| |
| RFC 1700 | Assigned Numbers |
| |
| Authors: | J. Reynolds, J. Postel. |
| Date: | October 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 1340 |
| Obsoleted by: | RFC 3232 |
| Status: | HISTORIC |
|
This RFC is a snapshot of the ongoing process of the assignment of protocol parameters for the Internet protocol suite. To make the current information readily available the assignments are kept up-to- date in a set of online text files. This memo is a status report on the parameters (i.e., numbers and keywords) used in protocols in the Internet community. |
|
| |
| RFC 1701 | Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) |
| |
| Authors: | S. Hanks, T. Li, D. Farinacci, P. Traina. |
| Date: | October 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
This document specifies a protocol for performing encapsulation of an arbitrary network layer protocol over another arbitrary network layer protocol. |
|
| |
| RFC 1702 | Generic Routing Encapsulation over IPv4 networks |
| |
| Authors: | S. Hanks, T. Li, D. Farinacci, P. Traina. |
| Date: | October 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
This memo addresses the case of using IP as the delivery protocol or the payload protocol and the special case of IP as both the delivery and payload. This memo also describes using IP addresses and autonomous system numbers as part of a GRE source route. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. |
|
| |
| RFC 1703 | Principles of Operation for the TPC.INT Subdomain: Radio Paging -- Technical Procedures |
| |
| Authors: | M. Rose. |
| Date: | October 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 1569 |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
This memo describes a technique for radio paging using the Internet mail infrastructure. In particular, this memo focuses on the case in which radio pagers are identified via the international telephone network. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. |
|
| |
| RFC 1704 | On Internet Authentication |
| |
| Authors: | N. Haller, R. Atkinson. |
| Date: | October 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
This document describes a spectrum of authentication technologies and provides suggestions to protocol developers on what kinds of authentication might be suitable for some kinds of protocols and applications used in the Internet. This document provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. |
|
| |
| RFC 1705 | Six Virtual Inches to the Left: The Problem with IPng |
| |
| Authors: | R. Carlson, D. Ficarella. |
| Date: | October 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
This document was submitted to the IETF IPng area in response to RFC1550. Publication of this document does not imply acceptance by theIPng area of any ideas expressed within. Comments should be submitted to the big-internet@munnari.oz.au mailing list. |
|
| |
| RFC 1706 | DNS NSAP Resource Records |
| |
| Authors: | B. Manning, R. Colella. |
| Date: | October 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 1637 |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
OSI lower layer protocols, comprising the connectionless network protocol (CLNP) and supporting routing protocols, are deployed in some parts of the global Internet. Maintenance and debugging of CLNP connectivity is greatly aided by support in the Domain Name System(DNS) for mapping between names and NSAP addresses.
This document defines the format of one new Resource Record (RR) for the DNS for domain name-to-NSAP mapping. The RR may be used with anyNSAP address format.
NSAP-to-name translation is accomplished through use of the PTR RR(see STD 13, RFC 1035 for a description of the PTR RR). This paper describes how PTR RRs are used to support this translation.
This document obsoletes RFC 1348 and RFC 1637. |
|
| |
| RFC 1707 | CATNIP: Common Architecture for the Internet |
| |
| Authors: | M. McGovern, R. Ullmann. |
| Date: | October 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
This document was submitted to the IETF IPng area in response to RFC1550 Publication of this document does not imply acceptance by theIPng area of any ideas expressed within. Comments should be submitted to the big-internet@munnari.oz.au mailing list. |
|
| |
| RFC 1708 | NTP PICS PROFORMA - For the Network Time Protocol Version 3 |
| |
| Authors: | D. Gowin. |
| Date: | October 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
This RFC describes a PICS Proforma translated into an Internet acceptable form. The Original document was developed according toISO 9646 for conformance test purposes. This document is intended for both developers and users of the NTP (Network Time Protocol).This document contains specific information and performance characteristics for the use of NTP within the context of Internet usage. It is suggested, that users wishing to use the synchronization capabilities of the Internet abide by the characteristics set within this document.
For more information please contact Dr. David Mills at Mills@udel.edu or review RFC 1305 for more information. |
|
| |
| RFC 1709 | K-12 Internetworking Guidelines |
| |
| Authors: | J. Gargano, D. Wasley. |
| Date: | November 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf ps |
| Also: | FYI 0026 |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
The K-12 community traditionally has not had this level of staffing available for telecommunications planning. This document is intended to bridge that gap and provides a recommended technical direction, an introduction to the role the Internet now plays in K-12 education and technical guidelines for building a campus data communications infrastructure that provides internetworking services and connections to the Internet. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. |
|
| |
| RFC 1710 | Simple Internet Protocol Plus White Paper |
| |
| Authors: | R. Hinden. |
| Date: | October 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
This document was submitted to the IETF IPng area in response to RFC1550. Publication of this document does not imply acceptance by theIPng area of any ideas expressed within. Comments should be submitted to the author and/or the sipp@sunroof.eng.sun.com mailing list. |
|
| |
| RFC 1711 | Classifications in E-mail Routing |
| |
| Authors: | J. Houttuin. |
| Date: | October 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
This paper presents a classification for e-mail routing issues. It clearly defines commonly used terminology such as static routing, store-and-forward routing, source routing and others. Real life examples show which routing options are used in existing projects.
The goal is to define all terminology in one reference paper. This will also help relatively new mail system managers to understand the issues and make the right choices. The reader is expected to already have a solid understanding of general networking terminology.
In this paper, the word Message Transfer Agent (MTA) is used to describe a routing entity, which can be an X.400 MTA, a UNIX mailer, or any other piece of software performing mail routing functions. AnMTA processes the so called envelope information of a message. The term User Agent (UA) is used to describe a piece of software performing user related mail functions. It processes the contents of a message's envelope, i.e., the header fields and body parts. |
|
| |
| RFC 1712 | DNS Encoding of Geographical Location |
| |
| Authors: | C. Farrell, M. Schulze, S. Pleitner, D. Baldoni. |
| Date: | November 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | EXPERIMENTAL |
|
This document defines the format of a new Resource Record (RR) for the Domain Naming System (DNS), and reserves a corresponding DNS type mnemonic and numerical code. This definition deals with associating geographical host location mappings to host names within a domain.The data shown in this document is fictitious and does not necessarily reflect the real Internet. |
|
| |
| RFC 1713 | Tools for DNS debugging |
| |
| Authors: | A. Romao. |
| Date: | November 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | FYI 0027 |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
Although widely used (and most of the times unnoticed), DNS (DomainName System) is too much overlooked, in the sense that people, especially administrators, tend to ignore possible anomalies as long as applications that need name-to-address mapping continue to work.This document presents some tools available for domain administrators to detect and correct those anomalies. |
|
| |
| RFC 1714 | Referral Whois Protocol (RWhois) |
| |
| Authors: | S. Williamson, M. Kosters. |
| Date: | November 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf ps |
| Obsoleted by: | RFC 2167 |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
This memo describes version 1.0 of the client/server interaction ofRWhois. RWhois provides a distributed system for the display of hierarchical information. This system is hierarchical by design, allowing for the reduction of a query, and the referral of the user closer to the maintainer of the information. |
|
| |
| RFC 1715 | The H Ratio for Address Assignment Efficiency |
| |
| Authors: | C. Huitema. |
| Date: | November 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Updated by: | RFC 3194 |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
This document was submitted to the IETF IPng area in response to RFC1550. Publication of this document does not imply acceptance by theIPng area of any ideas expressed within. Comments should be submitted to the author and/or the sipp@sunroof.eng.sun.com mailing list. |
|
| |
| RFC 1716 | Towards Requirements for IP Routers |
| |
| Authors: | P. Almquist, F. Kastenholz. |
| Date: | November 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoleted by: | RFC 1812 |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
The goal of this work is to replace RFC-1009, Requirements for Internet Gateways ([INTRO:1]) with a new document. It defines and discusses requirements for devices which perform the network layer forwarding function of the Internet protocol suite. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. |
|
| |
| RFC 1717 | The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP) |
| |
| Authors: | K. Sklower, B. Lloyd, G. McGregor, D. Carr. |
| Date: | November 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoleted by: | RFC 1990 |
| Status: | PROPOSED STANDARD |
|
This document proposes a method for splitting, recombining and sequencing datagrams across multiple logical data links. This work was originally motivated by the desire to exploit multiple bearer channels in ISDN, but is equally applicable to any situation in which multiple PPP links connect two systems, including async links. This is accomplished by means of new PPP [2] options and protocols. |
|
| |
| RFC 1718 | The Tao of IETF - A Guide for New Attendees of the Internet Engineering Task Force |
| |
| Authors: | IETF Secretariat, G. Malkin. |
| Date: | November 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 1539 |
| Obsoleted by: | RFC 3160 |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
Over the last two years, the attendance at Internet Engineering TaskForce (IETF) plenary meetings has grown phenomenally. Approximately one third of the attendees are new to the IETF at each meeting, and many of those go on to become regular attendees. When the meetings were smaller, it wasn't very difficult for a newcomer to get into the swing of things. Today, however, a newcomer meets many more new people, some previously known only as the authors of documents or thought provoking e-mail messages.
The purpose of this For Your Information (FYI) RFC is to explain to the newcomers how the IETF works. This will give them a warm, fuzzy feeling and enable them to make the meeting more productive for everyone. This FYI will also provide the mundane bits of information which everyone who attends an IETF meeting should know. |
|
| |
| RFC 1719 | A Direction for IPng |
| |
| Authors: | P. Gross. |
| Date: | December 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
This document was submitted to the IPng Area in response to RFC 1550.Publication of this document does not imply acceptance by the IPngArea of any ideas expressed within. Comments should be submitted to the big-internet@munnari.oz.au mailing list. This RFC specifies criteria related to mobility for consideration in design and selection of the Next Generation of IP. |
|
| |
| RFC 1720 | Internet Official Protocol Standards |
| |
| Authors: | J. Postel. |
| Date: | November 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 1610 |
| Obsoleted by: | RFC 1780 |
| Status: | HISTORIC |
|
This memo describes the state of standardization of protocols used in the Internet as determined by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). [STANDARDS-TRACK] |
|
| |
| RFC 1721 | RIP Version 2 Protocol Analysis |
| |
| Authors: | G. Malkin. |
| Date: | November 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 1387 |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
As required by Routing Protocol Criteria (RFC 1264), this report documents the key features of the RIP-2 protocol and the current implementation experience. This report is a prerequisite to advancing RIP-2 on the standards track. |
|
| |
| RFC 1722 | RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement |
| |
| Authors: | G. Malkin. |
| Date: | November 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Also: | STD 0057 |
| Status: | STANDARD |
|
As required by Routing Protocol Criteria (RFC 1264), this report defines the applicability of the RIP-2 protocol within the Internet.This report is a prerequisite to advancing RIP-2 on the standards track. |
|
| |
| RFC 1723 | RIP Version 2 - Carrying Additional Information |
| |
|
|
This document specifies an extension of the Routing InformationProtocol (RIP), as defined in [1,2], to expand the amount of useful information carried in RIP messages and to add a measure of security.This memo obsoletes RFC 1388, which specifies an update to the"Routing Information Protocol" STD 34, RFC 1058.
The RIP-2 protocol analysis is documented in RFC 1721 [4].
The RIP-2 applicability statement is document in RFC 1722 [5].
The RIP-2 MIB description is defined in RFC 1724 [3]. This memo obsoletes RFC 1389. |
|
| |
| RFC 1724 | RIP Version 2 MIB Extension |
| |
| Authors: | G. Malkin, F. Baker. |
| Date: | November 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 1389 |
| Status: | DRAFT STANDARD |
|
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in TCP/IP-based internets.In particular, it defines objects for managing RIP Version 2. |
|
| |
| RFC 1725 | Post Office Protocol - Version 3 |
| |
| Authors: | J. Myers, M. Rose. |
| Date: | November 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 1460 |
| Obsoleted by: | RFC 1939 |
| Status: | STANDARD |
|
This memo is a revision to RFC 1460, a Draft Standard. [STANDARDS-TRACK] |
|
| |
| RFC 1726 | Technical Criteria for Choosing IP The Next Generation (IPng) |
| |
| Authors: | C. Partridge, F. Kastenholz. |
| Date: | December 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
This document was submitted to the IPng Area in response to RFC 1550.Publication of this document does not imply acceptance by the IPngArea of any ideas expressed within. Comments should be submitted to the big-internet@munnari.oz.au mailing list. This RFC specifies criteria related to mobility for consideration in design and selection of the Next Generation of IP. |
|
| |
| RFC 1727 | A Vision of an Integrated Internet Information Service |
| |
| Authors: | C. Weider, P. Deutsch. |
| Date: | December 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
This paper lays out a vision of how Internet information services might be integrated over the next few years, and discusses in some detail what steps will be needed to achieve this integration. |
|
| |
| RFC 1728 | Resource Transponders |
| |
| Authors: | C. Weider. |
| Date: | December 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
Although a number of systems have been created in the last several years to provide resource location and navigation on the Internet, the information contained in these systems must be maintained and updated by hand. This paper describes an automatic mechanism, the resource transponder, for maintaining resource location information. |
|
| |
| RFC 1729 | Using the Z39.50 Information Retrieval Protocol |
| |
| Authors: | C. Lynch. |
| Date: | December 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
This memo describes an approach to the implementation of the ANSI/NISO Z39.50-1992 Standard for Information Retrieval in the TCP/IP environment which is currently in wide use by the Z39.50 implementor community. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. |
|
| |
| RFC 1730 | Internet Message Access Protocol - Version 4 |
| |
| Authors: | M. Crispin. |
| Date: | December 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoleted by: | RFC 2060, RFC 2061 |
| Status: | PROPOSED STANDARD |
|
The Internet Message Access Protocol, Version 4 (IMAP4) allows a client to access and manipulate electronic mail messages on a server.IMAP4 permits manipulation of remote message folders, called"mailboxes", in a way that is functionally equivalent to local mailboxes. IMAP4 also provides the capability for an offline client to resynchronize with the server (see also [IMAP-DISC]).
IMAP4 includes operations for creating, deleting, and renaming mailboxes; checking for new messages; permanently removing messages; setting and clearing flags; RFC 822 and MIME parsing; searching; and selective fetching of message attributes, texts, and portions thereof. Messages in IMAP4 are accessed by the use of numbers.These numbers are either message sequence numbers (relative position from 1 to the number of messages in the mailbox) or unique identifiers (immutable, strictly ascending values assigned to each message, but which are not necessarily contiguous).
IMAP4 supports a single server. A mechanism for supporting multipleIMAP4 servers is discussed in [IMSP].
IMAP4 does not specify a means of posting mail; this function is handled by a mail transfer protocol such as [SMTP].
IMAP4 is designed to be upwards compatible from the [IMAP2] protocol.Compatibility issues are discussed in [IMAP-COMPAT]. |
|
| |
| RFC 1731 | IMAP4 Authentication Mechanisms |
| |
| Authors: | J. Myers. |
| Date: | December 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | PROPOSED STANDARD |
|
The Internet Message Access Protocol, Version 4 [IMAP4] contains the AUTHENTICATE command, for identifying and authenticating a user to an IMAP4 server and for optionally negotiating a protection mechanism for subsequent protocol interactions. This document describes several authentication mechanisms for use by the IMAP4 AUTHENTICATE command. [STANDARDS-TRACK] |
|
| |
| RFC 1732 | IMAP4 Compatibility with IMAP2 and IMAP2bis |
| |
| Authors: | M. Crispin. |
| Date: | December 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
This is a summary of hints and recommendations to enable an IMAP4 implementation to interoperate with implementations that conform to earlier specifications. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. |
|
| |
| RFC 1733 | Distributed Electronic Mail Models in IMAP4 |
| |
| Authors: | M. Crispin. |
| Date: | December 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
There are three fundamental models of client/server email: offline, online, and disconnected use. IMAP4 can be used in any one of these three models. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. |
|
| |
| RFC 1734 | POP3 AUTHentication command |
| |
| Authors: | J. Myers. |
| Date: | December 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoleted by: | RFC 5034 |
| Status: | PROPOSED STANDARD |
|
This document describes the optional AUTH command, for indicating an authentication mechanism to the server, performing an authentication protocol exchange, and optionally negotiating a protection mechanism for subsequent protocol interactions. [STANDARDS-TRACK] |
|
| |
| RFC 1735 | NBMA Address Resolution Protocol (NARP) |
| |
| Authors: | J. Heinanen, R. Govindan. |
| Date: | December 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | EXPERIMENTAL |
|
This document describes the NBMA Address Resolution Protocol (NARP).NARP can be used by a source terminal (host or router) connected to aNon-Broadcast, Multi-Access link layer (NBMA) network to find out theNBMA addresses of the a destination terminal provided that the destination terminal is connected to the same NBMA network. Although this document focuses on NARP in the context of IP, the technique is applicable to other network layer protocols as well. This RFC is a product of the Routing over Large Clouds Working Group of the IETF. |
|
| |
| RFC 1736 | Functional Recommendations for Internet Resource Locators |
| |
| Authors: | J. Kunze. |
| Date: | February 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
This document specifies a minimum set of requirements for Internet resource locators, which convey location and access information for resources. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. |
|
| |
| RFC 1737 | Functional Requirements for Uniform Resource Names |
| |
| Authors: | K. Sollins, L. Masinter. |
| Date: | December 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
This document specifies a minimum set of requirements for a kind of Internet resource identifier known as Uniform Resource Names (URNs). This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. |
|
| |
| RFC 1738 | Uniform Resource Locators (URL) |
| |
|
|
This document specifies a Uniform Resource Locator (URL), the syntax and semantics of formalized information for location and access of resources via the Internet. |
|
| |
| RFC 1739 | A Primer On Internet and TCP/IP Tools |
| |
| Authors: | G. Kessler, S. Shepard. |
| Date: | December 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoleted by: | RFC 2151 |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
This memo is an introductory guide to some of the TCP/IP and Internet tools and utilities that allow users to access the wide variety of information on the network, from determining if a particular host is up to viewing a multimedia thesis on foreign policy. It also describes discussion lists accessible from the Internet, ways to obtain Internet documents, and resources that help users weave their way through the Internet. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. |
|
| |
| RFC 1740 | MIME Encapsulation of Macintosh Files - MacMIME |
| |
| Authors: | P. Faltstrom, D. Crocker, E. Fair. |
| Date: | December 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | PROPOSED STANDARD |
|
This memo describes the format to use when sending Apple Macintosh files via MIME [BORE93]. The format is compatible with existing mechanisms for distributing Macintosh files, while allowing non-Macintosh systems access to data in standardized formats. |
|
| |
| RFC 1741 | MIME Content Type for BinHex Encoded Files |
| |
| Authors: | P. Faltstrom, D. Crocker, E. Fair. |
| Date: | December 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
This memo describes the format to use when sending BinHex4.0 files via MIME [BORE93]. The format is compatible with existing mechanisms for distributing Macintosh files. Only when available software and/or user practice dictates, should this method be employed. It is recommended to use application/applefile [FALT94] for maximum interoperability. |
|
| |
| RFC 1742 | AppleTalk Management Information Base II |
| |
| Authors: | S. Waldbusser, K. Frisa. |
| Date: | January 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 1243 |
| Status: | HISTORIC |
|
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in TCP/IP-based internets.In particular, it defines objects for managing AppleTalk networks.
RFC 1243 defines a set of MIB objects for managing the lower layers of the AppleTalk protocol stack, up to the Network layer. This memo defines additional objects that exist in the AppleTalk portion of theMIB. These objects provide for the management of the transport and session layers of the AppleTalk protocol stack, as well as extensions to the lower layers. This is achieved in an upwardly-compatable fashion. |
|
| |
| RFC 1743 | IEEE 802.5 MIB using SMIv2 |
| |
| Authors: | K. McCloghrie, E. Decker. |
| Date: | December 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 1231 |
| Obsoleted by: | RFC 1748 |
| Status: | DRAFT STANDARD |
|
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects used for managing subnetworks which use the IEEE 802.5 Token Ring technology described in 802.5 Token Ring Access Method and Physical Layer Specifications, IEEE Standard 802.5-1989. [STANDARDS-TRACK] |
|
| |
| RFC 1744 | Observations on the Management of the Internet Address Space |
| |
| Authors: | G. Huston. |
| Date: | December 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
This memo examines some of the issues associated with the current management practices of the Internet IPv4 address space, and examines the potential outcomes of these practices as the unallocated address pool shrinks in size. Possible modifications to the management practices are examined, and potential outcomes considered. Some general conclusions are drawn, and the relevance of these conclusions to the matter of formulation of address management policies for IPv6 are noted. |
|
| |
| RFC 1745 | BGP4/IDRP for IP---OSPF Interaction |
| |
| Authors: | K. Varadhan, S. Hares, Y. Rekhter. |
| Date: | December 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | HISTORIC |
|
This memo defines the various criteria to be used when designing anAutonomous System Border Router (ASBR) that will run either BGP4 orIDRP for IP with other ASBRs external to the AS and OSPF as its IGP. |
|
| |
| RFC 1746 | Ways to Define User Expectations |
| |
| Authors: | B. Manning, D. Perkins. |
| Date: | December 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
This paper covers basic fundamentals that must be understood when one defines, interprets, or implements methods to control user expectations on or over the Internet. |
|
| |
| RFC 1747 | Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA Data Link Control (SDLC) using SMIv2 |
| |
| Authors: | J. Hilgeman, Chair, S. Nix, A. Bartky, W. Clark, Ed.. |
| Date: | January 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | HISTORIC |
|
This specification defines an extension to the Management InformationBase (MIB) for use with SNMP-based network management. In particular, it defines objects for managing the configuration, monitoring and control of data link controls in an SNA environment.This draft identifies managed objects for SNA Synchronous Data LinkControl (SDLC) links only. |
|
| |
| RFC 1748 | IEEE 802.5 MIB using SMIv2 |
| |
|
|
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects used for managing subnetworks which use the IEEE 802.5 Token Ring technology described in 802.5 Token Ring Access Method and Physical Layer Specifications, IEEE Standard 802.5-1989. [STANDARDS-TRACK] |
|
| |
| RFC 1749 | IEEE 802.5 Station Source Routing MIB using SMIv2 |
| |
| Authors: | K. McCloghrie, F. Baker, E. Decker. |
| Date: | December 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Updates: | RFC 1748 |
| Status: | HISTORIC |
|
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects used by IEEE 802.5 end-stations for managing source routes on a Token Ring network where IEEE source- routing is in use. [STANDARDS-TRACK] |
|
| |
| RFC 1750 | Randomness Recommendations for Security |
| |
| Authors: | D. Eastlake 3rd, S. Crocker, J. Schiller. |
| Date: | December 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoleted by: | RFC 4086 |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
Security systems today are built on increasingly strong cryptographic algorithms that foil pattern analysis attempts. However, the security of these systems is dependent on generating secret quantities for passwords, cryptographic keys, and similar quantities. The use of pseudo-random processes to generate secret quantities can result in pseudo-security. The sophisticated attacker of these security systems may find it easier to reproduce the environment that produced the secret quantities, searching the resulting small set of possibilities, than to locate the quantities in the whole of the number space.
Choosing random quantities to foil a resourceful and motivated adversary is surprisingly difficult. This paper points out many pitfalls in using traditional pseudo-random number generation techniques for choosing such quantities. It recommends the use of truly random hardware techniques and shows that the existing hardware on many systems can be used for this purpose. It provides suggestions to ameliorate the problem when a hardware solution is not available. And it gives examples of how large such quantities need to be for some particular applications. |
|
| |
| RFC 1751 | A Convention for Human-Readable 128-bit Keys |
| |
| Authors: | D. McDonald. |
| Date: | December 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
This memo proposes a convention for use with Internet applications & protocols using 128-bit cryptographic keys. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. |
|
| |
| RFC 1752 | The Recommendation for the IP Next Generation Protocol |
| |
| Authors: | S. Bradner, A. Mankin. |
| Date: | January 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | PROPOSED STANDARD |
|
This document presents the recommendation of the IPng Area Directors on what should be used to replace the current version of the InternetProtocol. This recommendation was accepted by the InternetEngineering Steering Group (IESG). |
|
| |
| RFC 1753 | IPng Technical Requirements Of the Nimrod Routing and Addressing Architecture |
| |
| Authors: | N. Chiappa. |
| Date: | December 1994 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
This document was submitted to the IETF IPng area in response to RFC1550. Publication of this document does not imply acceptance by theIPng area of any ideas expressed within. Comments should be submitted to the big-internet@munnari.oz.au mailing list.
This document presents the requirements that the Nimrod routing and addressing architecture has upon the internetwork layer protocol. To be most useful to Nimrod, any protocol selected as the IPng should satisfy these requirements. Also presented is some background information, consisting of i) information about architectural and design principles which might apply to the design of a new internetworking layer, and ii) some details of the logic and reasoning behind particular requirements. |
|
| |
| RFC 1754 | IP over ATM Working Group's Recommendations for the ATM Forum's Multiprotocol BOF Version 1 |
| |
| Authors: | M. Laubach. |
| Date: | January 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
This document represents an initial list of requirements submitted to the ATM Forum's Multiprotocol BOF for the operation of IP over ATM networks as determined by the IETF IP over ATM Working Group and other working groups. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. |
|
| |
| RFC 1755 | ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM |
| |
| Authors: | M. Perez, F. Liaw, A. Mankin, E. Hoffman, D. Grossman, A. Malis. |
| Date: | February 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | PROPOSED STANDARD |
|
This memo describes the ATM call control signaling exchanges needed to support Classical IP over ATM implementations as described in RFC1577 [LAUB94]. ATM endpoints will incorporate ATM signaling services as specified in the ATM Forum User-Network Interface (UNI)Specification Version 3.1 [ATMF94]. IP over ATM implementations utilize the services of local ATM signaling entities to establish and release ATM connections. This memo should be used to define the support required by IP over ATM implementations from their local ATM signaling entities.
This document is an implementors guide intended to foster interoperability among RFC 1577, RFC 1483, and UNI ATM signaling. It applies to IP hosts and routers which are also ATM endsystems and assumes ATM networks that completely implement the ATM Forum UNISpecification Version 3.1. Unless explicitly stated, no distinction is made between the Private and Public UNI.
UNI 3.1 is considered an erratum to the UNI 3.0 specification. It has been produced by the ATM Forum, largely for reasons of alignment withRecommendation Q.2931. Although UNI 3.1 is based on UNI 3.0 there are several changes that make the two versions incompatible. A description of how to support IP over ATM using UNI 3.0 is found inAppendix B. |
|
| |
| RFC 1756 | Remote Write Protocol - Version 1.0 |
| |
| Authors: | T. Rinne. |
| Date: | January 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | EXPERIMENTAL |
|
This document describes a simple Remote Write Protocol (RWP). This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. |
|
| |
| RFC 1757 | Remote Network Monitoring Management Information Base |
| |
| Authors: | S. Waldbusser. |
| Date: | February 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 1271 |
| Obsoleted by: | RFC 2819 |
| Status: | DRAFT STANDARD |
|
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in TCP/IP-based internets.In particular, it defines objects for managing remote network monitoring devices. |
|
| |
| RFC 1758 | NADF Standing Documents: A Brief Overview |
| |
| Authors: | The North American Directory Forum. |
| Date: | February 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 1417 |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
The purpose of this document is to provide a brief overview of the NADF's Standing Document series. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. |
|
| |
| RFC 1759 | Printer MIB |
| |
| Authors: | R. Smith, F. Wright, T. Hastings, S. Zilles, J. Gyllenskog. |
| Date: | March 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoleted by: | RFC 3805 |
| Status: | PROPOSED STANDARD |
|
A printer is the physical device that takes media from an input source, produces marks on that media according to some page description or page control language and puts the result in some output destination, possibly with finishing applied. The information needed in the management of the physical printer and the management of a printing job overlap highly and many of the tasks in each management area require the same or similar information. [STANDARDS-TRACK] |
|
| |
| RFC 1760 | The S/KEY One-Time Password System |
| |
| Authors: | N. Haller. |
| Date: | February 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
This document describes the S/KEY* One-Time Password system as released for public use by Bellcore and as described in reference[3]. A reference implementation and documentation are available by anonymous ftp from ftp.bellcore.com in the directories pub/nmh/... |
|
| |
| RFC 1761 | Snoop Version 2 Packet Capture File Format |
| |
| Authors: | B. Callaghan, R. Gilligan. |
| Date: | February 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
This paper describes the file format used by "snoop", a packet monitoring and capture program developed by Sun. This paper is provided so that people can write compatible programs to generate and interpret snoop packet capture files. |
|
| |
| RFC 1762 | The PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol (DNCP) |
| |
| Authors: | S. Senum. |
| Date: | March 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 1376 |
| Status: | DRAFT STANDARD |
|
The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) [1] provides a standard method of encapsulating Network Layer protocol information over point-to-point links. PPP also defines an extensible Link Control Protocol, and proposes a family of Network Control Protocols (NCPs) for establishing and configuring different network-layer protocols.
This document defines the NCP for establishing and configuringDigital's DNA Phase IV Routing protocol (DECnet Phase IV) over PPP.This document applies only to DNA Phase IV Routing messages (both data and control), and not to other DNA Phase IV protocols (MOP, LAT, etc). |
|
| |
| RFC 1763 | The PPP Banyan Vines Control Protocol (BVCP) |
| |
| Authors: | S. Senum. |
| Date: | March 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | HISTORIC |
|
The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) [1] provides a standard method for transporting multi-protocol datagrams over point-to-point links. PPP defines an extensible Link Control Protocol, and proposes a family ofNetwork Control Protocols for establishing and configuring different network-layer protocols.
This document defines the Network Control Protocol for establishing and configuring the Banyan VINES protocol over PPP. |
|
| |
| RFC 1764 | The PPP XNS IDP Control Protocol (XNSCP) |
| |
| Authors: | S. Senum. |
| Date: | March 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | HISTORIC |
|
The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) [1] provides a standard method for transporting multi-protocol datagrams over point-to-point links. PPP defines an extensible Link Control Protocol, and proposes a family ofNetwork Control Protocols for establishing and configuring different network-layer protocols.
This document defines the Network Control Protocol for establishing and configuring the Xerox Network Systems (XNS) Internet DatagramProtocol (IDP) over PPP. |
|
| |
| RFC 1765 | OSPF Database Overflow |
| |
| Authors: | J. Moy. |
| Date: | March 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | EXPERIMENTAL |
|
Proper operation of the OSPF protocol requires that all OSPF routers maintain an identical copy of the OSPF link-state database. However, when the size of the link-state database becomes very large, some routers may be unable to keep the entire database due to resource shortages; we term this "database overflow". When database overflow is anticipated, the routers with limited resources can be accommodated by configuring OSPF stub areas and NSSAs. This memo details a way of gracefully handling unanticipated database overflows.
This memo is a product of the OSPF Working Group. Please send comments to ospf@gated.cornell.edu. |
|
| |
| RFC 1766 | Tags for the Identification of Languages |
| |
| Authors: | H. Alvestrand. |
| Date: | March 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoleted by: | RFC 3066, RFC 3282 |
| Status: | PROPOSED STANDARD |
|
This document describes a language tag for use in cases where it is desired to indicate the language used in an information object.
It also defines a Content-language: header, for use in the case where one desires to indicate the language of something that has RFC-822- like headers, like MIME body parts or Web documents, and a new parameter to the Multipart/Alternative type, to aid in the usage of the Content-Language: header. |
|
| |
| RFC 1767 | MIME Encapsulation of EDI Objects |
| |
| Authors: | D. Crocker. |
| Date: | March 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | PROPOSED STANDARD |
|
Since there are many different EDI specifications, the current document defines three distinct categories as three different MIME content-types. [STANDARDS-TRACK] |
|
| |
| RFC 1768 | Host Group Extensions for CLNP Multicasting |
| |
| Authors: | D. Marlow. |
| Date: | March 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | EXPERIMENTAL |
|
This memo documents work performed in the TUBA (TCP/UDP over BiggerAddresses) working group of IPng area prior to the July 1994 decision to utilize SIPP-16 as the basis for IPng. The TUBA group worked on extending the Internet Protocol suite by the use of ISO 8473 (CLNP) and its related routing protocols. This memo describes multicast extensions to CLNP and its related routing protocols for Internet multicast use. Publication of this memo does not imply acceptance by any IETF Working Group for the ideas expressed within.
This memo provides a specification for multicast extensions to theCLNP protocol similar to those provided to IP by RFC1112. These extensions are intended to provide the mechanisms needed by a host for multicasting in a CLNP based Internet. This memo covers addressing extensions to the CLNP addressing structure, extensions to the CLNP protocol and extensions to the ES-IS protocol. An appendix discusses the differences between IP multicast and the CLNP multicast approach provided in this memo. |
|
| |
| RFC 1769 | Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP) |
| |
|
|
This memorandum describes the Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP), which is an adaptation of the Network Time Protocol (NTP) used to synchronize computer clocks in the Internet. SNTP can be used when the ultimate performance of the full NTP implementation described inRFC-1305 is not needed or justified. It can operate in both unicast modes (point to point) and broadcast modes (point to multipoint). It can also operate in IP multicast mode where this service is available. SNTP involves no change to the current or previous NTP specification versions or known implementations, but rather a clarification of certain design features of NTP which allow operation in a simple, stateless remote-procedure call (RPC) mode with accuracy and reliability expectations similar to the UDP/TIME protocol described in RFC-868.
This memorandum obsoletes RFC-1361 of the same title. Its purpose is to explain the protocol model for operation in broadcast mode, to provide additional clarification in some places and to correct a few typographical errors. A working knowledge of the NTP Version 3 specification RFC-1305 is not required for an implementation of SNTP.Distribution of this memorandum is unlimited. |
|
| |
| RFC 1770 | IPv4 Option for Sender Directed Multi-Destination Delivery |
| |
| Authors: | C. Graff. |
| Date: | March 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
This memo defines an IPv4 option to provide a sender directed multi- destination delivery mechanism called Selective Directed BroadcastMode (SDBM). The SDBM provides unreliable UDP delivery to a set ofIP addresses included in the option field of an IPv4 datagram. Data reliability if required will be provided by the application layer.This approach was developed to support sender directed multi- destination delivery to sparsely populated groups with no additional control traffic. This approach will find application in the extremely bandwidth constrained tactical military environment, as well as in some commercial applications requiring sender control of data delivery. |
|
| |
| RFC 1771 | A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) |
| |
| Authors: | Y. Rekhter, T. Li. |
| Date: | March 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 1654 |
| Obsoleted by: | RFC 4271 |
| Status: | DRAFT STANDARD |
|
This document, together with its companion document, "Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet", define an inter- autonomous system routing protocol for the Internet. |
|
| |
| RFC 1772 | Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet |
| |
| Authors: | Y. Rekhter, P. Gross. |
| Date: | March 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 1655 |
| Status: | DRAFT STANDARD |
|
This document, together with its companion document, "A BorderGateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", define an inter-autonomous system routing protocol for the Internet. "A Border Gateway Protocol 4(BGP-4)" defines the BGP protocol specification, and this document describes the usage of the BGP in the Internet.
Information about the progress of BGP can be monitored and/or reported on the BGP mailing list (bgp@ans.net). |
|
| |
| RFC 1773 | Experience with the BGP-4 protocol |
| |
| Authors: | P. Traina. |
| Date: | March 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 1656 |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
The purpose of this memo is to document how the requirements for advancing a routing protocol to Draft Standard have been satisfied by Border Gateway Protocol version 4 (BGP-4). This report documents experience with BGP. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. |
|
| |
| RFC 1774 | BGP-4 Protocol Analysis |
| |
| Authors: | P. Traina, Ed.. |
| Date: | March 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
The purpose of this report is to document how the requirements for advancing a routing protocol to Draft Standard have been satisfied by the Border Gateway Protocol version 4 (BGP-4). This report summarizes the key features of BGP, and analyzes the protocol with respect to scaling and performance. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. |
|
| |
| RFC 1775 | To Be "On" the Internet |
| |
| Authors: | D. Crocker. |
| Date: | March 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
The Internet permits different levels of access for consumers and providers of service. The nature of those differences is quite important in the capabilities They afford. Hence, it is appropriate to provide terminology that distinguishes among the range, so that the Internet community can gain some clarity when distinguishing whether a user (or an organization) is "on" the Internet. This document suggests four terms, for distinguishing the major classes of access. |
|
| |
| RFC 1776 | The Address is the Message |
| |
| Authors: | S. Crocker. |
| Date: | April 1 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|
Declaring that the address is the message, the IPng WG has selected a packet format which includes 1696 bytes of address space. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. |
|
| |
| RFC 1777 | Lightweight Directory Access Protocol |
| |
| Authors: | W. Yeong, T. Howes, S. Kille. |
| Date: | March 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 1487 |
| Obsoleted by: | RFC 3494 |
| Status: | HISTORIC |
|
The protocol described in this document is designed to provide access to the X.500 Directory while not incurring the resource requirements of the Directory Access Protocol (DAP). This protocol is specifically targeted at simple management applications and browser applications that provide simple read/write interactive access to the X.500Directory, and is intended to be a complement to the DAP itself.
Key aspects of LDAP are:
- Protocol elements are carried directly over TCP or other transport, bypassing much of the session/presentation overhead.
- Many protocol data elements are encoding as ordinary strings (e.g.,Distinguished Names).
- A lightweight BER encoding is used to encode all protocol elements. |
|
| |
| RFC 1778 | The String Representation of Standard Attribute Syntaxes |
| |
| Authors: | T. Howes, S. Kille, W. Yeong, C. Robbins. |
| Date: | March 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 1488 |
| Obsoleted by: | RFC 3494 |
| Updated by: | RFC 2559 |
| Status: | HISTORIC |
|
The Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) [9] requires that the contents of AttributeValue fields in protocol elements be octet strings. This document defines the requirements that must be satisfied by encoding rules used to render X.500 Directory attribute syntaxes into a form suitable for use in the LDAP, then goes on to define the encoding rules for the standard set of attribute syntaxes defined in [1,2] and [3]. |
|
| |
| RFC 1779 | A String Representation of Distinguished Names |
| |
|
|
The OSI Directory uses distinguished names as the primary keys to entries in the directory. Distinguished Names are encoded in ASN.1.When a distinguished name is communicated between to users not using a directory protocol (e.g., in a mail message), there is a need to have a user-oriented string representation of distinguished name.This specification defines a string format for representing names, which is designed to give a clean representation of commonly used names, whilst being able to represent any distinguished name. |
|
| |
| RFC 1780 | Internet Official Protocol Standards |
| |
| Authors: | J. Postel, Ed.. |
| Date: | March 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoletes: | RFC 1720 |
| Obsoleted by: | RFC 1800 |
| Status: | HISTORIC |
|
This memo describes the state of standardization of protocols used in the Internet as determined by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). [STANDARDS-TRACK] |
|
| |
| RFC 1781 | Using the OSI Directory to Achieve User Friendly Naming |
| |
|
|
The OSI Directory has user friendly naming as a goal. A simple minded usage of the directory does not achieve this. Two aspects not achieved are: o A user oriented notation o Guessability
This proposal sets out some conventions for representing names in a friendly manner, and shows how this can be used to achieve really friendly naming. This then leads to a specification of a standard format for representing names, and to procedures to resolve them.This leads to a specification which allows directory names to be communicated between humans. The format in this specification is identical to that defined in [5], and it is intended that these specifications are compatible. |
|
| |
| RFC 1782 | TFTP Option Extension |
| |
| Authors: | G. Malkin, A. Harkin. |
| Date: | March 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoleted by: | RFC 2347 |
| Updates: | RFC 1350 |
| Status: | PROPOSED STANDARD |
|
The Trivial File Transfer Protocol [1] is a simple, lock-step, file transfer protocol which allows a client to get or put a file onto a remote host. This document describes a simple extension to TFTP to allow option negotiation prior to the file transfer. |
|
| |
| RFC 1783 | TFTP Blocksize Option |
| |
| Authors: | G. Malkin, A. Harkin. |
| Date: | March 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoleted by: | RFC 2348 |
| Updates: | RFC 1350 |
| Status: | PROPOSED STANDARD |
|
The Trivial File Transfer Protocol [1] is a simple, lock-step, file transfer protocol which allows a client to get or put a file onto a remote host. One of its primary uses is the booting of diskless nodes on a Local Area Network. TFTP is used because it is very simple to implement in a small node's limited ROM space. However, the choice of a 512-byte blocksize is not the most efficient for use on a LAN whose MTU may 1500 bytes or greater.
This document describes a TFTP option which allows the client and server to negotiate a blocksize more applicable to the network medium. The TFTP Option Extension mechanism is described in [2]. |
|
| |
| RFC 1784 | TFTP Timeout Interval and Transfer Size Options |
| |
| Authors: | G. Malkin, A. Harkin. |
| Date: | March 1995 |
| Formats: | txt pdf |
| Obsoleted by: | |
| |
