draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-02.txt   rfc6247.txt 
Network Working Group L. Eggert Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Eggert
Internet-Draft Nokia Request for Comments: 6247 Nokia
Obsoletes: 1072, 1106, 1110, 1145, March 15, 2011 Obsoletes: 1072, 1106, 1110, 1145, May 2011
1146, 1379, 1644, 1693 1146, 1379, 1644, 1693
(if approved) Updates: 4614
Updates: 4614 (if approved) Category: Informational
Intended status: Informational ISSN: 2070-1721
Expires: September 16, 2011
Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110, RFC1145, Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC 1072, RFC 1106,
RFC1146, RFC1379, RFC1644 and RFC1693 to Historic Status RFC 1110, RFC 1145, RFC 1146, RFC 1379, RFC 1644, and RFC 1693 to
draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-02 Historic Status
Abstract Abstract
This document recommends that several TCP extensions that have never This document reclassifies several TCP extensions that have never
seen widespread use be moved to Historic status. The affected RFCs seen widespread use to Historic status. The affected RFCs are RFC
are RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110, RFC1145, RFC1146, RFC1379, RFC1644 and 1072, RFC 1106, RFC 1110, RFC 1145, RFC 1146, RFC 1379, RFC 1644, and
RFC1693. RFC 1693.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the Status of This Memo
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute published for informational purposes.
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 16, 2011. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6247.
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 22 skipping to change at page 2, line 21
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.
2. RFC Editor Considerations 2. RFC Editor Considerations
The RFC Editor is requested to change the status of the following Per this document, the RFC Editor has changed the status of the
RFCs to Historic [RFC2026]: following 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 [RFC1379] and [RFC1644] on "TCP Extensions for Transactions" o [RFC1379] and [RFC1644] on "T/TCP -- Extensions for Transactions
Functional Specification"
o [RFC1693] on "TCP Partial Order Service" o [RFC1693] on "An Extension to 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 has marked the TCP options 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15
and 15 documented in [RFC1072], [RFC1146], [RFC1644] and [RFC1693] as documented in [RFC1072], [RFC1146], [RFC1644], and [RFC1693] as
"obsolete" in the TCP option numbers registry [TCPOPTREG], with a "obsolete" in the "TCP Option Kind Numbers" registry [TCPOPTREG],
reference to this RFC. with a reference to this RFC.
(None of the other documents moved to Historic status had TCP options
numbers assigned; no IANA action is therefore required for them.)
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
This document has no known security implications. As mentioned in [RFC4614], the TCP Extensions for Transactions
(T/TCP) [RFC1379][RFC1644] are reported to have security issues
[Note to the RFC Editor: Please remove this section upon [DEVIVO].
publication.]
5. Acknowledgments 5. Acknowledgments
Lars Eggert is partly funded by [TRILOGY], a research project Lars Eggert is partly funded by [TRILOGY], a research project
supported by the European Commission under its Seventh Framework supported by the European Commission under its Seventh Framework
Program. Program.
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[RFC1072] Jacobson, V. and R. Braden, "TCP extensions for long-delay [RFC1072] Jacobson, V. and R. Braden, "TCP extensions for long-
paths", RFC 1072, October 1988. delay paths", RFC 1072, October 1988.
[RFC1106] Fox, R., "TCP big window and NAK options", RFC 1106, [RFC1106] Fox, R., "TCP big window and NAK options", RFC 1106,
June 1989. June 1989.
[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.
[RFC1379] Braden, B., "Extending TCP for Transactions -- Concepts", [RFC1379] Braden, B., "Extending TCP for Transactions --
RFC 1379, November 1992. Concepts", 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
for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
Documents", RFC 4614, September 2006. Specification Documents", RFC 4614, September 2006.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision [DEVIVO] de Vivo, M., de Vivo, G., Koeneke, R., and G. Isern,
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. "Internet Vulnerabilities Related to TCP/IP and T/TCP",
ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communications Review (CCR), Vol.
29, No. 1, January 1999.
[TCPOPTREG] [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "TCP Option 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
Kind Numbers", http://www.iana.org/assignments/
tcp-parameters/tcp-parameters.xml.
[TRILOGY] "Trilogy Project", http://www.trilogy-project.org/. [TCPOPTREG] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "TCP Option
Kind Numbers", <http://www.iana.org>.
[TRILOGY] "Trilogy Project", <http://www.trilogy-project.org/>.
Author's Address Author's Address
Lars Eggert Lars Eggert
Nokia Research Center Nokia Research Center
P.O. Box 407 P.O. Box 407
Nokia Group 00045 Nokia Group 00045
Finland Finland
Phone: +358 50 48 24461 Phone: +358 50 48 24461
Email: lars.eggert@nokia.com EMail: lars.eggert@nokia.com
URI: http://research.nokia.com/people/lars_eggert URI: http://research.nokia.com/people/lars_eggert
 End of changes. 26 change blocks. 
71 lines changed or deleted 69 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/