6247
INFORMATIONAL
Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC 1072, RFC 1106, RFC 1110, RFC 1145, RFC 1146, RFC 1379, RFC 1644, and RFC 1693 to Historic Status
Authors: L. Eggert
Date: May 2011
Area: wit
Working Group: tcpm
Stream: IETF
Abstract
This document reclassifies several TCP extensions that have never seen widespread use to Historic status. The affected RFCs are RFC 1072, RFC 1106, RFC 1110, RFC 1145, RFC 1146, RFC 1379, RFC 1644, and RFC 1693. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC 6247
INFORMATIONAL
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Eggert
Request for Comments: 6247 Nokia
Obsoletes: <a href="./rfc1072">1072</a>, <a href="./rfc1106">1106</a>, <a href="./rfc1110">1110</a>, <a href="./rfc1145">1145</a>, May 2011
<a href="./rfc1146">1146</a>, <a href="./rfc1379">1379</a>, <a href="./rfc1644">1644</a>, <a href="./rfc1693">1693</a>
Updates: <a href="./rfc4614">4614</a>
Category: Informational
ISSN: 2070-1721
<span class="h1">Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions <a href="./rfc1072">RFC 1072</a>, <a href="./rfc1106">RFC 1106</a>,</span>
<span class="h1">RFC 1110, <a href="./rfc1145">RFC 1145</a>, <a href="./rfc1146">RFC 1146</a>, <a href="./rfc1379">RFC 1379</a>, <a href="./rfc1644">RFC 1644</a>, and <a href="./rfc1693">RFC 1693</a> to</span>
<span class="h1">Historic Status</span>
Abstract
This document reclassifies several TCP extensions that have never
seen widespread use to Historic status. The affected RFCs are <a href="./rfc1072">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc1072">1072</a>, <a href="./rfc1106">RFC 1106</a>, <a href="./rfc1110">RFC 1110</a>, <a href="./rfc1145">RFC 1145</a>, <a href="./rfc1146">RFC 1146</a>, <a href="./rfc1379">RFC 1379</a>, <a href="./rfc1644">RFC 1644</a>, and
<a href="./rfc1693">RFC 1693</a>.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see <a href="./rfc5741#section-2">Section 2 of RFC 5741</a>.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6247">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6247</a>.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
<span class="grey">Eggert Informational [Page 1]</span><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6247">RFC 6247</a> Undeployed TCP Extensions to Historic May 2011</span>
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
TCP has a long history, and several proposed TCP extensions have
never seen widespread deployment. <a href="#section-5">Section 5</a> of the TCP "roadmap"
document [<a href="./rfc4614" title=""A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification Documents"">RFC4614</a>] already classifies a number of TCP extensions as
Historic and describes the reasons for doing so, but it does not
instruct the RFC Editor and IANA to change the status of these RFCs
in the RFC database and the relevant IANA registries. The sole
purpose of this document is to do just that. Please refer to <a href="./rfc4614#section-5">Section</a>
<a href="./rfc4614#section-5">5 of [RFC4614]</a> for justification.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. RFC Editor Considerations</span>
Per this document, the RFC Editor has changed the status of the
following RFCs to Historic [<a href="./rfc2026" title=""The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3"">RFC2026</a>]:
o [<a href="./rfc1072" title=""TCP extensions for long- delay paths"">RFC1072</a>] on "TCP Extensions for Long-Delay Paths"
o [<a href="./rfc1106" title=""TCP big window and NAK options"">RFC1106</a>] and [<a href="./rfc1110" title=""Problem with the TCP big window option"">RFC1110</a>] related to the "TCP Big Window and Nak
Options"
o [<a href="./rfc1145" title=""TCP alternate checksum options"">RFC1145</a>] and [<a href="./rfc1146" title=""TCP alternate checksum options"">RFC1146</a>] related to the "TCP Alternate Checksum
Options"
o [<a href="./rfc1379" title=""Extending TCP for Transactions -- Concepts"">RFC1379</a>] and [<a href="./rfc1644" title=""T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions Functional Specification"">RFC1644</a>] on "T/TCP -- Extensions for Transactions
Functional Specification"
o [<a href="./rfc1693" title=""An Extension to TCP : Partial Order Service"">RFC1693</a>] on "An Extension to TCP : Partial Order Service"
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. IANA Considerations</span>
IANA has marked the TCP options 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15
documented in [<a href="./rfc1072" title=""TCP extensions for long- delay paths"">RFC1072</a>], [<a href="./rfc1146" title=""TCP alternate checksum options"">RFC1146</a>], [<a href="./rfc1644" title=""T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions Functional Specification"">RFC1644</a>], and [<a href="./rfc1693" title=""An Extension to TCP : Partial Order Service"">RFC1693</a>] as
"obsolete" in the "TCP Option Kind Numbers" registry [<a href="#ref-TCPOPTREG" title=""TCP Option Kind Numbers"">TCPOPTREG</a>],
with a reference to this RFC.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Security Considerations</span>
As mentioned in [<a href="./rfc4614" title=""A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification Documents"">RFC4614</a>], the TCP Extensions for Transactions
(T/TCP) [<a href="./rfc1379" title=""Extending TCP for Transactions -- Concepts"">RFC1379</a>][RFC1644] are reported to have security issues
[<a href="#ref-DEVIVO" title=""Internet Vulnerabilities Related to TCP/IP and T/TCP"">DEVIVO</a>].
<span class="grey">Eggert Informational [Page 2]</span><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6247">RFC 6247</a> Undeployed TCP Extensions to Historic May 2011</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Acknowledgments</span>
Lars Eggert is partly funded by [<a href="#ref-TRILOGY" title=""Trilogy Project"">TRILOGY</a>], a research project
supported by the European Commission under its Seventh Framework
Program.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1" href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC1072">RFC1072</a>] Jacobson, V. and R. Braden, "TCP extensions for long-
delay paths", <a href="./rfc1072">RFC 1072</a>, October 1988.
[<a id="ref-RFC1106">RFC1106</a>] Fox, R., "TCP big window and NAK options", <a href="./rfc1106">RFC 1106</a>,
June 1989.
[<a id="ref-RFC1110">RFC1110</a>] McKenzie, A., "Problem with the TCP big window option",
<a href="./rfc1110">RFC 1110</a>, August 1989.
[<a id="ref-RFC1145">RFC1145</a>] Zweig, J. and C. Partridge, "TCP alternate checksum
options", <a href="./rfc1145">RFC 1145</a>, February 1990.
[<a id="ref-RFC1146">RFC1146</a>] Zweig, J. and C. Partridge, "TCP alternate checksum
options", <a href="./rfc1146">RFC 1146</a>, March 1990.
[<a id="ref-RFC1379">RFC1379</a>] Braden, B., "Extending TCP for Transactions --
Concepts", <a href="./rfc1379">RFC 1379</a>, November 1992.
[<a id="ref-RFC1644">RFC1644</a>] Braden, B., "T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions
Functional Specification", <a href="./rfc1644">RFC 1644</a>, July 1994.
[<a id="ref-RFC1693">RFC1693</a>] Connolly, T., Amer, P., and P. Conrad, "An Extension to
TCP : Partial Order Service", <a href="./rfc1693">RFC 1693</a>, November 1994.
[<a id="ref-RFC4614">RFC4614</a>] Duke, M., Braden, R., Eddy, W., and E. Blanton, "A
Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
Specification Documents", <a href="./rfc4614">RFC 4614</a>, September 2006.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2" href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-DEVIVO">DEVIVO</a>] de Vivo, M., de Vivo, G., Koeneke, R., and G. Isern,
"Internet Vulnerabilities Related to TCP/IP and T/TCP",
ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communications Review (CCR), Vol.
29, No. 1, January 1999.
[<a id="ref-RFC2026">RFC2026</a>] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp9">BCP 9</a>, <a href="./rfc2026">RFC 2026</a>, October 1996.
<span class="grey">Eggert Informational [Page 3]</span><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6247">RFC 6247</a> Undeployed TCP Extensions to Historic May 2011</span>
[<a id="ref-TCPOPTREG">TCPOPTREG</a>] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "TCP Option
Kind Numbers", <<a href="http://www.iana.org">http://www.iana.org</a>>.
[<a id="ref-TRILOGY">TRILOGY</a>] "Trilogy Project", <<a href="http://www.trilogy-project.org/">http://www.trilogy-project.org/</a>>.
Author's Address
Lars Eggert
Nokia Research Center
P.O. Box 407
Nokia Group 00045
Finland
Phone: +358 50 48 24461
EMail: [email protected]
URI: <a href="http://research.nokia.com/people/lars_eggert">http://research.nokia.com/people/lars_eggert</a>
Eggert Informational [Page 4]
Annotations
Select text to annotate