RFC 1360: IAB Official Protocol Standards | RFC Editor
Skip to content
Info
RFC
1360
:
IAB Official Protocol Standards
J. Postel
Historic
This RFC is now obsolete
, see
RFC
1410
.
Network Working Group                        Internet Architecture Board
Request for Comments: 1360                             J. Postel, Editor
Obsoletes: RFCs
1280
,
1250
,                               September 1992
1100
,
1083
,
1130
,
1140
,
1200
STD: 1

                    IAB OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS

Status of this Memo

   This memo describes the state of standardization of protocols used in
   the Internet as determined by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB).
   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Table of Contents

   Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
1
.  The Standardization Process  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
2
.  The Request for Comments Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
3
.  Other Reference Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
3.1
.  Assigned Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
3.2
.  Gateway Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
3.3
.  Host Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
3.4
.  The MIL-STD Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
4
.  Explanation of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
4.1
.  Definitions of Protocol State (Maturity Level) . . . . . .
8
4.1.1
.  Standard Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
4.1.2
.  Draft Standard Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
4.1.3
.  Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
4.1.4
.  Experimental Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
4.1.5
.  Informational Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
4.1.6
.  Historic Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
4.2
.  Definitions of Protocol Status (Requirement Level) . . .
10
4.2.1
.  Required Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
4.2.2
.  Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
4.2.3
.  Elective Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
4.2.4
.  Limited Use Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
4.2.5
.  Not Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
5
.  The Standards Track  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
5.1
.  The RFC Processing Decision Table  . . . . . . . . . . .
10
5.2
.  The Standards Track Diagram  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
6
.  The Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
6.1
.  Recent Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
6.1.1
.  New RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
6.1.2
.  Other Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
Internet Architecture Board                                     [Page 1]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
6.2
.  Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
6.3
.  Network-Specific Standard Protocols  . . . . . . . . . .
22
6.4
.  Draft Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
6.5
.  Proposed Standard Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
6.6
.  Telnet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
6.7
.  Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
6.8
.  Informational Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
6.9
.  Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
7
.  Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
7.1
.  IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
7.1.1
.  Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact  . . . . . .
29
7.1.2
.  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . .
29
7.1.3
.  Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact  . . . . .
30
7.2
.  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . .
31
7.3
.  Request for Comments Editor Contact  . . . . . . . . . .
32
7.4
.  Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . .
32
7.5
.  Sources for Requests for Comments  . . . . . . . . . . .
33
8
.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
9
.  Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
Introduction

   Discussion of the standardization process and the RFC document series
   is presented first, followed by an explanation of the terms.
   Sections
6.2
-
6.9
contain the lists of protocols in each stage of
   standardization.  Finally come pointers to references and contacts
   for further information.

   This memo is intended to be issued approximately quarterly; please be
   sure the copy you are reading is current.  Current copies may be
   obtained from the Network Information Center or from the Internet
   Assigned Numbers Authority (see the contact information at the end of
   this memo).  Do not use this edition after 15-Jan-93.

   See
Section 6.1
for a description of recent changes.  In the official
   lists in sections
6.2
-
6.9
, an asterisk (*) next to a protocol
   denotes that it is new to this document or has been moved from one
   protocol level to another, or differs from the previous edition of
   this document.
1
.  The Standardization Process
The Internet Architecture Board maintains this list of documents that
   define standards for the Internet protocol suite.  See
RFC-1358
for
   the charter of the IAB and
RFC-1160
for an explanation of the role
   and organization of the IAB and its subsidiary groups, the Internet
   Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force
   (IRTF).  Each of these groups has a steering group called the IESG
Internet Architecture Board                                     [Page 2]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
and IRSG, respectively.  The IAB provides these standards with the
   goal of co-ordinating the evolution of the Internet protocols; this
   co-ordination has become quite important as the Internet protocols
   are increasingly in general commercial use.  The definitive
   description of the Internet standards process is found in
RFC-1310
.

   The majority of Internet protocol development and standardization
   activity takes place in the working groups of the Internet
   Engineering Task Force.

   Protocols which are to become standards in the Internet go through a
   series of states or maturity levels (proposed standard, draft
   standard, and standard) involving increasing amounts of scrutiny and
   testing.  When a protocol completes this process it is assigned a STD
   number (see
RFC-1311
).  At each step, the Internet Engineering
   Steering Group (IESG) of the IETF must make a recommendation for
   advancement of the protocol and the IAB must ratify it.  If a
   recommendation is not ratified, the protocol is remanded to the IETF
   for further work.

   To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react to
   standardization proposals, the IAB imposes a minimum delay of 6
   months before a proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard
   and 4 months before a draft standard can be promoted to standard.

   It is general IAB practice that no proposed standard can be promoted
   to draft standard without at least two independent implementations
   (and the recommendation of the IESG).  Promotion from draft standard
   to standard generally requires operational experience and
   demonstrated interoperability of two or more implementations (and the
   recommendation of the IESG).

   In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper decision
   concerning a protocol the IAB may convene a special review committee
   consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB with the
   purpose of recommending an explicit action to the IAB.

   Advancement of a protocol to proposed standard is an important step
   since it marks a protocol as a candidate for eventual standardization
   (it puts the protocol "on the standards track").  Advancement to
   draft standard is a major step which warns the community that, unless
   major objections are raised or flaws are discovered, the protocol is
   likely to be advanced to standard in six months.

   Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are otherwise
   unused.  Such protocols are still documented in this memorandum with
   the designation "historic".
Internet Architecture Board                                     [Page 3]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
Because the IAB believes it is useful to document the results of
   early protocol research and development work, some of the RFCs
   document protocols which are still in an experimental condition.  The
   protocols are designated "experimental" in this memorandum.  They
   appear in this report as a convenience to the community and not as
   evidence of their standardization.

   Other protocols, such as those developed by other standards
   organizations, or by particular vendors, may be of interest or may be
   recommended for use in the Internet.  The specifications of such
   protocols may be published as RFCs for the convenience of the
   Internet community.  These protocols are labeled "informational" in
   this memorandum.

   In addition to the working groups of the IETF, protocol development
   and experimentation may take place as a result of the work of the
   research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or the work of
   other individuals interested in Internet protocol development.  The
   IAB encourages the documentation of such experimental work in the RFC
   series, but none of this work is considered to be on the track for
   standardization until the IESG has made a recommendation to advance
   the protocol to the proposed standard state, and the IAB has approved
   this step.

   A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without the
   approval of the IESG and the IAB.  For example, some vendor protocols
   have become very important to the Internet community even though they
   have not been recommended by the IESG or ratified by the IAB.
   However, the IAB strongly recommends that the IAB standards process
   be used in the evolution of the protocol suite to maximize
   interoperability (and to prevent incompatible protocol requirements
   from arising).  The IAB reserves the use of the terms "standard",
   "draft standard", and "proposed standard" in any RFC or other
   publication of Internet protocols to only those protocols which the
   IAB has approved.

   In addition to a state (like "Proposed Standard"), a protocol is also
   assigned a status, or requirement level, in this document.  The
   possible requirement levels ("Required", "Recommended", "Elective",
   "Limited Use", and "Not Recommended") are defined in
Section 4.2
.
   When a protocol is on the standards track, that is in the proposed
   standard, draft standard, or standard state (see
Section 5
), the
   status shown in
Section 6
is the current status.  For a proposed or
   draft standard, however, the IAB will also endeavor to indicate the
   eventual status this protocol will have after adoption as a standard.

   Few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems; this is
   because there is such a variety of possible systems, for example,
Internet Architecture Board                                     [Page 4]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
gateways, terminal servers, workstations, and multi-user hosts.  The
   requirement level shown in this document is only a one word label,
   which may not be sufficient to characterize the implementation
   requirements for a protocol in all situations.  For some protocols,
   this document contains an additional status paragraph (an
   applicability statement).  In addition, more detailed status
   information is contained in separate requirements documents (see
Section 3
).
2
.  The Request for Comments Documents
The documents called Request for Comments (or RFCs) are the working
   notes of the "Network Working Group", that is the Internet research
   and development community.  A document in this series may be on
   essentially any topic related to computer communication, and may be
   anything from a meeting report to the specification of a standard.

   Notice:

      All standards are published as RFCs, but not all RFCs specify
      standards.

   Anyone can submit a document for publication as an RFC.  Submissions
   must be made via electronic mail to the RFC Editor (see the contact
   information at the end of this memo, and see
RFC 1111
).

   While RFCs are not refereed publications, they do receive technical
   review from the task forces, individual technical experts, or the RFC
   Editor, as appropriate.

   The RFC series comprises a wide range of documents, ranging from
   informational documents of general interests to specifications of
   standard Internet protocols.  In cases where submission is intended
   to document a proposed standard, draft standard, or standard
   protocol, the RFC Editor will publish the document only with the
   approval of both the IESG and the IAB.  For documents describing
   experimental work, the RFC Editor will notify the IESG before
   publication, allowing for the possibility of review by the relevant
   IETF working group or IRTF research group and provide those comments
   to the author.  See
Section 5.1
for more detail.

   Once a document is assigned an RFC number and published, that RFC is
   never revised or re-issued with the same number.  There is never a
   question of having the most recent version of a particular RFC.
   However, a protocol (such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP)) may be
   improved and re-documented many times in several different RFCs.  It
   is important to verify that you have the most recent RFC on a
   particular protocol.  This "IAB Official Protocol Standards" memo is
Internet Architecture Board                                     [Page 5]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
the reference for determining the correct RFC for the current
   specification of each protocol.

   The RFCs are available from the Network Information Center at SRI
   International, and a number of other sites.  For more information
   about obtaining RFCs, see Sections
7.4
and
7.5
.
3
.  Other Reference Documents
There are three other reference documents of interest in checking the
   current status of protocol specifications and standardization.  These
   are the Assigned Numbers, the Gateway Requirements, and the Host
   Requirements.  Note that these documents are revised and updated at
   different times; in case of differences between these documents, the
   most recent must prevail.

   Also, one should be aware of the MIL-STD publications on IP, TCP,
   Telnet, FTP, and SMTP.  These are described in
Section 3.4
.
3.1
.  Assigned Numbers
This document lists the assigned values of the parameters used in the
   various protocols.  For example, IP protocol codes, TCP port numbers,
   Telnet Option Codes, ARP hardware types, and Terminal Type names.
   Assigned Numbers was most recently issued as
RFC-1340
.

   Another document, Internet Numbers, lists the assigned IP network
   numbers, and the autonomous system numbers.  Internet Numbers was
   most recently issued as
RFC-1166
.
3.2
.  Gateway Requirements
This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways and
   supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities.  Gateway
   Requirements is
RFC-1009
.  A working group of the IETF is actively
   preparing a revision.
3.3
.  Host Requirements
This pair of documents reviews and updates the specifications that
   apply to hosts, and it supplies guidance and clarification for any
   ambiguities.  Host Requirements was issued as
RFC-1122
and
RFC-1123
.
3.4
.  The MIL-STD Documents
The Internet community specifications for IP (
RFC-791
) and TCP (
RFC-
793
) and the DoD MIL-STD specifications are intended to describe
   exactly the same protocols.  Any difference in the protocols
Internet Architecture Board                                     [Page 6]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
specified by these sets of documents should be reported to DCA and to
   the IAB.  The RFCs and the MIL-STDs for IP and TCP differ in style
   and level of detail.  It is strongly advised that the two sets of
   documents be used together, along with
RFC-1122
and
RFC-1123
.

   The IAB and the DoD MIL-STD specifications for the FTP, SMTP, and
   Telnet protocols are essentially the same documents (RFCs 765, 821,
   854).  The MIL-STD versions have been edited slightly.  Note that the
   current Internet specification for FTP is
RFC-959
(as modified by
RFC-1123
).

   Note that these MIL-STD are now somewhat out of date.  The Gateway
   Requirements (
RFC-1009
) and Host Requirements (
RFC-1122
,
RFC-1123
)
   take precedence over both earlier RFCs and the MIL-STDs.

          Internet Protocol (IP)                      MIL-STD-1777
          Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)         MIL-STD-1778
          File Transfer Protocol (FTP)                MIL-STD-1780
          Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)        MIL-STD-1781
          Telnet Protocol and Options (TELNET)        MIL-STD-1782

   These documents are available from the Naval Publications and Forms
   Center.  Requests can be initiated by telephone, telegraph, or mail;
   however, it is preferred that private industry use form DD1425, if
   possible.

          Naval Publications and Forms Center, Code 3015
          5801 Tabor Ave
          Philadelphia, PA 19120
          Phone: 1-215-697-3321 (order tape)
                 1-215-697-4834 (conversation)
4
.  Explanation of Terms
There are two independent categorization of protocols.  The first is
   the "maturity level" or STATE of standardization, one of "standard",
   "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental",
   "informational" or "historic".  The second is the "requirement level"
   or STATUS of this protocol, one of "required", "recommended",
   "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".

   The status or requirement level is difficult to portray in a one word
   label.  These status labels should be considered only as an
   indication, and a further description, or applicability statement,
   should be consulted.

   When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard,
   it is labeled with a current status and when possible, the IAB also
Internet Architecture Board                                     [Page 7]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
notes the status that the protocol is expected to have when it
   reaches the standard state.

   At any given time a protocol occupies a cell of the following matrix.
   Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the following
   proportions (indicated by the relative number of Xs).  A new protocol
   is most likely to start in the (proposed standard, elective) cell, or
   the (experimental, not recommended) cell.

                             S T A T U S
                     Req   Rec   Ele   Lim   Not
                   +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Std     |  X  | XXX | XXX |     |     |
       S           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Draft   |  X  |  X  | XXX |     |     |
       T           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Prop    |     |  X  | XXX |     |     |
       A           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Info    |     |  X  | XXX |  XX |  X  |
       T           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Expr    |     |     |  X  | XXX |  XX |
       E           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Hist    |     |     |     |  X  | XXX |
                   +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

   What is a "system"?

      Some protocols are particular to hosts and some to gateways; a few
      protocols are used in both.  The definitions of the terms below
      will refer to a "system" which is either a host or a gateway (or
      both).  It should be clear from the context of the particular
      protocol which types of systems are intended.
4.1
.  Definitions of Protocol State
Every protocol listed in this document is assigned to a "maturity
   level" or STATE of standardization: "standard", "draft standard",
   "proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic".

   4.1.1.  Standard Protocol

      The IAB has established this as an official standard protocol for
      the Internet.  These protocols are assigned STD numbers (see
RFC-
1311
).  These are separated into two groups: (1) IP protocol and
      above, protocols that apply to the whole Internet; and (2)
      network-specific protocols, generally specifications of how to do
      IP on particular types of networks.
Internet Architecture Board                                     [Page 8]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
4.1.2.  Draft Standard Protocol

      The IAB is actively considering this protocol as a possible
      Standard Protocol.  Substantial and widespread testing and comment
      are desired.  Comments and test results should be submitted to the
      IAB.  There is a possibility that changes will be made in a Draft
      Standard Protocol before it becomes a Standard Protocol.

   4.1.3.  Proposed Standard Protocol

      These are protocol proposals that may be considered by the IAB for
      standardization in the future.  Implementation and testing by
      several groups is desirable.  Revision of the protocol
      specification is likely.

   4.1.4.  Experimental Protocol

      A system should not implement an experimental protocol unless it
      is participating in the experiment and has coordinated its use of
      the protocol with the developer of the protocol.

      Typically, experimental protocols are those that are developed as
      part of an ongoing research project not related to an operational
      service offering.  While they may be proposed as a service
      protocol at a later stage, and thus become proposed standard,
      draft standard, and then standard protocols, the designation of a
      protocol as experimental may sometimes be meant to suggest that
      the protocol, although perhaps mature, is not intended for
      operational use.

   4.1.5.  Informational Protocol

      Protocols developed by other standard organizations, or vendors,
      or that are for other reasons outside the purview of the IAB, may
      be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community
      as informational protocols.  Such protocols may in some cases also
      be recommended for use in the Internet by the IAB.

   4.1.6.  Historic Protocol

      These are protocols that are unlikely to ever become standards in
      the Internet either because they have been superseded by later
      developments or due to lack of interest.
Internet Architecture Board                                     [Page 9]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
4.2
.  Definitions of Protocol Status
This document lists a "requirement level" or STATUS for each
      protocol.  The status is one of "required", "recommended",
      "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".

   4.2.1.  Required Protocol

      A system must implement the required protocols.

   4.2.2.  Recommended Protocol

      A system should implement the recommended protocols.

   4.2.3.  Elective Protocol

      A system may or may not implement an elective protocol. The
      general notion is that if you are going to do something like this,
      you must do exactly this.  There may be several elective protocols
      in a general area, for example, there are several electronic mail
      protocols, and several routing protocols.

   4.2.4.  Limited Use Protocol

      These protocols are for use in limited circumstances.  This may be
      because of their experimental state, specialized nature, limited
      functionality, or historic state.

   4.2.5.  Not Recommended Protocol

      These protocols are not recommended for general use.  This may be
      because of their limited functionality, specialized nature, or
      experimental or historic state.
5
.  The Standards Track
This section discusses in more detail the procedures used by the RFC
   Editor and the IAB in making decisions about the labeling and
   publishing of protocols as standards.
5.1
.  The RFC Processing Decision Table
Here is the current decision table for processing submissions by the
   RFC Editor.  The processing depends on who submitted it, and the
   status they want it to have.
Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 10]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
+==========================================================+
      |**************|               S O U R C E                 |
      +==========================================================+
      | Desired      |    IAB   |   IESG   |   IRSG   |  Other   |
      | Status       |          |          |          |          |
      +==========================================================+
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      | Standard     |  Publish |  Vote    |  Bogus   |  Bogus   |
      | or           |   (1)    |   (3)    |   (2)    |   (2)    |
      | Draft        |          |          |          |          |
      | Standard     |          |          |          |          |
      +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      |              |  Publish |  Vote    |  Refer   |  Refer   |
      | Proposed     |   (1)    |   (3)    |   (4)    |   (4)    |
      | Standard     |          |          |          |          |
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      |              |  Publish |  Notify  |  Notify  |  Notify  |
      | Experimental |   (1)    |   (5)    |   (5)    |   (5)    |
      | Protocol     |          |          |          |          |
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      +--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      | Information  |  Publish |Discretion|Discretion|Discretion|
      | or Opinion   |   (1)    |   (6)    |   (6)    |   (6)    |
      | Paper        |          |          |          |          |
      |              |          |          |          |          |
      +==========================================================+

      (1) Publish.

      (2) Bogus.  Inform the source of the rules.  RFCs specifying
          Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IAB, only.

      (3) Vote by the IAB.  If approved then do Publish (1), else do
          Refer (4).

      (4) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG.  Expect to see
          the document again only after approval by the IESG and the
          IAB.

      (5) Notify both the IESG and IRSG.  If no concerns are raised in
          two weeks then do Discretion (6), else RFC Editor to resolve
          the concerns or do Refer (4).

      (6) RFC Editor's discretion.  The RFC Editor decides if a review
Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 11]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
is needed and if so by whom.  RFC Editor decides to publish or
          not.

   Of course, in all cases the RFC Editor can request or make minor
   changes for style, format, and presentation purposes.

   The IESG has designated the IESG Secretary as its agent for
   forwarding documents with IESG approval and for registering concerns
   in response to notifications (5) to the RFC Editor.  Documents from
   Area Directors or Working Group Chairs may be considered in the same
   way as documents from "other".
5.2
.  The Standards Track Diagram
There is a part of the STATUS and STATE categorization that is called
   the standards track.  Actually, only the changes of state are
   significant to the progression along the standards track, though the
   status assignments may be changed as well.

   The states illustrated by single line boxes are temporary states,
   those illustrated by double line boxes are long term states.  A
   protocol will normally be expected to remain in a temporary state for
   several months (minimum six months for proposed standard, minimum
   four months for draft standard).  A protocol may be in a long term
   state for many years.

   A protocol may enter the standards track only on the recommendation
   of the IESG and by action of the IAB; and may move from one state to
   another along the track only on the recommendation of the IESG and by
   action of the IAB.  That is, it takes both the IESG and the IAB to
   either start a protocol on the track or to move it along.

   Generally, as the protocol enters the standards track a decision is
   made as to the eventual STATUS, requirement level or applicability
   (elective, recommended, or required) the protocol will have, although
   a somewhat less stringent current status may be assigned, and it then
   is placed in the the proposed standard STATE with that status.  So
   the initial placement of a protocol is into state 1.  At any time the
   STATUS decision may be revisited.
Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 12]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
|
         +<----------------------------------------------+
         |                                               ^
         V    0                                          |    4
   +-----------+                                   +===========+
   |   enter   |-->----------------+-------------->|experiment |
   +-----------+                   |               +=====+=====+
                                   |                     |
                                   V    1                |
                             +-----------+               V
                             | proposed  |-------------->+
                        +--->+-----+-----+               |
                        |          |                     |
                        |          V    2                |
                        +<---+-----+-----+               V
                             | draft std |-------------->+
                        +--->+-----+-----+               |
                        |          |                     |
                        |          V    3                |
                        +<---+=====+=====+               V
                             | standard  |-------------->+
                             +=====+=====+               |
                                                         |
                                                         V    5
                                                   +=====+=====+
                                                   | historic  |
                                                   +===========+

   The transition from proposed standard (1) to draft standard (2) can
   only be by action of the IAB on the recommendation of the IESG and
   only after the protocol has been proposed standard (1) for at least
   six months.

   The transition from draft standard (2) to standard (3) can only be by
   action of the IAB on the recommendation of the IESG and only after
   the protocol has been draft standard (2) for at least four months.

   Occasionally, the decision may be that the protocol is not ready for
   standardization and will be assigned to the experimental state (4).
   This is off the standards track, and the protocol may be resubmitted
   to enter the standards track after further work.  There are other
   paths into the experimental and historic states that do not involve
   IAB action.

   Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus becomes
   historic, or it may happen that a protocol on the standards track is
   in a sense overtaken by another protocol (or other events) and
   becomes historic (state 5).
Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 13]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
6
.  The Protocols
Sub
section 6.1
lists recent RFCs and other changes.  Subsections
6.2
- 6.9 list the standards in groups by protocol state.
6.1
.  Recent Changes
6.1.1
.  New RFCs:
1361 - Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP)

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1360 - This memo.

      1359 - Connecting to the Internet What Connecting Institutions
             Should Anticipate

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1358 - Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1357 - A Format for E-mailing Bibliographic Records

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1356 - Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 and ISDN in the Packet
             Mode

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1355 - Privacy and Accuracy Issues in Network Information Center
             Databases

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1354 - IP Forwarding Table MIB

             A Proposed Standard protocol.
Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 14]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
1353 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Administration of SNMP
             Parties

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1352 - SNMP Security Protocols

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1351 - SNMP Administrative Model

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1350 - The TFTP Protocol (Revision 2)

             A Standard protocol.

      1349 - Type of Service in the Internet Protocol Suite

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1348 - DNS NSAP RRs

             An Experimental protocol.

      1347 - TCP and UDP with Bigger Addresses (TUBA), A Simple Proposal
             for Internet Addressing and Routing

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1346 - Resource Allocation, Control, and Accounting for the Use of
             Network Resources

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1345 - Character Mnemonics & Character Sets

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1344 - Implications of MIME for Internet Mail Gateways

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.
Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 15]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
1343 - A User Agent Configuration Mechanism For Multimedia Mail
             Format Information

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1342 - Representation of Non-ASCII Text in Internet Message
             Headers

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1341 - MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions): Mechanisms
             for Specifying and Describing the Format of Internet
             Message Bodies

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1340 - Assigned Numbers

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1339 - Remote Mail Checking Protocol

             An Experimental protocol.

      1338 - Supernetting: an Address Assignment and Aggregation
             Strategy

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1337 - TIME-WAIT Assassination Hazards in TCP

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1336 - Who's Who in the Internet - Biographies of IAB, IESG and
             IRSG Members

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1335 - A Two-Tier Address Structure for the Internet: A Solution
             to the Problem of Address Space Exhaustion

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.
Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 16]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
1334 - Not yet issued.

      1333 - PPP Link Quality Monitoring

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1332 - The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol (IPCP)

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1331 - The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) for the Transmission of
             Multi-protocol Datagrams over Point-to-Point Links

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1330 - Recommendations for the Phase I Deployment of OSI Directory
             Services (X.500) and OSI Message Handling Services (X.400)

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1329 - Thoughts on Address Resolution for Dual MAC FDDI Networks

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1328 - X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1327 - Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 and
RFC 822
A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1326 - Mutual Encapsulation Considered Dangerous

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1325 - FYI on Questions and Answers - Answers to Commonly asked
             "New Internet User" Questions

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.
Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 17]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
1324 - A Discussion on Computer Network Conferencing

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1323 - TCP Extensions for High Performance

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1322 - A Unified Approach to Inter-Domain Routing

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1321 - The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1320 - The MD4 Message-Digest Algorithm

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1319 - The MD2 Message-Digest Algorithm

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1318 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Parallel-printer-like
             Hardware Devices

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1317 - Definitions of Managed Objects RS-232-like Hardware Devices

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1316 - Definitions of Managed Objects for Character Stream Devices

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1315 - Management Information Base for Frame Relay DTEs

             A Proposed Standard protocol.
Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 18]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
1314 - A File Format for the Exchange of Images in the Internet

             A Proposed Standard protocol.

      1313 - Today's Programming for KRFC AM 1313 Internet Talk Radio

             This is an information document and does not specify any
             level of standard.

      1312 - Message Send Protocol 2

             An Experimental protocol.
6.1.2
.  Other Changes:
The following are changes to protocols listed in the previous
   edition.

      1172 - The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Initial Configuration
             Options

             Moved to Historic (obsoleted by
RFC-1331
).

      1113 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part I --
             Message Encipherment and Authentication Procedures

             Moved to Historic.

      1114 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part II
             -- Certificate-Based Key Management

             Moved to Historic.

      1115 - Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part III
             -- Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers

             Moved to Historic.

      1056 - PCMAIL: A Distributed Mail System for Personal Computers

             Moved to Historic.

      1058 - Routing Information Protocol

             Advanced to Standard protocol.
Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 19]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
1037 - NFILE -  A File Access Protocol

             Moved to Historic.

      1026 - Addendum to
RFC 987
(Mapping between X.400 and
RFC-822
)

             Moved to Historic (obsoleted by
RFC-1327
).

      987 - Mapping between X.400 and
RFC-822
Moved to Historic (obsoleted by
RFC-1327
).

      953 - Hostname Server

             Moved to Historic.

      913 - Simple File Transfer Protocol

             Moved to Historic.

      734 - SUPDUP

             Moved to Historic.
Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 20]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
6.2
.  Standard Protocols
Protocol   Name                                      Status    RFC STD *
========   =====================================     ======== ==== === =
--------   IAB Official Protocol Standards           Req      1360   1 *
--------   Assigned Numbers                          Req      1340   2 *
--------   Host Requirements - Communications        Req      1122   3
--------   Host Requirements - Applications          Req      1123   3
--------   Gateway Requirements                      Req      1009   4
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
MAIL       Format of Electronic Mail Messages        Rec       822  11
CONTENT    Content Type Header Field                 Rec      1049  11
NTP        Network Time Protocol                     Rec      1119  12
DOMAIN     Domain Name System                        Rec 1034,1035  13
DNS-MX     Mail Routing and the Domain System        Rec       974  14
SNMP       Simple Network Management Protocol        Rec      1157  15
SMI        Structure of Management Information       Rec      1155  16
MIB-II     Management Information Base-II            Rec      1213  17
EGP        Exterior Gateway Protocol                 Rec       904  18
NETBIOS    NetBIOS Service Protocols                 Ele 1001,1002  19
ECHO       Echo Protocol                             Rec       862  20
DISCARD    Discard Protocol                          Ele       863  21
CHARGEN    Character Generator Protocol              Ele       864  22
QUOTE      Quote of the Day Protocol                 Ele       865  23
USERS      Active Users Protocol                     Ele       866  24
DAYTIME    Daytime Protocol                          Ele       867  25
TIME       Time Server Protocol                      Ele       868  26
TFTP       Trivial File Transfer Protocol            Ele      1350  33*
RIP        Routing Information Protocol              Ele      1058  34*

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the
previous edition of this document.]

Applicability Statements:

   IGMP -- The Internet Architecture Board intends to move towards
   general adoption of IP multicasting, as a more efficient solution
Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 21]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
than broadcasting for many applications.  The host interface has been
   standardized in
RFC-1112
; however, multicast-routing gateways are in
   the experimental stage and are not widely available.  An Internet
   host should support all of
RFC-1112
, except for the IGMP protocol
   itself which is optional; see
RFC-1122
for more details.  Even
   without IGMP, implementation of
RFC-1112
will provide an important
   advance: IP-layer access to local network multicast addressing.  It
   is expected that IGMP will become recommended for all hosts and
   gateways at some future date.

   SMI, MIB-II SNMP -- The Internet Architecture Board recommends that
   all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable.  At the current
   time, this implies implementation of the Internet MIB-II (
RFC-1213
),
   and at least the recommended management protocol SNMP (
RFC-1157
).
6.3
.  Network-Specific Standard Protocols
Protocol   Name                                     State   Status  RFC
========   =====================================    ======= ====== =====
IP-FR      Multiprotocol over Frame Relay           Prop    Ele    1294
IP-SMDS    Transmission of IP Datagrams over SMDS   Prop    Ele    1209
ARP        Address Resolution Protocol              Std     Ele     826
RARP       A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol    Std     Ele     903
IP-ARPA    Internet Protocol on ARPANET             Std     Ele BBN1822
IP-WB      Internet Protocol on Wideband Network    Std     Ele     907
IP-X25     Internet Protocol on X.25 Networks       Std     Ele     877
IP-E       Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks   Std     Ele     894
IP-EE      Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets  Std     Ele     895
IP-IEEE    Internet Protocol on IEEE 802            Std     Ele    1042
IP-DC      Internet Protocol on DC Networks         Std     Ele     891
IP-HC      Internet Protocol on Hyperchannel        Std     Ele    1044
IP-ARC     Internet Protocol on ARCNET              Std     Ele    1051
IP-SLIP    Transmission of IP over Serial Lines     Std     Ele    1055
IP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS          Std     Ele    1088
IP-IPX     Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks  Std     Ele    1132
IP-FDDI    Transmission of IP over FDDI             Draft   Ele    1188

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the
previous edition of this document.]

Applicability Statements:

   It is expected that a system will support one or more physical
   networks and for each physical network supported the appropriate
   protocols from the above list must be supported.  That is, it is
   elective to support any particular type of physical network, and for
   the physical networks actually supported it is required that they be
   supported exactly according to the protocols in the above list.  See
Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 22]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
also the Host and Gateway Requirements RFCs for more specific
   information on network-specific ("link layer") protocols.
6.4
.  Draft Standard Protocols
Protocol   Name                                     Status          RFC
========   =====================================    ============== =====
FINGER     Finger Protocol                          Elective       1288
BGP3       Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3)        Elective  1267,1268
OSPF2      Open Shortest Path First Routing V2      Elective       1247
POP3       Post Office Protocol, Version 3          Elective       1225
Concise-MIB Concise MIB Definitions                 Elective       1212
IP-FDDI    Internet Protocol on FDDI Networks       Elective       1188
TOPT-LINE  Telnet Linemode Option                   Elective       1184
PPP        Point to Point Protocol                  Elective       1171
BOOTP      Bootstrap Protocol                      Recommended 951,1084
TP-TCP     ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP  Elective       1006
NICNAME    WhoIs Protocol                           Elective        954

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the
previous edition of this document.]

Applicability Statements:

   RIP -- The Routing Information Protocol (RIP) is widely implemented
   and used in the Internet.  However, both implementors and users
   should be aware that RIP has some serious technical limitations as a
   routing protocol.  The IETF is currently developing several
   candidates for a new standard "open" routing protocol with better
   properties than RIP.  The IAB urges the Internet community to track
   these developments, and to implement the new protocol when it is
   standardized; improved Internet service will result for many users.

   TP-TCP -- As OSI protocols become more widely implemented and used,
   there will be an increasing need to support interoperation with the
   TCP/IP protocols.  The Internet Engineering Task Force is formulating
   strategies for interoperation.
RFC-1006
provides one interoperation
   mode, in which TCP/IP is used to emulate TP0 in order to support OSI
   applications.  Hosts that wish to run OSI connection-oriented
   applications in this mode should use the procedure described in
RFC-
1006
.  In the future, the IAB expects that a major portion of the
   Internet will support both TCP/IP and OSI (inter-)network protocols
   in parallel, and it will then be possible to run OSI applications
   across the Internet using full OSI protocol "stacks".

   PPP -- Point to Point Protocol is a method of sending IP over serial
   lines, which are a type of physical network.  It is anticipated that
   PPP will be advanced to the network-specifics standard protocol state
Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 23]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
in the future.
6.5
.  Proposed Standard Protocols
Protocol   Name                                     Status          RFC
========   =====================================    ============== =====
           X.25 and ISDN in the Packet Mode         Elective       1356*
TABLE-MIB  IP Forwarding Table MIB                  Elective       1354*
-------    Administration of SNMP                   Elective       1353*
SNMP-SEC   SNMP Security Protocols                  Elective       1352*
SNMP-ADMIN SNMP Administrative Model                Elective       1351*
TOS        Type of Service in the Internet...       Elective       1349*
-------    Representation of Non-ASCII Text...      Elective       1342*
MIME       Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions    Elective       1341*
PPP-LINK   PPP Link Quality Monitoring              Elective       1333*
PPP        Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)            Elective       1331*
-------    X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading           Elective       1328*
-------    Mapping between X.400(1988)...           Elective       1327*
TCP-EXT    TCP Extensions for High Performance      Elective       1323*
-------    Def. Man. Objs Parallel-printer-like...  Elective       1318*
-------    Def. Man Objs RS-232-like...             Elective       1317*
-------    Def. Man. Objs. Character Stream...      Elective       1316*
FRAME-MIB  Management Information Base for Frame..  Elective       1315*
NETFAX     File Format for the Exchange of Images.. Elective       1314*
SIP-MIB    SIP Interface Type MIB                   Elective       1304
IARP       Inverse Address Resolution Protocol      Elective       1293
DECNET-MIB DECNET MIB                               Elective       1289
BRIDGE-MIB BRIDGE-MIB                               Elective       1286
FDDI-MIB   FDDI-MIB                                 Elective       1285
ETHER-MIB  Ethernet MIB                             Elective       1284
-------    Encoding Network Addresses...            Elective       1277
-------    Replication and Distributed Operations.. Elective       1276
-------    COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema...      Elective       1274
RMON-MIB   Remote Network Monitoring MIB            Elective       1271
BGP-MIB    Border Gateway Protocol MIB (Version 3)  Elective       1269
ICMP-ROUT  ICMP Router Discovery Messages           Elective       1256
OSPF-MIB   OSPF Version 2 MIB                       Elective       1253
IPSO       DoD Security Options for IP              Elective       1108
AT-MIB     Appletalk MIB                            Elective       1243
OSI-UDP    OSI TS on UDP                            Elective       1240
STD-MIBs   Reassignment of Exp MIBs to Std MIBs     Elective       1239
OSI-NSAP   Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation       Elective       1237
IPX-IP     Tunneling IPX Traffic through IP Nets    Elective       1234
DS3-MIB    DS3 Interface Objects                    Elective       1233
DS1-MIB    DS1 Interface Objects                    Elective       1232
802.5-MIB  IEEE 802.5 Token Ring MIB                Elective       1231
802.4-MIP  IEEE 802.4 Token Bus MIB                 Elective       1230
GINT-MIB   Extensions to the Generic-Interface MIB  Elective       1229
Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 24]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
PPP-EXT    PPP Extensions for Bridging              Elective       1220
OIM-MIB-II OSI Internet Management: MIB-II          Elective       1214
IP-SMDS    IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service       Elective       1209
IP-ARCNET  Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Nets Elective       1201
IS-IS      OSI IS-IS for TCP/IP Dual Environments   Elective       1195
IP-MTU     Path MTU Discovery                       Elective       1191
CMOT       Common Management Information Services.. Elective       1189
IP-CMPRS   Compressing TCP/IP Headers               Elective       1144
ISO-TS-ECHO Echo for ISO-8473                       Elective       1139
SUN-NFS    Network File System Protocol             Elective       1094
SUN-RPC    Remote Procedure Call Protocol           Elective       1057
NNTP       Network News Transfer Protocol           Elective        977
RLP        Resource Location Protocol               Elective        887

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the
previous edition of this document.]

Applicability Statements:

   IP-SMDS and IP-ARCNET -- These define methods of sending IP over
   particular network types.  It is anticipated that these will be
   advanced to the network specific standard protocol state in the
   future.
6.6
.  Telnet Options
For convenience, all the Telnet Options are collected here with both
their state and status.

Protocol   Name                           Number  State Status  RFC STD
========   =====================================  ===== ====== ==== ====
TOPT-BIN   Binary Transmission                 0  Std   Rec     856  27
TOPT-ECHO  Echo                                1  Std   Rec     857  28
TOPT-RECN  Reconnection                        2  Prop  Ele     ...
TOPT-SUPP  Suppress Go Ahead                   3  Std   Rec     858  29
TOPT-APRX  Approx Message Size Negotiation     4  Prop  Ele     ...
TOPT-STAT  Status                              5  Std   Rec     859  30
TOPT-TIM   Timing Mark                         6  Std   Rec     860  31
TOPT-REM   Remote Controlled Trans and Echo    7  Prop  Ele     726
TOPT-OLW   Output Line Width                   8  Prop  Ele     ...
TOPT-OPS   Output Page Size                    9  Prop  Ele     ...
TOPT-OCRD  Output Carriage-Return Disposition 10  Prop  Ele     652
TOPT-OHT   Output Horizontal Tabstops         11  Prop  Ele     653
TOPT-OHTD  Output Horizontal Tab Disposition  12  Prop  Ele     654
TOPT-OFD   Output Formfeed Disposition        13  Prop  Ele     655
TOPT-OVT   Output Vertical Tabstops           14  Prop  Ele     656
TOPT-OVTD  Output Vertical Tab Disposition    15  Prop  Ele     657
TOPT-OLD   Output Linefeed Disposition        16  Prop  Ele     658
Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 25]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
TOPT-EXT   Extended ASCII                     17  Prop  Ele     698
TOPT-LOGO  Logout                             18  Prop  Ele     727
TOPT-BYTE  Byte Macro                         19  Prop  Ele     735
TOPT-DATA  Data Entry Terminal                20  Prop  Ele    1043
TOPT-SUP   SUPDUP                             21  Prop  Ele     734
TOPT-SUPO  SUPDUP Output                      22  Prop  Ele     749
TOPT-SNDL  Send Location                      23  Prop  Ele     779
TOPT-TERM  Terminal Type                      24  Prop  Ele    1091
TOPT-EOR   End of Record                      25  Prop  Ele     885
TOPT-TACACS  TACACS User Identification       26  Prop  Ele     927
TOPT-OM    Output Marking                     27  Prop  Ele     933
TOPT-TLN   Terminal Location Number           28  Prop  Ele     946
TOPT-3270  Telnet 3270 Regime                 29  Prop  Ele    1041
TOPT-X.3   X.3 PAD                            30  Prop  Ele    1053
TOPT-NAWS  Negotiate About Window Size        31  Prop  Ele    1073
TOPT-TS    Terminal Speed                     32  Prop  Ele    1079
TOPT-RFC   Remote Flow Control                33  Prop  Ele    1080
TOPT-LINE  Linemode                           34  Draft Ele    1184
TOPT-XDL   X Display Location                 35  Prop  Ele    1096
TOPT-EXTOP Extended-Options-List             255  Std   Rec     861  32

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the
previous edition of this document.]
6.7
.  Experimental Protocols
Protocol   Name                                     Status          RFC
========   =====================================    ============== =====
DNS NSAP   DNS NSAP RRs                             Elective       1348*
RMCP       Remote Mail Checking Protocol            Elective       1339*
MSP2       Message Send Protocol 2                  Elective       1312*
DSLCP      Dynamically Switched Link Control        Elective       1307
--------   X.500 and Domains                        Elective       1279
SNMP-OSI   SNMP over OSI                            Elective       1283
IN-ENCAP   Internet Encapsulation Protocol          Limited Use    1241
CLNS-MIB   CLNS-MIB                                 Limited Use    1238
CFDP       Coherent File Distribution Protocol      Limited Use    1235
SNMP-DPI   SNMP Distributed Program Interface       Limited Use    1228
SNMP-MUX   SNMP MUX Protocol and MIB                Limited Use    1227
IP-AX25    IP Encapsulation of AX.25 Frames         Limited Use    1226
ALERTS     Managing Asynchronously Generated Alerts Limited Use    1224
MPP        Message Posting Protocol                 Limited Use    1204
ST-II      Stream Protocol                          Limited Use    1190
SNMP-BULK  Bulk Table Retrieval with the SNMP       Limited Use    1187
DNS-RR     New DNS RR Definitions                   Limited Use    1183
NTP-OSI    NTP over OSI Remote Operations           Limited Use    1165
EHF-MAIL   Encoding Header Field for Mail           Elective       1154
DMF-MAIL   Digest Message Format for Mail           Elective       1153
Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 26]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
RDP        Reliable Data Protocol                  Limited Use 908,1151
--------   Mapping between X.400(88) and
RFC-822
Elective       1148
TCP-ACO    TCP Alternate Checksum Option           Not Recommended 1146
--------   Mapping full 822 to Restricted 822       Elective       1137
IP-DVMRP   IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing    Not Recommended 1075
TCP-LDP    TCP Extensions for Long Delay Paths      Limited Use    1072
IMAP2      Interactive Mail Access Protocol       Limited Use 1176,1064
IMAP3      Interactive Mail Access Protocol         Limited Use    1203
VMTP       Versatile Message Transaction Protocol   Elective       1045
COOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme                   Not Recommended 1004
NETBLT     Bulk Data Transfer Protocol              Not Recommended 998
IRTP       Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol   Not Recommended 938
AUTH       Authentication Service                   Not Recommended 931
LDP        Loader Debugger Protocol                 Not Recommended 909
NVP-II     Network Voice Protocol                  Limited Use ISI-memo
PVP        Packet Video Protocol                   Limited Use ISI-memo

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the
previous edition of this document.]
6.8
.  Informational Protocols
Protocol   Name                                    Status           RFC
=======    ====================================    =============== =====
-------    Replication Requirements...              Elective       1275*
PCMAIL     Pcmail Transport Protocol                Elective       1056*
MTP        Multicast Transport Protocol            Elective        1301
SNMP-IPX   SNMP over IPX                           Elective        1298
BSD Login  BSD Login                               Elective        1282
DIXIE      DIXIE Protocol Specification            Limited Use     1249
IP-X.121   IP to X.121 Address Mapping for DDN     Limited Use     1236
OSI-HYPER  OSI and LLC1 on HYPERchannel            Limited Use     1223
HAP2       Host Access Protocol                    Limited Use     1221
SUBNETASGN On the Assignment of Subnet Numbers     Limited Use     1219
SNMP-TRAPS Defining Traps for use with SNMP        Limited Use     1215
DAS        Directory Assistance Service            Limited Use     1202
MD4        MD4 Message Digest Algorithm            Limited Use     1186
LPDP       Line Printer Daemon Protocol            Limited Use     1179

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the
previous edition of this document.]
Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 27]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
6.9
.  Historic Protocols
Protocol   Name                                     Status          RFC
=======    =====================================    ============== =====
PPP-INIT   PPP Initial Configuration Options       Not Recommended 1172*
MSP        Message Send Protocol                   Not Recommended 1159*
--------   Mail Privacy: Procedures                Not Recommended 1113*
--------   Mail Privacy: Key Management            Not Recommended 1114*
--------   Mail Privacy: Algorithms                Not Recommended 1115*
--------   Mapping X.400(84) and
RFC-822
Not Recommended 987,1026*
NFILE      A File Access Protocol                   Elective       1037*
HOSTNAME   HOSTNAME Protocol                        Elective        953*
SFTP       Simple File Transfer Protocol            Elective        913*
SUPDUP     SUPDUP Protocol                          Elective        734*
BGP        Border Gateway Protocol            Not Recommended 1163,1164
MIB-I      MIB-I                                   Not Recommended 1156
SGMP       Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol      Not Recommended 1028
HEMS       High Level Entity Management Protocol   Not Recommended 1021
STATSRV    Statistics Server                        Not Recommended 996
POP2       Post Office Protocol, Version 2          Not Recommended 937
RATP       Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol  Not Recommended 916
HFEP       Host - Front End Protocol                Not Recommended 929
THINWIRE   Thinwire Protocol                        Not Recommended 914
HMP        Host Monitoring Protocol                 Not Recommended 869
GGP        Gateway Gateway Protocol                 Not Recommended 823
RTELNET    Remote Telnet Service                    Not Recommended 818
CLOCK      DCNET Time Server Protocol               Not Recommended 778
MPM        Internet Message Protocol                Not Recommended 759
NETRJS     Remote Job Service                       Not Recommended 740
NETED      Network Standard Text Editor             Not Recommended 569
RJE        Remote Job Entry                         Not Recommended 407
XNET       Cross Net Debugger                   Not Recommended IEN-158
NAMESERVER Host Name Server Protocol            Not Recommended IEN-116
MUX        Multiplexing Protocol                 Not Recommended IEN-90
GRAPHICS   Graphics Protocol                  Not Recommended NIC-24308

[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the
previous edition of this document.]
Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 28]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
7
.  Contacts
7.1
.  IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts
7.1.1.  Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Contact

   Please send your comments about this list of protocols and especially
   about the Draft Standard Protocols to the Internet Architecture Board
   care of Bob Braden, IAB Executive Director.

      Contacts:

         Bob Braden
         Executive Director of the IAB
         USC/Information Sciences Institute
         4676 Admiralty Way
         Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695

         1-310-822-1511

         Braden@ISI.EDU

         A. Lyman Chapin
         Chair of the IAB
         Bolt, Beranek & Newman
         Mail Stop 20/5b
         150 Cambridge Park Drive
         Cambridge, MA 02140

         1-617-873-3133

         Lyman@BBN.COM

   7.1.2.  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact

      Contacts:

         Phill Gross
         Chair of the IETF
         Advanced Network and Services
         100 Clearbrook Road
         Elmsford, NY  10523

         1-914-789-5300

         PGross@NRI.RESTON.VA.US
Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 29]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
Greg Vaudreuil
         IESG Secretary
         Corporation for National Research Initiatives
         1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
         Reston, VA 22091

         1-703-620-8990

         gvaudre@NRI.RESTON.VA.US

         Steve Coya
         Executive Director of the IETF
         Corporation for National Research Initiatives
         1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
         Reston, VA 22091

         1-703-620-8990

         scoya@NRI.RESTON.VA.US

   7.1.3.  Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact

      Contact:

         Jon Postel
         Chair of the IRTF
         USC/Information Sciences Institute
         4676 Admiralty Way
         Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695

         1-310-822-1511

         Postel@ISI.EDU
Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 30]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
7.2
.  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Contact
Contact:

         Joyce K. Reynolds
         Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
         USC/Information Sciences Institute
         4676 Admiralty Way
         Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695

         1-310-822-1511

         IANA@ISI.EDU

   The protocol standards are managed for the IAB by the Internet
   Assigned Numbers Authority.

   Please refer to the document "Assigned Numbers" (
RFC-1340
) for
   further information about the status of protocol documents.  There
   are two documents that summarize the requirements for host and
   gateways in the Internet, "Host Requirements" (
RFC-1122
and
RFC-1123
)
   and "Gateway Requirements" (
RFC-1009
).

      How to obtain the most recent edition of this "IAB Official
      Protocol Standards" memo:

         The file "in-notes/iab-standards.txt" may be copied via FTP
         from the VENERA.ISI.EDU computer using the FTP username
         "anonymous" and FTP password "guest".
Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 31]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
7.3
.  Request for Comments Editor Contact
Contact:

         Jon Postel
         RFC Editor
         USC/Information Sciences Institute
         4676 Admiralty Way
         Marina del Rey, CA  90292-6695

         1-310-822-1511

         RFC-Editor@ISI.EDU

   Documents may be submitted via electronic mail to the RFC Editor for
   consideration for publication as RFC.  If you are not familiar with
   the format or style requirements please request the "Instructions for
   RFC Authors".  In general, the style of any recent RFC may be used as
   a guide.
7.4
.  The Network Information Center and
Requests for Comments Distribution Contact
Contact:

         Network Solutions
         Attn: Network Information Center
         14200 Park Meadow Drive
         Suite 200
         Chantilly, VA  22021

         Help Desk Hours of Operation: 7:00 am to 7:00 pm Eastern Time

         1-800-365-3642 (1-800-365-DNIC)
         1-703-802-4535
         Fax Number: 1-703-802-8376

         NIC@NIC.DDN.MIL

   The Network Information Center (NIC) provides many information
   services for the Internet community.  Among them is maintaining the
   Requests for Comments (RFC) library.
Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 32]
RFC 1360
IAB Standards                September 1992
7.5
.  Sources for Requests for Comments
Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending
   an EMAIL message to "rfc-info@ISI.EDU" with the message body "help:
   ways_to_get_rfcs".  For example:

           To: rfc-info@ISI.EDU
           Subject: getting rfcs

           help: ways_to_get_rfcs
8
.  Security Considerations
Security issues are not addressed in this memo.
9
.  Author's Address
Jon Postel
   USC/Information Sciences Institute
   4676 Admiralty Way
   Marina del Rey, CA 90292

   Phone: 310-822-1511
   Fax:   310-823-6714

   Email: Postel@ISI.EDU

Internet Architecture Board                                    [Page 33]
RFC
1360
: IAB Official Protocol Standards
Historic
Obsoleted by
RFC
1410
IAB Official Protocol Standards


Create an ICANN Account

Create an ICANN Account
HELP
|
LOG IN
ICANN Account Setup
(Step 1 of 2)
Create Account and Verify Identity
Set Password and Complete profile
Create Account and Verify Identity
A message will be sent to your email address to verify your identity
Primary Email Address*
First / Given Name(s)*
Last / Family Name(s)*
By submitting my personal data to create and manage an ICANN Account, I agree that my personal data will be processed in accordance with the ICANN
Privacy Policy
and ICANN
Cookies Policy
, and agree to abide by the electronic
Terms of Service
.
Clear
Back to Log In
© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Cookies Policy


About APNIC – APNIC

About APNIC – APNIC
Skip to content
MyAPNIC
Academy
Blog
Orbit
REx
DASH
Home
Whois and website search
Search
Advanced Whois
Make
a
payment
Close Search
Search APNIC.net OR enter Whois database
query
Get IP
Get IP
Make a payment
Membership
FAQs
Manage IP
MyAPNIC
Using Whois
IPv4 exhaustion
Go IPv6
Routing Registry
Make a payment
Training
About
Events
APNIC Academy
Community Trainers
Courses
Events
Conferences
Calendar
Sponsorship
Code of Conduct
Insights
APNIC Labs
DASH to secure your networks
REx
Raw Data
Community
Orbit
Community demographics
Policy Development
Fellowship
Addressing policies
Internet community
Code of Conduct
Technical Assistance
Root servers
Security at APNIC
ISIF Asia
APNIC Foundation
NRO Number Council (NC)
Blog
Help Centre
About
APNIC Region
APNIC Membership
Executive Council
Service updates
Team
Annual Reports
Transparency
APNIC Survey
Corporate Documents
Publications Archive
Careers
Glossary
Contact
Advanced Whois
Make a payment
Get IP
Get IP
Make a payment
Membership
FAQs
Manage IP
MyAPNIC
Using Whois
IPv4 exhaustion
Go IPv6
Routing Registry
Make a payment
Training
About
Events
APNIC Academy
Community Trainers
Courses
Events
Conferences
Calendar
Sponsorship
Code of Conduct
Insights
APNIC Labs
DASH to secure your networks
REx
Raw Data
Community
Orbit
Community demographics
Policy Development
Fellowship
Addressing policies
Internet community
Code of Conduct
Technical Assistance
Root servers
Security at APNIC
ISIF Asia
APNIC Foundation
NRO Number Council (NC)
Blog
Help Centre
About
APNIC Region
APNIC Membership
Executive Council
Service updates
Team
Annual Reports
Transparency
APNIC Survey
Corporate Documents
Publications Archive
Careers
Glossary
Contact
About APNIC
APNIC (Asia Pacific Network Information Centre) is an open, membership-based, not-for-profit organization providing Internet addressing services to the Asia Pacific.
What we do
As the Regional Internet Registry for the Asia Pacific region, our primary role is to provide Internet number resources (IPv4, IPv6 and ASNs) to our Members in the Asia Pacific region.
Asia Pacific region
|
Executive Council
|
Transparency
Service Updates
Information on past or planned service interruptions.
Transparency
Links to APNIC’s corporate information, including By-laws, financial reports, and information about the structure of the organization.
Corporate Documents
APNIC’s corporate document store, including the APNIC Member agreement, fee schedule, Annual Reports and plans.
Employment
Interested in working at APNIC? Check our job vacancies, or meet the team and explore APNIC’s culture and values.
Current vacancies
Meet the team
The APNIC Secretariat is staffed by a diverse group of committed professionals from throughout the region.
Book a speaker
|
Presentations by staff
APNIC Supporters
APNIC collaborates with several supporting organizations, which contribute their efforts, products, and services to assist us to provide a range of advanced services to Members.
Sponsor Training
|
Sponsor Events
|
Root Server Deployment
Social Media
Stay connected to APNIC via our social media channels.
Publications Archive
An archive of older documents, newsletters and announcements.
APNIC Email Policy
What we do
Service updates
Transparency
Corporate Documents
Meet the team
APNIC Careers
APNIC Supporters
Social Media
Publications Archive
APNIC Email Policy
Whois search
A-Z Glossary
Miscellaneous
APNIC Home
Connect with us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Weibo
Slideshare
LinkedIn
RSS
©
2026
APNIC
ABN 42 081 528 010
Privacy
Contact
Help Centre
NRO News
Service Status
Careers
Feedback


World Summit on the Information Society

World Summit on the Information Society
home
|
français
|
español
search
|
site map
|
contact
|
text only
The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was held in two phases. The
first phase
took place
in Geneva hosted by the Government of Switzerland from
10 to 12
December 2003
, and the
second phase
took place in Tunis
hosted by the Government of Tunisia, from
16 to 18 November 2005
.
[
more on WSIS...
]
WSIS OUTCOME DOCUMENTS
Individual documents in various languages and formats:
Booklet containing the four documents:
Geneva
Declaration of Principles
Geneva
Plan of Action
Tunis
Commitment
Tunis
Agenda
for the Information Society
3D virtual book
Pdf and html formats
WSIS+10 HIGH-LEVEL EVENT OUTCOME DOCUMENTS
Outcome documents in various languages and formats:
WSIS+10 Statement on Implementation of WSIS Outcomes and the WSIS+10 Vision for WSIS Beyond 2015
WSIS IMPLEMENTATION, FOLLOW-UP AND REVIEW PROCESS
WSIS Forum 2026
,
6–10 July 2026, Geneva.
WSIS+20 Review Process
WSIS+20 High-Level Event 2025
,
7–11 July 2025, Geneva.
WSIS+20 Forum High-Level Event
,
27–31 May 2024, Geneva.
WSIS Forum 2023
,
13–17 March 2023, Geneva.
Virtual workshops will continue in April & May.
WSIS Forum 2022
—
Virtual Workshops and Special Tracks:
Starting from 15 March 2022;
Final Week:
30 May – 3 June 2022;
WSIS Forum 2021
—
Virtual Workshops and Special Tracks:
Starting from January 2021;
Final Week:
17–21 May 2021;
WSIS Forum 2020
—
Virtual Workshops and Special Tracks:
Starting from 22 June 2020;
Final Week:
7–10 September 2020;
WSIS Forum 2019
,
8–12 April 2019, Geneva
WSIS Forum 2018
,
19–23 March 2018, Geneva
Outcomes
WSIS Forum 2017
,
12–16 June 2017, Geneva
High-Level Track Outcomes
Forum Track Outcomes
WSIS Forum 2016
,
2–6 May 2016, Geneva
High-Level Track Outcomes
Forum Track Outcomes
WSIS Action Lines Supporting Implementation of the SDGs
WSIS–SDG Matrix
,
Linking WSIS Action Lines with Sustainable Development Goals
WSIS Forum 2015
,
25-29 May 2015, Geneva
High Level Policy Statements
Forum Track Outcome Document
WSIS+10 Review Process
WSIS+10 High-Level Event
10-13 June 2014 (9 June pre-events), Geneva
WSIS+10 Statement on Implementation of WSIS Outcomes and the WSIS+10 Vision for WSIS Beyond 2015
High-Level
Policy Statements
Forum Track Outcome Document
Previous WSIS Forums
Forum 2013
•
WSIS+10
Visioning Challenge Document
•
Statement on the WSIS+10
Visioning
•
Outcome Document
•
Identifying Emerging
Trends and a Vision Beyond 2015 Booklet
2012
•
2011
•
2010
•
2009
•
2008
•
2007
•
2006
WSIS Implementation by Action Line
WSIS Stocktaking
WSIS Prizes 2023
WSIS Prizes:
2012
,
2013
,
2014
,
2015
,
2016
,
2017
,
2018
,
2019
,
2020
,
2021
,
2022
WSIS Stocktaking Report
&
WSIS Stocktaking: Success Stories
United Nations Group on the Information Society (UNGIS)
UNGIS welcomes the WSIS Action Lines and SDGs Matrix
Joint Statement at WSIS Forum 2013
Open Consultation on Overall Review (WSIS+10)
Results of the Open Consultation Process: Draft Plan of Action available
Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development
Final WSIS Targets Review
Internet Governance Forum (IGF)
WSIS Follow-Up
SECOND PHASE OF WSIS: TUNIS
THE SUMMIT: TUNIS, 16-18 NOVEMBER 2005
Speakers and Statements
in Tunis
Documents
The Golden Book
: New
commitments and initiatives
Preparatory Process
Newsroom
Host
country
[
more on the second phase...
]
FIRST PHASE OF WSIS: GENEVA
THE SUMMIT:
GENEVA, 10-12 DECEMBER 2003
Speakers and Statements
in Geneva
D
ocuments
Preparatory Process
Newsroom
Host country
[
more on the first phase...
]
b
a
sic information
|
first
phase: Geneva
|
second phase: Tunis
|
stocktaking
|
newsroom
|
links
Top
-
Copyright © WSIS 2024
All Rights
Reserved -
Logo Policy
Privacy Notic
es
Updated : 2015-01-22


[2306.12345] The Effect of Noise on the Emergence of Continuous Norms and its Evolutionary Dynamics
Skip to main content
Search
Submit
Donate
Log in
Search arXiv
Press Enter to search ·
Advanced search
Computer Science > Multiagent Systems
arXiv:2306.12345
(cs)
[Submitted on 21 Jun 2023 (
v1
), last revised 30 Dec 2023 (this version, v2)]
Title:
The Effect of Noise on the Emergence of Continuous Norms and its Evolutionary Dynamics
Authors:
Stavros Anagnou
,
Daniel Polani
,
Christoph Salge
View a PDF of the paper titled The Effect of Noise on the Emergence of Continuous Norms and its Evolutionary Dynamics, by Stavros Anagnou and 1 other authors
View PDF
HTML (experimental)
Abstract:
We examine the effect of noise on societies of agents using an agent-based model of evolutionary norm emergence. Generally, we see that noisy societies are more selfish, smaller and discontent, and are caught in rounds of perpetual punishment preventing them from flourishing. Surprisingly, despite the effect of noise on the population, it does not seem to evolve away. We carry out further analysis and provide reasons for why this may be the case. Furthermore, we claim that our framework that evolves the noise/ambiguity of norms may be a new way to model the tight/loose framework of norms, suggesting that despite ambiguous norms detrimental effect on society, evolution does not favour clarity.
Comments:
Accepted for publication in the Proceedings of the Artificial Life Conference 2023 (ALIFE 2023), MIT Press
Subjects:
Multiagent Systems (cs.MA)
Cite as:
arXiv:2306.12345
[cs.MA]
(or
arXiv:2306.12345v2
[cs.MA]
for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.12345
Focus to learn more
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
Related DOI
:
https://doi.org/10.1162/isal_a_00588
Focus to learn more
DOI(s) linking to related resources
Submission history
From: Stavros Anagnou [
view email
]
[v1]
Wed, 21 Jun 2023 15:41:49 UTC (2,034 KB)
[v2]
Sat, 30 Dec 2023 11:43:38 UTC (12,651 KB)
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
View a PDF of the paper titled The Effect of Noise on the Emergence of Continuous Norms and its Evolutionary Dynamics, by Stavros Anagnou and 1 other authors
View PDF
HTML (experimental)
TeX Source
view license
Current browse context:
cs.MA
< prev
|
next >
new
|
recent
|
2023-06
Change to browse by:
cs
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
export BibTeX citation
Loading...
BibTeX formatted citation
×
loading...
Data provided by:
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer
(
What is the Explorer?
)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers
(
What is Connected Papers?
)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps
(
What is Litmaps?
)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations
(
What are Smart Citations?
)
Code, Data, Media
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv
(
What is alphaXiv?
)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers
(
What is CatalyzeX?
)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub
(
What is DagsHub?
)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub
(
What is GotitPub?
)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face
(
What is Huggingface?
)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast
(
What is ScienceCast?
)
Demos
Demos
Replicate Toggle
Replicate
(
What is Replicate?
)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces
(
What is Spaces?
)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI
(
What is TXYZ.AI?
)
Related Papers
Recommenders and Search Tools
Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower
(
What are Influence Flowers?
)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender
(
What is CORE?
)
Author
Venue
Institution
Topic
About arXivLabs
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community?
Learn more about arXivLabs
.
Which authors of this paper are endorsers?
|
Disable MathJax
(
What is MathJax?
)
We gratefully acknowledge support from
our
major funders
,
member institutions
,
,
and all contributors.
About
·
Help
·
Contact
·
Subscribe
·
Copyright
·
Privacy
·
Accessibility
·
Operational Status
(opens in new tab)
Major funding support from


Internet Society Foundation | The Internet transforms lives
Skip to content
Menu
About
Board of Trustees
Our Projects
Our Team
2025 Annual Report
2026 Action Plan
Transparency
Press Center
Funding Areas
Beyond the Net
Chapter Admin Funding
Common Good Cyber Fund
Community-Centered Connectivity
Global Encryption Day Events
Internet Governance Forum Events
Research
SCILLS
Sustainable Peering Infrastructure
News and Stories
News
Impact Stories
FAQs
Information for Applicants
Information for Current Grantees
Communications Toolkit
Careers
The Internet Society
Subscribe
Facebook
Twitter
Linkedin
Instagram
Rss
Email
This content is available in the following languages
The Internet Society
English
is the current language
Español
Français
Subscribe
Menu
About
Board of Trustees
Our Projects
Our Team
2025 Annual Report
2026 Action Plan
Transparency
Press Center
Funding Areas
Beyond the Net
Chapter Admin Funding
Common Good Cyber Fund
Community-Centered Connectivity
Global Encryption Day Events
Internet Governance Forum Events
Research
SCILLS
Sustainable Peering Infrastructure
News and Stories
News
Impact Stories
FAQs
Information for Applicants
Information for Current Grantees
Communications Toolkit
Careers
The Internet Society
Subscribe
We fund initiatives to build an Internet for everyone.
Explore Our Funding Areas
Photo by SOLE Colombia
The Internet Society Foundation exists to support the positive difference the Internet can make to people everywhere. It promotes the development of the Internet as a global technical infrastructure, a resource to enrich people's lives, and a force for good in society.
Learn More
Open Opportunities
Supporting inspirational work by people who believe in the power of the Internet.
Internet Governance Forum Events
Supports the organization of United Nations (UN) IGF Secretariat-recognized National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) and National and Regional Schools on Internet Governance.
Find Out More and Apply
Beyond the Net Grant Program
Supports Internet Society chapters in implementing innovative projects that make a local impact by providing meaningful access to an open, trusted, and globally connected Internet, as well as strengthening the chapters’ presence in their surrounding communities.
Find Out More and Apply
Research Grant Program
Supports global research collaborations that advance understanding of the Internet and its value for all.
Find Out More and Apply
Browse and search the projects we're funding around the world
View Our Projects
Latest News and Stories
23 June 2026
Internet Society Foundation Opens Global Call for Common Good Cyber Fund to Strengthen Cybersecurity
9 June 2026
Indigenous Women at the Heart of the Amazon’s Digital Future
7 April 2026
Applications Open for the Research Grant Program
17 March 2026
Applications Open for the New Community-Centered Connectivity Grant Program
3 March 2026
Applications Open for the Sustainable Peering Infrastructure Grant Program
26 February 2026
Introducing the 2025 Sustainable Peering Infrastructure Grantees
Read More About Our Impact
See More News
The Internet is for Everyone
The Internet Society Foundation supports the
vision
of the Internet Society and its work for an open, globally-connected, secure, and trustworthy Internet for everyone.
1551 Emancipation Highway #1506
Fredericksburg, VA 22401
1-703-439-2120
[email protected]
LinkedIn
ISOC Foundation on Facebook
ISOC Foundation on Instagram
ISOC Foundation on YouTube
ISOC Foundation on Twitter
ISOC Foundation RSS feed
Subscribe to our newsletter
Get the latest news and announcements from our projects. Unsubscribe at any time. We won't use your details for anything else.
Newsletter
Comments
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Email
(Required)
You may opt out at any time.
Terms and Conditions
and
Privacy Policy
.
© 2026 Internet Society Foundation |
Privacy Policy
|
Terms of use
|
Engagement Code of Conduct
|
Our Governance
|
DMCA Policy
Scroll To Top


World Summit on the Information Society

World Summit on the Information Society
home
|
français
|
español
search
|
site map
|
contact
|
text only
SECOND PHASE OF THE WSIS, 16-18
NOVEMBER 2005, TUNIS
The World Summit on the Information Society is held in two phases. The
second phase
of WSIS took place in Tunis from
16 to 18 November 2005
(see the
invitation letters
)
.
Outcome of the Tunis Phase:
Tunis Commitment
and
Tunis Agenda for the Information Society
Documents
Statements
:
Speeches during the Summit
List of Speakers
Webcast archives
Events
:
WSIS
Round Tables
WSIS
High Level Panel
Parallel
events
:
Events taking place in the Summit premises from 14 to 19 November 2005
Side
events
:
Events related to WSIS taking place outside the Summit premises before
or during the Summit
Newsroom
Participation
Statistical information
Final List of
Participants
Participants Finder
List of announced States
Information for Participants
Click here
for information
concerning the
first phase
of the Summit (Geneva phase)
b
a
sic information
|
first
phase: Geneva
|
second phase: Tunis
|
stocktaking
|
newsroom
|
links
Top
-
Copyright © WSIS 2015
All Rights
Reserved -
Logo Policy
Privacy Notic
es
Updated : 2009-03-31


IGF Intersessional Work Publications | Internet Governance Forum
Skip to main content
Welcome to the United Nations
|
Department of Economic and Social Affairs
English
English
Menu
Quick links
I am new to the IGF
Subscribe to our mailing list
Register for an IGF activity
Donate to the IGF
Find/Become a Resource Person
Search
Feed me
Log in
Header Menu
About
About
About IGF
FAQs – About IGF & IGF 2025
Get Started
Team
IGF Donors
Work With Us
IGF Mailing Lists
Contact Us
IGF Leadership Panel
Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group
Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group
MAG Terms of Reference
MAG Chair Terms of Reference
MAG Chair's Blog
MAG Members
MAG Members
Previous MAG Members
MAG Working Groups
MAG Meeting Records
MAG Activities
MAG Member Dashboard
IGF 2026 MAG Renewal
UN Global Advocate
IGF Expert Group Meeting (2026)
IGF Expert Group Meeting 2026
EGM Report
The IGF and UN Processes
Code of Conduct
Newsletter
Press
Support the IGF
Donate
IGF Trust Fund
Donors' Contributions to Main Trust Fund
Global South Contributions
Host the IGF
Share Your Experience - "Voices of the IGF"
IGF 2026
IGF 2026 Entry Page
IGF 2026 Call for Session Proposals
IGF 2026 Call for Village Booths
IGF 2026 Call for Remote Hubs
IGF 2026 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting
IGF 2026 Timeline
IGF 2026 Intersessional Work Proposals
IGF 2026 Proposed Thematic Inputs
IGF 2025 Stocktaking & 2026 Improvements
IGF 2026 Call for MAG Nominations
IGF 2026 Call for NRI Grants
IGF 2026 Judiciary Engagement
IGF 2026 Parliamentary Track
IGF 2026 Youth Track
IGF 2026 Business Engagement
Intersessional Work
Thematic Intersessional Work
Dynamic Coalitions
Dynamic Coalitions
DC Coordination Activities
Terms of Reference
Best Practice Forums
Policy Networks
Policy Network on Artificial Intelligence
Policy Network on Cybersecurity
Policy Network on Open Digital Infrastructure
Policy Network on Digital Inclusion
Previous Work
Capacity Development
Intersessional News
National and Regional IGFs
Overview
NRIs FAQs
NRIs Toolkit: How to Start Your IGF Initiative?
Youth Initiatives
Regional IGF Initiatives
National IGF Initiatives
All National Initiatives
Africa
Asia Pacific
Eastern Europe
GRULAC
WEOG
NRI Dashboard
NRIs Library
NRIs Collaborative Work
IGF 2026 NRIs Preparatory Process
Brochures about NRIs
IGF NRIs Call for Grants
NRIs Meetings - overview
Publications and Reports
IGF Brochures and Select Publications
Publications and Reports
IGF Annual Meeting Proceedings
IGF Intersessional Work
CSTD Reports
UN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD
Calendar
Publications & Reports
Breadcrumb
Home
IGF Intersessional Work
Publications and Reports Menu
IGF Annual Meeting Proceedings
IGF Intersessional Work
CSTD Reports
UN GA Resolutions on ICT for SD
This section contains the output documents and publications from
IGF
intersessional work streams; Best Practice Forums, Policy Networks and Dynamic Coalitions.
Best Practice Forum on Securing Access to the Internet and Protecting Core Internet Resources in Contexts of Conflict and Crises
2025 BPF on Cybersecurity Report
The Best Practice Forum (
BPF
) is an
IGF
intersessional activity, providing a platform for community driven discussion on Internet policy issues and sharing of experiences. The
IGF
2025
BPF
explores the roles and responsibilities of the multistakeholder Internet community in maintaining civilian access to the Internet and ensuring the protection of the public core of the Internet during times of conflict and crisis.
Click here to get the Report
.
Lessons, Impact on Global AI Governance, and Multistakeholder Vision for 2026 and Beyond
2025 PNAI Report
This report summarizes the activities of the Policy Network on Artificial Intelligence (PNAI) in 2025, highlights key outcomes and presents recommendations. In 2025, the PNAI’s primary objective was to develop actionable recommendations on how the
IGF
can maximize its impact as a central, inclusive and bottom-up multistakeholder platform for AI dialogue.
Click here to get the Report
.
From Knowledge to Implementation: The PNMA's Contribution to WSIS+20 and GDC
2025 PNMA Report
During the 2025 process, the expansion of advocacy and consolidation of the policy network continued. The PNMA offers itself as a benchmark for the implementation of the GDC’s meaningful access objectives. Moreover, its output report continues to be a public portfolio of knowledge and activities that the PNMA can engage in and contribute to the
WSIS
+20 process after the UN renewal and onwards to GDC implementation.
Click here to get the Report
.
Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation
2025 PNIF Report
Based on the discussions in 2025, the PNIF compiled a set of draft recommendations and shared them for community review. The recommendations are intended to inform and support ongoing and future deliberations on the role of the multistakeholder model in preserving an open, free, and global Internet, within the context of the
WSIS
+20 review, the operationalisation of the GDC, and beyond.
Click here to get the Report
.
Regional Parliamentary Track alongside LACIGF 2025 | Shaping Digital Futures in the Southern Cone
Outcome Document
The Third regional Parliamentary Summit in Latin America and the Caribbean on “Shaping Digital Futures in the Southern Cone” brought together legislators, technology specialists, international organizations, universities, and civil society to build a common agenda and address the challenges of digital transformation in the region. This outcome document summarizes the consensus achieved and proposes guidelines to strengthen public action and regional cooperation in matters of artificial intelligence, data governance, and digital policies.
Click here to get the Report
(
EN
|
SP
).
Dynamic Coalition on the Sustainability of Journalism and News Media
IGF DC Journalism 2024-2025 Annual Report
The 2024-2025 Annual Report of the
DC
-Journalism outlines a number of articles on the themes of AI and Journalism.
Click here to get the Report
.
Self-Sustaining Financing Solutions for Community Connectivity
IGF DC Community Connectivity 2025 Report
Since 2016 the Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity (DC3) of the Internet Governance Forum (
IGF
) has fostered thriving multistakeholder debates dedicated to the analysis of community connectivity. This book is the Official 2025 Outcome of the UN
IGF
DC3 and should be seen as a further step towards a better understanding of community networking and is built upon the previous efforts of the DC3.
Click here to get the Report
.
The AI Governance We Want, Call to Action: Liability, Interoperability, Sustainability & Labour
2024 PNAI Report
The Policy Network on Artificial Intelligence report 2024 and its recommendations have been developed through an open and global multistakeholder process and presented at the 19th annual
IGF
meeting in Saudi Arabia, Riyadh, in December 2024.
Click here to get the Report
.
How to Conciliate "Access" with "Meaningful": Practices from the Community
2024 PNMA Report
This Policy Network on Meaningful Access report 2024 reflects the outputs of the
IGF
2024 PNMA and it is the product of the collaborative work of many. The report has been presented at the 19th annual
IGF
meeting in Saudi Arabia, Riyadh, in December 2024.
Click here to get the Report
.
Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation
2024 PNIF Report
This Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation report 2024 is the product of the collaborative work of many, who participated in PNIF webinars and virtual meetings, PNIF drafting teams and the PNIF session during the
IGF
2024 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, or provided input on the mailing list or requests for feedback on draft outputs. The report has been presented at the 19th annual
IGF
meeting in Saudi Arabia, Riyadh, in December 2024.
Click here to get the Report
.
Mainstreaming Capacity Building for Cybersecurity, Trust, and Safety Online
2024 BPF on Cybersecurity Report
The Best Practice Forum on Cybersecurity report 2024 is the product of the collaborative work of many, who participated in
BPF
virtual meetings and online discussions, or provided input on the mailing list or requests for feedback. The report has been presented at the 19th annual
IGF
meeting in Saudi Arabia, Riyadh, in December 2024.
Click here to get the Report
.
Dynamic Coalition on the Sustainability of Journalism and News Media
IGF DC Journalism 2023 Annual Report
The 2023 Annual Report of the
DC
-Journalism outlines a number of articles navigating the crossroads of data, tech, and media sustainability.
Click here to get the Report
.
Strengthening multi-stakeholder approach to global AI governance, protecting the environment and human rights in the era of generative AI
2023 PNAI Report
The Policy Network on Artificial Intelligence report 2023 and its recommendations have been developed through an open and global multistakeholder process and presented at the 18th annual
IGF
meeting in Kyoto, Japan, in October 2023.
Click here to get the Report
.
Meaningful Access to Include and Connect
2023 PNMA Report
This Policy Network on Meaningful Access report 2023 reflects the outputs of the
IGF
2023 PNMA and it is the product of the collaborative work of many. The report has been presented at the 18th annual
IGF
meeting in Kyoto, Japan, in October 2023.
Click here to get the Report
.
Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation
2023 PNIF Report
This Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation report 2023 is the product of the collaborative work of many, who participated in PNIF webinars and virtual meetings, PNIF drafting teams and the PNIF session during the
IGF
2023 in Kyoto, Japan, or provided input on the mailing list or requests for feedback on draft outputs. The report has been presented at the 18th annual
IGF
meeting in Kyoto, Japan, in October 2023.
Click here to get the Report
.
Lessons from cybersecurity events to inform cybersecurity policy and norms deliberations
2023 BPF on Cybersecurity Report
The Best Practice Forum on Cybersecurity report 2023 is the product of the collaborative work of many, who participated in
BPF
virtual meetings and online discussions, or provided input on the mailing list or requests for feedback. The report has been presented at the 18th annual
IGF
meeting in Kyoto, Japan, in October 2023.
Click here to get the Report
.
UNITED NATIONS
Contact information
United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)
Villa Le Bocage
Palais des Nations,
CH-1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland
igf [at] un [dot] org
+41 (0) 229 173 411
Additional Information
Donate to the IGF
Participant Funding
Vacancies
Multilingualism
Accessibility Statement
Resources
Publications
Press
Glossary
CONNECT WITH US
Donate
Footer menu
Copyright
Privacy Notice
Terms of Use
Accessibility menu
Contrast settings
Font size
Letter spacing
Line height
Images
Font
Reset the settings