home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
Text File | 1991-04-20 | 51.4 KB | 2,203 lines |
- 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]
-
-