draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-01.txt   draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-02.txt 
Network Working Group L. Eggert Network Working Group L. Eggert
Internet-Draft Nokia Internet-Draft Nokia
Obsoletes: 1072, 1106, 1110, 1145, February 16, 2011 Obsoletes: 1072, 1106, 1110, 1145, March 15, 2011
1146, 1263, 1379, 1644, 1693 1146, 1379, 1644, 1693
(if approved) (if approved)
Updates: 4614 (if approved) Updates: 4614 (if approved)
Intended status: Informational Intended status: Informational
Expires: August 20, 2011 Expires: September 16, 2011
Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110, RFC1145, Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110, RFC1145,
RFC1146, RFC1263, RFC1379, RFC1644 and RFC1693 to Historic Status RFC1146, RFC1379, RFC1644 and RFC1693 to Historic Status
draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-01 draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-02
Abstract Abstract
This document recommends that several TCP extensions that have never This document recommends that several TCP extensions that have never
seen widespread use be moved to Historic status. The affected RFCs seen widespread use be moved to Historic status. The affected RFCs
are RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110, RFC1145, RFC1146, RFC1263, RFC1379, are RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110, RFC1145, RFC1146, RFC1379, RFC1644 and
RFC1644 and RFC1693. RFC1693.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 20, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 16, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 20 skipping to change at page 2, line 20
TCP has a long history, and several proposed TCP extensions have TCP has a long history, and several proposed TCP extensions have
never seen widespread deployment. Section 5 of the TCP "roadmap" never seen widespread deployment. Section 5 of the TCP "roadmap"
document [RFC4614] already classifies a number of TCP extensions as document [RFC4614] already classifies a number of TCP extensions as
Historic and describes the reasons for doing so, but it does not 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 instruct the RFC Editor and IANA to change the status of these RFCs
in the RFC database and the relevant IANA registries. The sole in the RFC database and the relevant IANA registries. The sole
purpose of this document is to do just that. Please refer to Section purpose of this document is to do just that. Please refer to Section
5 of [RFC4614] for justification. 5 of [RFC4614] for justification.
[RFC1263] ("TCP Extensions Considered Harmful") is somewhat of a
special case. Unlike the other RFCs made Historic by this memo, it
does not specify a TCP option that failed to see deployment, but
argued for a way to evolve TCP forward (by not relying on TCP
options) that the community did not choose to follow.
2. RFC Editor Considerations 2. RFC Editor Considerations
The RFC Editor is requested to change the status of the following The RFC Editor is requested to change the status of the following
RFCs to Historic [RFC2026]: RFCs to Historic [RFC2026]:
o [RFC1072] on "TCP Extensions for Long-Delay Paths" o [RFC1072] on "TCP Extensions for Long-Delay Paths"
o [RFC1106] and [RFC1110] related to the "TCP Big Window and NAK o [RFC1106] and [RFC1110] related to the "TCP Big Window and NAK
Options" Options"
o [RFC1145] and [RFC1146] related to the "TCP Alternate Checksum o [RFC1145] and [RFC1146] related to the "TCP Alternate Checksum
Options" Options"
o [RFC1263] on "TCP Extensions Considered Harmful"
o [RFC1379] and [RFC1644] on "TCP Extensions for Transactions" o [RFC1379] and [RFC1644] on "TCP Extensions for Transactions"
o [RFC1693] on "TCP Partial Order Service" o [RFC1693] on "TCP Partial Order Service"
3. IANA Considerations 3. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to mark the TCP options 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 IANA is requested to mark the TCP options 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
and 15 documented in [RFC1072], [RFC1146], [RFC1644] and [RFC1693] as and 15 documented in [RFC1072], [RFC1146], [RFC1644] and [RFC1693] as
"obsolete" in the TCP option numbers registry [TCPOPTREG], with a "obsolete" in the TCP option numbers registry [TCPOPTREG], with a
reference to this RFC. reference to this RFC.
skipping to change at page 3, line 42 skipping to change at page 3, line 37
[RFC1110] McKenzie, A., "Problem with the TCP big window option", [RFC1110] McKenzie, A., "Problem with the TCP big window option",
RFC 1110, August 1989. RFC 1110, August 1989.
[RFC1145] Zweig, J. and C. Partridge, "TCP alternate checksum [RFC1145] Zweig, J. and C. Partridge, "TCP alternate checksum
options", RFC 1145, February 1990. options", RFC 1145, February 1990.
[RFC1146] Zweig, J. and C. Partridge, "TCP alternate checksum [RFC1146] Zweig, J. and C. Partridge, "TCP alternate checksum
options", RFC 1146, March 1990. options", RFC 1146, March 1990.
[RFC1263] O'Malley, S. and L. Peterson, "TCP Extensions Considered
Harmful", RFC 1263, October 1991.
[RFC1379] Braden, B., "Extending TCP for Transactions -- Concepts", [RFC1379] Braden, B., "Extending TCP for Transactions -- Concepts",
RFC 1379, November 1992. RFC 1379, November 1992.
[RFC1644] Braden, B., "T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions [RFC1644] Braden, B., "T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions
Functional Specification", RFC 1644, July 1994. Functional Specification", RFC 1644, July 1994.
[RFC1693] Connolly, T., Amer, P., and P. Conrad, "An Extension to [RFC1693] Connolly, T., Amer, P., and P. Conrad, "An Extension to
TCP : Partial Order Service", RFC 1693, November 1994. TCP : Partial Order Service", RFC 1693, November 1994.
[RFC4614] Duke, M., Braden, R., Eddy, W., and E. Blanton, "A Roadmap [RFC4614] Duke, M., Braden, R., Eddy, W., and E. Blanton, "A Roadmap
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
19 lines changed or deleted 8 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/