RFC1140 日本語訳
1140 IAB official protocol standards. Defense Advanced ResearchProjects Agency, Internet Activities Board. May 1990. (Format: TXT=60501 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1130) (Obsoleted by RFC1200) (Status: HISTORIC)
プログラムでの自動翻訳です。
RFC一覧
英語原文
Network Working Group Internet Activities Board
Request for Comments: 1140 J. Postel, Editor
Obsoletes: RFCs 1130, May 1990
1100, 1083
委員会がコメントのために要求するワーキンググループインターネット活動をネットワークでつないでください: 1140 J.ポステル、エディタは以下を時代遅れにします。 RFCs1130、5月1990 1100、1083
IAB OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS
IABの公式のプロトコル標準
Status of this Memo
このMemoの状態
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.
このメモはインターネットActivities Board(IAB)によって決定されるようにインターネットで使用されるプロトコルの標準化の状態について説明します。 このメモの分配は無制限です。
Table of Contents
目次
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. The Standardization Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. The Request for Comments Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Other Reference Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Assigned Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Annotated Internet Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3. Gateway Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4. Host Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.5. The MIL-STD Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Explanation of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. Definitions of Protocol State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1.1. Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1.4. Experimental Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1.5. Historic Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2.1. Required Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 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 6.2. Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
序論. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1。 標準化過程. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2。 コメントを求める要求は.5 3を記録します。 他の参照は.63.1を記録します。 規定番号. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2。 インターネットプロトコル. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3を注釈しました。 ゲートウェイ要件. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4。 要件. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.5を接待してください。 軍規格は.7 4を記録します。 用語. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1に関する説明。 プロトコル州. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1の.1の定義。 標準プロトコル. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1.2。 標準プロトコル. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1.3を作成してください。 提案された標準プロトコル. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1.4。 実験プロトコル. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1.5。 歴史的なプロトコル. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2。 プロトコル状態. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2.1の定義。 必要なプロトコル. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2.2。 お勧めのプロトコル. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2.3。 選挙のプロトコル. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2.4。 株式会社使用プロトコル. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2.5。 お勧めのプロトコル. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5でない。 規格は.105.1を追跡します。 RFC処理決定表. . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2。 規格はダイヤグラム. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6を追跡します。 プロトコル. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.1。 最近の変化. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.1.1。 新しいRFCs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.1.2。 他の変化. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.2。 標準プロトコル. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Internet Activities Board [Page 1] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
インターネット活動はIAB規格1990年5月にRFC1140に入ります[1ページ]。
6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 19 6.4. Draft Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.5. Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6.6. Experimental Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6.7. Historic Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7. Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7.1.1. Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact . . . . . . . 23 7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . 23 7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . . 24 7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . . 24 7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact . . . . . . . . . . 25 7.4. Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7.5. Other Sources for Requests for Comments . . . . . . . . 26 7.5.1. NSF Network Service Center (NNSC) . . . . . . . . . . 26 7.5.2. NSF Network Information Service (NIS) . . . . . . . . 26 7.5.3. CSNET Coordination and Information Center (CIC) . . . 26 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 9. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.3. ネットワーク特有の標準プロトコル. . . . . . . . . . 19 6.4。 標準プロトコル. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.5を作成してください。 提案された標準プロトコル. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6.6。 実験プロトコル. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6.7。 歴史的なプロトコル. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7。 接触. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7.1。 IAB、IETF、およびIRTF接触. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7.1.1。 インターネット活動は(IAB)接触. . . . . . . 23 7.1.2に入ります。 インターネット・エンジニアリング・タスク・フォース(IETF)の接触. . . . 23 7.1.3。 インターネット研究課題力の(IETF)は.247.2に連絡します。 インターネットは数の権威(IANA)に接触. . . 24 7.3を割り当てました。 コメントには、エディタ接触. . . . . . . . . . 25 7.4を要求してください。 インフォメーション・センターの接触. . . . . . . . . . . 25 7.5をネットワークでつないでください。 コメント. . . . . . . . 26 7.5.1を求める要求のための他のソース。 NSFはサービスセンター(NNSC). . . . . . . . . . 26 7.5.2をネットワークでつなぎます。 NSFは情報サービス(NIS). . . . . . . . 26 7.5.3をネットワークでつなぎます。 CSNETコーディネートとインフォメーション・センター(CIC。). . . 26 8 セキュリティ問題. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 9。 作者のアドレス. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Introduction
序論
Discussion of the standardization process and the RFC document series is presented first, then the explanation of the terms is presented, the lists of protocols in each stage of standardization follows and finally come pointers to references and contacts for further information.
標準化過程とRFCドキュメントシリーズの議論は最初に提示されます、次に、用語に関する説明が提示されます、とそれぞれのステージの標準化におけるプロトコルのリストが続きます、そして、最終的に、詳細に関する参照と接触へのポインタは来ます。
This memo is issued quarterly, please be sure the copy you are reading is dated within the last three months. 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 31-Aug-90.
年4回でこのメモを発行して、あなたが読んでいるコピーがここ3カ月以内に日付を入れられるのを確認してください。 Networkインフォメーション・センターかインターネットAssigned民数記Authorityから現在のコピーを入手するかもしれません(このメモの端で問い合わせ先を見てください)。 1990年8月31日以降、この版を使用しないでください。
See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes.
最近の変化の記述に関してセクション6.1を見てください。
1. The Standardization Process
1. 標準化過程
The Internet Activities Board maintains this list of documents that define standards for the Internet protocol suite (see RFC-1120 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 the Internet protocols are increasingly in general commercial use.
インターネットActivities Boardはインターネット・プロトコル群の規格を定義するドキュメントのこのリストを維持します(役割に関する説明と、IABの組織とその補助のグループ、インターネット・エンジニアリング・タスク・フォース(IETF)、およびインターネットResearch Task Force(IRTF)にRFC-1120を見てください)。 IABはインターネットプロトコルの発展を調整するという目標をこれらの規格に提供します。 ますます一般に、インターネットプロトコルがなったようにこのコーディネーションはかなり重要になりました。商業用途。
The majority of Internet protocol development and standardization
インターネットプロトコル開発と標準化の大部分
Internet Activities Board [Page 2] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
インターネット活動はIAB規格1990年5月にRFC1140に入ります[2ページ]。
activity takes place in the working groups of the Internet Engineering Task Force.
活動はインターネット・エンジニアリング・タスク・フォースのワーキンググループで行われます。
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.
インターネットで規格になることになっているプロトコルは増加する量の精査と実験的なテストにかかわる一連の州(提案された標準、草稿規格、および規格)を通ります。 各ステップでは、IETFのインターネットEngineering Steering Group(IESG)はプロトコルの振興のために勧告しなければなりません、そして、IABはそれを批准しなければなりません。 推薦を批准しないなら、さらなる仕事のためにプロトコルをIETFへ返送します。
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.
インターネットコミュニティが標準化提案に考えて、反応する時間を許容するために、IABは草稿規格と6カ月提案された標準に達することができる前の草稿規格を規格に促進できる前の最低4カ月の遅れを課します。
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).
少なくとも2つの独立している実現(そして、IESGの推薦)なしで規格を作成するために提案された標準を全く促進できないのは、一般的なIAB習慣です。 一般に、草稿規格から規格への販売促進は2つ以上の実現(そして、IESGの推薦)の運用経験と示された相互運用性を必要とします。
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.
適切な決定に関してプロトコルに関して不確実性がある場合では、IABは専門家から成る特別な再調査委員会を明白な動作を推薦する目的があるIETF、IRTF、およびIABからIABまで召集するかもしれません。
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.
最後の標準化の候補としてプロトコルをマークするので(それは「標準化過程」にプロトコルを置きます)、提案された標準へのプロトコルの振興は重要なステップです。 規格を作成する前進は主要な反論が高くしているか、または欠点が発見されない場合プロトコルが6カ月後に規格に進められそうであると共同体に警告する主要なステップです。
Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are otherwise unused. Such protocols are still documented in this memorandum with the designation "historic".
いくつかのプロトコルが、より良いものによって取って代わられたか、またはそうでなければ、未使用です。 名称が「歴史的に」そのようなプロトコルはまだこのメモに記録されています。
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.
IABが、早めのプロトコル研究開発仕事の結果を記録するのが役に立つと信じているので、いくつかのRFCsがまだ実験状態であるプロトコルを記録します。 プロトコルはこのメモで「実験的に」指定されます。 彼らは便利としてこのレポートで彼らの標準化に関する証拠ではなく、共同体に見えます。
In addition to the working groups of the IETF, protocol development and experimentation may take place as a result of the work of the
IETFのワーキンググループ、仕事の結果、開発と実験が行われるかもしれないプロトコルに加えて
Internet Activities Board [Page 3] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
インターネット活動はIAB規格1990年5月にRFC1140に入ります[3ページ]。
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.
インターネットResearch Task Forceのグループ、またはインターネットプロトコル開発に興味を持っている他の個人の仕事について研究してください。 IABはRFCシリーズにおけるそのような実験研究のドキュメンテーションを奨励しますが、IESGが提案された標準状態にプロトコルを唱えるという推薦状をして、IABがこのステップを承認するまで、標準化のための道の上にこの仕事のどれかがあると考えられません。
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.
いくつかのプロトコルがIESGとIABの承認なしで広範囲の実現を実現しました。 例えば、それらは、IESGによって推薦もされませんし、IABによって批准されてもいませんが、いくつかの業者プロトコルがインターネットコミュニティに非常に重要になりました。 しかしながら、IABは、IAB標準化過程が相互運用性を最大にすること(両立しないプロトコル要件が起こるのを防ぐために)にプロトコル群の発展に使用されることを強く勧めます。 IABは「規格」という用語、「草稿規格」、およびどんなRFCの「提案された標準」の使用かインターネットプロトコルの他の公表もIABが承認したそれらのプロトコルだけに控えます。
In addition to a state (like "proposed standard") a protocol is also assigned a status, or requirement level. A protocol can be required, meaning that all systems in the Internet must implement it. For example, the Internet Protocol (IP) is required. A protocol may be recommended, meaning that systems should implement this protocol. A protocol may be elective, meaning that systems may implement this protocol; that is, if (and only if) the functionality of this protocol is needed or useful for a system it must use this protocol to provide the functionality. A protocol may be termed limited use or even not recommended if it is not intended to be generally implemented; for example, experimental or historic protocols.
また、状態(「提案された標準」のような)に加えて、状態、または要件レベルがプロトコルに割り当てられます。 インターネットのすべてのシステムがそれを実行しなければならないことを意味して、プロトコルを必要とすることができます。 例えば、インターネットプロトコル(IP)が必要です。 システムがこのプロトコルを実行するはずであることを意味して、プロトコルはお勧めであるかもしれません。 システムがこのプロトコルを実行するかもしれないことを意味して、プロトコルは選挙であるかもしれません。 すなわち、(唯一、)、このプロトコルの機能性は、それが機能性を提供するのにこのプロトコルを使用しなければならないシステムに必要であるか、または役に立ちます。 一般に、実行されることを意図しないなら、プロトコルは、限られた使用と呼ばないか、推薦さえできません。 例えば、実験的であるか歴史的なプロトコル。
When a protocol is on the standards track, that is in the proposed standard, draft standard, or standard state (see Section 5), the status is the current status. However, the IAB will also endeavor to indicate the eventual status this protocol will have when the standardization is completed.
標準化過程の上にプロトコルがあるとき、それは提案された標準、草稿規格、または標準の状態にあって(セクション5を見てください)、状態は現在の状態です。 しかしながら、また、IABは、標準化が終了しているとき、このプロトコルが持っている最後の状態を示すよう努力するでしょう。
The IAB realizes that a one word label is not sufficient to characterize the implementation requirements for a protocol in all situations. In many cases, an additional paragraph about the status will be provided, and in some cases reference will be made to separate requirements documents.
IABは、1個の単語ラベルがすべての状況におけるプロトコルのための実現要件を特徴付けるために十分でないとわかります。 多くの場合、状態に関する追加パラグラフは、前提とされて、何らかのケース参照で要件ドキュメントを切り離さされるでしょう。
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, multi-user hosts. It is not necessary for a gateway to implement TCP or the protocols that
わずかなプロトコルしか、すべてのシステムで実行されるのに必要ではありません。そのようなさまざまな可能なシステムがあるので、これはそうです。 例えば、ゲートウェイ、端末のサーバ、ワークステーション、マルチユーザホスト。 ゲートウェイがTCPかプロトコルを実行するのは必要でない、それ
Internet Activities Board [Page 4] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
インターネット活動はIAB規格1990年5月にRFC1140に入ります[4ページ]。
use TCP (though it may be useful). It is expected that general purpose hosts will implement at least IP (including ICMP and IGMP), TCP and UDP, Telnet, FTP, NTP, SMTP, Mail, and the Domain Name System (DNS).
TCPを使用してください(それは役に立つかもしれませんが)。 汎用のホストが少なくともIP(ICMPとIGMPを含んでいる)、TCP、UDP、Telnet、FTP、NTP、SMTP、メール、およびドメインネームシステム(DNS)を実行すると予想されます。
2. The Request for Comments Documents
2. コメントドキュメントに関する要求
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.
Comments(または、RFCs)のためのRequestと呼ばれるドキュメントはすなわち、「ネットワークワーキンググループ」、インターネット研究開発共同体の働く注意です。 このシリーズにおけるドキュメントは、コンピュータコミュニケーションに関連する本質的にはどんな話題に関してもあるかもしれなくて、ミーティングレポートから規格の仕様まで何かであるかもしれません。
Notice:
通知:
All standards are published as RFCs, but not all RFCs specify
standards.
すべてのRFCsではなく、RFCsが規格を指定するとき、すべての規格が発行されます。
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).
だれでもRFCとして公表のためのドキュメントを提出できます。 RFC Editorへの電子メールを通して差出をしなければなりません(このメモの端で問い合わせ先を見てください)。
While RFCs are not refereed publications, they do receive technical review from the task forces, individual technical experts, or the RFC Editor, as appropriate.
RFCsは仲裁された刊行物ではありませんが、彼らは特別委員会、個々の技術家、またはRFC Editorから技術審査を受け取ります、適宜。
The RFC series comprises a wide range of documents such as 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 typically request review comments from the relevant IETF working group or IRTF research group and provide those comments to the author prior to committing to publication. See Section 5.1 for more detail.
RFCシリーズは標準のインターネットプロトコルの仕様への一般的興味の情報のドキュメントなどのさまざまなドキュメントを包括します。 服従が提案された標準、草稿規格、または標準プロトコルを記録することを意図する場合では、RFC EditorはIESGとIABの両方の承認だけをもってドキュメントを発表するでしょう。 実験研究について説明するドキュメントのために、RFC Editorは関連IETFワーキンググループかIRTF研究グループからレビューコメントを通常要求して、公表に公約する前に、それらのコメントを作者に提供するでしょう。 その他の詳細に関してセクション5.1を見てください。
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 to refer to for the current specification of each protocol.
ドキュメントがいったんRFC番号が割り当てられて、発表されると、そのRFCは同じ数で改訂されるか、または決して再発行されません。 特定のRFCの最新のバージョンを持つ問題が決してありません。 しかしながら、プロトコル(File Transferプロトコル(FTP)などの)は、何回も数個の異なったRFCsに改良されて、再記録されるかもしれません。 あなたが特定のプロトコルに最新のRFCを持っていることを確かめるのは重要です。 正しいRFCをそれぞれの現在の仕様について言及する決定するのが議定書を作るので、「IABの公式のプロトコル標準」というこのメモは参照です。
The RFCs are available from the Network Information Center at SRI
RFCsはSRIのNetworkインフォメーション・センターから利用可能です。
Internet Activities Board [Page 5] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
インターネット活動はIAB規格1990年5月にRFC1140に入ります[5ページ]。
International, and a number of other sites. For more information about obtaining RFCs, see Sections 7.4 and 7.5.
他のサイトの国際とa番号。 RFCsを入手することに関する詳しい情報に関しては、セクション7.4と7.5を見てください。
3. Other Reference Documents
3. 他の参考書類
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.
プロトコル仕様と標準化の現在の状態をチェックするのにおいて興味深い他の4つの参考書類があります。 これらは、Assigned民数記と、Annotatedインターネットプロトコルと、ゲートウェイRequirementsと、Host Requirementsです。 いろいろな時間にこれらのドキュメントを改訂して、アップデートすることに注意してください。 間の違いの場合には、これらのドキュメント、最新の必須は行き渡っています。
Also, one should be aware of the MIL-STD publications on IP, TCP, Telnet, FTP, and SMTP. These are described in Section 3.5.
また、IP、TCP、Telnet、FTP、およびSMTPに関する軍規格刊行物を意識しているべきです。 これらはセクション3.5で説明されます。
3.1. Assigned Numbers
3.1. 規定番号
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.
このドキュメントは様々なプロトコルに使用されるパラメタの割り当てられた値を記載します。 例えば、IPプロトコルコードであり、TCPは数、Telnet Option Codes、ARPハードウェアタイプ、およびTerminal Type名を移植します。 民数記が割り当てられているのは、RFC-1060として発行されたごく最近でした。
Another document, Internet Numbers, lists the assigned IP network numbers, and the autonomous system numbers. Internet Numbers was most recently issued as RFC-1117.
別のドキュメント(インターネット民数記)は割り当てられたIPネットワーク・ナンバー、および自律システム番号を記載します。 ごく最近、RFC-1117としてインターネット民数記を発行しました。
3.2. Annotated Internet Protocols
3.2. 注釈されたインターネットプロトコル
This document lists the protocols and describes any known problems and ongoing experiments. This document was most recently issued as RFC-1011 under the title "Official Internet Protocols".
このドキュメントは、プロトコルを記載して、どんな既知の問題と進行中の実験についても説明します。 ごく最近、RFC-1011として「公式のインターネットプロトコル」というタイトルの下でこのドキュメントを発行しました。
3.3. Gateway Requirements
3.3. ゲートウェイ要件
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.
このドキュメントは、ゲートウェイに適用される仕様を再検討して、どんなあいまいさのための指導と明確化も供給します。 ゲートウェイRequirementsはRFC-1009です。 IETFのワーキンググループは活発に改正を準備しています。
3.4. Host Requirements
3.4. ホスト要件
This pair of documents reviews the specifications that apply to hosts and supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities. Host Requirements was recently issued as RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.
ドキュメントのこの組は、ホストに適用される仕様を再検討して、どんなあいまいさのための指導と明確化も供給します。 ホストRequirementsは最近、RFC-1122とRFC-1123として発行されました。
Internet Activities Board [Page 6] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
インターネット活動はIAB規格1990年5月にRFC1140に入ります[6ページ]。
3.5. The MIL-STD Documents
3.5. 軍規格ドキュメント
The Internet community specifications for IP (RFC-791) and TCP (RFC- 793) and the DoD MIL-STD specifications are intended to describe exactly the same protocols. Any difference in the protocols specified by these sets of documents should be reported to DCA and to the IAB. The RFCs and the MIL-STDs for IP and TCP differ in style and level of detail. It is strongly advised that the two sets of documents be used together.
IP(RFC-791)とTCP(RFC793)のためのインターネットコミュニティ仕様とDoD軍規格仕様がまさに同じプロトコルについて説明することを意図します。 これらのセットのドキュメントによって指定されたプロトコルのどんな違いもDCAと、そして、IABに報告されるべきです。 IPとTCPのためのRFCsと軍規格は詳細のスタイルとレベルにおいて異なります。 2セットのドキュメントが一緒に使用されると強く忠告されます。
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.
FTP、SMTP、およびTelnetプロトコルのためのIABとDoD軍規格仕様は本質的には同じドキュメント(RFCs765、821、854)です。 軍規格バージョンはわずかに編集されました。 FTPのための現在のインターネット仕様がRFC-959であることに注意してください。
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
インターネットプロトコル(IP)軍規格-1777通信制御プロトコル(TCP)軍規格-1778ファイル転送プロトコル(FTP)軍規格-1780シンプルメールトランスファプロトコル軍規格-1781テルネット・プロトコルとオプション(telnet)(SMTP)軍規格-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).
これらのドキュメントはNaval PublicationsとFormsセンターから利用可能です。 電話、電報、またはメールは要求を開始できます。 しかしながら、できれば、民間産業使用がDD1425を形成するのが好ましいです。 これらの5通のドキュメントが1985DDNプロトコルHandbookに含まれています(Networkインフォメーション・センターから利用可能であることで、セクション7.4を見てください)。
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)
海軍の刊行物とフォームセンター、Aveフィラデルフィア、PA 19120が電話をする3015 5801小太鼓をコード化してください: 1-215-697-3321(オーダーテープ) 1-215-697-4834(会話)
4. Explanation of Terms
4. 用語に関する説明
There are two independent categorization of protocols. The first is the STATE of standardization which is one of "standard", "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic". The second is the STATUS of this protocol which is one of "required", "recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".
プロトコルの2の独立している分類があります。 1番目は1である「実験的である」か、「歴史的な」「標準」の、そして、「草稿標準」の「提案された標準」の標準化の州です。 2番目は1である「限られた使用」の、または、「お勧めでない」「必要で」、「お勧め」の「選択科目」のこのプロトコルのSTATUSです。
The IAB notes that 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 should be consulted.
IABは、状態か要件レベルは1個の単語ラベルに描くのが難しいことに注意します。 これらの状態ラベルは指示だけと考えられるべきです、そして、さらなる記述は相談されるべきです。
When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard,
プロトコルがいつ達せられるかが規格か草稿規格を提案しました。
Internet Activities Board [Page 7] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
インターネット活動はIAB規格1990年5月にRFC1140に入ります[7ページ]。
it is labeled with a current status and when possible, the IAB also notes the status that that protocol is expected to have when it reaches the standard state.
現在の状態とまた、可能であることで、標準の状態に達するとIABがいつそのプロトコルが持っていると予想される状態に注意するかでそれはラベルされます。
At any given time a protocol is 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.
その時々で、プロトコルは以下のマトリクスのセルです。 中にセルの中に以下の割合(Xsの相対数で、示される)に関してプロトコルがありそうです。 新しいプロトコルは(提案された標準、選択科目)セル、または(実験的お勧めではなく、)のセルの中で最も始まりそうです。
S T A T U S
Req Rec Ele Lim Not
S +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Std | X | XXX | XXX | | |
T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Draft | X | X | XXX | | |
A +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Prop | | X | XXX | X | |
T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Expr | | | X | XXX | X |
E +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Hist | | | | X | XXX |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
S TはS+ではなく、T U S Req Rec Eleリムです。-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Std| X| XXX| XXX| | | T+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ 草稿| X| X| XXX| | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ 支柱| | X| XXX| X| | T+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Expr| | | X| XXX| X| E+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Hist| | | | X| XXX| +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
What is a "system"?
「システム」は何ですか?
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.
いくつかのプロトコルがゲートウェイへのホストといくつかに特定です。 いくつかのプロトコルが両方で使用されます。 以下での用語の定義はホストかゲートウェイのどちらかである「システム」(ともに)について言及するでしょう。 どのタイプのシステムが意図するかは、特定のプロトコルの文脈から明確であるはずです。
4.1. Definitions of Protocol State
4.1. プロトコル状態の定義
There are two independent categorizations of protocols. The first is the STATE of standardization, which is one of "standard", "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic".
プロトコルの2つの独立している分類があります。 1番目は「実験的である」か、「歴史的な」「標準」の、そして、「草稿標準」の「提案された標準」標準化の州です。(それは、1です)。
4.1.1. Standard Protocol
4.1.1. 標準プロトコル
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.
IABは、インターネットへの公式の標準プロトコルとこれを書き立てました。 これらは2つのグループに切り離されます: (1) 全体のインターネットに適用されるIPプロトコルと上、プロトコル。 (2) ネットワーク特有のプロトコル、一般に特定のタイプのネットワークでどうIPをするかに関する仕様。
Internet Activities Board [Page 8] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
インターネット活動はIAB規格1990年5月にRFC1140に入ります[8ページ]。
4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol
4.1.2. 標準プロトコルを作成してください。
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.
IABは、このプロトコルが可能なStandardプロトコルであると活発にみなしています。 実質的で広範囲のテストとコメントは望まれています。 コメントと試験の成績をIABに提出するべきです。 Standardプロトコルになる前に、変更がDraft Standardプロトコルで行われる可能性があります。
4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol
4.1.3. 提案された標準プロトコル
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.
これらは将来標準化のためにIABによって検討されるかもしれないプロトコル提案です。 実現といくつかのグループでテストするのは望ましいです。 プロトコル仕様の改正はありそうです。
4.1.4. Experimental Protocol
4.1.4. 実験プロトコル
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.
システムは、実験に参加していない場合実験プロトコルを実行するべきでなくて、プロトコルの開発者とのプロトコルの使用を調整しました。
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.
実験プロトコルは通常、継続中の研究プロジェクトの一部が操作上のサービス提供に関連しないで開発されたものです。 後期段階にサービスプロトコルとして提案されて、その結果、提案された標準、草稿規格、および次に、標準プロトコルになっているかもしれない間、実験的であるとしてのプロトコルの名称は、時々恐らく熟しますが、プロトコルが操作上の使用のために意図しないのを示すことになっているかもしれません。
4.1.5. Historic Protocol
4.1.5. 歴史的なプロトコル
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.
これらは後の開発でそれらが取って代わられたためか無関心のためインターネットで規格になりそうにないプロトコルです。
4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status
4.2. プロトコル状態の定義
There are two independent categorizations of protocols. The
second is the STATUS of this protocol which is one of "required",
"recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".
プロトコルの2つの独立している分類があります。 2番目は1である「限られた使用」の、または、「お勧めでない」「必要で」、「お勧め」の「選択科目」のこのプロトコルのSTATUSです。
4.2.1. Required Protocol
4.2.1. 必要なプロトコル
A system must implement the required protocols.
システムは必要なプロトコルを実行しなければなりません。
Internet Activities Board [Page 9] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
インターネット活動はIAB規格1990年5月にRFC1140に入ります[9ページ]。
4.2.2. Recommended Protocol
4.2.2. お勧めのプロトコル
A system should implement the recommended protocols.
システムはお勧めのプロトコルを実行するはずです。
4.2.3. Elective Protocol
4.2.3. 選挙のプロトコル
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.
システムは選挙のプロトコルを実行するかもしれません。 一般的な概念はあなたがこのようにするなら、あなたがちょうどこれをしなければならないということです。 いくつかの選挙のプロトコルが一般的な領域にあるかもしれません、例えば、いくつかの電子メールプロトコル、およびいくつかのルーティング・プロトコルがあります。
4.2.4. Limited Use Protocol
4.2.4. 制限されて、プロトコルを使用してください。
These protocols are for use in limited circumstances. This may be
because of their experimental state, specialized nature, limited
functionality, or historic state.
これらのプロトコルは限られた事情における使用のためのものです。 これはそれらの実験州、専門化している自然、限られた機能性、または歴史的な状態のためにそうです。
4.2.5. Not Recommended Protocol
4.2.5. お勧めのプロトコルでない
These protocols are not recommended for general use. This may be
because of their limited functionality, specialized nature, or
experimental or historic state.
これらのプロトコルは一般的使用のために推薦されません。 これはそれらの限られた機能性、専門化している自然、または実験的であるか歴史的な状態のためにそうです。
5. The Standards Track
5. 標準化過程
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.
このセクションはさらに詳細に規格としてプロトコルのラベリングと出版に関する決定をする際にRFC EditorとIABによって用いられた手順について論じます。
5.1. The RFC Processing Decision Table
5.1. RFC処理決定表
Here is the current decision table for processing submissions by RFC Editor. The processing depends on who submitted it, and the status they want it to have.
ここに、RFC Editorによる処理差出のために現在の決定表があります。 処理はだれがそれ、および彼らが、それに持って欲しい状態を提出したかによります。
Internet Activities Board [Page 10] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
インターネット活動はIAB規格1990年5月にRFC1140に入ります[10ページ]。
+==========================================================+
|++++++++++++++| S O U R C E |
+==========================================================+
| Desired | IAB | IESG | IRSG | Other |
| Status | | | or RG | |
+==========================================================+
| | | | | |
| Full or | Publish | Vote | Bogus | Bogus |
| Draft | (1) | (3) | (2) | (2) |
| Standard | | | | |
| | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| | Publish | Vote | Refer | Refer |
| Proposed | (1) | (3) | (4) | (4) |
| Standard | | | | |
| | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| | Publish | Notify | Notify | Notify |
| Experimental | (1) | (5) | (5) | (5) |
| Protocol | | | | |
| | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| Information | Publish |Discretion|Discretion|Discretion|
| or Opinion | (1) | (6) | (6) | (6) |
| Paper | | | | |
| | | | | |
+==========================================================+
+==========================================================+ |++++++++++++++| S O U R C E | +==========================================================+ | Desired | IAB | IESG | IRSG | Other | | Status | | | or RG | | +==========================================================+ | | | | | | | Full or | Publish | Vote | Bogus | Bogus | | Draft | (1) | (3) | (2) | (2) | | Standard | | | | | | | | | | | +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ | | | | | | | | Publish | Vote | Refer | Refer | | Proposed | (1) | (3) | (4) | (4) | | Standard | | | | | | | | | | | +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ | | | | | | | | Publish | Notify | Notify | Notify | | Experimental | (1) | (5) | (5) | (5) | | Protocol | | | | | | | | | | | +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ | | | | | | | Information | Publish |Discretion|Discretion|Discretion| | or Opinion | (1) | (6) | (6) | (6) | | Paper | | | | | | | | | | | +==========================================================+
(1) Publish.
(1) Publish.
(2) Bogus. Inform the source of the rules. RFCs specifying
Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IAB, only.
(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).
(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.
(4) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG. Expect to see the document again only after approval by the IESG and the IAB.
(5) Notify both the IESG and IRSG. If no protest in 1 week then
do Discretion (6), else do undefined.
(5) Notify both the IESG and IRSG. If no protest in 1 week then do Discretion (6), else do undefined.
(6) RFC Editor's discretion. The RFC Editor decides if a review
is needed and if so by whom. RFC Editor decides to publish or
(6) RFC Editor's discretion. The RFC Editor decides if a review is needed and if so by whom. RFC Editor decides to publish or
Internet Activities Board [Page 11] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
Internet Activities Board [Page 11] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
not.
not.
Of course, in all cases the RFC Editor can request or make minor changes for style, format, and presentation purposes.
Of course, in all cases the RFC Editor can request or make minor changes for style, format, and presentation purposes.
The IESG has designated Greg Vaudreuil as its agent for forwarding documents with IESG approval and for registering protest in response to notifications (5) to the RFC Editor. Documents from Area Directors or Working Group Chairs may be considered in the same way as documents from "other".
The IESG has designated Greg Vaudreuil as its agent for forwarding documents with IESG approval and for registering protest in response to notifications (5) to the RFC Editor. Documents from Area Directors or Working Group Chairs may be considered in the same way as documents from "other".
5.2. The Standards Track Diagram
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.
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.
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.
A protocol may enter the standards track only on the recommendation of the IESG and by action of the IAB; and may move from one state to another along the track only on the recommendation of the IESG and by action of the IAB. That is, it takes both the IESG and the IAB to either start a protocol on the track or to move it along.
Generally, as the protocol enters the standards track a decision is made as to the eventual STATUS (elective, recommended, or required) the protocol will have, although a somewhat less stringent current status may be assigned, and it then is placed in the the proposed standard STATE with that status. So the initial placement of a protocol is into state 1. At any time the STATUS decision may be revisited.
Generally, as the protocol enters the standards track a decision is made as to the eventual STATUS (elective, recommended, or required) the protocol will have, although a somewhat less stringent current status may be assigned, and it then is placed in the the proposed standard STATE with that status. So the initial placement of a protocol is into state 1. At any time the STATUS decision may be revisited.
Internet Activities Board [Page 12] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
Internet Activities Board [Page 12] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
|
+<----------------------------------------------+
| ^
V 0 | 4
+-----------+ +===========+
| enter |-->----------------+-------------->|experiment |
+-----------+ | +=====+=====+
| |
V 1 |
+-----------+ V
| proposed |-------------->+
+--->+-----+-----+ |
| | |
| V 2 |
+<---+-----+-----+ V
| draft std |-------------->+
+--->+-----+-----+ |
| | |
| V 3 |
+<---+=====+=====+ V
| standard |-------------->+
+=====+=====+ |
|
V 5
+=====+=====+
| historic |
+===========+
| +<----------------------------------------------+ | ^ 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 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.
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.
Occasionally, the decision may be that the protocol is not ready for standardization and will be assigned to the experimental state (4). This is off the standards track, and the protocol may be resubmitted to enter the standards track after further work. There are other paths into the experimental and historic states that do not involve IAB action.
Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus becomes historic, it may happen that a protocol on the standards track is in a sense overtaken by another protocol (or other events) and becomes historic (state 5).
Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus becomes historic, it may happen that a protocol on the standards track is in a sense overtaken by another protocol (or other events) and becomes historic (state 5).
Internet Activities Board [Page 13] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
Internet Activities Board [Page 13] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
6. The Protocols
6. The Protocols
This section lists the standards in groups by protocol state.
This section lists the standards in groups by protocol state.
6.1. Recent Changes
6.1. Recent Changes
6.1.1. New RFCs:
6.1.1. New RFCs:
1157 - Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
1157 - Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
Advanced to Recommended Standard protocol. Replaces 1098.
Advanced to Recommended Standard protocol. Replaces 1098.
1156 - Management Information Base (MIB)
1156 - Management Information Base (MIB)
Advanced to Recommended Standard protocol. Replaces 1066.
Advanced to Recommended Standard protocol. Replaces 1066.
1155 - Structure of Management Information (SMI)
1155 - Structure of Management Information (SMI)
Advanced to Recommended Standard protocol. Replaces 1065.
Advanced to Recommended Standard protocol. Replaces 1065.
1154 - Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages
1154 - Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages
This is a new Elective Experimental protocol.
This is a new Elective Experimental protocol.
1153 - Digest Message Format
1153 - Digest Message Format
This is a new Elective Experimental protocol.
This is a new Elective Experimental protocol.
1152 - Workshop Report: Internet Research Steering Group Workshop
on Very-High-Speed Networks
1152 - Workshop Report: Internet Research Steering Group Workshop on Very-High-Speed Networks
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1151 - Version 2 of the Reliable Data Protocol (RDP)
1151 - Version 2 of the Reliable Data Protocol (RDP)
This is an update to a Not-recommended Experimental
protocol.
This is an update to a Not-recommended Experimental protocol.
1150 - FYI on FYI
1150 - FYI on FYI
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1149 - A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian
Carriers
1149 - A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers
This describes an implementation technique, and does not
This describes an implementation technique, and does not
Internet Activities Board [Page 14] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
Internet Activities Board [Page 14] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
specify any level of standard.
specify any level of standard.
1148 - Mapping between X.400(88) and RFC 822
1148 - Mapping between X.400(88) and RFC 822
This is a new Elective Experimental protocol (corrects
editing errors in 1138).
This is a new Elective Experimental protocol (corrects editing errors in 1138).
1147 - FYI on a Network Management Tool Catalog
1147 - FYI on a Network Management Tool Catalog
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard.
1146 - TCP Alternative Checksum Options
1146 - TCP Alternative Checksum Options
This is a new Not-recommended Experimental protocol
(corrects editing errors in 1145).
This is a new Not-recommended Experimental protocol (corrects editing errors in 1145).
1145 - TCP Alternate Checksum Options
1145 - TCP Alternate Checksum Options
This is a new Not-recommended Experimental protocol.
This is a new Not-recommended Experimental protocol.
1144 - Compressing TCP/IP Headers for Low-Speed Serial Links
1144 - Compressing TCP/IP Headers for Low-Speed Serial Links
This is a new Elective Proposed Standard protocol.
This is a new Elective Proposed Standard protocol.
1143 - The Q Method of Implementing TELNET Option Negotiation
1143 - The Q Method of Implementing TELNET Option Negotiation
This describes an implementation technique.
This describes an implementation technique.
1142 - < not issued yet >
1142 - < not issued yet >
1141 - Incremental Updating of the Internet Checksum
1141 - Incremental Updating of the Internet Checksum
This describes an implementation technique.
This describes an implementation technique.
1140 - IAB Official Protocol Standards
1140 - IAB Official Protocol Standards
This memo.
This memo.
1139 - An Echo Function for ISO 8473
1139 - An Echo Function for ISO 8473
This is a new Elective Proposed Standard protocol.
This is a new Elective Proposed Standard protocol.
1138 - Mapping between X.400(88) and RFC 822
1138 - Mapping between X.400(88) and RFC 822
This is a new Elective Experimental protocol (replaced by
1148).
This is a new Elective Experimental protocol (replaced by 1148).
Internet Activities Board [Page 15] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
Internet Activities Board [Page 15] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
1137 - Mapping Between Full RFC 822 and RFC 822 with Restricted
Encoding
1137 - Mapping Between Full RFC 822 and RFC 822 with Restricted Encoding
This is a new Elective Experimental protocol.
This is a new Elective Experimental protocol.
1136 - Administrative Domains and Routing Domains: A Model for
Routing in the Internet
1136 - Administrative Domains and Routing Domains: A Model for Routing in the Internet
This is a discussion document and does not specify any
level of standard.
This is a discussion document and does not specify any level of standard.
1135 - The Helminthiasis of the Internet
1135 - The Helminthiasis of the Internet
This is a discussion document and does not specify any
level of standard.
This is a discussion document and does not specify any level of standard.
1134 - The Point-to-Point Protocol: A Proposal for Multi-Protocol
Transmission of Datagrams Over Point-to-Point Links
1134 - The Point-to-Point Protocol: A Proposal for Multi-Protocol Transmission of Datagrams Over Point-to-Point Links
This is a new Elective Proposed Standard protocol.
This is a new Elective Proposed Standard protocol.
1133 - Routing between the NSFNET and the DDN
1133 - Routing between the NSFNET and the DDN
This is a discussion document and does not specify any
level of standard.
This is a discussion document and does not specify any level of standard.
1132 - A Standard for the Transmission of 802.2 Packets over IPX
Networks
1132 - A Standard for the Transmission of 802.2 Packets over IPX Networks
This is a new Elective Network-Specific Standard protocol,
that is, a full Standard for a network-specific situation.
This is a new Elective Network-Specific Standard protocol, that is, a full Standard for a network-specific situation.
1131 - The OSPF Specification
1131 - The OSPF Specification
This is a new Elective Proposed Standard protocol.
This is a new Elective Proposed Standard protocol.
1060 - Assigned Numbers
1060 - Assigned Numbers
The status report on assigned numbers and protocol
parameters.
The status report on assigned numbers and protocol parameters.
Internet Activities Board [Page 16] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
Internet Activities Board [Page 16] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
6.1.2. Other Changes:
6.1.2. Other Changes:
The following are changes to protocols listed in the previous edition.
The following are changes to protocols listed in the previous edition.
1058 - Routing Information Protocol (RIP)
1058 - Routing Information Protocol (RIP)
Advanced to Elective Draft Standard protocol.
Advanced to Elective Draft Standard protocol.
1045 - Versatile Message Transaction Protocol (VMTP)
1045 - Versatile Message Transaction Protocol (VMTP)
Moved to Elective Experimental protocol.
Moved to Elective Experimental protocol.
1006 - ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP (TP-TCP)
1006 - ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP (TP-TCP)
Advanced to Elective Draft Standard protocol.
Advanced to Elective Draft Standard protocol.
996 - Statistics Server (STATSRV)
996 - Statistics Server (STATSRV)
Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.
Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.
954 - WhoIs Protocol (NICNAME)
954 - WhoIs Protocol (NICNAME)
Advanced to Elective Draft Standard protocol.
Advanced to Elective Draft Standard protocol.
937 - Post Office Protocol, Version 2 (POP2)
937 - Post Office Protocol, Version 2 (POP2)
Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.
Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.
916 - Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol (RATP)
916 - Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol (RATP)
Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.
Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.
914 - Thinwire Protocol (THINWIRE)
914 - Thinwire Protocol (THINWIRE)
Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.
Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.
818 - Remote Telnet Service (RTELNET)
818 - Remote Telnet Service (RTELNET)
Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.
Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.
569 - Network Standard Text Editor (NETED)
569 - Network Standard Text Editor (NETED)
Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.
Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.
407 - Remote Job Entry (RJE)
407 - Remote Job Entry (RJE)
Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.
Moved to Not Recommended Historic protocol.
Internet Activities Board [Page 17] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
Internet Activities Board [Page 17] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
6.2. Standard Protocols
6.2. Standard Protocols
Protocol Name Status RFC
======== ===================================== ============== ====
-------- Assigned Numbers Required 1060
-------- Gateway Requirements Required 1009
-------- Host Requirements - Communications Required 1122
-------- Host Requirements - Applications Required 1123
IP Internet Protocol Required 791
as amended by:
-------- IP Subnet Extension Required 950
-------- IP Broadcast Datagrams Required 919
-------- IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets Required 922
ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol Required 792
IGMP Internet Group Multicast Protocol Recommended 1112
UDP User Datagram Protocol Recommended 768
TCP Transmission Control Protocol Recommended 793
SMI Structure of Management Information Recommended 1155
MIB Management Information Base Recommended 1156
SNMP Simple Network Management Protocol Recommended 1157
DOMAIN Domain Name System Recommended 1034,1035
TELNET Telnet Protocol Recommended 854
FTP File Transfer Protocol Recommended 959
SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol Recommended 821
MAIL Format of Electronic Mail Messages Recommended 822
CONTENT Content Type Header Field Recommended 1049
EGP Exterior Gateway Protocol Recommended 904
ECHO Echo Protocol Recommended 862
NTP Network Time Protocol Recommended 1119
NETBIOS NetBIOS Service Protocols Elective 1001,1002
DISCARD Discard Protocol Elective 863
CHARGEN Character Generator Protocol Elective 864
QUOTE Quote of the Day Protocol Elective 865
USERS Active Users Protocol Elective 866
DAYTIME Daytime Protocol Elective 867
TIME Time Server Protocol Elective 868
Protocol Name Status RFC ======== ===================================== ============== ==== -------- Assigned Numbers Required 1060 -------- Gateway Requirements Required 1009 -------- Host Requirements - Communications Required 1122 -------- Host Requirements - Applications Required 1123 IP Internet Protocol Required 791 as amended by: -------- IP Subnet Extension Required 950 -------- IP Broadcast Datagrams Required 919 -------- IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets Required 922 ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol Required 792 IGMP Internet Group Multicast Protocol Recommended 1112 UDP User Datagram Protocol Recommended 768 TCP Transmission Control Protocol Recommended 793 SMI Structure of Management Information Recommended 1155 MIB Management Information Base Recommended 1156 SNMP Simple Network Management Protocol Recommended 1157 DOMAIN Domain Name System Recommended 1034,1035 TELNET Telnet Protocol Recommended 854 FTP File Transfer Protocol Recommended 959 SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol Recommended 821 MAIL Format of Electronic Mail Messages Recommended 822 CONTENT Content Type Header Field Recommended 1049 EGP Exterior Gateway Protocol Recommended 904 ECHO Echo Protocol Recommended 862 NTP Network Time Protocol Recommended 1119 NETBIOS NetBIOS Service Protocols Elective 1001,1002 DISCARD Discard Protocol Elective 863 CHARGEN Character Generator Protocol Elective 864 QUOTE Quote of the Day Protocol Elective 865 USERS Active Users Protocol Elective 866 DAYTIME Daytime Protocol Elective 867 TIME Time Server Protocol Elective 868
Notes:
Notes:
IGMP -- The Internet Activities Board intends to move towards general adoption of IP multicasting, as a more efficient solution than broadcasting for many applications. The host interface has been standardized in RFC-1112; however, multicast-routing gateways are in the experimental stage and are not widely available. An Internet host should support all of RFC-1112, except for the IGMP protocol itself which is optional; see RFC-1122 for more details. Even without IGMP, implementation of RFC-1112 will provide an important advance: IP-layer access to local network multicast addressing. It
IGMP -- The Internet Activities Board intends to move towards general adoption of IP multicasting, as a more efficient solution than broadcasting for many applications. The host interface has been standardized in RFC-1112; however, multicast-routing gateways are in the experimental stage and are not widely available. An Internet host should support all of RFC-1112, except for the IGMP protocol itself which is optional; see RFC-1122 for more details. Even without IGMP, implementation of RFC-1112 will provide an important advance: IP-layer access to local network multicast addressing. It
Internet Activities Board [Page 18] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
Internet Activities Board [Page 18] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
is expected that IGMP will become recommended for all hosts and gateways at some future date.
is expected that IGMP will become recommended for all hosts and gateways at some future date.
SMI, MIB, SNMP -- The Internet Activities Board recommends that all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable. This implies implementation of the Internet MIB (RFC-1156) and at least one of the two recommended management protocols SNMP (RFC-1157) or CMOT (RFC- 1095). It should be noted that, at this time, SNMP is a full Internet standard and CMOT is a draft standard. See also the Host and Gateway Requirements RFCs for more specific information on the applicability of this standard.
SMI, MIB, SNMP -- The Internet Activities Board recommends that all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable. This implies implementation of the Internet MIB (RFC-1156) and at least one of the two recommended management protocols SNMP (RFC-1157) or CMOT (RFC- 1095). It should be noted that, at this time, SNMP is a full Internet standard and CMOT is a draft standard. See also the Host and Gateway Requirements RFCs for more specific information on the applicability of this standard.
6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols
6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols
Protocol Name Status RFC ======== ===================================== =============== ==== ARP Address Resolution Protocol Elective 826 RARP A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol Elective 903 IP-ARPA Internet Protocol on ARPANET Elective BBN 1822 IP-WB Internet Protocol on Wideband Network Elective 907 IP-X25 Internet Protocol on X.25 Networks Elective 877 IP-E Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks Elective 894 IP-EE Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets Elective 895 IP-IEEE Internet Protocol on IEEE 802 Elective 1042 IP-DC Internet Protocol on DC Networks Elective 891 IP-HC Internet Protocol on Hyperchannel Elective 1044 IP-ARC Internet Protocol on ARCNET Elective 1051 IP-SLIP Transmission of IP over Serial Lines Elective 1055 IP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS Elective 1088 IP-FDDI Transmission of IP over FDDI Elective 1103 IP-IPX Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks Elective 1132
Protocol Name Status RFC ======== ===================================== =============== ==== ARP Address Resolution Protocol Elective 826 RARP A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol Elective 903 IP-ARPA Internet Protocol on ARPANET Elective BBN 1822 IP-WB Internet Protocol on Wideband Network Elective 907 IP-X25 Internet Protocol on X.25 Networks Elective 877 IP-E Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks Elective 894 IP-EE Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets Elective 895 IP-IEEE Internet Protocol on IEEE 802 Elective 1042 IP-DC Internet Protocol on DC Networks Elective 891 IP-HC Internet Protocol on Hyperchannel Elective 1044 IP-ARC Internet Protocol on ARCNET Elective 1051 IP-SLIP Transmission of IP over Serial Lines Elective 1055 IP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS Elective 1088 IP-FDDI Transmission of IP over FDDI Elective 1103 IP-IPX Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks Elective 1132
Notes:
Notes:
It is expected that a system will support one or more physical
networks and for each physical network supported the appropriate
protocols from the above list must be supported. That is, it is
elective to support any particular type of physical network, and for
the physical networks actually supported it is required that they be
supported exactly according to the protocols in the above list. See
also the Host and Gateway Requirements RFCs for more specific
information on network-specific ("link layer") protocols.
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 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
Internet Activities Board [Page 19] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
6.4. Draft Standard Protocols
6.4. Draft Standard Protocols
Protocol Name Status RFC
======== ===================================== =============== ====
-------- Mail Privacy: Procedures Elective 1113
-------- Mail Privacy: Key Management Elective 1114
-------- Mail Privacy: Algorithms Elective 1115
CMOT Common Management Information Services Recommended 1095
and Protocol over TCP/IP
BOOTP Bootstrap Protocol Recommended 951,1048,1084
RIP Routing Information Protocol Elective 1058
TP-TCP ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP Elective 1006
NICNAME WhoIs Protocol Elective 954
TFTP Trivial File Transfer Protocol Elective 783
Protocol Name Status RFC ======== ===================================== =============== ==== -------- Mail Privacy: Procedures Elective 1113 -------- Mail Privacy: Key Management Elective 1114 -------- Mail Privacy: Algorithms Elective 1115 CMOT Common Management Information Services Recommended 1095 and Protocol over TCP/IP BOOTP Bootstrap Protocol Recommended 951,1048,1084 RIP Routing Information Protocol Elective 1058 TP-TCP ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP Elective 1006 NICNAME WhoIs Protocol Elective 954 TFTP Trivial File Transfer Protocol Elective 783
Notes:
Notes:
CMOT -- The Internet Activities Board recommends that all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable. This implies implementation of the Internet MIB (RFC-1156) and at least one of the two recommended management protocols SNMP (RFC-1157) or CMOT (RFC-1095). It should be noted that, at this time, SNMP is a full Internet standard and CMOT is a draft standard. See also the Host and Router Requirements RFCs for more specific information on the applicability of this standard.
CMOT -- The Internet Activities Board recommends that all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable. This implies implementation of the Internet MIB (RFC-1156) and at least one of the two recommended management protocols SNMP (RFC-1157) or CMOT (RFC-1095). It should be noted that, at this time, SNMP is a full Internet standard and CMOT is a draft standard. See also the Host and Router Requirements RFCs for more specific information on the applicability of this standard.
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.
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".
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".
Internet Activities Board [Page 20] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
Internet Activities Board [Page 20] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols
6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols
Protocol Name Status RFC ======== ===================================== =============== ==== MIB-II MIB-II Elective xxxx IP-CMPRS Compressing TCP/IP Headers Elective 1144 -------- Echo for ISO-8473 Elective 1139 PPP Point to Point Protocol Elective 1134 OSPF Open Shortest Path First Routing Elective 1131 SUN-NFS Network File System Protocol Elective 1094 POP3 Post Office Protocol, Version 3 Elective 1081,1082 SUN-RPC Remote Procedure Call Protocol Elective 1057 PCMAIL Pcmail Transport Protocol Elective 1056 NFILE A File Access Protocol Elective 1037 -------- Mapping between X.400(84) and RFC-822 Elective 987,1026 NNTP Network News Transfer Protocol Elective 977 HOSTNAME HOSTNAME Protocol Elective 953 SFTP Simple File Transfer Protocol Elective 913 RLP Resource Location Protocol Elective 887 FINGER Finger Protocol Elective 742 SUPDUP SUPDUP Protocol Elective 734
Protocol Name Status RFC ======== ===================================== =============== ==== MIB-II MIB-II Elective xxxx IP-CMPRS Compressing TCP/IP Headers Elective 1144 -------- Echo for ISO-8473 Elective 1139 PPP Point to Point Protocol Elective 1134 OSPF Open Shortest Path First Routing Elective 1131 SUN-NFS Network File System Protocol Elective 1094 POP3 Post Office Protocol, Version 3 Elective 1081,1082 SUN-RPC Remote Procedure Call Protocol Elective 1057 PCMAIL Pcmail Transport Protocol Elective 1056 NFILE A File Access Protocol Elective 1037 -------- Mapping between X.400(84) and RFC-822 Elective 987,1026 NNTP Network News Transfer Protocol Elective 977 HOSTNAME HOSTNAME Protocol Elective 953 SFTP Simple File Transfer Protocol Elective 913 RLP Resource Location Protocol Elective 887 FINGER Finger Protocol Elective 742 SUPDUP SUPDUP Protocol Elective 734
Notes:
Notes:
This section is being reviewed by the IESG, which will recommend that some of these protocols be moved to either the draft standard, or the experimental or historic categories.
This section is being reviewed by the IESG, which will recommend that some of these protocols be moved to either the draft standard, or the experimental or historic categories.
MIB-II -- This memo defines a mandatory extension to the base MIB (RFC-1156) and is a Proposed Standard for the Internet community. The extensions described here are currently Elective, but when they become a standard, they will have the same status as RFC-1156, that is, Recommended. The Internet Activities Board recommends that all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable. This implies implementation of the Internet MIB (RFC-1156 and the extensions in RFC-xxxx) and at least one of the two recommended management protocols SNMP (RFC-1157) or CMOT (RFC-1095).
MIB-II -- This memo defines a mandatory extension to the base MIB (RFC-1156) and is a Proposed Standard for the Internet community. The extensions described here are currently Elective, but when they become a standard, they will have the same status as RFC-1156, that is, Recommended. The Internet Activities Board recommends that all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable. This implies implementation of the Internet MIB (RFC-1156 and the extensions in RFC-xxxx) and at least one of the two recommended management protocols SNMP (RFC-1157) or CMOT (RFC-1095).
PPP -- Point to Point Protocol is a method of sending IP over serial lines, which are a type of physical network. It is expected that a system will support one or more physical networks and for each physical network supported the appropriate protocols from the network-specific standard protocols (Section 6.3) 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 listed. It is anticipated that PPP will be advanced to the network- specific standard protocol state in the future.
PPP -- Point to Point Protocol is a method of sending IP over serial lines, which are a type of physical network. It is expected that a system will support one or more physical networks and for each physical network supported the appropriate protocols from the network-specific standard protocols (Section 6.3) 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 listed. It is anticipated that PPP will be advanced to the network- specific standard protocol state in the future.
Internet Activities Board [Page 21] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
Internet Activities Board [Page 21] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
6.6. Experimental Protocols
6.6. Experimental Protocols
Protocol Name Status RFC ======== ===================================== =============== ==== 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 BGP Border Gateway Protocol Limited Use 1105 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 1064 IP-MTU IP MTU Discovery Options Not Recommended 1063 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 ST Stream Protocol Limited Use IEN-119 NVP-II Network Voice Protocol Limited Use ISI-memo PVP Packet Video Protocol Limited Use ISI-memo
Protocol Name Status RFC ======== ===================================== =============== ==== 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 BGP Border Gateway Protocol Limited Use 1105 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 1064 IP-MTU IP MTU Discovery Options Not Recommended 1063 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 ST Stream Protocol Limited Use IEN-119 NVP-II Network Voice Protocol Limited Use ISI-memo PVP Packet Video Protocol Limited Use ISI-memo
6.7. Historic Protocols
6.7. Historic Protocols
Protocol Name Status RFC ======= ===================================== =============== ==== SGMP Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol Not Recommended 1028 HEMS High Level Entity Management Protocol Not Recommended 1021 STATSRV Statistics Server Not Recommended 996 POP2 Post Office Protocol, Version 2 Not Recommended 937 RATP Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol Not Recommended 916 THINWIRE Thinwire Protocol Not Recommended 914 HMP Host Monitoring Protocol Not Recommended 869 GGP Gateway Gateway Protocol Not Recommended 823 RTELNET Remote Telnet Service Not Recommended 818 CLOCK DCNET Time Server Protocol Not Recommended 778 MPM Internet Message Protocol Not Recommended 759 NETRJS Remote Job Service Not Recommended 740 NETED Network Standard Text Editor Not Recommended 569 RJE Remote Job Entry Not Recommended 407 XNET Cross Net Debugger Not Recommended IEN-158 NAMESERVER Host Name Server Protocol Not Recommended IEN-116 MUX Multiplexing Protocol Not Recommended IEN-90 GRAPHICS Graphics Protocol Not Recommended NIC-24308
Protocol Name Status RFC ======= ===================================== =============== ==== SGMP Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol Not Recommended 1028 HEMS High Level Entity Management Protocol Not Recommended 1021 STATSRV Statistics Server Not Recommended 996 POP2 Post Office Protocol, Version 2 Not Recommended 937 RATP Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol Not Recommended 916 THINWIRE Thinwire Protocol Not Recommended 914 HMP Host Monitoring Protocol Not Recommended 869 GGP Gateway Gateway Protocol Not Recommended 823 RTELNET Remote Telnet Service Not Recommended 818 CLOCK DCNET Time Server Protocol Not Recommended 778 MPM Internet Message Protocol Not Recommended 759 NETRJS Remote Job Service Not Recommended 740 NETED Network Standard Text Editor Not Recommended 569 RJE Remote Job Entry Not Recommended 407 XNET Cross Net Debugger Not Recommended IEN-158 NAMESERVER Host Name Server Protocol Not Recommended IEN-116 MUX Multiplexing Protocol Not Recommended IEN-90 GRAPHICS Graphics Protocol Not Recommended NIC-24308
Internet Activities Board [Page 22] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
Internet Activities Board [Page 22] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
7. Contacts
7. Contacts
7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts
7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts
7.1.1. Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact
7.1.1. Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact
Contact:
Contact:
Bob Braden
Executive Director of the IAB
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
Bob Braden Executive Director of the IAB USC/Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-213-822-1511
1-213-822-1511
Braden@ISI.EDU
Braden@ISI.EDU
Please send your comments about this list of protocols and especially about the Draft Standard Protocols to the Internet Activities Board care of Bob Braden, IAB Executive Director.
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.
7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact
7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact
Contact:
Contact:
Phill Gross
Chair of the IETF
Corporation for National Research Initiatives (NRI)
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
Reston, VA 22091
Phill Gross Chair of the IETF Corporation for National Research Initiatives (NRI) 1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100 Reston, VA 22091
1-703-620-8990
1-703-620-8990
PGross@NRI.RESTON.VA.US
PGross@NRI.RESTON.VA.US
Internet Activities Board [Page 23] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
Internet Activities Board [Page 23] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact
7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact
Contact:
Contact:
David D. Clark
Chair of the IRTF
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Laboratory for Computer Science
545 Main Street
Cambridge, MA 02139
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
1-617-253-6003
ddc@LCS.MIT.EDU
ddc@LCS.MIT.EDU
7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Contact
7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Contact
Contact:
Contact:
Joyce K. Reynolds
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
Joyce K. Reynolds Internet Assigned Numbers Authority USC/Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-213-822-1511
1-213-822-1511
IANA@ISI.EDU
IANA@ISI.EDU
The protocol standards are managed for the IAB by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.
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).
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:
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".
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 24] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
Internet Activities Board [Page 24] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact
7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact
Contact:
Contact:
Jon Postel
RFC Editor
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
Jon Postel RFC Editor USC/Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-213-822-1511
1-213-822-1511
Postel@ISI.EDU
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.
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
7.4. The Network Information Center and Requests for Comments Distribution Contact
Contact:
Contact:
DDN Network Information Center
SRI International
Room EJ291
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025
DDN Network Information Center SRI International Room EJ291 333 Ravenswood Avenue Menlo Park, CA 94025
1-800-235-3155
1-415-859-3695
1-800-235-3155 1-415-859-3695
NIC@NIC.DDN.MIL
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.
The Network Information Center (NIC) provides many information services for the Internet community. Among them is maintaining the Requests for Comments (RFC) library.
RFCs can be obtained via FTP from NIC.DDN.MIL, with the pathname RFC:RFCnnnn.TXT where "nnnn" refers to the number of the RFC. A list of all RFCs may be obtained by copying the file RFC:RFC-INDEX.TXT. Log in with FTP username ANONYMOUS and password GUEST.
RFCs can be obtained via FTP from NIC.DDN.MIL, with the pathname RFC:RFCnnnn.TXT where "nnnn" refers to the number of the RFC. A list of all RFCs may be obtained by copying the file RFC:RFC-INDEX.TXT. Log in with FTP username ANONYMOUS and password GUEST.
The NIC also provides an automatic mail service for those sites which cannot use FTP. Address the request to SERVICE@NIC.DDN.MIL and in the subject field of the message indicate the file name, as in
The NIC also provides an automatic mail service for those sites which cannot use FTP. Address the request to SERVICE@NIC.DDN.MIL and in the subject field of the message indicate the file name, as in
Internet Activities Board [Page 25] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
Internet Activities Board [Page 25] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
"Subject: SEND RFC:RFCnnnn.TXT".
"Subject: SEND RFC:RFCnnnn.TXT".
Some RFCs are now available in PostScript, these may be obtained from the NIC in a similar fashion by substituting ".PS" for ".TXT".
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:
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.
The file RFC:IAB-STANDARDS.TXT may be copied via FTP from the NIC.DDN.MIL computer following the same procedures used to obtain RFCs.
7.5. Other Sources for Requests for Comments
7.5. Other Sources for Requests for Comments
7.5.1. NSF Network Service Center (NNSC)
7.5.1. NSF Network Service Center (NNSC)
NSF Network Service Center (NNSC)
BBN Laboratories, Inc.
10 Moulton St.
Cambridge, MA 02238
NSF Network Service Center (NNSC) BBN Laboratories, Inc. 10 Moulton St. Cambridge, MA 02238
617-873-3400
617-873-3400
NNSC@NNSC.NSF.NET
NNSC@NNSC.NSF.NET
7.5.2. NSF Network Information Service (NIS)
7.5.2. NSF Network Information Service (NIS)
NSF Network Information Service
Merit Computer Network
University of Michigan
1075 Beal Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
NSF Network Information Service Merit Computer Network University of Michigan 1075 Beal Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48109
313-763-4897
313-763-4897
INFO@NIS.NSF.NET
INFO@NIS.NSF.NET
7.5.3. CSNET Coordination and Information Center (CIC)
7.5.3. CSNET Coordination and Information Center (CIC)
CSNET Coordination and Information Center
BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation
10 Moulton Street
Cambridge, MA 02238
CSNET Coordination and Information Center BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation 10 Moulton Street Cambridge, MA 02238
617-873-2777
617-873-2777
INFO@SH.CS.NET
INFO@SH.CS.NET
Internet Activities Board [Page 26] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
Internet Activities Board [Page 26] RFC 1140 IAB Standards May 1990
8. Security Considerations
8. Security Considerations
Security issues are not addressed in this memo.
Security issues are not addressed in this memo.
9. Author's Address
9. Author's Address
Jon Postel USC/Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Jon Postel USC/Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Phone: (213) 822-1511
Phone: (213) 822-1511
Email: Postel@ISI.EDU
Email: Postel@ISI.EDU
Internet Activities Board [Page 27]
Internet Activities Board [Page 27]
一覧
スポンサーリンク
