RFC 2300
Internet Official Protocol Standards
Network Working Group Internet Architecture Board Request for Comments: 2300 J. Postel, Editor Obsoletes: 2200, 2000, 1920, 1880, 1800, May 1998 1780, 1720, 1610, 1600, 1540, 1500, 1410, 1360, 1280, 1250, 1200, 1140, 1130, 1100, 1083 STD: 1 Category: Standards Track INTERNET OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS Status of this Memo This memo describes the state of standardization of protocols used in the Internet as determined by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). This memo is an Internet Standard. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved. Table of Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. The Standardization Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. The Request for Comments Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Other Reference Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Assigned Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Gateway Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3. Host Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4. The MIL-STD Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Explanation of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. Definitions of Protocol State (Maturity Level) . . . . . 8 4.1.1. Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1.4. Experimental Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1.5. Informational Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1.6. Historic Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status (Requirement Level) . . . 9 4.2.1. Required Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2.2. Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2.3. Elective Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2.4. Limited Use Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2.5. Not Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. The Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. The RFC Processing Decision Table . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2. The Standards Track Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. The Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.1. Recent Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.1.1. New RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.1.2. Other Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6.2. Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 36 6.4. Draft Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 6.6. Telnet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 6.7. Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 6.8. Informational Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 6.9. Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 6.10 Obsolete Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 7. Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 7.1.1. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact . . . . . . 54 7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . 54 7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact . . . . . 55 7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . . 56 7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact . . . . . . . . . . 57 7.4. Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . . 57 7.5. Sources for Requests for Comments . . . . . . . . . . . 58 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 9. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 10. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Introduction A discussion of the standardization process and the RFC document series is presented first, followed by an explanation of the terms. Sections 6.2 - 6.10 contain the lists of protocols in each stage of standardization. Finally are pointers to references and contacts for further information. This memo is intended to be issued every one hundred RFCs; please be sure the copy you are reading is current. Current copies may be obtained from the Requests for Comments Editor (RFC-EDITOR) or from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (see the contact information at the end of this memo). See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes. In the official lists in sections 6.2 - 6.10, an asterisk (*) next to a protocol denotes that it is new to this document or has been moved from one protocol level to another, or differs from the previous edition of this document.
1. The Standardization Process The Internet Architecture Board maintains this list of documents that define standards for the Internet protocol suite. See RFC-1601 for the charter of the IAB and RFC-1160 for an explanation of the role and organization of the IAB and its subsidiary groups, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). Each of these groups has a steering group called the IESG and IRSG, respectively. The IETF develops these standards with the goal of co-ordinating the evolution of the Internet protocols; this co-ordination has become quite important as the Internet protocols are increasingly in general commercial use. The definitive description of the Internet standards process is found in RFC-1602. The majority of Internet protocol development and standardization activity takes place in the working groups of the IETF. Protocols which are to become standards in the Internet go through a series of states or maturity levels (proposed standard, draft standard, and standard) involving increasing amounts of scrutiny and testing. When a protocol completes this process it is assigned a STD number (see RFC-1311). At each step, the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) of the IETF must make a recommendation for advancement of the protocol. To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react to standardization proposals, a minimum delay of 6 months before a proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard and 4 months before a draft standard can be promoted to standard. It is general practice that no proposed standard can be promoted to draft standard without at least two independent implementations (and the recommendation of the IESG). Promotion from draft standard to standard generally requires operational experience and demonstrated interoperability of two or more implementations (and the recommendation of the IESG). In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper decision concerning a protocol a special review committee may be appointed consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB with the purpose of recommending an explicit action. Advancement of a protocol to proposed standard is an important step since it marks a protocol as a candidate for eventual standardization (it puts the protocol "on the standards track"). Advancement to draft standard is a major step which warns the community that, unless major objections are raised or flaws are discovered, the protocol is likely to be advanced to standard.
Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are otherwise
unused. Such protocols are still documented in this memorandum with
the designation "historic".
Because it is useful to document the results of early protocol
research and development work, some of the RFCs document protocols
which are still in an experimental condition. The protocols are
designated "experimental" in this memorandum. They appear in this
report as a convenience to the community and not as evidence of their
standardization.
Other protocols, such as those developed by other standards
organizations, or by particular vendors, may be of interest or may be
recommended for use in the Internet. The specifications of such
protocols may be published as RFCs for the convenience of the
Internet community. These protocols are labeled "informational" in
this memorandum.
In addition to the working groups of the IETF, protocol development
and experimentation may take place as a result of the work of the
research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or the work of
other individuals interested in Internet protocol development. The
the documentation of such experimental work in the RFC series is
encouraged, but none of this work is considered to be on the track
for standardization until the IESG has made a recommendation to
advance the protocol to the proposed standard state.
A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without the
approval of the IESG. For example, some vendor protocols have become
very important to the Internet community even though they have not
been recommended by the IESG. However, the IAB strongly recommends
that the standards process be used in the evolution of the protocol
suite to maximize interoperability (and to prevent incompatible
protocol requirements from arising). The use of the terms
"standard", "draft standard", and "proposed standard" are reserved in
any RFC or other publication of Internet protocols to only those
protocols which the IESG has approved.
In addition to a state (like "Proposed Standard"), a protocol is also
assigned a status, or requirement level, in this document. The
possible requirement levels ("Required", "Recommended", "Elective",
"Limited Use", and "Not Recommended") are defined in Section 4.2.
When a protocol is on the standards track, that is in the proposed
standard, draft standard, or standard state (see Section 5), the
status shown in Section 6 is the current status.
Few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems; this is
because there is such a variety of possible systems, for example,
gateways, routers, terminal servers, workstations, and multi-user hosts. The requirement level shown in this document is only a one word label, which may not be sufficient to characterize the implementation requirements for a protocol in all situations. For some protocols, this document contains an additional status paragraph (an applicability statement). In addition, more detailed status information may be contained in separate requirements documents (see Section 3). 2. The Request for Comments Documents The documents called Request for Comments (or RFCs) are the working notes of the "Network Working Group", that is the Internet research and development community. A document in this series may be on essentially any topic related to computer communication, and may be anything from a meeting report to the specification of a standard. Notice: All standards are published as RFCs, but not all RFCs specify standards. Anyone can submit a document for publication as an RFC. Submissions must be made via electronic mail to the RFC Editor (see the contact information at the end of this memo, and see RFC 2223). 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 the IESG. 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 "Internet 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 RFC-EDITOR, and a number of other sites. For more information about obtaining RFCs, see Sections 7.4 and 7.5. 3. Other Reference Documents There are three other reference documents of interest in checking the current status of protocol specifications and standardization. These are the Assigned Numbers, the Gateway Requirements, and the Host Requirements. Note that these documents are revised and updated at different times; in case of differences between these documents, the most recent must prevail. Also, one should be aware of the MIL-STD publications on IP, TCP, Telnet, FTP, and SMTP. These are described in Section 3.4. 3.1. Assigned Numbers The "Assigned Numbers" document lists the assigned values of the parameters used in the various protocols. For example, IP protocol codes, TCP port numbers, Telnet Option Codes, ARP hardware types, and Terminal Type names. Assigned Numbers was most recently issued as RFC-1700. 3.2. Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways and supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities. Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers is RFC-1812. 3.3. Host Requirements This pair of documents reviews and updates the specifications that apply to hosts, and it supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities. Host Requirements was issued as RFC-1122 and RFC-1123. 3.4. The MIL-STD Documents The DoD MIL-STD Internet specifications are out of date and have been discontinued. The DoD's Joint Technical Architecture (JTA) lists the current set of IETF STDs and RFCs that the DoD intends to use in all new and upgraded Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence (C4I) acquisitions. A copy of the JTA can be obtained from http://www-jta.itsi.disa.mil.
4. Explanation of Terms There are two independent categorization of protocols. The first is the "maturity level" or STATE of standardization, one of "standard", "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", "informational" or "historic". The second is the "requirement level" or STATUS of this protocol, one of "required", "recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended". The status or requirement level is difficult to portray in a one word label. These status labels should be considered only as an indication, and a further description, or applicability statement, should be consulted. When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard, it is labeled with a current status. At any given time a protocol occupies a cell of the following matrix. Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the following proportions (indicated by the relative number of Xs). A new protocol is most likely to start in the (proposed standard, elective) cell, or the (experimental, limited use) cell. S T A T U S Req Rec Ele Lim Not +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Std | X | XXX | XXX | | | S +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Draft | X | X | XXX | | | T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Prop | | X | XXX | | | A +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Info | | | | | | T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Expr | | | | XXX | | E +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Hist | | | | | XXX | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ What is a "system"? Some protocols are particular to hosts and some to gateways; a few protocols are used in both. The definitions of the terms below will refer to a "system" which is either a host or a gateway (or both). It should be clear from the context of the particular protocol which types of systems are intended.
4.1. Definitions of Protocol State Every protocol listed in this document is assigned to a "maturity level" or STATE of standardization: "standard", "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic". 4.1.1. Standard Protocol The IESG has established this as an official standard protocol for the Internet. These protocols are assigned STD numbers (see RFC- 1311). These are separated into two groups: (1) IP protocol and above, protocols that apply to the whole Internet; and (2) network-specific protocols, generally specifications of how to do IP on particular types of networks. 4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol The IESG is actively considering this protocol as a possible Standard Protocol. Substantial and widespread testing and comment are desired. Comments and test results should be submitted to the IESG. There is a possibility that changes will be made in a Draft Standard Protocol before it becomes a Standard Protocol. 4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol These are protocol proposals that may be considered by the IESG for standardization in the future. Implementation and testing by several groups is desirable. Revision of the protocol specification is likely. 4.1.4. Experimental Protocol A system should not implement an experimental protocol unless it is participating in the experiment and has coordinated its use of the protocol with the developer of the protocol. Typically, experimental protocols are those that are developed as part of an ongoing research project not related to an operational service offering. While they may be proposed as a service protocol at a later stage, and thus become proposed standard, draft standard, and then standard protocols, the designation of a protocol as experimental may sometimes be meant to suggest that the protocol, although perhaps mature, is not intended for operational use.
4.1.5. Informational Protocol Protocols developed by other standard organizations, or vendors, or that are for other reasons outside the purview of the IESG, may be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community as informational protocols. 4.1.6. Historic Protocol These are protocols that are unlikely to ever become standards in the Internet either because they have been superseded by later developments or due to lack of interest. 4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status This document lists a "requirement level" or STATUS for each protocol. The status is one of "required", "recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended". 4.2.1. Required Protocol A system must implement the required protocols. 4.2.2. Recommended Protocol A system should implement the recommended protocols. 4.2.3. Elective Protocol A system may or may not implement an elective protocol. The general notion is that if you are going to do something like this, you must do exactly this. There may be several elective protocols in a general area, for example, there are several electronic mail protocols, and several routing protocols. 4.2.4. Limited Use Protocol These protocols are for use in limited circumstances. This may be because of their experimental state, specialized nature, limited functionality, or historic state. 4.2.5. Not Recommended Protocol These protocols are not recommended for general use. This may be because of their limited functionality, specialized nature, or experimental or historic state.
5. The Standards Track This section discusses in more detail the procedures used by the RFC Editor and the IESG in making decisions about the labeling and publishing of protocols as standards. 5.1. The 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. +==========================================================+ |**************| S O U R C E | +==========================================================+ | Desired | IAB | IESG | IRSG | Other | | Status | | | | | +==========================================================+ | | | | | | | Standard | Bogus | Publish | Bogus | Bogus | | or | (2) | (1) | (2) | (2) | | Draft | | | | | | Standard | | | | | +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ | | | | | | | | Refer | Publish | Refer | Refer | | Proposed | (3) | (1) | (3) | (3) | | Standard | | | | | | | | | | | +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ | | | | | | | | Notify | Publish | Notify | Notify | | Experimental | (4) | (1) | (4) | (4) | | Protocol | | | | | | | | | | | +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ | | | | | | | Information | Publish | Publish |Discretion|Discretion| | or Opinion | (1) | (1) | (5) | (5) | | Paper | | | | | | | | | | | +==========================================================+ (1) Publish. (2) Bogus. Inform the source of the rules. RFCs specifying Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IESG, only.
(3) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG. Expect to see
the document again only after approval by the IESG.
(4) Notify both the IESG and IRSG. If no concerns are raised in
two weeks then do Discretion (5), else RFC Editor to resolve
the concerns or do Refer (3).
(5) RFC Editor's discretion. The RFC Editor decides if a review
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 (4) 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 change as well.
The states illustrated by single line boxes are temporary states,
those illustrated by double line boxes are long term states. A
protocol will normally be expected to remain in a temporary state for
several months (minimum six months for proposed standard, minimum
four months for draft standard). A protocol may be in a long term
state for many years.
A protocol may enter the standards track only on the recommendation
of the IESG; and may move from one state to another along the track
only on the recommendation of the IESG. That is, it takes action by
the IESG to either start a protocol on the track or to move it along.
Generally, as the protocol enters the standards track a decision is
made as to the eventual STATUS, requirement level or applicability
(elective, recommended, or required) the protocol will have, although
a somewhat less stringent current status may be assigned, and it then
is placed in the the proposed standard STATE with that status. So
the initial placement of a protocol is into state 1. At any time the
STATUS decision may be revisited.
|
+<----------------------------------------------+
| ^
V 0 | 4
+-----------+ +===========+
| enter |-->----------------+-------------->|experiment |
+-----------+ | +=====+=====+
| |
V 1 |
+-----------+ V
| proposed |-------------->+
+--->+-----+-----+ |
| | |
| V 2 |
+<---+-----+-----+ V
| draft std |-------------->+
+--->+-----+-----+ |
| | |
| V 3 |
+<---+=====+=====+ V
| standard |-------------->+
+=====+=====+ |
|
V 5
+=====+=====+
| historic |
+===========+
The transition from proposed standard (1) to draft standard (2) can
only be by action of the IESG and only after the protocol has been
proposed standard (1) for at least six months.
The transition from draft standard (2) to standard (3) can only be by
action of the IESG and only after the protocol has been draft
standard (2) for at least four months.
Occasionally, the decision may be that the protocol is not ready for
standardization and will be assigned to the experimental state (4).
This is off the standards track, and the protocol may be resubmitted
to enter the standards track after further work. There are other
paths into the experimental and historic states that do not involve
IESG action.
Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus becomes
historic, or it may happen that a protocol on the standards track is
in a sense overtaken by another protocol (or other events) and
becomes historic (state 5).
6. The Protocols Subsection 6.1 lists recent RFCs and other changes. Subsections 6.2 - 6.10 list the standards in groups by protocol state. 6.1. Recent Changes 6.1.1. New RFCs: 2352 - A Convention For Using Legal Names as Domain Names This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 2351 - Mapping of Airline Reservation, Ticketing, and Messaging Traffic over IP This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 2350 - Not yet issued. 2349 - TFTP Timeout Interval and Transfer Size Options A Draft Standard protocol. 2348 - TFTP Blocksize Option A Draft Standard protocol. 2347 - TFTP Option Extension A Draft Standard protocol. 2346 - Making Postscript and PDF International This is an information document and does not specify any level of standard. 2345 - Domain Names and Company Name Retrieval An Experimental protocol. 2344 - Reverse Tunneling for Mobile IP A Proposed Standard protocol.
2343 - RTP Payload Format for Bundled MPEG
An Experimental protocol.
2342 - IMAP4 Namespace
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2341 - Cisco Layer Two Forwarding (Protocol) "L2F"
A Historic protocol.
2340 - Not yet issued.
2339 - An Agreement Between the Internet Society, the IETF, and
Sun Microsystems, Inc. in the matter of NFS V.4 Protocols
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2338 - Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2337 - Intra-LIS IP multicast among routers over ATM using Sparse
Mode PIM
An Experimental protocol.
2336 - Not yet issued.
2335 - A Distributed NHRP Service Using SCSP
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2334 - Server Cache Synchronization Protocol (SCSP)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2333 - NHRP Protocol Applicability Statement
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2332 - NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2331 - ATM Signalling Support for IP over ATM - UNI Signalling 4.0
Update
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2330 - Framework for IP Performance Metrics
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2329 - OSPF Standardization Report
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2328 - OSPF Version 2
A Standard protocol.
2327 - SDP: Session Description Protocol
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2326 - Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2325 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Drip-Type Heated
Beverage Hardware Devices using SMIv2
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2324 - Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol (HTCPCP/1.0)
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2323 - IETF Identification and Security Guidelines
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2322 - Management of IP numbers by peg-dhcp
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2321 - RITA -- The Reliable Internetwork Troubleshooting Agent
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2320 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Classical IP and ARP
Over ATM Using SMIv2 (IPOA-MIB)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2319 - Ukrainian Character Set KOI8-U
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2318 - The text/css Media Type
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2317 - Classless IN-ADDR.ARPA delegation
This is a Best Current Practices document and does not
specify any level of standard.
2316 - Report of the IAB Security Architecture Workshop
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2315 - PKCS #7: Cryptographic Message Syntax Version 1.5
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2314 - PKCS #10: Certification Request Syntax Version 1.5
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2313 - PKCS #1: RSA Encryption Version 1.5
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2312 - S/MIME Version 2 Certificate Handling
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2311 - S/MIME Version 2 Message Specification
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2310 - The Safe Response Header Field
An Experimental protocol.
2309 - Recommendations on Queue Management and Congestion
Avoidance in the Internet
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2308 - Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS NCACHE)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2307 - An Approach for Using LDAP as a Network Information Service
An Experimental protocol.
2306 - Tag Image File Format (TIFF) - F Profile for Facsimile
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2305 - A Simple Mode of Facsimile Using Internet Mail
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2304 - Minimal FAX address format in Internet Mail
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2303 - Minimal PSTN address format in Internet Mail
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2302 - Tag Image File Format (TIFF) - image/tiff MIME Sub-type
Registration
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2301 - File Format for Internet Fax
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2300 - This memo.
2299 - Not yet issued.
2298 - An Extensible Message Format for Message Disposition
Notifications
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2297 - Ipsilon's General Switch Management Protocol Specification
Version 2.0
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2296 - HTTP Remote Variant Selection Algorithm -- RVSA/1.0
An Experimental protocol.
2295 - Transparent Content Negotiation in HTTP
An Experimental protocol.
2294 - Representing the O/R Address hierarchy in the X.500
Directory Information Tree
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2293 - Representing Tables and Subtrees in the X.500 Directory
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2292 - Advanced Sockets API for IPv6
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2291 - Requirements for a Distributed Authoring and Versioning
Protocol for the World Wide Web
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2290 - Mobile-IPv4 Configuration Option for PPP IPCP
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2289 - A One-Time Password System
A Draft Standard protocol.
2288 - Using Existing Bibliographic Identifiers as Uniform
Resource Names
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2287 - Definitions of System-Level Managed Objects for
Applications
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2286 - Test Cases for HMAC-RIPEMD160 and HMAC-RIPEMD128
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2285 - Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching Devices
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2284 - PPP Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2283 - Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2282 - IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process:
Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees
This is a Best Current Practices document and does not
specify any level of standard.
2281 - Cisco Hot Standby Router Protocol (HSRP)
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2280 - Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2279 - UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2278 - IANA Charset Registration Procedures
This is a Best Current Practices document and does not
specify any level of standard.
2277 - IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages
This is a Best Current Practices document and does not
specify any level of standard.
2276 - Architectural Principles of Uniform Resource Name
Resolution
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2275 - View-based Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2274 - User-based Security Model (USM) for version 3 of the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2273 - SNMPv3 Applications
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2272 - Message Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMP)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2271 - An Architecture for Describing SNMP Management Frameworks
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2270 - Using a Dedicated AS for Sites Homed to a Single Provider
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2269 - Using the MARS Model in non-ATM NBMA Networks
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2268 - A Description of the RC2(r) Encryption Algorithm
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2267 - Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating Denial of Service
Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2266 - Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.12 Repeater
Devices
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2265 - View-based Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2264 - User-based Security Model (USM) for version 3 of the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2263 - SNMPv3 Applications
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2262 - Message Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMP)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2261 - An Architecture for Describing SNMP Management Frameworks
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2260 - Scalable Support for Multi-homed Multi-provider
Connectivity
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2259 - Simple Nomenclator Query Protocol (SNQP)
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2258 - Internet Nomenclator Project
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2257 - Agent Extensibility (AgentX) Protocol Version 1
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2256 - A Summary of the X.500(96) User Schema for use with LDAPv3
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2255 - The LDAP URL Format
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2254 - The String Representation of LDAP Search Filters
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2253 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): UTF-8 String
Representation of Distinguished Names
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2252 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): Attribute
Syntax Definitions
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2251 - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2250 - RTP Payload Format for MPEG1/MPEG2 Video
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2249 - Mail Monitoring MIB
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2248 - Network Services Monitoring MIB
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2247 - Using Domains in LDAP/X.500 Distinguished Names
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2246 - Not yet issued.
2245 - Anonymous SASL Mechanism
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2244 - ACAP -- Application Configuration Access Protocol
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2243 - OTP Extended Responses
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2242 - NetWare/IP Domain Name and Information
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2241 - DHCP Options for Novell Directory Services
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2240 - A Legal Basis for Domain Name Allocation
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2239 - Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.3 Medium
Attachment Units (MAUs) using SMIv2
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2238 - Definitions of Managed Objects for HPR using SMIv2
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2237 - Japanese Character Encoding for Internet Messages
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2236 - Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2235 - Hobbes' Internet Timeline
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2234 - Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2233 - The Interfaces Group MIB using SMIv2
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2232 - Definitions of Managed Objects for DLUR using SMIv2
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2231 - MIME Parameter Value and Encoded Word Extensions: Character
Sets, Languages, and Continuations
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2230 - Key Exchange Delegation Record for the DNS
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2229 - A Dictionary Server Protocol
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2228 - FTP Security Extensions
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2227 - Simple Hit-Metering and Usage-Limiting for HTTP
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2226 - IP Broadcast over ATM Networks
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2225 - Classical IP and ARP over ATM
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2224 - NFS URL Scheme
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2223 - Instructions to RFC Authors
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2222 - Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2221 - IMAP4 Login Referrals
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2220 - The Application/MARC Content-type
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2219 - Use of DNS Aliases for Network Services
This is a Best Current Practices document and does not
specify any level of standard.
2218 - A Common Schema for the Internet White Pages Service
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2217 - Telnet Com Port Control Option
An Experimental protocol.
2216 - Network Element Service Specification Template
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2215 - General Characterization Parameters for Integrated Service
Network Elements
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2214 - Integrated Services Management Information Base Guaranteed
Service Extensions using SMIv2
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2213 - Integrated Services Management Information Base using SMIv2
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2212 - Specification of Guaranteed Quality of Service
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2211 - Specification of the Controlled-Load Network Element
Service
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2210 - The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2209 - Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Message
Processing Rules
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2208 - Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Applicability Statement Some Guidelines on Deployment
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2207 - RSVP Extensions for IPSEC Data Flows
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2206 - RSVP Management Information Base using SMIv2
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2205 - Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2204 - ODETTE File Transfer Protocol
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2203 - RPCSEC_GSS Protocol Specification
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2202 - Test Cases for HMAC-MD5 and HMAC-SHA-1
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2201 - Core Based Trees (CBT) Multicast Routing Architecture
An Experimental protocol.
2200 - Internet Official Protocol Standards
A Standard protocol.
2199 - Request for Comments Summary - RFC Numbers 2100-2199
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2198 - RTP Payload for Redundant Audio Data
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2197 - SMTP Service Extension for Command Pipelining
A Draft Standard protocol.
2196 - Site Security Handbook
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2195 - IMAP/POP AUTHorize Extension for Simple Challenge/Response
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2194 - Review of Roaming Implementations
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2193 - IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2192 - IMAP URL Scheme
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2191 - VENUS - Very Extensive Non-Unicast Service
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2190 - RTP Payload Format for H.263 Video Streams
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2189 - Core Based Trees (CBT version 2) Multicast Routing
An Experimental protocol.
2188 - AT&T/Neda's Efficient Short Remote Operations (ESRO)
Protocol Specification Version 1.
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2187 - Application of Internet Cache Protocol (ICP), version 2
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2186 - Internet Cache Protocol (ICP), version 2
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2185 - Routing Aspects of IPv6 Transition
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2184 - MIME Parameter Value and Encoded Word Extensions: Character
Sets, Languages, and Continuations
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2183 - Communicating Presentation Information in Internet
Messages: The Content-Disposition Header Field
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2182 - Selection and Operation of Secondary DNS Servers
This is a Best Current Practices document and does not
specify any level of standard.
2181 - Clarifications to the DNS Specification
A Proposed Standard protocol.
2180 - IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2179 - Network Security For Trade Shows
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
2178 - OSPF Version 2
A Draft Standard protocol.
(next page on part 2)
