Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!VENERA.ISI.EDU!braden
From: braden@VENERA.ISI.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  mil stds vs. rfc's
Message-ID: <8812211742.AA04654@braden.isi.edu>
Date: 21 Dec 88 17:42:52 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 34


      [3:5] "Military Standard Internet Protocol," MIL-STD-1777,
           Department of Defense, August 1983.

           This specification, as amended by RFC-963, is intended to
           describe the Internet Protocol but has some serious omissions
           (e.g., the mandatory subnet extension of RFC-950).  It is
           also out of date.  If there is a conflict, RFC-791, RFC-792,
           and RFC-950 must be taken as authoritative.
 
 
         [4.2:2] "Transmission Control Protocol," MIL-STD-1778, US
              Department of Defense, August 1984.

              This specification as amended by RFC-964 is intended to
              describe the same protocol as RFC-793 [4.2:1].  If there
              is a conflict, RFC-793 takes precedence.

 
         [5.2:3]  "File Transfer Protocol," MIL-STD-1780, Department of
              Defense.

              This Mil-Std is based on an earlier version of the FTP
              specification (RFC-765) and is obsolete.


A future revision of RFC-1083, "IAB Official Protocol Standards", will
describe the primacy of the RFC's over the MilStd's.  Unfortunately, the
DoD has chosen not to correct or update the MilStd's for a long time.
In implementing TCP or IP, you may find reading them somewhat helpful as
background material, but you must be aware that they are seriously out
of date in some areas.  RFC-1009 and the soon-to-be-published Host
Requirements RFC take precedence over MilStds and protocol RFC's.

Bob Braden