

Network Working Group                                        J. Reynolds
Request for Comments: 880                                      J. Postel
                                                                     ISI
Obsoletes: RFC 840                                          October 1983


                           OFFICIAL PROTOCOLS


This RFC identifies the documents specifying the official protocols used
in the Internet.  Annotations identify 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 option
protocols were issued by the NIC in a booklet entitled "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.

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








Reynolds & Postel                                               [Page 1]



Official Protocols                                               RFC 880


   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.

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

      DEPENDENCIES:

      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF




Reynolds & Postel                                               [Page 2]



Official Protocols                                               RFC 880


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.

         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

      DEPENDENCIES:

      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF






Reynolds & Postel                                               [Page 3]



Official Protocols                                               RFC 880


   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.

         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:

      DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

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-ISIF



Reynolds & Postel                                               [Page 4]



Official Protocols                                               RFC 880


   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.

         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 default should be established more clearly.  The default is
         based on the default maximum Internet Datagram size which is
         576 octets counting the IP and TCP headers.  The option counts
         only the segment data.  For each of IP and TCP the minimum
         header is 20 octets and the maximum header is 60 octets. So the
         default maximum data segment is could be anywhere from 456 to
         536 octets.  The current proposal is to set it at 536 data
         octets.

         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


Reynolds & Postel                                               [Page 5]



Official Protocols                                               RFC 880


         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

      DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF




















Reynolds & Postel                                               [Page 6]



Official Protocols                                               RFC 880


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

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  IEN 197

      COMMENTS:

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

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

      CONTACT: Hinden@BBN-UNIX

   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-ISIF











Reynolds & Postel                                               [Page 7]



Official Protocols                                               RFC 880


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

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 827

      COMMENTS:

         The gateway protocol now under development.

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol

      CONTACT: Mills@USC-ISID

   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














Reynolds & Postel                                               [Page 8]



Official Protocols                                               RFC 880


   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-ISIF

   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: Forgie@BBN


Reynolds & Postel                                               [Page 9]



Official Protocols                                               RFC 880


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

      STATUS:  Experimental

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC xxx

      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:

      DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol, Stream Protocol

      CONTACT: Casner@USC-ISIB

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:

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF








Reynolds & Postel                                              [Page 10]



Official Protocols                                               RFC 880


   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
       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.


Reynolds & Postel                                              [Page 11]



Official Protocols                                               RFC 880


         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-ISIF

   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
            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



Reynolds & Postel                                              [Page 12]



Official Protocols                                               RFC 880


            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
                  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


Reynolds & Postel                                              [Page 13]



Official Protocols                                               RFC 880


            motivation for these commands should be added to the
            specification.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

         RFC 678 - Document File Format Standards

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

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

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 783 (in IPTW)

      COMMENTS:

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

         No known problems with this specification.  This is in use in
         several local networks.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

   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.



Reynolds & Postel                                              [Page 14]



Official Protocols                                               RFC 880


         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.

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

   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-ISIF













Reynolds & Postel                                              [Page 15]



Official Protocols                                               RFC 880


   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@USC-ISIA

   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-ISIF














Reynolds & Postel                                              [Page 16]



Official Protocols                                               RFC 880


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

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  NIC 24308 (in APH)

      COMMENTS:

         The protocols 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-ISIF

   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-ISIF















Reynolds & Postel                                              [Page 17]



Official Protocols                                               RFC 880


   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-ISIF

   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-ISIF


















Reynolds & Postel                                              [Page 18]



Official Protocols                                               RFC 880


   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-ISIF

   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-ISIF

   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.



Reynolds & Postel                                              [Page 19]



Official Protocols                                               RFC 880


      OTHER REFERENCES:

      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

   NICNAME 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: Feinler@SRI-NIC

   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: Feinler@SRI-NIC








Reynolds & Postel                                              [Page 20]



Official Protocols                                               RFC 880


   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.

         Work is in progress on a significant revision.  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-ISIF

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

      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



Reynolds & Postel                                              [Page 21]



Official Protocols                                               RFC 880


   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-ISIF

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

      STATUS:  Recommended

      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-ISIF

















Reynolds & Postel                                              [Page 22]



Official Protocols                                               RFC 880


   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: Mills@USC-ISID

   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: Admin.MRC@SU-SCORE

   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


Reynolds & Postel                                              [Page 23]



Official Protocols                                               RFC 880


      DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol

      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

   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-ISIF

Appendices

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

      STATUS:  None

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 870

      COMMENTS:

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

         Issued October 1983, replaces RFC 790 in IPTW, and RFC 820 of
         January 1983.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      CONTACT: JKReynolds@USC-ISIF










Reynolds & Postel                                              [Page 24]



Official Protocols                                               RFC 880


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

      STATUS:  Elective

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 794 (in IPTW)

      COMMENTS:

         Describes how to do pre-emption of TCP connections.

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF

   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-ISIF

   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-ISIF




Reynolds & Postel                                              [Page 25]



Official Protocols                                               RFC 880


   Internet Protocol on X.25 Networks  ---------------------------------

      STATUS:  Recommended

      SPECIFICATION:  RFC 877

      COMMENTS:

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

      OTHER REFERENCES:

      CONTACT:  jtk@PURDUE





































Reynolds & Postel                                              [Page 26]

