*>
*> Hi,
*>
*> I have a following question. Please someone teach me.
*>
*> RFC2400(INTERNET OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS) describes a
*> status like Req or Rec for each Protocol but RFC2500 does NOT
*> describe status. RFC2500 obsoletes RFC2400.
*> What RFC describes a status for each protocol?
*> Where can I find status description for each protocol?
*>
*> Thanks,
*> Masao
*>
*>
Masao,
You probably understand this, but RFC 2400 was obsoleted by RFC 2500,
which was obsoleted by RFC 2600, which was obsoleted by RFC 2700, which
was obsoleted by RFC 2800, which was obsoleted by RFC 2900, which was
obsoleted by RFC 3000, which was obsoleted by RFC 3300. And the series
stretches backwards from 2400... The most recent Internet Official
Protocols Standards list, also known as STD1, is currently RFC 3300.
Furthermore, the current information is on the RFC Editor web page at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html.
However, as you noticed, there was a column of information marked
"Status" that disappeared after RFC 2400. To understand this
you need to understand some history. Today's procedures for
setting and documenting Internet standards did not just spring
magically into existence, they evolved over 20 years, starting from
the time when the Internet was simply an experiment.
The "Status" attribute listed in RFC 2400 and earlier was actually a
"requirement level" in the terminology of RFC 2026 (which defines the
standards process.) In the early days, as the Internet was expanding
and becoming commercial, the IAB faced the problem of documenting the
protocol suite so that vendors could produce products. In 1988, the US
government body (FRICC) that was sort of overseeing the Internet
"asked" the IAB to create an official list of standard Internet
protocols. ("Standard" was somewhat fuzzily defined in those days...
the standards level for a spec was what the IAB said it was.) Jon
Postel created the list and published it as RFC 1083.
Obviously a vendor did not need to implement every protocol in RFC
1083, and that had to be indicated somehow. Jon's solution was to
attach a requirement level or "status" -- "required", "recommended",
"elective", or "not recommended" -- to each protocol listed in RFC 1083.
However, it rapidly become clear that reality is much more complex
than can be captured in two bits of status information. In fact,
around that time the IETF was turning out 214 pages of finely wrought
prose on the requirements for Internet protocol software in hosts
(1122, 1123), and later the RFC 1812 paper weight did the same for
routers. However, Jon was a very determined fellow, and he continued
to apply the Status fields in successors to RFC 1083 despite the fact
that the information it contained was of value that increasingly
approached zero.
This reality was finally recognized by the RFC Editor in 1999, and
subsequent editions of the Official Protocols RFCs, starting with RFC
2500, dropped the Status field.
I hope this explanation is helpful.
Bob Braden for the RFC Editor
*> part of RFC2400 is as follows
*> --------------------------------------------------------------------
*> Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 20]
*>
*> RFC 2400 Internet Standards September 1998
*>
*>
*> 6.2. Standard Protocols
*>
*> Protocol Name Status RFC STD *
*> ======== ===================================== ======== ==== === =
*> -------- Internet Official Protocol Standards Req 2400 1
*> -------- Assigned Numbers Req 1700 2
*> -------- Host Requirements - Communications Req 1122 3
*> -------- Host Requirements - Applications Req 1123 3
*> IP Internet Protocol Req 791 5
*> as amended by:--------
*> -------- IP Subnet Extension Req 950 5
*> -------- IP Broadcast Datagrams Req 919 5
*> -------- IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets Req 922 5
*> ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol Req 792 5
*> IGMP Internet Group Multicast Protocol Rec 1112 5
*> UDP User Datagram Protocol Rec 768 6
*> TCP Transmission Control Protocol Rec 793 7
*> TELNET Telnet Protocol Rec 854,855 8
*> FTP File Transfer Protocol Rec 959 9
*> SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol Rec 821 10
*>
----- End Included Message -----