Network Working Group J. Reynolds

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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 1]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

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: [email protected]

Reynolds & Postel [Page 2]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

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:

RFC 871 - A Perspective on the ARPANET Reference Model

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

Leiner, Barry, Robert Cole, Jon Postel and Dave Mills, "The
DARPA Protocol Suite", IEEE INFOCOM 85, Washington, D.C.,
March 1985. Also in IEEE Communications Magazine, March 1985.

DEPENDENCIES:

CONTACT: [email protected]

Reynolds & Postel [Page 3]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

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

DEPENDENCIES:

CONTACT: [email protected]

Reynolds & Postel [Page 4]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

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 917 "Internet Subnets", Address Format Request (A1=17), and
Address Format 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 917

DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

CONTACT: [email protected]

Reynolds & Postel [Page 5]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

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: [email protected]

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-ungent
data).

Reynolds & Postel [Page 6]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

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 if 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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 7]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

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

DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

CONTACT: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 8]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

CONTACT: [email protected]

"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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

Reynolds & Postel [Page 9]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

Reynolds & Postel [Page 10]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

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: [email protected]

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.

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

CONTACT: [email protected]

Reynolds & Postel [Page 11]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

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: [email protected]

Reynolds & Postel [Page 12]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

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: [email protected]

Reynolds & Postel [Page 13]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

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
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.

Reynolds & Postel [Page 14]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

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: [email protected]

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

STATUS: Recommended

SPECIFICATION: RFC 765 (in IPTW)

COMMENTS:

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

There are a number of minor corrections to be made. A major
change is the deletion of the mail commands, and a major
clarification is needed in the discussion of the management of
the data connection. Also, a suggestion has been made to
include some directory manipulation commands (RFC 775).

Even though the MAIL features are defined in this document,
they are not to be used. The SMTP protocol is to be used for
all mail service in the Internet.

Data Connection Management:

a. Default Data Connection Ports: All FTP implementations
must support use of the default data connection ports, and
only the User-PI may initiate the use of non-default ports.

b. Negotiating Non-Default Data Ports: The User-PI may

Reynolds & Postel [Page 15]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

specify a non-default user side data port with the PORT
command. The User-PI may request the server side to
identify a non-default server side data port with the PASV
command. Since a connection is defined by the pair of
addresses, either of these actions is enough to get a
different data connection, still it is permitted to do both
commands to use new ports on both ends of the data
connection.

c. Reuse of the Data Connection: When using the stream
mode of data transfer the end of the file must be indicated
by closing the connection. This causes a problem if
multiple files are to be transfered in the session, due to
need for TCP to hold the connection record for a time out
period to guarantee the reliable communication. Thus the
connection can not be reopened at once.

There are two solutions to this problem. The first is to
negotiate a non-default port (as in (b) above). The
second is to use another transfer mode.

A comment on transfer modes. The stream transfer mode is
inherently unreliable, since one can not determine if the
connection closed prematurely or not. The other transfer
modes (Block, Compressed) do not close the connection to
indicate the end of file. They have enough FTP encoding
that the data connection can be parsed to determine the
end of the file. Thus using these modes one can leave
the data connection open for multiple file transfers.

Why this was not a problem with the old NCP FTP:

The NCP was designed with only the ARPANET in mind.
The ARPANET provides very reliable service, and the
NCP counted on it. If any packet of data from an NCP
connection were lost or damaged by the network the NCP
could not recover. It is a tribute to the ARPANET
designers that the NCP FTP worked so well.

The TCP is designed to provide reliable connections
over many different types of networks and
interconnections of networks. TCP must cope with a
set of networks that can not promise to work as well
as the ARPANET. TCP must make its own provisions for
end-to-end recovery from lost or damaged packets.
This leads to the need for the connection phase-down
time-out. The NCP never had to deal with
acknowledgements or retransmissions or many other

Reynolds & Postel [Page 16]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

things the TCP must do to make connection reliable in
a more complex world.

LIST and NLST:

There is some confusion about the LIST an NLST commands, and
what is appropriate to return. Some clarification and
motivation for these commands should be added to the
specification.

Multiple 1xx Replies:

There is some difference of opinion about the use of
multiple 1xx responses during command processing. This
issue comes up particularly in processing the RETR and STOR
commands. The two opinions are summarized below.

For Exactly One 1xx Response:

When a RETR or SEND command is started, the server is
supposed to give an "intermediate reply" of 1xx when it
is opening the data connection. Currently, some FTP
servers give two 1xx messages. This causes problems for
single-thread FTP user implementations. After reading
the first intermediate reply, they go off to do the
transfer. The second 1xx message is not seen until the
end of the transfer. The RFC gives a state diagram of
the form:

--------->Wait--------->
/ \
^ |
| V
\ /
<-----

This implies any number of 1xx's (including 0). There is
a suspicion that this is just sloppy diagraming, and that
the intent is clear from other parts of the RFC.

The FTP specification states that the reason for
intermediate replies is to allow implementations that
can't do any better to know when to stop listening to the
control channel and switch their attention to the data
channel. Given this intent, it seems clear that there
should be exactly one 1xx reply at the start of the
transfer.

The FTP specification is ambiguous in this regard. The

Reynolds & Postel [Page 17]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

state diagrams appear to sanction any number of
responses. But the charts before them do not. And from
the intent, it seems obvious that exactly one is the
right thing.

Consider an implementation on a PC. It is fairly hard to
do parallel processing there. It should be possible for
a PC implementation to stop paying attention to the
control channel and start reading the file from the data
channel when he sees the 1xx response. The only way this
can work is if there is only one 1xx response.

Of course, one could make it a requirement that every FTP
implementation must be based on good enough interrupt
technology so that it can field extra responses during
the transfer. But what would such a constraint buy?
Just the ability to have both a 125 and a 150 response.
It doesn't seem worth the price. You could just as well
combine the information in those responses into a single
one.

For Multiple 1xx Responses:

The multiple 1xx messages arose because the new TCP
specification omitted the 050 spontaneous reply code. A
solution was to change an 050 informational message to a
1xx message, creating both a 125 and a 150.

The state diagrams clearly allow this, and the
"Command-Reply Sequences" section does not contradict it.
A multiple 1xx implementation is in accord with the
formal reply specifications.

A multiple 1xx implementation works with the TOPS-20
FTP's and with a number of different UNIX
implementations, and the LOCUS system. So, a lot of
implementors must follow state diagrams in preference to
prose.

However, the observation is certainly correct that
page 34 of the specification suggests that 1xx replies
can be used by single-thread user implementations to
switch attention to the data connection. This would
allow only a single 1xx message, in contradiction to the
state diagrams. It seems a bit strong, however, to call
the one sentence on page 34 "the intent" of the
specification, since it is contradicted by the format
specification of replies.

Reynolds & Postel [Page 18]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

A side discussion favoring more status information:

One view has always assumed a two-thread
implementation. In this view, most user
implementations are deficient because they do not
allow the user to enter a STATUS command during data
transfer. A cynic might say that is because the
Computer Scientists who did these implementations only
do "Toy" file transfers, and often use "Toy" operating
systems.

There has been some complaints from the Toy systems
crowd recently that FTP is too complicated. Well, it
may be too complicated for Toy systems, but in fact it
is too simple for many Real file systems. For
example, it has no way to encode a "library" (i.e., a
named collection of subfiles). It is (barely)
adequate for shipping around files of text, but not
much more.

With the notable exception of Multics and UNIX, many
operating systems support complex file structures of
which the user must be aware. One is not doing the
user a favor by hiding details that may reach out and
bite him. That is the reason some FTPs put out a
large informative message at the beginning of the
transfer, specifying the file baroqueness that is
involved. As a Computer Scientist, you may find that
message annoying, but if you had to use MVS very much,
you would find it helpful, informative, and maybe even
reassuring. Some believe that as DARPA technology
moves into the production environment of DDN, there
will be user requirements for such informative
messages for a variety of vendor operating systems.

To provide important information to the user the
specification should either allow multiple 1xx messages,
or restore the old spontaneous reply category. In fact,
the latter is preferable; this information should be
displayed to the user, but a user FTP might swallow 1xx
messages without displaying their text.

The Answer:

Following the Robustness Principle (a protocol
implementation ought to inflict minimal pain and accept
maximal pain) there should be only one 1xx response.
That is, those FTP servers that now issue two 1xx
responses should combine them.

Reynolds & Postel [Page 19]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

OTHER REFERENCES:

RFC 678 - Document File Format Standards

MIL-STD-1780 - File Transfer Protocol

DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

CONTACT: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 20]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

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: [email protected]

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 [ISIF]<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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 21]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

CONTACT: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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.

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: Reliable Data Protocol

CONTACT: [email protected]

Reynolds & Postel [Page 22]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

Reynolds & Postel [Page 23]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

Reynolds & Postel [Page 24]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 25]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

CONTACT: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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.

Reynolds & Postel [Page 26]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

Some changes are are needed for TCP.

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

CONTACT: [email protected]

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

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: RFC 812 (in IPTW)

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: [email protected]

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

STATUS: Experimental

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: [email protected]

Reynolds & Postel [Page 27]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

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

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: RFC 811 (in IPTW)

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 810 - Host Table Specification

DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

CONTACT: [email protected]

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 abandon 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: [email protected]

Reynolds & Postel [Page 28]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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:

Reynolds & Postel [Page 29]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol
or User Datagram Protocol

CONTACT: [email protected]

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

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: RFC 778

COMMENTS:

Provides a mechanism for keeping synchronized clocks.

OTHER REFERENCES:

DEPENDENCIES: Internet Control Message Protocol

CONTACT: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

Reynolds & Postel [Page 30]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

Reynolds & Postel [Page 31]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

Reynolds & Postel [Page 32]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

APPENDICES

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

STATUS: None

SPECIFICATION: RFC 943

COMMENTS:

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

Issued April 1985, replaces RFC 923, RFC 790 in IPTW, and
RFC 900.

OTHER REFERENCES:

CONTACT: [email protected]

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

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: RFC 794 (in IPTW)

COMMENTS:

Describes how to do pre-emption of TCP connections.

OTHER REFERENCES:

CONTACT: [email protected]

Reynolds & Postel [Page 33]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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

STATUS: None

SPECIFICATION: RFC 678

COMMENTS:

Describes standard format rules for several types of documents.

OTHER REFERENCES:

CONTACT: [email protected]

Reynolds & Postel [Page 34]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

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

STATUS: None

SPECIFICATION: RFC 797

COMMENTS:

Describes a standard format for bitmap data.

OTHER REFERENCES:

CONTACT: [email protected]

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

STATUS: None

SPECIFICATION: RFC 804

COMMENTS:

Describes a standard format for facsimile data.

OTHER REFERENCES:

CONTACT: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

Reynolds & Postel [Page 35]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

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: [email protected]

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

STATUS: Elective

SPECIFICATION: RFC 891

COMMENTS:

OTHER REFERENCES:

RFC 778 - DCNET Internet Clock Service

CONTACT: [email protected]

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

STATUS: Recommended

SPECIFICATION: RFC 894

COMMENTS:

OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 893

CONTACT: [email protected]

Reynolds & Postel [Page 36]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

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

STATUS: Recommended

SPECIFICATION: RFC 895

COMMENTS:

OTHER REFERENCES:

CONTACT: [email protected]

Internet Subnets Protocol --------------------------------- (IP-SUB)

STATUS: Experimental

SPECIFICATION: RFC 940

COMMENTS:

Discussion of the various problems and potential solutions of
"explicit 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 925, RFC 932, RFC 936, RFC 922

DEPENDENCIES:

CONTACT: [email protected]

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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 37]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

DEPENDENCIES:

CONTACT: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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.

Reynolds & Postel [Page 38]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 917, RFC 826

DEPENDENCIES:

CONTACT: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

Reynolds & Postel [Page 39]

Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 944

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

Reynolds & Postel [Page 40]