, the IAB strongly recommends that the IAB standards process
   be used in the evolution of the protocol suite to maximize
   interoperability (and to prevent incompatible protocol requirements
   from arising).  The IAB reserves the use of the terms "standard",
   "draft standard", and "proposed standard" in any RFC or other
   publication of Internet protocols to only those protocols which the
   IAB has approved.

   In addition to a state (like "Proposed Standard"), a protocol is also
   assigned a status, or requirement level, in this document.  The
   possible requirement levels ("Required", "Recommended", "Elective",
   "Limited Use", and "Not Recommended") are defined in Section 4.2.
   When a protocol is on the standards track, that is in the proposed
   standard, draft standard, or standard state (see Section 5), the
   status shown in Section 6 is the current status.  For a proposed or
   draft standard, however, the IAB will also endeavor to indicate the
   eventual status this protocol will have after adoption as a standard.

   Few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems; this is
   because there is such a variety of possible systems, for example,
   gateways, terminal servers, workstations, and multi-user hosts.  The
   requirement level shown in this document is only a one word label,
   which may not be sufficient to characterize the implementation
   requirements for a protocol in all situations.  For some protocols,
   this document contains an additional status paragraph (an
   applicability statement).  In addition, more detailed status
   information is contained in separate requirements documents (see



Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 4]

RFC 1250                     IAB Standards                   August 1991


   Section 3).

2.  The Request for Comments Documents

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

   Notice:

      All standards are published as RFCs, but not all RFCs specify
      standards.

   Anyone can submit a document for publication as an RFC.  Submissions
   must be made via electronic mail to the RFC Editor (see the contact
   information at the end of this memo).

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

   The RFC series comprises a wide range of documents, ranging from
   informational documents of general interests to specifications of
   standard Internet protocols.  In cases where submission is intended
   to document a proposed standard, draft standard, or standard
   protocol, the RFC Editor will publish the document only with the
   approval of both the IESG and the IAB.  For documents describing
   experimental work, the RFC Editor will notify the IESG before
   publication, allowing for the possibility of review by the relevant
   IETF working group or IRTF research group and provide those comments
   to the author.  See Section 5.1 for more detail.

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

   The RFCs are available from the Network Information Center at SRI
   International, and a number of other sites.  For more information
   about obtaining RFCs, see Sections 7.4 and 7.5.




Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 5]

RFC 1250                     IAB Standards                   August 1991


3.  Other Reference Documents

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

   Also, one should be aware of the MIL-STD publications on IP, TCP,
   Telnet, FTP, and SMTP.  These are described in Section 3.5.

3.1.  Assigned Numbers

   This document lists the assigned values of the parameters used in the
   various protocols.  For example, IP protocol codes, TCP port numbers,
   Telnet Option Codes, ARP hardware types, and Terminal Type names.
   Assigned Numbers was most recently issued as RFC-1060.

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

3.2.  Annotated Internet Protocols

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

3.3.  Gateway Requirements

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

3.4.  Host Requirements

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

3.5.  The MIL-STD Documents

   The Internet community specifications for IP (RFC-791) and TCP (RFC-
   793) and the DoD MIL-STD specifications are intended to describe
   exactly the same protocols.  Any difference in the protocols
   specified by these sets of documents should be reported to DCA and to



Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 6]

RFC 1250                     IAB Standards                   August 1991


   the IAB.  The RFCs and the MIL-STDs for IP and TCP differ in style
   and level of detail.  It is strongly advised that the two sets of
   documents be used together, along with RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.

   The IAB and the DoD MIL-STD specifications for the FTP, SMTP, and
   Telnet protocols are essentially the same documents (RFCs 765, 821,
   854).  The MIL-STD versions have been edited slightly.  Note that the
   current Internet specification for FTP is RFC-959 (as modified by
   RFC-1123).

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

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

   These documents are available from the Naval Publications and Forms
   Center.  Requests can be initiated by telephone, telegraph, or mail;
   however, it is preferred that private industry use form DD1425, if
   possible.  These five documents are included in the 1985 DDN Protocol
   Handbook (available from the Network Information Center, see Section
   7.4).

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

4.  Explanation of Terms

   There are two independent categorization of protocols.  The first is
   the STATE of standardization, one of "standard", "draft standard",
   "proposed standard", "experimental", "informational" or "historic".
   The second is the STATUS (requirement level or applicability) 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,



Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 7]

RFC 1250                     IAB Standards                   August 1991


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

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

                             S T A T U S
                     Req   Rec   Ele   Lim   Not
                   +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Std     |  X  | XXX | XXX |     |     |
       S           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Draft   |  X  |  X  | XXX |     |     |
       T           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Prop    |     |  X  | XXX |  X  |     |
       A           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Info    |     |  X  | XXX |  X  |  X  |
       T           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Expr    |     |     |  X  | XXX |  X  |
       E           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Hist    |     |     |     |  X  | XXX |
                   +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

   What is a "system"?

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

4.1.  Definitions of Protocol State

   Every protocol listed in this document is assigned to a STATE of
   standardization: "standard", "draft standard", "proposed standard",
   "experimental", or "historic".

   4.1.1.  Standard Protocol

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




Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 8]

RFC 1250                     IAB Standards                   August 1991


   4.1.2.  Draft Standard Protocol

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

   4.1.3.  Proposed Standard Protocol

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

   4.1.4.  Experimental Protocol

      A system should not implement an experimental protocol unless it
      is participating in the experiment and has coordinated its use of
      the protocol with the developer of the protocol.

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

   4.1.5.  Informational Protocol

      Protocols developed by other standard organizations, or vendors,
      or that are for other reasons outside the purview of the IAB, may
      be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community
      as informational protocols.  Such protocols may in some cases also
      be recommended for use in the Internet by the IAB.

   4.1.6.  Historic Protocol

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








Internet Activities Board                                       [Page 9]

RFC 1250                     IAB Standards                   August 1991


4.2.  Definitions of Protocol Status

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

   4.2.1.  Required Protocol

      A system must implement the required protocols.

   4.2.2.  Recommended Protocol

      A system should implement the recommended protocols.

   4.2.3.  Elective Protocol

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

   4.2.4.  Limited Use Protocol

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

   4.2.5.  Not Recommended Protocol

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

5.  The Standards Track

   This section discusses in more detail the procedures used by the RFC
   Editor and the IAB in making decisions about the labeling and
   publishing of protocols as standards.

5.1.  The RFC Processing Decision Table

   Here is the current decision table for processing submissions by the
   RFC Editor.  The processing depends on who submitted it, and the
   status they want it to have.






Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 10]

RFC 1250                     IAB Standards                   August 1991


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

      (1) Publish.

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

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

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

      (5) Notify both the IESG and IRSG.  If no concerns are raised in
          two weeks then do Discretion (6), else RFC Editor to resolve
          the concerns or do Refer (4).

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



Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 11]

RFC 1250                     IAB Standards                   August 1991


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

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

   The IESG has designated the IESG Secretary as its agent for
   forwarding documents with IESG approval and for registering concerns
   in response to notifications (5) to the RFC Editor.  Documents from
   Area Directors or Working Group Chairs may be considered in the same
   way as documents from "other".

5.2.  The Standards Track Diagram

   There is a part of the STATUS and STATE categorization that is called
   the standards track.  Actually, only the changes of state are
   significant to the progression along the standards track, though the
   status assignments may be changed as well.

   The states illustrated by single line boxes are temporary states,
   those illustrated by double line boxes are long term states.  A
   protocol will normally be expected to remain in a temporary state for
   several months (minimum four months for proposed standard, minimum
   six months for draft standard).  A protocol may be in a long term
   state for many years.

   A protocol may enter the standards track only on the recommendation
   of the IESG and by action of the IAB; and may move from one state to
   another along the track only on the recommendation of the IESG and by
   action of the IAB.  That is, it takes both the IESG and the IAB to
   either start a protocol on the track or to move it along.

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












Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 12]

RFC 1250                     IAB Standards                   August 1991


         |
         +<----------------------------------------------+
         |                                               ^
         V    0                                          |    4
   +-----------+                                   +===========+
   |   enter   |-->----------------+-------------->|experiment |
   +-----------+                   |               +=====+=====+
                                   |                     |
                                   V    1                |
                             +-----------+               V
                             | proposed  |-------------->+
                        +--->+-----+-----+               |
                        |          |                     |
                        |          V    2                |
                        +<---+-----+-----+               V
                             | draft std |-------------->+
                        +--->+-----+-----+               |
                        |          |                     |
                        |          V    3                |
                        +<---+=====+=====+               V
                             | standard  |-------------->+
                             +=====+=====+               |
                                                         |
                                                         V    5
                                                   +=====+=====+
                                                   | historic  |
                                                   +===========+

   The transition from proposed standard (1) to draft standard (2) can
   only be by action of the IAB on the recommendation of the IESG and
   only after the protocol has been proposed standard (1) for at least
   four months.

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

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

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



Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 13]

RFC 1250                     IAB Standards                   August 1991


6.  The Protocols

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

6.1.  Recent Changes

6.1.1.  New RFCs:

      1252 - OSPF Version 2 MIB

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1251 - Who's Who in the Internet

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

      1250 - This memo.

      1249 - DIXIE Protocol Specification

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

      1248 - OSPF Version 2 MIB

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1247 - OSPF Version 2

             A Draft Standard protocol.

      1246 - Experience with the OSPF Protocol

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

      1245 - OSPF Protocol Analysis

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

      1244 - Site Security Handbook

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




Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 14]

RFC 1250                     IAB Standards                   August 1991


      1243 - AppleTalk Management Information Base

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1242 - Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnection
             Devices

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

      1241 - A Scheme for an Internet Encapsulation Protocol: Version 1

             This is a new Experimental protocol.

      1240 - OSI Connectionless Transport Services
             on top of UDP - Version: 1

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1239 - Reassignment of Experimental MIBs to Standard MIBs

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1238 - CLNS MIB - for use with Connectionless Network
             Protocol (ISO 8473) and End System to Intermediate
             System (ISO 9542)

             This is a new Experimental protocol.

      1237 - Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation in the Internet

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1236 - IP to X.121 Address Mapping for DDN

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

      1235 - The Coherent File Distribution Protocol

             This is a new Experimental protocol.

      1234 - Tunneling IPX Traffic through IP Networks

             A Proposed Standard protocol.






Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 15]

RFC 1250                     IAB Standards                   August 1991


      1233 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the DS3 Interface Type

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1232 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the DS1 Interface Type

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1231 - IEEE 802.5 Token Ring MIB

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1230 - IEEE 802.4 Token Bus MIB

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1229 - Extensions to the Generic-Interface MIB

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1228 - SNMP-DPI - Simple Network Management Protocol Distributed
             Program Interface

             This is a new Experimental protocol.

      1227 - SNMP MUX Protocol and MIB

             This is a new Experimental protocol.

      1226 - Internet Protocol Encapsulation of AX.25 Frames

             This is a new Experimental protocol.

      1225 - Post Office Protocol - Version 3

             A Draft Standard protocol.

      1224 - Techniques for Managing Asynchronously Generated Alerts

             This is a new Experimental protocol.

      1223 - OSI CLNS and LLC1 Protocols on Network Systems HYPERchannel

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






Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 16]

RFC 1250                     IAB Standards                   August 1991


      1222 - Advancing the NSFNET Routing Architecture

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

      1221 - Host Access Protocol (HAP) Specification - Version 2

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

      1220 - Point-to-Point Protocol Extensions for Bridging

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1219 - On the Assignment of Subnet Numbers

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


6.1.2.  Other Changes:

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

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

             Advanced to Standard protocol.

      1212 - Concise MIB Definitions

             Advanced to Draft Standard protocol.

      Section 6.6 on Telnet Options has been added.
















Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 17]

RFC 1250                     IAB Standards                   August 1991


6.2.  Standard Protocols

Protocol   Name                                      Status         RFC
========   =====================================     ============= =====
--------   Assigned Numbers                          Required      1060
--------   Gateway Requirements                      Required      1009
--------   Host Requirements - Communications        Required      1122
--------   Host Requirements - Applications          Required      1123
IP         Internet Protocol                         Required       791
            as amended by:
--------     IP Subnet Extension                     Required       950
--------     IP Broadcast Datagrams                  Required       919
--------     IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets     Required       922
ICMP       Internet Control Message Protocol         Required       792
IGMP       Internet Group Multicast Protocol         Recommended   1112
UDP        User Datagram Protocol                    Recommended    768
TCP        Transmission Control Protocol             Recommended    793
SMI        Structure of Management Information       Recommended   1155
MIB-I      Management Information Base               Recommended   1156
MIB-II     Management Information Base-II            Recommended   1213*
SNMP       Simple Network Management Protocol        Recommended   1157
DOMAIN     Domain Name System                     Recommended 1034,1035
TELNET     Telnet Protocol                           Recommended    854
FTP        File Transfer Protocol                    Recommended    959
SMTP       Simple Mail Transfer Protocol             Recommended    821
MAIL       Format of Electronic Mail Messages        Recommended    822
DNS-MX     Mail Routing and the Domain System        Recommended    974
CONTENT    Content Type Header Field                 Recommended   1049
EGP        Exterior Gateway Protocol                 Recommended    904
ECHO       Echo Protocol                             Recommended    862
NTP        Network Time Protocol                     Recommended   1119
NETBIOS    NetBIOS Service Protocols                 Elective 1001,1002
DISCARD    Discard Protocol                          Elective       863
CHARGEN    Character Generator Protocol              Elective       864
QUOTE      Quote of the Day Protocol                 Elective       865
USERS      Active Users Protocol                     Elective       866
DAYTIME    Daytime Protocol                          Elective       867
TIME       Time Server Protocol                      Elective       868

Applicability Statements:

   IGMP -- The Internet Activities Board intends to move towards general
   adoption of IP multicasting, as a more efficient solution than
   broadcasting for many applications.  The host interface has been
   standardized in RFC-1112; however, multicast-routing gateways are in
   the experimental stage and are not widely available.  An Internet
   host should support all of RFC-1112, except for the IGMP protocol
   itself which is optional; see RFC-1122 for more details.  Even



Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 18]

RFC 1250                     IAB Standards                   August 1991


   without IGMP, implementation of RFC-1112 will provide an important
   advance: IP-layer access to local network multicast addressing.  It
   is expected that IGMP will become recommended for all hosts and
   gateways at some future date.

   SMI, MIB-I, MIB-II SNMP -- The Internet Activities Board recommends
   that all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable.  At the
   current time, this implies implementation of the Internet MIB-I
   (RFC-1156), the extensions in MIB-II (RFC-1213), and at least the
   recommended management protocol SNMP (RFC-1157).

6.3.  Network-Specific Standard Protocols

Protocol   Name                                     Status          RFC
========   =====================================    ============== =====
ARP        Address Resolution Protocol              Elective        826
RARP       A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol    Elective        903
IP-ARPA    Internet Protocol on ARPANET             Elective   BBN 1822
IP-WB      Internet Protocol on Wideband Network    Elective        907
IP-X25     Internet Protocol on X.25 Networks       Elective        877
IP-E       Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks   Elective        894
IP-EE      Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets  Elective        895
IP-IEEE    Internet Protocol on IEEE 802            Elective       1042
IP-DC      Internet Protocol on DC Networks         Elective        891
IP-HC      Internet Protocol on Hyperchannel        Elective       1044
IP-ARC     Internet Protocol on ARCNET              Elective       1051
IP-SLIP    Transmission of IP over Serial Lines     Elective       1055
IP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS          Elective       1088
IP-FDDI    Transmission of IP over FDDI             Elective       1188
IP-IPX     Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks  Elective       1132

Applicability Statements:

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










Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 19]

RFC 1250                     IAB Standards                   August 1991


6.4.  Draft Standard Protocols

Protocol   Name                                     Status          RFC
========   =====================================    ============== =====
OSPF2      Open Shortest Path First Routing V2      Elective       1247*
POP3       Post Office Protocol, Version 3          Elective       1225*
Concise-MIB Concise MIB Definitions                 Elective       1212*
FINGER     Finger Protocol                          Elective       1196
IP-FDDI    Internet Protocol on FDDI Networks       Elective       1188
TOPT-LINE  Telnet Linemode Option                   Elective       1184
PPP        Point to Point Protocol                  Elective       1171
--------   Mail Privacy: Procedures                 Elective       1113
--------   Mail Privacy: Key Management             Elective       1114
--------   Mail Privacy: Algorithms                 Elective       1115
BOOTP      Bootstrap Protocol                      Recommended 951,1084
RIP        Routing Information Protocol             Elective       1058
TP-TCP     ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP  Elective       1006
NICNAME    WhoIs Protocol                           Elective        954
TFTP       Trivial File Transfer Protocol           Elective        783

Applicability Statements:

   RIP -- The Routing Information Protocol (RIP) is widely implemented
   and used in the Internet.  However, both implementors and users
   should be aware that RIP has some serious technical limitations as a
   routing protocol.  The IETF is currently developing several
   candidates for a new standard "open" routing protocol with better
   properties than RIP.  The IAB urges the Internet community to track
   these developments, and to implement the new protocol when it is
   standardized; improved Internet service will result for many users.

   TP-TCP -- As OSI protocols become more widely implemented and used,
   there will be an increasing need to support interoperation with the
   TCP/IP protocols.  The Internet Engineering Task Force is formulating
   strategies for interoperation.  RFC-1006 provides one interoperation
   mode, in which TCP/IP is used to emulate TP0 in order to support OSI
   applications.  Hosts that wish to run OSI connection-oriented
   applications in this mode should use the procedure described in RFC-
   1006.  In the future, the IAB expects that a major portion of the
   Internet will support both TCP/IP and OSI (inter-)network protocols
   in parallel, and it will then be possible to run OSI applications
   across the Internet using full OSI protocol "stacks".

   PPP -- Point to Point Protocol is a method of sending IP over serial
   lines, which are a type of physical network.  It is anticipated that
   PPP will be advanced to the network-specific standard protocol state
   in the future.




Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 20]

RFC 1250                     IAB Standards                   August 1991


6.5.  Proposed Standard Protocols

Protocol   Name                                     Status          RFC
========   =====================================    ============== =====
OSPF-MIB   OSPF Version 2 MIB                       Elective  1248,1252*
AT-MIB     Appletalk MIB                            Elective       1243*
OSI-UDP    OSI TS on UDP                            Elective       1240*
STD-MIBs   Reassignment of Exp MIBs to Std MIBs     Elective       1239*
OSI-NSAP   Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation       Elective       1237*
IPX-IP     Tunneling IPX Traffic through IP Nets    Elective       1234*
DS3-MIB    DS3 Interface Objects                    Elective       1233*
DS1-MIB    DS1 Interface Objects                    Elective       1232*
802.5-MIB  IEEE 802.5 Token Ring MIB                Elective       1231*
802.4-MIP  IEEE 802.4 Token Bus MIB                 Elective       1230*
GINT-MIB   Extensions to the Generic-Interface MIB  Elective       1229*
PPP-EXT    PPP Extensions for Bridging              Elective       1220*
OIM-MIB-II OSI Internet Management: MIB-II          Elective       1214
IP-SMDS    IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service       Elective       1209
IP-ARCNET  Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Nets Elective       1201
IS-IS      OSI IS-IS for TCP/IP Dual Environments   Elective       1195
IP-MTU     Path MTU Discovery                       Elective       1191
CMOT       Common Management Information Services   Elective       1189
           and Protocol over TCP/IP
PPP-INIT   PPP Initial Configuration Options        Elective       1172
BGP        Border Gateway Protocol                  Elective  1163,1164
IP-CMPRS   Compressing TCP/IP Headers               Elective       1144
ISO-TS-ECHO Echo for ISO-8473                       Elective       1139
SUN-NFS    Network File System Protocol             Elective       1094
SUN-RPC    Remote Procedure Call Protocol           Elective       1057
PCMAIL     Pcmail Transport Protocol                Elective       1056
NFILE      A File Access Protocol                   Elective       1037
-------    Mapping between X.400(84) and RFC-822    Elective   987,1026
NNTP       Network News Transfer Protocol           Elective        977
HOSTNAME   HOSTNAME Protocol                        Elective        953
SFTP       Simple File Transfer Protocol            Elective        913
RLP        Resource Location Protocol               Elective        887
SUPDUP     SUPDUP Protocol                          Elective        734

Applicability Statements:

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







Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 21]

RFC 1250                     IAB Standards                   August 1991


6.6.  Telnet Options

For convenience all the Telnet Options are collected here with both
their state and status.

Protocol   Name                           Number    State   Status  RFC
========   =====================================    ============== =====
TOPT-BIN   Binary Transmission                 0    Std     Rec     856*
TOPT-ECHO  Echo                                1    Std     Rec     857*
TOPT-RECN  Reconnection                        2    Prop    Ele     ...*
TOPT-SUPP  Suppress Go Ahead                   3    Std     Rec     858*
TOPT-APRX  Approx Message Size Negotiation     4    Prop    Ele     ...*
TOPT-STAT  Status                              5    Std     Rec     859*
TOPT-TIM   Timing Mark                         6    Std     Rec     860*
TOPT-REM   Remote Controlled Trans and Echo    7    Prop    Ele     726*
TOPT-OLW   Output Line Width                   8    Prop    Ele     ...*
TOPT-OPS   Output Page Size                    9    Prop    Ele     ...*
TOPT-OCRD  Output Carriage-Return Disposition 10    Prop    Ele     652*
TOPT-OHT   Output Horizontal Tabstops         11    Prop    Ele     653*
TOPT-OHTD  Output Horizontal Tab Disposition  12    Prop    Ele     654*
TOPT-OFD   Output Formfeed Disposition        13    Prop    Ele     655*
TOPT-OVT   Output Vertical Tabstops           14    Prop    Ele     656*
TOPT-OVTD  Output Vertical Tab Disposition    15    Prop    Ele     657*
TOPT-OLD   Output Linefeed Disposition        16    Prop    Ele     658*
TOPT-EXT   Extended ASCII                     17    Prop    Ele     698*
TOPT-LOGO  Logout                             18    Prop    Ele     727*
TOPT-BYTE  Byte Macro                         19    Prop    Ele     735*
TOPT-DATA  Data Entry Terminal                20    Prop    Ele    1043*
TOPT-SUP   SUPDUP                             21    Prop    Ele     734*
TOPT-SUPO  SUPDUP Output                      22    Prop    Ele     749*
TOPT-SNDL  Send Location                      23    Prop    Ele     779*
TOPT-TERM  Terminal Type                      24    Prop    Ele     930*
TOPT-EOR   End of Record                      25    Prop    Ele     885*
TOPT-TACACS  TACACS User Identification       26    Prop    Ele     927*
TOPT-OM    Output Marking                     27    Prop    Ele     933*
TOPT-TLN   Terminal Location Number           28    Prop    Ele     946*
TOPT-3270  Telnet 3270 Regime                 29    Prop    Ele    1041*
TOPT-X.3   X.3 PAD                            30    Prop    Ele    1053*
TOPT-NAWS  Negotiate About Window Size        31    Prop    Ele    1073*
TOPT-TS    Terminal Speed                     32    Prop    Ele    1079*
TOPT-RFC   Remote Flow Control                33    Prop    Ele    1080*
TOPT-LINE  Linemode                           34    Draft   Ele    1184*
TOPT-XDL   X Display Location                 35    Prop    Ele    1096*
TOPT-EXTOP  Extended-Options-List            255    Std     Rec     861*







Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 22]

RFC 1250                     IAB Standards                   August 1991


6.7.  Experimental Protocols

Protocol   Name                                     Status          RFC
========   =====================================    ============== =====
IN-ENCAP   Internet Encapsulation Protocol          Limited Use    1241*
CLNS-MIB   CLNS-MIB                                 Limited Use    1238*
CFDP       Coherent File Distribution Protocol      Limited Use    1235*
SNMP-DPI   SNMP Distributed Program Interface       Limited Use    1228*
SNMP-MUX   SNMP MUX Protocol and MIB                Limited Use    1227*
IP-AX25    IP Encapsulation of AX.25 Frames         Limited Use    1226*
ALERTS     Managing Asynchronously Generated Alerts Limited Use    1224*
MPP        Message Posting Protocol                 Limited Use    1204
ST-II      Stream Protocol                          Limited Use    1190
SNMP-BULK  Bulk Table Retrieval with the SNMP       Limited Use    1187
DNS-RR     New DNS RR Definitions                   Limited Use    1183
NTP-OSI    NTP over OSI Remote Operations           Limited Use    1165
MSP        Message Send Protocol                    Limited Use    1159
EHF-MAIL   Encoding Header Field for Mail           Elective       1154
DMF-MAIL   Digest Message Format for Mail           Elective       1153
RDP        Reliable Data Protocol                  Limited Use 908,1151
--------   Mapping between X.400(88) and RFC-822    Elective       1148
TCP-ACO    TCP Alternate Checksum Option           Not Recommended 1146
--------   Mapping full 822 to Restricted 822       Elective       1137
IP-DVMRP   IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing    Not Recommended 1075
TCP-LDP    TCP Extensions for Long Delay Paths      Limited Use    1072
IMAP2      Interactive Mail Access Protocol       Limited Use 1176,1064
IMAP3      Interactive Mail Access Protocol         Limited Use    1203
VMTP       Versatile Message Transaction Protocol   Elective       1045
COOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme                   Not Recommended 1004
NETBLT     Bulk Data Transfer Protocol              Not Recommended 998
IRTP       Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol   Not Recommended 938
AUTH       Authentication Service                   Not Recommended 931
LDP        Loader Debugger Protocol                 Not Recommended 909
NVP-II     Network Voice Protocol                  Limited Use ISI-memo
PVP        Packet Video Protocol                   Limited Use ISI-memo


6.8.  Informational Protocols

Protocol   Name                                    Status           RFC
=======    ====================================    =============== =====
DIXIE      DIXIE Protocol Specification            Limited Use     1249*
IP-X.121   IP to X.121 Address Mapping for DDN     Limited Use     1236*
OSI-HYPER  OSI and LLC1 on HYPERchannel            Limited Use     1223*
HAP2       Host Access Protocol                    Limited Use     1221*
SUBNETASGN On the Assignment of Subnet Numbers     Limited Use     1219*
SNMP-TRAPS Defining Traps for use with SNMP        Limited Use     1215
DAS        Directory Assistance Service            Limited Use     1202



Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 23]

RFC 1250                     IAB Standards                   August 1991


MD4        MD4 Message Digest Algorithm            Limited Use     1186
LPDP       Line Printer Daemon Protocol            Limited Use     1179

6.9.  Historic Protocols

Protocol   Name                                     Status          RFC
=======    =====================================    ============== =====
SGMP       Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol      Not Recommended 1028
HEMS       High Level Entity Management Protocol   Not Recommended 1021
STATSRV    Statistics Server                        Not Recommended 996
POP2       Post Office Protocol, Version 2          Not Recommended 937
RATP       Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol  Not Recommended 916
HFEP       Host - Front End Protocol                Not Recommended 929*
THINWIRE   Thinwire Protocol                        Not Recommended 914
HMP        Host Monitoring Protocol                 Not Recommended 869
GGP        Gateway Gateway Protocol                 Not Recommended 823
RTELNET    Remote Telnet Service                    Not Recommended 818
CLOCK      DCNET Time Server Protocol               Not Recommended 778
MPM        Internet Message Protocol                Not Recommended 759
NETRJS     Remote Job Service                       Not Recommended 740
NETED      Network Standard Text Editor             Not Recommended 569
RJE        Remote Job Entry                         Not Recommended 407
XNET       Cross Net Debugger                   Not Recommended IEN-158
NAMESERVER Host Name Server Protocol            Not Recommended IEN-116
MUX        Multiplexing Protocol                 Not Recommended IEN-90
GRAPHICS   Graphics Protocol                  Not Recommended NIC-24308

7.  Contacts

7.1.  IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts

   7.1.1.  Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact

   Please send your comments about this list of protocols and especially
   about the Draft Standard Protocols to the Internet Activities Board
   care of Bob Braden, IAB Executive Director.

      Contacts:

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

         1-213-822-1511

         Braden@ISI.EDU



Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 24]

RFC 1250                     IAB Standards                   August 1991


         Vinton G. Cerf
         Chair of the IAB
         Corporation for National Research Initiatives
         1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
         Reston, VA 22091

         1-703-620-8990

         VCerf@NRI.RESTON.VA.US

   7.1.2.  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact

      Contacts:

         Phill Gross
         Chair of the IETF
         Advanced Network and Services
         100 Clearbrook Road
         Elmsford, NY  10523

         1-914-789-5300

         PGross@NRI.RESTON.VA.US

         Greg Vaudreuil
         IESG Secretary
         Corporation for National Research Initiatives
         1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
         Reston, VA 22091

         1-703-620-8990

         gvaudre@NRI.RESTON.VA.US

   7.1.3.  Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact

      Contact:

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

         1-617-253-6003

         ddc@LCS.MIT.EDU



Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 25]

RFC 1250                     IAB Standards                   August 1991


7.2.  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Contact

      Contact:

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

         1-213-822-1511

         IANA@ISI.EDU

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

   Please refer to the documents "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1060) and
   "Official Internet Protocols" (RFC-1011) for further information
   about the status of protocol documents.  There are two documents that
   summarize the requirements for host and gateways in the Internet,
   "Host Requirements" (RFC-1122 and RFC-1123) and "Gateway
   Requirements" (RFC-1009).

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

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





















Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 26]

RFC 1250                     IAB Standards                   August 1991


7.3.  Request for Comments Editor Contact

      Contact:

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

         1-213-822-1511

         Postel@ISI.EDU

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

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

      Contact:

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

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

         NIC@NIC.DDN.MIL

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

   RFCs can be obtained via FTP from NISC.SRI.COM, with the pathname
   "rfc/rfcnnnn.txt" where "nnnn" refers to the number of the RFC.  A
   list of all RFCs may be obtained by copying the file "rfc/rfc-
   index.txt".  Log in with FTP username "anonymous" and password
   "guest".

   The NIC also provides an automatic mail service for those sites which
   cannot use FTP.  Address the request to MAIL-SERVER@NISC.SRI.COM and



Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 27]

RFC 1250                     IAB Standards                   August 1991


   in the body of the message indicate the file name, as in "send
   rfc:rfcnnnn.txt".

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

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

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

7.5.  Other Sources for Requests for Comments

   Information about other sources for RFCs and the procedures for
   copying RFCs form those sources may be found in the file "in-
   notes/rfc-retrieval.txt" on the host VENERA.ISI.EDU.

8.  Security Considerations

   Security issues are not addressed in this memo.

9.  Author's Address

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

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

   Email: Postel@ISI.EDU

















Internet Activities Board                                      [Page 28]
