<pre>Network Working Group                                        J. Reynolds
Request for Comments: 1011                                     J. Postel
                                                                     ISI
Obsoletes: RFCs <a href="./rfc991">991</a>, <a href="./rfc961">961</a>, <a href="./rfc943">943</a>, <a href="./rfc924">924</a>, <a href="./rfc901">901</a>, <a href="./rfc880">880</a>, <a href="./rfc840">840</a>               May 1987


                      <span class="h1">OFFICIAL INTERNET PROTOCOLS</span>


STATUS OF THIS MEMO

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

      The SPECIFICATION identifies the protocol defining documents.

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

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




<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                               [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

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

      In particular, the status may be:

         required

            - all hosts must implement the required protocol,

         recommended

            - all hosts are encouraged to implement the recommended
            protocol,

         elective

            - hosts may implement or not the elective protocol,

         experimental

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

         none

            - this is not a protocol.

         For further information about protocols in general, please
         contact:

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

            Phone: (213) 822-1511

            Electronic mail: JKREYNOLDS@ISI.EDU






<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                               [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



OVERVIEW

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

      STATUS:  None

      SPECIFICATION:  IEN 48 (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

         Could be revised and expanded.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

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

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

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

         <a href="./rfc871">RFC 871</a> - A Perspective on the ARPANET Reference Model

      DEPENDENCIES:

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU














<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                               [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



NETWORK LEVEL

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

      STATUS:  Required

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc791">RFC 791</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

         A few minor problems have been noted in this document.

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

         Another important point is the alternate reassembly procedure
         suggested in <a href="./rfc815">RFC 815</a>.

         Some changes are in the works for the security option.

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

         The subnet procedures defined in <a href="./rfc950">RFC 950</a> are now considered an
         essential part of the IP architecture and must be implemented
         by all hosts and gateways.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

         <a href="./rfc815">RFC 815</a> (in DPH) - IP Datagram Reassembly Algorithms

         <a href="./rfc814">RFC 814</a> (in DPH) - Names, Addresses, Ports, and Routes

         <a href="./rfc816">RFC 816</a> (in DPH) - Fault Isolation and Recovery




<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                               [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



         <a href="./rfc817">RFC 817</a> (in DPH) - Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol
         Implementation

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

         <a href="./rfc963">RFC 963</a> - Some Problems with the Specification of the Military
         Standard Internet Protocol

      DEPENDENCIES:

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Required

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc792">RFC 792</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

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

         Two additional ICMP message types are defined in <a href="./rfc950">RFC 950</a>
         "Internet Subnets", Address Mask Request (A1=17), and Address
         Mask Reply (A2=18).

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:  <a href="./rfc950">RFC 950</a>

      DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU









<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                               [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      STATUS:  Recommended

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc988">RFC 988</a>

      COMMENTS:

         This protocol specifies the extensions required of a host
         implementation of the Internet Protocol (IP) to support
         internetwork multicasting.  This specification supersedes that
         given in <a href="./rfc966">RFC 966</a>, and constitutes a proposed protocol standard
         for IP multicasting in the Internet.  Reference <a href="./rfc966">RFC 966</a> for a
         discussion of the motivation and rationale behind the
         multicasting extension specified here.

      OTHER REFERENCES: <a href="./rfc966">RFC 966</a>

      DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

      CONTACT: Deering@PESCADERO.STANFORD.EDU




























<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                               [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



HOST LEVEL

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

      STATUS:  Recommended

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc768">RFC 768</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Recommended

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc793">RFC 793</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         Provides reliable end-to-end data stream service.

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

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

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





<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                               [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

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

         Maximum Segment Size:  The maximum segment size option should
         be generalized and clarified.  It can be used to either
         increase or decrease the maximum segment size from the default.
         The TCP Maximum Segment Size is the IP Maximum Datagram Size
         minus forty.  The default IP Maximum Datagram Size is 576.  The
         default TCP Maximum Segment Size is 536.  For further
         discussion, see <a href="./rfc879">RFC 879</a>.

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

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

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

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





<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                               [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



      OTHER REFERENCES:

         <a href="./rfc813">RFC 813</a> (in DPH) - Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP

         <a href="./rfc814">RFC 814</a> (in DPH) - Names, Addresses, Ports, and Routes

         <a href="./rfc816">RFC 816</a> (in DPH) - Fault Isolation and Recovery

         <a href="./rfc817">RFC 817</a> (in DPH) - Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol
         Implementation

         <a href="./rfc879">RFC 879</a> - TCP Maximum Segment Size

         <a href="./rfc889">RFC 889</a> - Internet Delay Experiments

         <a href="./rfc896">RFC 896</a> - TCP/IP Congestion Control

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

         <a href="./rfc964">RFC 964</a> - Some Problems with the Specification of the Military
         Standard Transmission Control Protocol

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

      DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc998">RFC 998</a>

      COMMENTS:

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

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


<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                               [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:  <a href="./rfc969">RFC 969</a>

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol, User Datagram
      Protocol

      CONTACT: markl@PTT.LCS.MIT.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Recommended for Gateways

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc888">RFC 888</a>, <a href="./rfc904">RFC 904</a> (in DPH), <a href="./rfc975">RFC 975</a>, <a href="./rfc985">RFC 985</a>

      COMMENTS:

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:  <a href="./rfc827">RFC 827</a>, <a href="./rfc890">RFC 890</a>

      DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

      CONTACT: Mills@UDEL.EDU














<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc823">RFC 823</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         The gateway protocol now used in the core gateways.

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

      CONTACT: Brescia@BBN.COM

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

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc869">RFC 869</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

      CONTACT: Hinden@BBN.COM











<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc908">RFC 908</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES:  Internet Protocol

      CONTACT:  CWelles@BBN.COM

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

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc938">RFC 938</a>

      COMMENTS:

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES:  Internet Protocol

      CONTACT:  Trudy@ACC.ARPA






<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 12]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  IEN 158 (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

         This specification should be updated and reissued as an RFC.

      OTHER REFERENCES:  <a href="./rfc643">RFC 643</a>

      DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  IEN 90 (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU





<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 13]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-14" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  IEN 119 (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

      CONTACT: jwf@LL-EN.ARPA

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

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  ISI Internal Memo

      COMMENTS:

         Defines the procedures for real time voice conferencing.

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:  <a href="./rfc741">RFC 741</a> (in DPH)

      DEPENDENCIES:  Internet Protocol, Stream Protocol

      CONTACT:  Casner@ISI.EDU




<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 14]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-15" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



APPLICATION LEVEL

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

      STATUS:  Recommended

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc854">RFC 854</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         The protocol for remote terminal access.

         This has been revised since the IPTW.  <a href="./rfc764">RFC 764</a> in IPTW is now
         obsolete.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

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

      DEPENDENCIES:  Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT:  Postel@ISI.EDU



























<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 15]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-16" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  General description of options:  <a href="./rfc855">RFC 855</a> (in DPH)

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

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

      COMMENTS:

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



<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 16]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-17" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Telnet

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc734">RFC 734</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         A special Telnet like protocol for display terminals.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT: Crispin@SU-SCORE.STANFORD.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Recommended

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc959">RFC 959</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

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


<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 17]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-18" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



         (CDUP), Structure Mount (SMNT), Store Unique (STOU), Remove
         Directory (RMD), Make Directory (MKD), Print Directory (PWD),
         and System (SYST).  Note that this specification is compatible
         with the previous edition (<a href="./rfc765">RFC 765</a>).

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

         <a href="./rfc678">RFC 678</a> (in DPH) - Document File Format Standards

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

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc783">RFC 783</a> (in IPTW)

      COMMENTS:

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

         This is in use in several local networks.

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:



<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 18]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-19" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



      DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc913">RFC 913</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT: MKL@SRI-NIC.ARPA

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

      STATUS:  Recommended

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc821">RFC 821</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         The procedure for transmitting computer mail between hosts.

         This has been revised since the IPTW, it is in the "Internet
         Mail Protocols" volume of November 1982.  <a href="./rfc788">RFC 788</a> (in IPTW) is
         obsolete.



<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 19]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-20" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

         Some minor differences between <a href="./rfc821">RFC 821</a> and <a href="./rfc822">RFC 822</a> should be
         resolved.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

         <a href="./rfc822">RFC 822</a> - Mail Header Format Standards

            This has been revised since the IPTW, it is in the "Internet
            Mail Protocols" volume of November 1982.  <a href="./rfc733">RFC 733</a> (in IPTW)
            is obsolete.  Further revision of <a href="./rfc822">RFC 822</a> is needed to
            correct some minor errors in the details of the
            specification.

            Note:  <a href="./rfc822">RFC 822</a> is not included in the DPH (an accident, it
            should have been).

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

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc977">RFC 977</a>

      COMMENTS:

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:



<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 20]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-21" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



      DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

      CONTACT: Brian@SDCSVAX.UCSD.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc937">RFC 937</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:  Obsoletes <a href="./rfc918">RFC 918</a>

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT: JKReynolds@ISI.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Recommended

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc1001">RFC 1001</a>, 1002

      COMMENTS:

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

         <a href="./rfc1001">RFC 1001</a> describes the NetBIOS-over-TCP protocols in a general
         manner, with emphasis on the underlying ideas and techniques.
         <a href="./rfc1002">RFC 1002</a> gives the detailed specifications of the
         NetBIOS-over-TCP packets, protocols, and defined constants and
         variables.



<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 21]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-22" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol, User Datagram
      Protocol

      CONTACT:  Auerbach@CSL.SRI.COM

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

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc951">RFC 951</a>

      COMMENTS:

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol, User Datagram Protocol

      CONTACT: Croft@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc909">RFC 909</a>

      COMMENTS:

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

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


<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 22]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-23" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES:  Reliable Data Protocol

      CONTACT:  Hinden@BBN.COM

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

      STATUS:   Elective

      SPECIFICATION:   <a href="./rfc887">RFC 887</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol

      CONTACT:   Accetta@A.CS.CMU.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc407">RFC 407</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

         Some changes needed for use with TCP.

         No known active implementations.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: File Transfer Protocol, Transmission Control
      Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU




<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 23]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-24" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc740">RFC 740</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

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

         Revision in progress.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT: Braden@ISI.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc818">RFC 818</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         Provides special access to user Telnet on a remote system.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Telnet, Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU












<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 24]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-25" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  NIC 24308 (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         The protocol for vector graphics.

         Very minor changes needed for use with TCP.

         No known active implementations.

         Note:  The DPH claims that this is <a href="./rfc493">RFC 493</a>, but <a href="./rfc493">RFC 493</a> is
         actually a different earlier specification.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Telnet, Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Recommended

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc862">RFC 862</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         Debugging protocol, sends back whatever you send it.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                    or User Datagram Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU










<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 25]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-26" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc863">RFC 863</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         Debugging protocol, throws away whatever you send it.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                    or User Datagram Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc864">RFC 864</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         Debugging protocol, sends you ASCII data.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                    or User Datagram Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU
















<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 26]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-27" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc865">RFC 865</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         Debugging protocol, sends you a short ASCII message.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                    or User Datagram Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Recommended

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc996">RFC 996</a>

      COMMENTS:

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

      CONTACT: Mills@UDEL.EDU













<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 27]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-28" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc866">RFC 866</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         Lists the currently active users.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                    or User Datagram Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc742">RFC 742</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

         Some extensions have been suggested.

         Some changes are are needed for TCP.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU












<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 28]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-29" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc954">RFC 954</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT: Feinler@SRI-NIC.ARPA

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

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  CS-DN-2 (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT: Solomon@WISC.EDU












<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 29]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-30" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      STATUS:  Recommended

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc881">RFC 881</a>, <a href="./rfc882">RFC 882</a>, <a href="./rfc883">RFC 883</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

      OTHER REFERENCES:

         <a href="./rfc920">RFC 920</a> - Domain Requirements

         <a href="./rfc921">RFC 921</a> - Domain Name Implementation Schedule - Revised

         <a href="./rfc973">RFC 973</a> - Domain System Changes and Observations

         <a href="./rfc974">RFC 974</a> - Mail Routing and the Domain System

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                    or User Datagram Protocol

      CONTACT: Mockapetris@ISI.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc953">RFC 953</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

         <a href="./rfc952">RFC 952</a> - Host Table Specification

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT: Feinler@SRI-NIC.ARPA







<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 30]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-31" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  IEN 116 (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

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

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc867">RFC 867</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         Provides the day and time in ASCII character string.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                    or User Datagram Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU




<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 31]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-32" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc958">RFC 958</a>

      COMMENTS:

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:  <a href="./rfc778">RFC 778</a>, <a href="./rfc891">RFC 891</a>, <a href="./rfc956">RFC 956</a>, and <a href="./rfc957">RFC 957</a>.

      DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol

      CONTACT: Mills@UDEL.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc868">RFC 868</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                    or User Datagram Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU












<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 32]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-33" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc778">RFC 778</a>

      COMMENTS:

         Provides a mechanism for keeping synchronized clocks.

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Internet Control Message Protocol

      CONTACT: Mills@UDEL.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc931">RFC 931</a>

      COMMENTS:

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:  Supercedes <a href="./rfc912">RFC 912</a>

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT: StJohns@SRI-NIC.ARPA









<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 33]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-34" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc1004">RFC 1004</a>

      COMMENTS:

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES:

      CONTACT: Mills@UDEL.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc759">RFC 759</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

         <a href="./rfc767">RFC 767</a> - Structured Document Formats

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU








<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 34]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-35" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc569">RFC 569</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES:

      CONTACT:  Postel@ISI.EDU

































<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 35]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-36" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



APPENDICES

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

      STATUS:  None

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc997">RFC 997</a>

      COMMENTS:

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

         Issued March 1987, replaces <a href="./rfc990">RFC 990</a>, <a href="./rfc790">RFC 790</a> in IPTW, and
         <a href="./rfc960">RFC 960</a>.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      CONTACT: Hostmaster@SRI-NIC.ARPA

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

      STATUS:  None

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc1010">RFC 1010</a>

      COMMENTS:

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

         Issued May 1987, replaces <a href="./rfc990">RFC 990</a>, <a href="./rfc790">RFC 790</a> in IPTW, and
         <a href="./rfc960">RFC 960</a>.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      CONTACT: JKREYNOLDS@ISI.EDU










<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 36]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-37" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc794">RFC 794</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         Describes how to do pre-emption of TCP connections.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

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

      STATUS:  None

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc795">RFC 795</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

         Out of date, needs revision.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      CONTACT: Postel@ISI.EDU

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

      STATUS:  None

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc796">RFC 796</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

         Out of date, needs revision.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      CONTACT:  Postel@ISI.EDU


<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 37]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-38" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      STATUS:  None

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc678">RFC 678</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         Describes standard format rules for several types of documents.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      CONTACT:  Postel@ISI.EDU

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

      STATUS:  None

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc1003">RFC 1003</a>

      COMMENTS:

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      CONTACT:  Katz@ISI.EDU

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

      STATUS:  None

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc797">RFC 797</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

         Describes a standard format for bitmap data.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      CONTACT:  Postel@ISI.EDU







<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 38]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-39" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      STATUS:  None

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc804">RFC 804</a>

      COMMENTS:

         Describes a standard format for facsimile data.

      OTHER REFERENCES:  <a href="./rfc769">RFC 769</a> (in DPH)

      CONTACT:  Postel@ISI.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc929">RFC 929</a>

      COMMENTS:

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:  <a href="./rfc928">RFC 928</a>

      DEPENDENCIES:

      CONTACT: Padlipsky@ISI.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Recommended

      SPECIFICATION:  BBN Report 1822

      COMMENTS:

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

      OTHER REFERENCES: <a href="./rfc851">RFC 851</a>, <a href="./rfc852">RFC 852</a>, <a href="./rfc878">RFC 878</a> (in DPH), <a href="./rfc979">RFC 979</a>,
      <a href="./rfc1005">RFC 1005</a>

      CONTACT:  Malis@BBN.COM



<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 39]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-40" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      STATUS:  Recommended

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc907">RFC 907</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      CONTACT:  Blumenthal@BBN.COM

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

      STATUS:  Recommended

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc907">RFC 907</a>  (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES:

      CONTACT: Schoen@BBN.COM


<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 40]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-41" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      STATUS:  Recommended

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc877">RFC 877</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      CONTACT:  jtk@PURDUE.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION: <a href="./rfc891">RFC 891</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

      OTHER REFERENCES:

         <a href="./rfc778">RFC 778</a> - DCNET Internet Clock Service

      CONTACT:  Mills@UDEL.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Recommended

      SPECIFICATION: <a href="./rfc894">RFC 894</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

      OTHER REFERENCES:  <a href="./rfc893">RFC 893</a>

      CONTACT:  Postel@ISI.EDU









<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 41]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-42" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      STATUS:  Recommended

      SPECIFICATION: <a href="./rfc895">RFC 895</a> (in DPH)

      COMMENTS:

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      CONTACT:  Postel@ISI.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Recommended

      SPECIFICATION: see comments

      COMMENTS:

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

         Due to some evolution of the IEEE 802.2 standards and the need
         to provide for a standard way to do additional DOD-IP related
         protocols (such as Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)) on IEEE
         802 networks, the following new policy is established, which
         will replace the current policy (see <a href="./rfc990">RFC-990</a> section on IEEE
         802 Numbers of Interest, and <a href="./rfc948">RFC-948</a>).

         The policy is for DDN and Internet community to use IEEE 802.2
         encapsulation on 802.3, 802.4, and 802.5 networks by using the
         SNAP with an organization code indicating that the following 16
         bits specify the Ethertype code (where IP = 2048 (0800 hex),
         see <a href="./rfc1010">RFC-1010</a>  section on Ethernet Numbers of Interest).

                                                                  Header

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

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


<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 42]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-43" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

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

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

         K2 is 0 (zero).

         Note:  The method described in <a href="./rfc948">RFC 948</a> (in DPH) is no longer to
         be used.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      CONTACT:  Postel@ISI.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Required

      SPECIFICATION: <a href="./rfc950">RFC 950</a>

      COMMENTS:

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:  <a href="./rfc940">RFC 940</a>, <a href="./rfc917">RFC 917</a>, <a href="./rfc925">RFC 925</a>, <a href="./rfc932">RFC 932</a>, <a href="./rfc936">RFC 936</a>,
      <a href="./rfc922">RFC 922</a>

      DEPENDENCIES:

      CONTACT:  Mogul@SU-SCORE.STANFORD.EDU







<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 43]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-44" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      STATUS:  Recommended

      SPECIFICATION: <a href="./rfc826">RFC 826</a>  (IN DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      CONTACT:  Postel@ISI.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION: <a href="./rfc903">RFC 903</a> (IN DPH)

      COMMENTS:

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      CONTACT:  Mogul@SU-SCORE.STANFORD.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION: <a href="./rfc925">RFC 925</a>

      COMMENTS:

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:  <a href="./rfc917">RFC 917</a>, <a href="./rfc826">RFC 826</a>


<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 44]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-45" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



      DEPENDENCIES:

      CONTACT:  Postel@ISI.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Recommended

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc919">RFC 919</a>

      COMMENTS:

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

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:  <a href="./rfc922">RFC 922</a>

      DEPENDENCIES:

      CONTACT: Mogul@SU-SCORE.STANFORD.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Recommended

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc922">RFC 922</a>

      COMMENTS:

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

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES: <a href="./rfc919">RFC 919</a>


<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 45]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-46" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



      DEPENDENCIES:

      CONTACT: Mogul@SU-SCORE.STANFORD.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc916">RFC 916</a>

      COMMENTS:

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT: Finn@ISI.EDU

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

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc914">RFC 914</a>

      COMMENTS:

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:


<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 46]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-47" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



      DEPENDENCIES:

      CONTACT: Farber@UDEL.EDU














































<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 47]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-48" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



ISO and CCITT PROTOCOLS

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

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

      STATUS:

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc995">RFC 995</a>

      COMMENTS:

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:  <a href="./rfc994">RFC 994</a>

      DEPENDENCIES:

      CONTACT: ANSI

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

      STATUS:

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc994">RFC 994</a>

      COMMENTS:

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


<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 48]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-49" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      OTHER REFERENCES:  <a href="./rfc926">RFC 926</a>

      DEPENDENCIES:

      CONTACT: ANSI

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

      STATUS:

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc986">RFC 986</a>

      COMMENTS:

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES:

      CONTACT: RCallon@BBN.COM








<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 49]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-50" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      STATUS:

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc941">RFC 941</a>

      COMMENTS:

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES:

      CONTACT: ISO

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

      STATUS:

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc905">RFC 905</a>

      COMMENTS:

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:  <a href="./rfc892">RFC 892</a>

      DEPENDENCIES:

      CONTACT: ISO



<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 50]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-51" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      STATUS:

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc1006">RFC 1006</a>

      COMMENTS:

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:  <a href="./rfc983">RFC 983</a>

      DEPENDENCIES:

      CONTACT: DCass@NRTC.NORTHROP.COM

   Mapping Between X.400 and <a href="./rfc822">RFC 822</a>  -------------------------- (X.400)

      STATUS:

      SPECIFICATION:  <a href="./rfc987">RFC 987</a>

      COMMENTS:

         The X.400 series of protocols have been defined by CCITT to
         provide an Interpersonal Messaging Service (IPMS), making use
         of a store and forward Message Transfer Service.  It is
         expected that this standard will be implemented very widely.
         This document describes a set of mappings which will enable
         interworking between systems operating the X.400 protocols and
         systems using <a href="./rfc822">RFC 822</a> mail protocol or protocols derived from
         <a href="./rfc822">RFC 822</a>.


<span class="grey">Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 51]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-52" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1011">RFC 1011</a> - Official Internet Protocols                          May 1987</span>



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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES:

      CONTACT: Kille@CS.UCL.AC.UK









































Reynolds &amp; Postel                                              [Page 52]
</pre>