GENWiki

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Eggert Request for Comments: 6247 Nokia Obsoletes: 1072, 1106, 1110, 1145, May 2011

         1146, 1379, 1644, 1693

Updates: 4614 Category: Informational ISSN: 2070-1721

      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

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.

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 Section 2 of RFC 5741.

 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 (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.

 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) 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

Eggert Informational [Page 1] RFC 6247 Undeployed TCP Extensions to Historic May 2011

 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.

1. Introduction

 TCP has a long history, and several proposed TCP extensions have
 never seen widespread deployment.  Section 5 of the TCP "roadmap"
 document [RFC4614] 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 Section
 5 of [RFC4614] for justification.

2. RFC Editor Considerations

 Per this document, the RFC Editor has changed the status of the
 following RFCs to Historic [RFC2026]:

 o  [RFC1072] on "TCP Extensions for Long-Delay Paths"

 o  [RFC1106] and [RFC1110] related to the "TCP Big Window and Nak
    Options"

 o  [RFC1145] and [RFC1146] related to the "TCP Alternate Checksum
    Options"

 o  [RFC1379] and [RFC1644] on "T/TCP -- Extensions for Transactions
    Functional Specification"

 o  [RFC1693] on "An Extension to TCP : Partial Order Service"

3. IANA Considerations

 IANA has marked the TCP options 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15
 documented in [RFC1072], [RFC1146], [RFC1644], and [RFC1693] as
 "obsolete" in the "TCP Option Kind Numbers" registry [TCPOPTREG],
 with a reference to this RFC.

4. Security Considerations

 As mentioned in [RFC4614], the TCP Extensions for Transactions
 (T/TCP) [RFC1379][RFC1644] are reported to have security issues
 [DEVIVO].

Eggert Informational [Page 2] RFC 6247 Undeployed TCP Extensions to Historic May 2011

5. Acknowledgments

 Lars Eggert is partly funded by [TRILOGY], a research project
 supported by the European Commission under its Seventh Framework
 Program.

6. References

6.1. Normative References

 [RFC1072]    Jacobson, V. and R. Braden, "TCP extensions for long-
              delay paths", RFC 1072, October 1988.

 [RFC1106]    Fox, R., "TCP big window and NAK options", RFC 1106,
              June 1989.

 [RFC1110]    McKenzie, A., "Problem with the TCP big window option",
              RFC 1110, August 1989.

 [RFC1145]    Zweig, J. and C. Partridge, "TCP alternate checksum
              options", RFC 1145, February 1990.

 [RFC1146]    Zweig, J. and C. Partridge, "TCP alternate checksum
              options", RFC 1146, March 1990.

 [RFC1379]    Braden, B., "Extending TCP for Transactions --
              Concepts", RFC 1379, November 1992.

 [RFC1644]    Braden, B., "T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions
              Functional Specification", RFC 1644, July 1994.

 [RFC1693]    Connolly, T., Amer, P., and P. Conrad, "An Extension to
              TCP : Partial Order Service", RFC 1693, November 1994.

 [RFC4614]    Duke, M., Braden, R., Eddy, W., and E. Blanton, "A
              Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
              Specification Documents", RFC 4614, September 2006.

6.2. Informative References

 [DEVIVO]     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.

 [RFC2026]    Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

Eggert Informational [Page 3] RFC 6247 Undeployed TCP Extensions to Historic May 2011

 [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

 Lars Eggert
 Nokia Research Center
 P.O. Box 407
 Nokia Group  00045
 Finland

 Phone: +358 50 48 24461
 EMail: lars.eggert@nokia.com
 URI:   http://research.nokia.com/people/lars_eggert

Eggert Informational [Page 4]