Cms 802: Fill & Download for Free

19 subjects, 300 questions in 210 minutes with negative marks … NEET PG easily one of the toughest entrance tests in the world considering that you just have 42 sec/question to read the questions and the options and to mark the option and that too competition is among the best of the best MBBS doctors. Take a bow …. Huge respect to all to reach this stage.While preparing for PG, many will think that this is the toughest period of their life. But trust me PGs first year life will be very very tough … heavy work load … just 20 odd leaves in a year … working on Sundays and festival days … twice or thrice in a week, night duties too.Every branch of PG is important. But every one has their dream branch. Since the first year will be very tough, it will be good if one gets into their dream branch ( or at least their next nearest two branches), so that they can enjoy what they are doing. If they don’t like the branch and join because for their rank they can only get that or joining because of peer pressure, than they will be having such a stressful life. They have to live with that for rest of their life. So one will have to be very careful while choosing their branch and the college.This is not to scare anyone but to bring the fact of the cut throat competition ahead. One need to be very focused and to really work hard to stay ahead in the competition. One need to get into the top 95th percentile to get into the government medical colleges. To get into Radio or Med they have to be in the top 98th percentile.I could like to share the success story of my daughter here. Even if it inspires few, my aim of posting this is done.2017 NEET PG my daughter’s rank was 10919. She was so upset for disappointing herself, her parents and friends. She was so upset that she wasted last 4 months before the exams. She was in her room and not coming out. She was feeling bad and low that most of her friends took whatever branch they got. She also got Pathology and Anaesthesia in government medical college … “I told her not to take that in a hurry. If you take that now, you got to deal with that for rest of your life. Your aim is to get a medicine PG seat in government medical college, so just go for it. Now you know what mistakes you have done …. Avoid them and start preparing all over again. Our support is going to be with you.”She enrolled in the coaching class again and never missed any. Took notes and seriously revised it.She took online tests very seriouslysolving MCQsShe was talking to her friends over phone and discussing important topics.When she was bored and not in mood to study, she will give me the MCQ books and request me to ask the questions.Her time management improved by online tests.Her focused and determined efforts regained her confidence and all her friends stood with her supporting her when she was down and low. Results of her effortsAIIMS : …Rank 802 … 98.12 percentile (Got non clinical branch in AIIMS Bhopal … refused the seat)JIPMER … Rank 613 … 96.5 percentilePGI …. Rank 474 … 94.3 percentileNEET PG … Rank 1543 … 98.7 percentile. Currently doing first year M.D. (General Medicine) at Gandhi Medical College, Secundrabad.UPSC CMS … Rank 149 … Received appointment order from Indian Railways Medical Services.(May join after completing PG)So even if one doesn’t clear in first attempt or did not get their dream branch, it is not the end of the world, it is worth trying all over again.Coming back to 2019 NEET PG, it is just couple of months away.DO’sSolve as many MCQs and previous years papers as much as possibleWrite at least one online exam per day to improve the time managementDiscuss important topics with your friends.Prepare time table and stick to it for revising the subjects.Exercise at least half an hour.Eat healthy food.Sleep at least for 6 hours.Dont’sDon’t open facebook or whatsappDon’t watch TV or youtubeAvoid junk foodStay away from negative people.Avoid wasting too much of time in lesser important topics.Give the very best and MBBS students are known for their hard work, just couple of months more …. stay focused. All the best for your NEET PG exams. Wishing you all to get your dream branch and enjoy your PG days. Good Luck.

Like all innovation in the medical care space, telemedicine arrangements should be HIPAA consistent to ensure tolerant security. While an application like Skype may offer a specialist a simple method to counsel a patient distantly, utilizing it in that way isn't in consistence with HIPAA. Innovation utilized for telemedicine benefits needs to guarantee significant level security and forestall any breaks of patient individual wellbeing information.However, as the National Policy Telehealth Resource Center notes, "Consistence with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) is more intricate than just utilizing items that guarantee to be 'HIPAA-agreeable." Not just does the telemedicine applications stage should be consistent, all suppliers, patients, and staff utilizing the apparatus need to guarantee they are in consistence with HIPAA. A telemedicine programming seller, for example, necessities to construct a protected item, yet in addition guarantee their telemedicine organization is working as per HIPAA.HIPAA consistence involves a coordinated arrangement of secure, checked, and recorded practices inside and between covered elements. Despite the fact that items can't guarantee consistence, a few items may contain components or highlights that permit them to be worked in a HIPAA-consistent way.Documentation needed to rehearse telemedicine, otherwise called telehealth, changes by state.To list each state's important documentation is past to extent of this undertaking. In any case, the National Consortium of Telehealth Resource Centers does this for you. Tapping on the above connection takes you to the TeleHealth Resource Center's site where you will discover a guide of the United States isolated into 11 districts. All the data you require is a tick and an email/call away!A short portrayal of the essential documentation:LICENSUREPermitting is under the domain of states to control and direct. During a telehealth experience the administration is considered to happen at the actual area of the patient (rather than the supplier). This expects suppliers to conform to the laws and guidelines related with the suitable expert permitting board in the patient's state. Strategies shift across states and regularly expects suppliers to acquire some type of licensure, regardless of whether a full permit or an uncommonly given one (for instance, a telemedicine permit), in each express the supplier wishes to rehearse. The Federation of State Medical Boards has created language for an Interstate Medical Licensure Compact that would permit part states to make a facilitated cycle to get a permit in part states. This in as continuous work in progress.NegligenceNumerous suppliers have worries around misbehavior and telehealth. There have been hardly any cases that include telehealth, and many have spun around teleradiology. The low number of cases, be that as it may, is likely because of the low selection of telehealth. Moreover, there have been a couple of carelessness cases that include the non-utilization of telehealth. Hypothetically, telehealth misbehavior cases are probably going to expand the more it is broadly utilized. Nonetheless, one thing identified with misbehavior that suppliers ought to know about and which has become an issue to certain suppliers is negligence inclusion. Not all transporters will cover for misbehavior including telehealth conveyed administrations and not all inclusion a supplier has will be feasible in another state. Furthermore, a few transporters will give negligence inclusion, yet may charge high expenses. Next to no strategy has been identified with tending to these issues. Hawaii as of late passed enactment that would require misbehavior transporters in the state to offer telehealth negligence inclusion, yet this is the main model that at present exists starting at July 2016. Suppliers ought to guarantee that their misbehavior protection covers telehealth conveyed administrations and that it is reasonable in some other states they wish to rehearse in. A supplier may discover the person in question should buy extra protection.RecommendingTo completely treat a patient, a supplier must be able to recommend. A relationship totally manufactured through telehealth may not be viewed as a legitimate methods for setting up a relationship, restricting the capacity of a supplier to do as such. The Ryan Haight Act directs how telehealth (telemedicine is the term utilized in the Act) might be utilized to recommended controlled substances. The Act gives explicit situations on how the cooperation among patient and supplier must occur that include:A patient is being dealt with and actually situated in a medical clinic or facility enlisted to convey under the Controlled Substance Act.Is led when the patient is being dealt with and in the actual presence of a specialist enrolled to disperse under the Controlled Substance Act.The specialist is a worker or temporary worker of the Indian Health Service (IHS) or working for an Indian clan or ancestral association under agreement or minimized with HIS.Has acquired a unique enrollment from the US Attorney General In a crisis circumstance (21 USC 802(54).States have authority over how all that else is recommended when telehealth is utilized and as referenced in before areas, the approaches shift across states. A few states have unmistakable principles for the utilization of telehealth in endorsing while others are more ambiguous or quiet. A portion of the standards place on whether telehealth is sufficient to set up a patient-supplier relationship which, once more, fluctuate over the states. This inquiry of telehealth and endorsing has increased expanding consideration over the most recent couple of years and will probably keep on being a zone where states keep on building up their approaches.Medical coverage PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (HIPPA) – SECURITYUtilizers of telehealth regularly have inquiries around HIPAA, protection and security issues. Oftentimes, they will experience sellers who state their hardware or programming is HIPAA consistent. The innovation alone can't make one HIPAA agreeable. Human activity is needed to meet the fundamental degree of consistence that is required. HIPAA doesn't have explicit prerequisites identified with telehealth. Accordingly, a telehealth supplier must meet similar necessities of HIPAA as would be required if the administrations were conveyed face to face. Notwithstanding, to meet those prerequisites a substance may need to make unique or extra strides that might not have been fundamental if the administration was conveyed face to face. For instance, a technical support individual who might not be presented to secured wellbeing data if a training was carefully face to face might be in an alternate circumstance where telehealth is included on the grounds that that technical support individual might be needed to go into a test space to help with the gear. Moreover, states may have their own protection and security laws with which suppliers must be recognizable. HIPAA is a benchmark to securing wellbeing data and a few states may really have a higher bar a supplier must meet to be agreeable. Furthermore, states may have explicit web seller laws that may not be aimed at wellbeing administrations, however in any case sway them since they are administrations sold by means of the Internet. On the off chance that a supplier is offering administrations in another state, it is judicious to investigate the state laws covering these regions.CREDENTIALINGCredentialing is the cycle utilized by medical care associations to get, confirm, evaluate and approve past experience and capabilities. Privileging is the cycle utilized by associations, after audit of accreditations, to allow approval for an expert to give a particular extent of patient consideration administrations. Little as well as provincial facilities may require certain experts yet don't have the assets or interest to recruit one as a full-time staff individuals. Telehealth would be an alternative to these associations yet the cycle to accreditation a supplier can burden previously restricted assets. CMS endorsed guidelines to permit clinics and basic access clinics (CAH) to qualification as a substitute which permits a facility (the starting site) to contract with another clinic, CAH or telemedicine element (the removed site) to offer types of assistance through telehealth and accreditation those suppliers by depending on the credentialing work done by the inaccessible site, if certain conditions are met. This makes a quicker, more savvy strategy for facilities and medical clinics to get to required strength care. The Joint Commission made equal rules to the government guidelines. Both are discretionary to utilize and a center or emergency clinic may at present use a full credentialing measure.

There are thousands of published Internet documents, called RFC’s, in many categories, but most are not official Internet standards. Only 117 of the 8763 RFC’s have the status of “Internet Standard.” They are listed below, most recent first.To see any of these, use the url in the form ofhttps://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcwxyz where wxyz is the 4 digit RFC number at the beginning of a line below.8341 Network Configuration Access Control Model A. Bierman, M. Bjorklund [ March 2018 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC6536) (Also STD0091) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: ops, WG: netconf) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC8341)8259 The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format T. Bray [ December 2017 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC7159) (Also STD0090) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: art, WG: jsonbis) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC8259)8201 Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6 J. McCann, S. Deering, J. Mogul, R. Hinden [ July 2017 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC1981) (Also STD0087) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: int, WG: 6man) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC8201)8200 Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification S. Deering, R. Hinden [ July 2017 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC2460) (Also STD0086) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: int, WG: 6man) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC8200)8098 Message Disposition Notification T. Hansen, A. Melnikov [ February 2017 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC3798) (Updates RFC2046, RFC3461) (Also STD0085) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: art, WG: appsawg) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC8098)8077 Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) L. Martini, G. Heron [ February 2017 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC4447, RFC6723) (Also STD0084) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: rtg, WG: pals) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC8077)8011 Internet Printing Protocol/1.1: Model and Semantics M. Sweet, I. McDonald [ January 2017 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC2911, RFC3381, RFC3382) (Also STD0092) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, WG: NON WORKING GROUP) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC8011)8010 Internet Printing Protocol/1.1: Encoding and Transport M. Sweet, I. McDonald [ January 2017 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC2910, RFC3382) (Also STD0092) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, WG: NON WORKING GROUP) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC8010)7761 Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised) B. Fenner, M. Handley, H. Holbrook, I. Kouvelas, R. Parekh, Z. Zhang, L. Zheng [ March 2016 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC4601) (Updated-By RFC8736) (Also STD0083) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: rtg, WG: pim) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC7761)7680 A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) G. Almes, S. Kalidindi, M. Zekauskas, A. Morton [ January 2016 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC2680) (Also STD0082) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: tsv, WG: ippm) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC7680)7679 A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) G. Almes, S. Kalidindi, M. Zekauskas, A. Morton [ January 2016 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC2679) (Also STD0081) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: tsv, WG: ippm) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC7679)7296 Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) C. Kaufman, P. Hoffman, Y. Nir, P. Eronen, T. Kivinen [ October 2014 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC5996) (Updated-By RFC7427, RFC7670, RFC8247) (Also STD0079) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: sec, WG: ipsecme) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC7296)7011 Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information B. Claise, B. Trammell, P. Aitken [ September 2013 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC5101) (Also STD0077) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: ops, WG: ipfix) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC7011)6891 Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0)) J. Damas, M. Graff, P. Vixie [ April 2013 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC2671, RFC2673) (Also STD0075) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: int, WG: dnsext) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC6891)6522 The Multipart/Report Media Type for the Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages M. Kucherawy [ January 2012 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC3462) (Updated-By RFC6533) (Also STD0073) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: app, WG: appsawg) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC6522)6409 Message Submission for Mail R. Gellens, J. Klensin [ November 2011 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC4409) (Updated-By RFC8314) (Also STD0072) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: app, WG: yam) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC6409)6376 DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures D. Crocker, T. Hansen, M. Kucherawy [ September 2011 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC4871, RFC5672) (Updated-By RFC8301, RFC8463, RFC8553, RFC8616) (Also STD0076) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: sec, WG: dkim) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC6376)6353 Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) W. Hardaker [ July 2011 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC5953) (Also STD0078) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: sec, WG: isms) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC6353)6152 SMTP Service Extension for 8-bit MIME Transport J. Klensin, N. Freed, M. Rose, D. Crocker [ March 2011 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC1652) (Also STD0071) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: app, WG: yam) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC6152)5734 Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Transport over TCP S. Hollenbeck [ August 2009 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC4934) (Also STD0069) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, WG: NON WORKING GROUP) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC5734)5733 Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Contact Mapping S. Hollenbeck [ August 2009 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC4933) (Also STD0069) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, WG: NON WORKING GROUP) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC5733)5732 Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Host Mapping S. Hollenbeck [ August 2009 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC4932) (Also STD0069) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, WG: NON WORKING GROUP) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC5732)5731 Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Domain Name Mapping S. Hollenbeck [ August 2009 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC4931) (Also STD0069) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, WG: NON WORKING GROUP) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC5731)5730 Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) S. Hollenbeck [ August 2009 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC4930) (Also STD0069) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, WG: NON WORKING GROUP) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC5730)5652 Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) R. Housley [ September 2009 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC3852) (Also STD0070) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: sec, WG: smime) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC5652)5591 Transport Security Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) D. Harrington, W. Hardaker [ June 2009 ] (TXT, HTML) (Also STD0078) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: sec, WG: isms) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC5591)5590 Transport Subsystem for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) D. Harrington, J. Schoenwaelder [ June 2009 ] (TXT, HTML) (Updates RFC3411, RFC3412, RFC3414, RFC3417) (Also STD0078) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: sec, WG: isms) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC5590)5343 Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Context EngineID Discovery J. Schoenwaelder [ September 2008 ] (TXT, HTML) (Updates RFC3411) (Also STD0078) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: ops, WG: opsawg) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC5343)5234 Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF D. Crocker, P. Overell [ January 2008 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC4234) (Updated-By RFC7405) (Also STD0068) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, WG: NON WORKING GROUP) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC5234)5011 Automated Updates of DNS Security (DNSSEC) Trust Anchors M. StJohns [ September 2007 ] (TXT, HTML) (Also STD0074) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: int, WG: dnsext) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC5011)4506 XDR: External Data Representation Standard M. Eisler [ May 2006 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC1832) (Also STD0067) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: tsv, WG: nfsv4) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC4506)4443 Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification A. Conta, S. Deering, M. Gupta [ March 2006 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC2463) (Updates RFC2780) (Updated-By RFC4884) (Also STD0089) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: int, WG: ipv6) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC4443)3986 Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, L. Masinter [ January 2005 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC2732, RFC2396, RFC1808) (Updates RFC1738) (Updated-By RFC6874, RFC7320) (Also STD0066) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, WG: NON WORKING GROUP) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC3986)3629 UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646 F. Yergeau [ November 2003 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC2279) (Also STD0063) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, WG: NON WORKING GROUP) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC3629)3596 DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6 S. Thomson, C. Huitema, V. Ksinant, M. Souissi [ October 2003 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC3152, RFC1886) (Also STD0088) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: int, WG: dnsext) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC3596)3551 RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control H. Schulzrinne, S. Casner [ July 2003 ] (TXT, PS, PDF, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC1890) (Updated-By RFC5761, RFC7007) (Also STD0065) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: rai, WG: avt) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC3551)3550 RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications H. Schulzrinne, S. Casner, R. Frederick, V. Jacobson [ July 2003 ] (TXT, PS, PDF, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC1889) (Updated-By RFC5506, RFC5761, RFC6051, RFC6222, RFC7022, RFC7160, RFC7164, RFC8083, RFC8108) (Also STD0064) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: rai, WG: avt) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC3550)3418 Management Information Base (MIB) for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) R. Presuhn [ December 2002 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC1907) (Also STD0062) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: ops, WG: snmpv3) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC3418)3417 Transport Mappings for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) R. Presuhn [ December 2002 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC1906) (Updated-By RFC4789, RFC5590) (Also STD0062) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: ops, WG: snmpv3) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC3417)3416 Version 2 of the Protocol Operations for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) R. Presuhn [ December 2002 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC1905) (Also STD0062) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: ops, WG: snmpv3) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC3416)3415 View-based Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) B. Wijnen, R. Presuhn, K. McCloghrie [ December 2002 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC2575) (Also STD0062) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: ops, WG: snmpv3) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC3415)3414 User-based Security Model (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3) U. Blumenthal, B. Wijnen [ December 2002 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC2574) (Updated-By RFC5590) (Also STD0062) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: ops, WG: snmpv3) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC3414)3413 Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Applications D. Levi, P. Meyer, B. Stewart [ December 2002 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC2573) (Also STD0062) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: ops, WG: snmpv3) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC3413)3412 Message Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) J. Case, D. Harrington, R. Presuhn, B. Wijnen [ December 2002 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC2572) (Updated-By RFC5590) (Also STD0062) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: ops, WG: snmpv3) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC3412)3411 An Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Management Frameworks D. Harrington, R. Presuhn, B. Wijnen [ December 2002 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC2571) (Updated-By RFC5343, RFC5590) (Also STD0062) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: ops, WG: snmpv3) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC3411)2920 SMTP Service Extension for Command Pipelining N. Freed [ September 2000 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC2197) (Also STD0060) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC2920)2819 Remote Network Monitoring Management Information Base S. Waldbusser [ May 2000 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC1757) (Also STD0059) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: ops, WG: rmonmib) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC2819)2580 Conformance Statements for SMIv2 K. McCloghrie, D. Perkins, J. Schoenwaelder [ April 1999 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC1904) (Also STD0058) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC2580)2579 Textual Conventions for SMIv2 K. McCloghrie, D. Perkins, J. Schoenwaelder [ April 1999 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC1903) (Also STD0058) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC2579)2578 Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2) K. McCloghrie, D. Perkins, J. Schoenwaelder [ April 1999 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC1902) (Also STD0058) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC2578)2453 RIP Version 2 G. Malkin [ November 1998 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC1723) (Updated-By RFC4822) (Also STD0056) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: rtg, WG: ripv2) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC2453)2427 Multiprotocol Interconnect over Frame Relay C. Brown, A. Malis [ September 1998 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC1490, RFC1294) (Also STD0055) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: int, WG: ion) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC2427)2328 OSPF Version 2 J. Moy [ April 1998 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC2178) (Updated-By RFC5709, RFC6549, RFC6845, RFC6860, RFC7474, RFC8042) (Also STD0054) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: rtg, WG: ospf) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC2328)2289 A One-Time Password System N. Haller, C. Metz, P. Nesser, M. Straw [ February 1998 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC1938) (Also STD0061) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: sec, WG: otp) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC2289)1939 Post Office Protocol - Version 3 J. Myers, M. Rose [ May 1996 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC1725) (Updated-By RFC1957, RFC2449, RFC6186, RFC8314) (Also STD0053) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1939)1870 SMTP Service Extension for Message Size Declaration J. Klensin, N. Freed, K. Moore [ November 1995 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC1653) (Also STD0010) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: app, WG: smtpext) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1870)1869 SMTP Service Extensions J. Klensin, N. Freed, M. Rose, E. Stefferud, D. Crocker [ November 1995 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC1651) (Obsoleted-By RFC2821) (Also STD0010) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: app, WG: smtpext) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1869)1725 Post Office Protocol - Version 3 J. Myers, M. Rose [ November 1994 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC1460) (Obsoleted-By RFC1939) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1725)1723 RIP Version 2 - Carrying Additional Information G. Malkin [ November 1994 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC1388) (Obsoleted-By RFC2453) (Updates RFC1058) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: rtg, WG: ripv2) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1723)1722 RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement G. Malkin [ November 1994 ] (TXT, HTML) (Also STD0057) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: rtg, WG: ripv2) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1722)1662 PPP in HDLC-like Framing W. Simpson [ July 1994 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC1549) (Also STD0051) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: int, WG: pppext) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1662)1661 The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) W. Simpson [ July 1994 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC1548) (Updated-By RFC2153) (Also STD0051) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: int, WG: pppext) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1661)1390 Transmission of IP and ARP over FDDI Networks D. Katz [ January 1993 ] (TXT, HTML) (Also STD0036) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: int, WG: fddi) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1390)1350 The TFTP Protocol (Revision 2) K. Sollins [ July 1992 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC0783) (Updated-By RFC1782, RFC1783, RFC1784, RFC1785, RFC2347, RFC2348, RFC2349) (Also STD0033) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1350)1213 Management Information Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II K. McCloghrie, M. Rose [ March 1991 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC1158) (Updated-By RFC2011, RFC2012, RFC2013) (Also STD0017) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, WG: snmp) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1213)1212 Concise MIB definitions M.T. Rose, K. McCloghrie [ March 1991 ] (TXT, HTML) (Also STD0016) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, WG: snmp) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1212)1209 The Transmission of IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service D. Piscitello, J. Lawrence [ March 1991 ] (TXT, HTML) (Also STD0052) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: int, WG: smds) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1209)1201 Transmitting IP traffic over ARCNET networks D. Provan [ February 1991 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC1051) (Also STD0046) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1201)1155 Structure and identification of management information for TCP/IP-based internets M.T. Rose, K. McCloghrie [ May 1990 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC1065) (Also STD0016) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1155)1132 Standard for the transmission of 802.2 packets over IPX networks L.J. McLaughlin [ November 1989 ] (TXT, HTML) (Also STD0049) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1132)1123 Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support R. Braden [ October 1989 ] (TXT, HTML) (Updates RFC0822, RFC0952) (Updated-By RFC1349, RFC2181, RFC5321, RFC5966, RFC7766) (Also STD0003) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1123)1122 Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers R. Braden [ October 1989 ] (TXT, HTML) (Updates RFC0793) (Updated-By RFC1349, RFC4379, RFC5884, RFC6093, RFC6298, RFC6633, RFC6864, RFC8029) (Also STD0003) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1122)1119 Network Time Protocol (version 2) specification and implementation D.L. Mills [ September 1989 ] (TXT, PS, PDF, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC0958, RFC1059) (Obsoleted-By RFC1305) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1119)1112 Host extensions for IP multicasting S.E. Deering [ August 1989 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC0988, RFC1054) (Updated-By RFC2236) (Also STD0005) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1112)1088 Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams over NetBIOS networks L.J. McLaughlin [ February 1989 ] (TXT, HTML) (Also STD0048) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1088)1065 Structure and identification of management information for TCP/IP-based internets K. McCloghrie, M.T. Rose [ August 1988 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoleted-By RFC1155) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1065)1055 Nonstandard for transmission of IP datagrams over serial lines: SLIP J.L. Romkey [ June 1988 ] (TXT, HTML) (Also STD0047) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1055)1044 Internet Protocol on Network System's HYPERchannel: Protocol Specification K. Hardwick, J. Lekashman [ February 1988 ] (TXT, HTML) (Updated-By RFC5494) (Also STD0045) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1044)1042 Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams over IEEE 802 networks J. Postel, J.K. Reynolds [ February 1988 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC0948) (Also STD0043) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1042)1035 Domain names - implementation and specification P.V. Mockapetris [ November 1987 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC0973, RFC0882, RFC0883) (Updated-By RFC1101, RFC1183, RFC1348, RFC1876, RFC1982, RFC1995, RFC1996, RFC2065, RFC2136, RFC2181, RFC2137, RFC2308, RFC2535, RFC2673, RFC2845, RFC3425, RFC3658, RFC4033, RFC4034, RFC4035, RFC4343, RFC5936, RFC5966, RFC6604, RFC7766, RFC8482, RFC8490, RFC8767) (Also STD0013) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1035)1034 Domain names - concepts and facilities P.V. Mockapetris [ November 1987 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC0973, RFC0882, RFC0883) (Updated-By RFC1101, RFC1183, RFC1348, RFC1876, RFC1982, RFC2065, RFC2181, RFC2308, RFC2535, RFC4033, RFC4034, RFC4035, RFC4343, RFC4035, RFC4592, RFC5936, RFC8020, RFC8482, RFC8767) (Also STD0013) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1034)1006 ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP Version: 3 M.T. Rose, D.E. Cass [ May 1987 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC0983) (Updated-By RFC2126) (Also STD0035) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1006)1002 Protocol standard for a NetBIOS service on a TCP/UDP transport: Detailed specifications NetBIOS Working Group in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Internet Activities Board, End-to-End Services Task Force [ March 1987 ] (TXT, HTML) (Also STD0019) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1002)1001 Protocol standard for a NetBIOS service on a TCP/UDP transport: Concepts and methods NetBIOS Working Group in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Internet Activities Board, End-to-End Services Task Force [ March 1987 ] (TXT, HTML) (Also STD0019) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1001)0959 File Transfer Protocol J. Postel, J. Reynolds [ October 1985 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC0765) (Updated-By RFC2228, RFC2640, RFC2773, RFC3659, RFC5797, RFC7151) (Also STD0009) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0959)0950 Internet Standard Subnetting Procedure J.C. Mogul, J. Postel [ August 1985 ] (TXT, HTML) (Updates RFC0792) (Updated-By RFC6918) (Also STD0005) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0950)0922 Broadcasting Internet datagrams in the presence of subnets J.C. Mogul [ October 1984 ] (TXT, HTML) (Also STD0005) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0922)0919 Broadcasting Internet Datagrams J.C. Mogul [ October 1984 ] (TXT, HTML) (Also STD0005) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0919)0907 Host Access Protocol specification Bolt Beranek, Newman Laboratories [ July 1984 ] (TXT, HTML) (Updated-By RFC1221) (Also STD0040) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0907)0903 A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol R. Finlayson, T. Mann, J.C. Mogul, M. Theimer [ June 1984 ] (TXT, HTML) (Also STD0038) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0903)0895 Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams over experimental Ethernet networks J. Postel [ April 1984 ] (TXT, HTML) (Also STD0042) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0895)0894 A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams over Ethernet Networks C. Hornig [ April 1984 ] (TXT, HTML) (Also STD0041) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0894)0891 DCN Local-Network Protocols D.L. Mills [ December 1983 ] (TXT, HTML) (Also STD0044) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0891)0868 Time Protocol J. Postel, K. Harrenstien [ May 1983 ] (TXT, HTML) (Also STD0026) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0868)0867 Daytime Protocol J. Postel [ May 1983 ] (TXT, HTML) (Also STD0025) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0867)0866 Active users J. Postel [ May 1983 ] (TXT, HTML) (Also STD0024) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0866)0865 Quote of the Day Protocol J. Postel [ May 1983 ] (TXT, HTML) (Also STD0023) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0865)0864 Character Generator Protocol J. Postel [ May 1983 ] (TXT, HTML) (Also STD0022) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0864)0863 Discard Protocol J. Postel [ May 1983 ] (TXT, HTML) (Also STD0021) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0863)0862 Echo Protocol J. Postel [ May 1983 ] (TXT, HTML) (Also STD0020) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0862)0861 Telnet Extended Options: List Option J. Postel, J. Reynolds [ May 1983 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes NIC16239) (Also STD0032) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0861)0860 Telnet Timing Mark Option J. Postel, J. Reynolds [ May 1983 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes NIC16238) (Also STD0031) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0860)0859 Telnet Status Option J. Postel, J. Reynolds [ May 1983 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC0651) (Also STD0030) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0859)0858 Telnet Suppress Go Ahead Option J. Postel, J. Reynolds [ May 1983 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes NIC15392) (Also STD0029) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0858)0857 Telnet Echo Option J. Postel, J. Reynolds [ May 1983 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes NIC15390) (Also STD0028) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0857)0856 Telnet Binary Transmission J. Postel, J. Reynolds [ May 1983 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes NIC15389) (Also STD0027) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0856)0855 Telnet Option Specifications J. Postel, J.K. Reynolds [ May 1983 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes NIC18640) (Also STD0008) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0855)0854 Telnet Protocol Specification J. Postel, J.K. Reynolds [ May 1983 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC0764) (Updated-By RFC5198) (Also STD0008) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0854)0826 An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or Converting Network Protocol Addresses to 48.bit Ethernet Address for Transmission on Ethernet Hardware D. Plummer [ November 1982 ] (TXT, HTML) (Updated-By RFC5227, RFC5494) (Also STD0037) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0826)0822 STANDARD FOR THE FORMAT OF ARPA INTERNET TEXT MESSAGES D. Crocker [ August 1982 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC0733) (Obsoleted-By RFC2822) (Updated-By RFC1123, RFC2156, RFC1327, RFC1138, RFC1148) (Also STD0011) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0822)0821 Simple Mail Transfer Protocol J. Postel [ August 1982 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC0788) (Obsoleted-By RFC2821) (Also STD0010) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0821)0793 Transmission Control Protocol J. Postel [ September 1981 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC0761) (Updated-By RFC1122, RFC3168, RFC6093, RFC6528) (Also STD0007) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0793)0792 Internet Control Message Protocol J. Postel [ September 1981 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC0777) (Updated-By RFC0950, RFC4884, RFC6633, RFC6918) (Also STD0005) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0792)0791 Internet Protocol J. Postel [ September 1981 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC0760) (Updated-By RFC1349, RFC2474, RFC6864) (Also STD0005) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0791)0768 User Datagram Protocol J. Postel [ August 1980 ] (TXT, HTML) (Also STD0006) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0768)0020 ASCII format for network interchange V.G. Cerf [ October 1969 ] (TXT, PDF, HTML) (Also STD0080) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (Stream: Legacy) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC0020)