RFC 961
OFFICIAL ARPA-INTERNET PROTOCOLS

Non-hyperlinked document RFC index
Add to your favorites

Network Working Group                                        J. Reynolds
Request for Comments: 961                                      J. Postel
                                                                     ISI
Obsoletes: RFCs 944, 924, 901, 880, 840                    December 1985

OFFICIAL ARPA-INTERNET PROTOCOLS



STATUS OF THIS MEMO
   This memo is an official status report on the protocols used in the
   ARPA-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 in the "Internet
   Protocol Transition Workbook" (IPTW) dated March 1982.  There are
   several protocols in use that are not in the IPTW.  A few of the
   protocols in the IPTW have been revised.  Notably, the mail protocols
   have been revised and issued as a volume titled "Internet Mail
   Protocols" dated November 1982.  Telnet and the most useful Telnet
   options have been revised and issued as a volume titled "Internet
   Telnet Protocol and Options" (ITP) dated June 1983.  The File
   Transfer Protocol has been revised most recently as RFC 959 which is
   not yet included in any collection.  Some protocols have not been
   revised for many years, these are found in the old "ARPANET Protocol
   Handbook" (APH) dated January 1978.  There is also a volume of
   protocol related information called the "Internet Protocol
   Implementers Guide" (IPIG) dated August 1982.
   This document 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, or
      experimental.
      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.
      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 Reynolds
            USC - Information Sciences Institute
            4676 Admiralty Way
            Marina del Rey, California  90292-6695
            Phone: (213) 822-1511
            ARPA mail: JKREYNOLDS@USC-ISIB.ARPA



OVERVIEW
   Catenet Model  ------------------------------------------------------
      STATUS:  None
      SPECIFICATION:  IEN 48 (in IPTW)
      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.
         RFC 871 - A Perspective on the ARPANET Reference Model
      DEPENDENCIES:
      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIB.ARPA



NETWORK LEVEL
   Internet Protocol  --------------------------------------------- (IP)
      STATUS:  Required
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 791 (in IPTW)
      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.
         Another important point is the alternate reassembly procedure
         suggested in RFC 815.
         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.
      OTHER REFERENCES:
         RFC 815 (in IPIG) - IP Datagram Reassembly Algorithms
         RFC 814 (in IPIG) - Names, Addresses, Ports, and Routes
         RFC 816 (in IPIG) - Fault Isolation and Recovery
         RFC 817 (in IPIG) - Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol
         Implementation
         MIL-STD-1777 - Military Standard Internet Protocol
         RFC 963 - Some Problems with the Specification of the Military
         Standard Internet Protocol
      DEPENDENCIES:
      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Internet Control Message Protocol  --------------------------- (ICMP)
      STATUS:  Required
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 792 (in IPTW)
      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.
         A proposal for two additional ICMP message types is made in
         RFC 950 "Internet Subnets", Address Mask Request (A1=17), and
         Address Mask Reply (A2=18).  The details of these ICMP types
         are subject to change.  Use of these ICMP types is
         experimental.
         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:  RFC 950
      DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIB.ARPA



HOST LEVEL
   User Datagram Protocol  --------------------------------------- (UDP)
      STATUS:  Recommended
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 768 (in IPTW)
      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@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Transmission Control Protocol  -------------------------------- (TCP)
      STATUS:  Recommended
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 793 (in IPTW)
      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.
         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 RFC 879.
         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.
      OTHER REFERENCES:
         RFC 813 (in IPIG) - Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP
         RFC 814 (in IPIG) - Names, Addresses, Ports, and Routes
         RFC 816 (in IPIG) - Fault Isolation and Recovery
         RFC 817 (in IPIG) - Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol
         Implementation
         RFC 879 - TCP Maximum Segment Size
         RFC 889 - Internet Delay Experiments
         RFC 896 - TCP/IP Congestion Control
         MIL-STD-1778 - Military Standard Transmission Control Protocol
         RFC 964 - Some Problems with the Specification of the Military
         Standard Transmission Control Protocol
      DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Host Monitoring Protocol  ------------------------------------- (HMP)
      STATUS:  Elective
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 869
      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-UNIX.ARPA
   Cross Net Debugger  ------------------------------------------ (XNET)
      STATUS:  Elective
      SPECIFICATION:  IEN 158
      COMMENTS:
         A debugging protocol, allows debugger like access to remote
         systems.
         This specification should be updated and reissued as an RFC.
      OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 643
      DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   "Stub" Exterior Gateway Protocol  ----------------------------- (EGP)
      STATUS:  Recommended for Gateways
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 888, RFC 904
      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:  RFC 827, RFC 890
      DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol
      CONTACT: Mills@USC-ISID.ARPA
   Gateway Gateway Protocol  ------------------------------------- (GGP)
      STATUS:  Experimental
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 823
      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-UNIX.ARPA
   Multiplexing Protocol  ---------------------------------------- (MUX)
      STATUS:  Experimental
      SPECIFICATION:  IEN 90
      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@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Stream Protocol  ----------------------------------------------- (ST)
      STATUS:  Experimental
      SPECIFICATION:  IEN 119
      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:  RFC 741
      DEPENDENCIES:  Internet Protocol, Stream Protocol
      CONTACT:  Casner@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Reliable Data Protocol  --------------------------------------- (RDP)
      STATUS:  Experimental
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 908
      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-UNIX.ARPA
   Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol  ---------------------- (IRTP)
      STATUS:  Experimental
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 938
      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 DARPA community, they may be interesting to a number of
         researchers and implementors.
      OTHER REFERENCES:
      DEPENDENCIES:  Internet Protocol
      CONTACT:  Trudy@ACC.ARPA



APPLICATION LEVEL
   Telnet Protocol  ------------------------------------------- (TELNET)
      STATUS:  Recommended
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 854 (in "Internet Telnet Protocol and
      Options")
      COMMENTS:
         The protocol for remote terminal access.
         This has been revised since the IPTW.  RFC 764 in IPTW is now
         obsolete.
      OTHER REFERENCES:
         MIL-STD-1782 - Telnet Protocol
      DEPENDENCIES:  Transmission Control Protocol
      CONTACT:  Postel@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Telnet Options  ------------------------------------ (TELNET-OPTIONS)
      STATUS:  Elective
      SPECIFICATION:  General description of options:  RFC 855
      (in "Internet Telnet Protocol and Options")
      Number   Name                                RFC  NIC  ITP APH USE
      ------   ---------------------------------   --- ----- --- --- ---
         0     Binary Transmission                 856 ----- yes obs yes
         1     Echo                                857 ----- yes obs yes
         2     Reconnection                        ... 15391  no yes  no
         3     Suppress Go Ahead                   858 ----- yes obs yes
         4     Approx Message Size Negotiation     ... 15393  no yes  no
         5     Status                              859 ----- yes obs yes
         6     Timing Mark                         860 ----- yes obs yes
         7     Remote Controlled Trans and Echo    726 39237  no yes  no
         8     Output Line Width                   ... 20196  no yes  no
         9     Output Page Size                    ... 20197  no yes  no
        10     Output Carriage-Return Disposition  652 31155  no yes  no
        11     Output Horizontal Tabstops          653 31156  no yes  no
        12     Output Horizontal Tab Disposition   654 31157  no yes  no
        13     Output Formfeed Disposition         655 31158  no yes  no
        14     Output Vertical Tabstops            656 31159  no yes  no
        15     Output Vertical Tab Disposition     657 31160  no yes  no
        16     Output Linefeed Disposition         658 31161  no yes  no
        17     Extended ASCII                      698 32964  no yes  no
        18     Logout                              727 40025  no yes  no
        19     Byte Macro                          735 42083  no yes  no
        20     Data Entry Terminal                 732 41762  no yes  no
        21     SUPDUP                          734 736 42213  no yes  no
        22     SUPDUP Output                       749 45449  no  no  no
        23     Send Location                       779 -----  no  no  no
        24     Terminal Type                       930 -----  no  no  no
        25     End of Record                       885 -----  no  no  no
        26     TACACS User Identification          927 -----  no  no  no
        27     Output Marking                      933 -----  no  no  no
        28     Terminal Location Number            946 -----  no  no  no
       255     Extended-Options-List               861 ----- yes obs yes
                                                        (obs = obsolete)
      The ITP column indicates if the specification is included in the
      Internet Telnet Protocol and Options.  The APH column indicates if
      the specification is included in the ARPANET 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,
         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@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   File Transfer Protocol  --------------------------------------- (FTP)
      STATUS:  Recommended
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 959
      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
         (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 (RFC 765).
      OTHER REFERENCES:
         RFC 678 - Document File Format Standards
         MIL-STD-1780 - File Transfer Protocol
      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Trivial File Transfer Protocol  ------------------------------ (TFTP)
      STATUS:  Elective
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 783 (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.
      OTHER REFERENCES:
      DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol
      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Simple File Transfer Protocol  ------------------------------- (SFTP)
      STATUS:  Experimental
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 913
      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:  RFC 821 (in "Internet Mail Protocols")
      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.  RFC 788 (in IPTW) is
         obsolete.
         There have been many misunderstandings and errors in the early
         implementations.  Some documentation of these problems can be
         found in the file [ISIB]<SMTP>MAIL.ERRORS.
         Some minor differences between RFC 821 and RFC 822 should be
         resolved.
      OTHER REFERENCES:
         RFC 822 - Mail Header Format Standards
            This has been revised since the IPTW, it is in the "Internet
            Mail Protocols" volume of November 1982.  RFC 733 (in IPTW)
            is obsolete.  Further revision of RFC 822 is needed to
            correct some minor errors in the details of the
            specification.
         MIL-STD-1781 - Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)
      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Resource Location Protocol  ----------------------------------- (RLP)
      STATUS:   Elective
      SPECIFICATION:   RFC 887
      COMMENTS:
         A resource location protocol for use in the ARPA-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@CMU-CS-A.ARPA
   Loader Debugger Protocol  ------------------------------------- (LDP)
      STATUS:  Experimental
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 909
      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.
      OTHER REFERENCES:
      DEPENDENCIES:  Reliable Data Protocol
      CONTACT:  Hinden@BBN-UNIX.ARPA
   Remote Job Entry  --------------------------------------------- (RJE)
      STATUS:  Elective
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 407 (in APH)
      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@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Remote Job Service  ---------------------------------------- (NETRJS)
      STATUS:  Elective
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 740 (in APH)
      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@UCLA-CCN.ARPA
   Remote Telnet Service  ------------------------------------ (RTELNET)
      STATUS:  Elective
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 818
      COMMENTS:
         Provides special access to user Telnet on a remote system.
      OTHER REFERENCES:
      DEPENDENCIES: Telnet, Transmission Control Protocol
      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Graphics Protocol  --------------------------------------- (GRAPHICS)
      STATUS:  Elective
      SPECIFICATION:  NIC 24308 (in APH)
      COMMENTS:
         The protocol for vector graphics.
         Very minor changes needed for use with TCP.
         No known active implementations.
      OTHER REFERENCES:
      DEPENDENCIES: Telnet, Transmission Control Protocol
      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Echo Protocol  ----------------------------------------------- (ECHO)
      STATUS:  Recommended
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 862
      COMMENTS:
         Debugging protocol, sends back whatever you send it.
      OTHER REFERENCES:
      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                    or User Datagram Protocol
      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Discard Protocol  ----------------------------------------- (DISCARD)
      STATUS:  Elective
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 863
      COMMENTS:
         Debugging protocol, throws away whatever you send it.
      OTHER REFERENCES:
      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                    or User Datagram Protocol
      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Character Generator Protocol  ----------------------------- (CHARGEN)
      STATUS:  Elective
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 864
      COMMENTS:
         Debugging protocol, sends you ASCII data.
      OTHER REFERENCES:
      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                    or User Datagram Protocol
      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Quote of the Day Protocol  ---------------------------------- (QUOTE)
      STATUS:  Elective
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 865
      COMMENTS:
         Debugging protocol, sends you a short ASCII message.
      OTHER REFERENCES:
      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                    or User Datagram Protocol
      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Active Users Protocol  -------------------------------------- (USERS)
      STATUS:  Elective
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 866
      COMMENTS:
         Lists the currently active users.
      OTHER REFERENCES:
      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                    or User Datagram Protocol
      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Finger Protocol  ------------------------------------------- (FINGER)
      STATUS:  Elective
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 742 (in APH)
      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@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   WhoIs Protocol  ------------------------------------------- (NICNAME)
      STATUS:  Elective
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 954
      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
   Domain Name Protocol  -------------------------------------- (DOMAIN)
      STATUS:  Recommended
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 881, 882, 883
      COMMENTS:
      OTHER REFERENCES:
         RFC 920 - Domain Requirements
         RFC 921 - Domain Name Implementation Schedule - Revised
      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                    or User Datagram Protocol
      CONTACT: Mockapetris@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   HOSTNAME Protocol  --------------------------------------- (HOSTNAME)
      STATUS:  Elective
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 953
      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:
         RFC 952 - Host Table Specification
      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
      CONTACT: Feinler@SRI-NIC.ARPA
   Host Name Server Protocol  ----------------------------- (NAMESERVER)
      STATUS:  Experimental
      SPECIFICATION:  IEN 116 (in IPTW)
      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@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   CSNET Mailbox Name Server Protocol  ---------------------- (CSNET-NS)
      STATUS:  Experimental
      SPECIFICATION:  CS-DN-2
      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@UWISC.ARPA
   Daytime Protocol  ----------------------------------------- (DAYTIME)
      STATUS:  Elective
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 867
      COMMENTS:
         Provides the day and time in ASCII character string.
      OTHER REFERENCES:
      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
                    or User Datagram Protocol
      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Network Time Protocol  ---------------------------------------- (NTP)
      STATUS:  Experimental
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 958
      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:  RFC 778, RFC 891, RFC 956, and RFC 957.
      DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol
      CONTACT: Mills@USC-ISID.ARPA
   Time Server Protocol  ---------------------------------------- (TIME)
      STATUS:  Elective
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 868
      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@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   DCNET Time Server Protocol  --------------------------------- (CLOCK)
      STATUS:  Experimental
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 778
      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@USC-ISID.ARPA
   SUPDUP Protocol  ------------------------------------------- (SUPDUP)
      STATUS:  Elective
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 734 (in APH)
      COMMENTS:
         A special Telnet like protocol for display terminals.
      OTHER REFERENCES:
      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
      CONTACT: Crispin@SU-SCORE.ARPA
   Internet Message Protocol  ------------------------------------ (MPM)
      STATUS:  Experimental
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 759
      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:
         RFC 767 - Structured Document Formats
      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Post Office Protocol - Version 2  ---------------------------- (POP2)
      STATUS:  Experimental
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 937
      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 RFC 918
      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
      CONTACT: JKReynolds@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Network Standard Text Editor  ------------------------------- (NETED)
      STATUS:  Elective
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 569
      COMMENTS:
         Describes a simple line editor which could be provided by every
         Internet host.
      OTHER REFERENCES:
      DEPENDENCIES:
      CONTACT:  Postel@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Authentication Service  -------------------------------------- (AUTH)
      STATUS:  Experimental
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 931
      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 RFC 912
      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
      CONTACT: StJohns@MIT-Multics.ARPA
   Bootstrap Protocol  ----------------------------------------- (BOOTP)
      STATUS:  Experimental
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 951
      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.ARPA



APPENDICES
   Assigned Numbers  ---------------------------------------------------
      STATUS:  None
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 960
      COMMENTS:
         Describes the fields of various protocols that are assigned
         specific values for actual use, and lists the currently
         assigned values.
         Issued November 1985, replaces RFC 943, RFC 790 in IPTW, and
         RFC 923.
      OTHER REFERENCES:
      CONTACT: JKReynolds@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Pre-emption  --------------------------------------------------------
      STATUS:  Elective
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 794 (in IPTW)
      COMMENTS:
         Describes how to do pre-emption of TCP connections.
      OTHER REFERENCES:
      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Service Mappings  ---------------------------------------------------
      STATUS:  None
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 795 (in IPTW)
      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@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Address Mappings  ---------------------------------------------------
      STATUS:  None
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 796 (in IPTW)
      COMMENTS:
         Describes the mapping between Internet Addresses and the
         addresses of some specific networks.
         Out of date, needs revision.
      OTHER REFERENCES:
      CONTACT:  Postel@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Document Formats  ---------------------------------------------------
      STATUS:  None
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 678
      COMMENTS:
         Describes standard format rules for several types of documents.
      OTHER REFERENCES:
      CONTACT:  Postel@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Bitmap Formats  -----------------------------------------------------
      STATUS:  None
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 797
      COMMENTS:
         Describes a standard format for bitmap data.
      OTHER REFERENCES:
      CONTACT:  Postel@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Facsimile Formats  --------------------------------------------------
      STATUS:  None
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 804
      COMMENTS:
         Describes a standard format for facsimile data.
      OTHER REFERENCES:
      CONTACT:  Postel@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Host-Front End Protocol  ------------------------------------- (HFEP)
      STATUS:  Experimental
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 929
      COMMENTS:
         Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
         protocol with the contact.
      OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 928
      DEPENDENCIES:
      CONTACT: Padlipsky@USC-ISI.ARPA
   Internet Protocol on X.25 Networks  ------------------------ (IP-X25)
      STATUS:  Recommended
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 877
      COMMENTS:
         Describes a standard for the transmission of IP Datagrams over
         Public Data Networks.
      OTHER REFERENCES:
      CONTACT:  jtk@PURDUE.ARPA
   Internet Protocol on DC Networks  --------------------------- (IP-DC)
      STATUS:  Elective
      SPECIFICATION: RFC 891
      COMMENTS:
      OTHER REFERENCES:
         RFC 778 - DCNET Internet Clock Service
      CONTACT:  Mills@USC-ISID.ARPA
   Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks  ---------------------- (IP-E)
      STATUS:  Recommended
      SPECIFICATION: RFC 894
      COMMENTS:
      OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 893
      CONTACT:  Postel@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Internet Protocol on Experimental Ethernet Networks  -------- (IP-EE)
      STATUS:  Recommended
      SPECIFICATION: RFC 895
      COMMENTS:
      OTHER REFERENCES:
      CONTACT:  Postel@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Internet Protocol on IEEE 802.3  -------------------------- (IP-IEEE)
      STATUS:  Recommended
      SPECIFICATION: RFC 948
      COMMENTS:  A proposed protocol of two methods of encapsulating
      Internet Protocol (IP) datagrams on an IEEE 802.3 network.
      OTHER REFERENCES:
      CONTACT:  Ira@UPENN.CSNET
   Internet Subnet Protocol  ---------------------------------- (IP-SUB)
      STATUS:  Recommended
      SPECIFICATION: RFC 950
      COMMENTS:
         Specifies procedures for the use of subnets, including the
         ultility of "subnets" of Internet networks, which are logically
         visible sub-sections of a single Internet.  Recommended in the
         sense of "if you do subnetting at all do it this way".
      OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 940, RFC 917, RFC 925, RFC 932, RFC 936,
      RFC 922
      DEPENDENCIES:
      CONTACT:  Mogul@SU-SCORE.ARPA
   Broadcasting Internet Datagrams  ------------------------- (IP-BROAD)
      STATUS:  Experimental
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 919
      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.
         Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
         protocol with the contact.
      OTHER REFERENCES:  RFC 922
      DEPENDENCIES:
      CONTACT: Mogul@SU-SCORE.ARPA
   Address Resolution Protocol  ---------------------------------- (ARP)
      STATUS:  Recommended
      SPECIFICATION: RFC 826
      COMMENTS:
         This is a procedure for finding the network hardware address
         corresponding to an Internet Address.
      OTHER REFERENCES:
      CONTACT:  Postel@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol  ----------------------- (RARP)
      STATUS:  Elective
      SPECIFICATION: RFC 903
      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.ARPA
   Multi-LAN Address Resolution Protocol  ----------------------- (MARP)
      STATUS:  Experimental
      SPECIFICATION: RFC 925
      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:  RFC 917, RFC 826
      DEPENDENCIES:
      CONTACT:  Postel@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Broadcasting Internet Datagrams with Subnets --------- (IP-SUB-BROAD)
      STATUS:  Experimental
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 922
      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.
         Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this
         protocol with the contact.
      OTHER REFERENCES:
      DEPENDENCIES:
      CONTACT: Mogul@SU-SCORE.ARPA
   Host Access Protocol  ----------------------------------------- (HAP)
      STATUS:  Recommended
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 907
      COMMENTS:
         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-UNIX.ARPA
   Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol  --------------------- (RATP)
      STATUS:  Experimental
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 916
      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@USC-ISIB.ARPA
   Thinwire Protocol  --------------------------------------- (THINWIRE)
      STATUS:  Experimental
      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 914
      COMMENTS:
         This paper discusses a Thinwire Protocol for connecting
         personal computers to the ARPA-Internet.  It primarily focuses
         on the particular problems in the ARPA-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:
      DEPENDENCIES:
      CONTACT: Farber@ROCHESTER.ARPA