Browse Prior Art Database

Summary of 1400-1499 (RFC1499) Disclosure Number: IPCOM000002327D
Original Publication Date: 1997-Jan-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-12
Document File: 15 page(s) / 38K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

J. Elliott: AUTHOR


Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) [1]. It is the purpose of this document, the Structure of Management Information (SMI), to define that subset. [STANDARDS-TRACK]

This text was extracted from a ASCII Text document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 8% of the total text.

Network Working Group J. Elliott

Request for Comments: 1499 ISI

Category: Informational January 1997

Request for Comments Summary

RFC Numbers 1400-1499

Status of This Memo

This RFC is a slightly annotated list of the 100 RFCs from RFC 1400

through RFCs 1499. This is a status report on these RFCs. This memo

provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify

an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is



Many RFCs, but not all, are Proposed Standards, Draft Standards, or

Standards. Since the status of these RFCs may change during the

standards processing, we note here only that they are on the

standards track. Please see the latest edition of "Internet Official

Protocol Standards" for the current state and status of these RFCs.

In the following, RFCs on the standards track are marked [STANDARDS-


RFC Author Date Title

--- ------ ---- -----

1499 Elliott Jan 97 Requests For Comments Summary

This memo.

1498 Saltzer Aug 93 On the Naming and Binding of Network


This brief paper offers a perspective on the subject of names of

destinations in data communication networks. It suggests two ideas:

First, it is helpful to distinguish among four different kinds of

objects that may be named as the destination of a packet in a network.

Second, the operating system concept of binding is a useful way to

describe the relations among the four kinds of objects. This memo

provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an

Internet standard.

1497 Reynolds Aug 93 BOOTP Vendor Information Extensions

This RFC is a slight revision and extension of RFC-1048 by Philip

Prindeville, who should be credited with the original work in this memo.

This memo is a status report on the vendor information extensions used

in the Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP).

1496 Alverstrand Aug 93 Rules for Downgrading Messages from

X.400/88 to X.400/84 When MIME

Content-Types are Present in the


This document describes how RFC-1328 must be modified in order to

provide adequate support for the scenarios:

SMTP(MIME) -> X.400(84)

X.400(84) -> SMTP(MIME)

It replaces chapter 6 of RFC-1328. The rest of RFC-1328 is NOT

obsoleted. [STANDARDS-TRACK]

1495 Alverstrand Aug 93 Mapping between X.400 and RFC-822

Message Bodies

Since the introduction of X.400(84), there has been work ongoing for

defining mappings between MHS and RFC-822. The most recent work in this

area is RFC-1327 [3], which focuses primarily on translation of envelope

and headers. This document is complimentary to RFC-1327 as it focuses

on tran...