Official ARPA-Internet protocols
RFC 961

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.

Reynolds & Postel [Page 1]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 2]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 3]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 4]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 5]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

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).

Reynolds & Postel [Page 6]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 7]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 8]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 9]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 10]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 11]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 12]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 13]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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.

Reynolds & Postel [Page 14]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 15]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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:

Reynolds & Postel [Page 16]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 17]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 18]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 19]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 20]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 21]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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.

Reynolds & Postel [Page 22]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 23]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 24]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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.

Reynolds & Postel [Page 25]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 26]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 27]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 28]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 29]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 30]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 31]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 32]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 33]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 34]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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).

Reynolds & Postel [Page 35]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 36]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 37]



Official ARPA-Internet Protocols RFC 961

 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

Reynolds & Postel [Page 38]