GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc3795

Network Working Group R. Sofia Request for Comments: 3795 P. Nesser, II Category: Informational Nesser & Nesser Consulting

                                                             June 2004
           Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed
  IETF Application Area Standards Track and Experimental Documents

Status of this Memo

 This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
 not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
 memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).

Abstract

 This document describes IPv4 addressing dependencies in an attempt to
 clarify the necessary steps in re-designing and re-implementing
 specifications to become network address independent, or at least, to
 dually support IPv4 and IPv6.  This transition requires several
 interim steps, one of them being the evolution of current IPv4
 dependent specifications to a format independent of the type of IP
 addressing schema used.  Hence, it is hoped that specifications will
 be re-designed and re-implemented to become network address
 independent, or at least to dually support IPv4 and IPv6.
 To achieve that step, it is necessary to survey and document all IPv4
 dependencies experienced by current standards (Full, Draft, and
 Proposed) as well as Experimental RFCs.  Hence, this document
 describes IPv4 addressing dependencies that deployed IETF Application
 Area documented Standards may experience.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 1] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
 2.  Document Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
 3.  Full Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
 4.  Draft Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
 5.  Proposed Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
 6.  Experimental RFCs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
 7.  Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
 8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
 9.  Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
     10.1.  Normative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
     10.2.  Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
 11. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
 12. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

1. Introduction

 The exhaustive documentation of IPv4 addresses usage in currently
 deployed IETF documented standards has now been broken into seven
 documents conforming to current IETF main areas, i.e., Applications,
 Internet, Operations and Management, Routing, Sub-IP, and Transport.
 A general overview of the documentation, as well as followed
 methodology and historical perspective can be found in [1].  This
 document represents one of the seven blocks, and its scope is limited
 to surveying possible IPv4 dependencies in IETF Application Area
 documented Standards.

2. Document Organization

 The remainder sections are organized as follows.  Sections 3, 4, 5,
 and 6 describe, respectively, the raw analysis of Internet Standards
 [2]:
 Full, Draft, and Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs.  For each
 section, standards are analysed by their RFC number, in sequential
 order, i.e., from RFC 1 to RFC 3200.  Exceptions to this are some
 RFCs above RFC 3200.  They have been included, given that they
 obsoleted RFCs within the range 1-3200.  Also, the comments presented
 for each RFC are raw in their nature, i.e., each RFC is simply
 analysed in terms of possible IPv4 addressing dependencies.  Finally,
 Section 7 presents a global overview of the data described in the
 previous sections, and suggests possible future steps.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 2] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

3. Full Standards

 Internet Full Standards have attained the highest level of maturity
 on the standards track process.  They are commonly referred to as
 "Standards", and represent fully technical mature specifications that
 are widely implemented and used throughout the Internet.

3.1. RFC854: Telnet Protocol Specifications

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.2. RFC 855: Telnet Option Specifications

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.3. RFC 856: Binary Transmission Telnet Option

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.4. RFC 857: Echo Telnet Option

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.5. RFC 858: Suppress Go Ahead Telnet Option

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.6. RFC 859: Status Telnet Option

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.7. RFC 860: Timing Mark Telnet Option

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.8. RFC 861: Extended Options List Telnet Option

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.9. RFC 862: Echo Protocol

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.10. RFC 863: Discard Protocol

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 3] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

3.11. RFC 864: Character Generator Protocol

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.12. RFC 865: Quote of the Day Protocol

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.13. RFC 866: Active Users Protocol

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.14. RFC 867: Daytime Protocol

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.15. RFC 868: Time Server Protocol

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.16. RFC 959: File Transfer Protocol

 Section 4.1.2 (TRANSFER PARAMETER COMMANDS) describes the port
 command using the following format:
   "A port command would be:
       PORT h1,h2,h3,h4,p1,p2
       where h1 is the high order 8 bits of the internet host
       address."
 This is a clear reference to an IPv4 address.  In sections 4.2.1 and
 4.2.2, on reply codes, the code:
   "227 Entering Passive Mode (h1,h2,h3,h4,p1,p2)"
 also needs to be reworked for IPv6 addressing.  Also, Section 5.3.2
 (FTP COMMAND ARGUMENTS) contains:
    "<host-number> ::= <number>,<number>,<number>,<number>
     <port-number> ::= <number>,<number>
     <number> ::= any decimal integer 1 through 255"
 This needs to be solved to transition to IPv6.

3.17. RFC 1350: Trivial File Transfer Protocol

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 4] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

3.18. RFC 1870: SMTP Service Extension for Message Size

     Declaration
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.19. RFC 1939: Post Office Protocol - Version 3

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.20. RFC 2920: SMTP Service Extension for Command Pipelining

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4. Draft Standards

 Draft Standards is the nomenclature given to specifications that are
 on the penultimate maturity level of the IETF standards track
 process.  They are considered to be final specifications, which may
 only experience changes to solve specific problems found.  A
 specification is only considered to be a Draft Standard if there are
 at least two known independent and interoperable implementations.
 Hence, Draft Standards are usually quite mature and widely used.

4.1. RFC 954: NICNAME/WHOIS

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.2. RFC 1184: Telnet Linemode Option

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.3. RFC 1288: The Finger User Information Protocol

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.4. RFC 1305: Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Specification,

    Implementation
 Section 3.2.1 (Common Variables) provides the following variable
 definitions:
    "Peer Address (peer.peeraddr, pkt.peeraddr), Peer Port
    (peer.peerport, pkt.peerport): These are the 32-bit Internet
    address and 16-bit port number of the peer.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 5] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

    Host Address (peer.hostaddr, pkt.hostaddr), Host Port
    (peer.hostport, pkt.hostport): These are the 32-bit Internet
    address and 16-bit port number of the host.  They are included
    among the state variables to support multi-homing."
 Section 3.4.3 (Receive Procedure) defines the following procedure:
    "The source and destination Internet addresses and ports in the IP
    and UDP headers are matched to the correct peer.  If there is no
    match a new instantiation of the protocol machine is created and
    the association mobilized."
 Section 3.6 (Access Control Issues) proposes a simple authentication
 scheme in the following way:
    "If a more comprehensive trust model is required, the design can
    be based on an access-control list with each entry consisting of a
    32-bit Internet address, 32-bit mask and three-bit mode.  If the
    logical AND of the source address (pkt.peeraddr) and the mask in
    an entry matches the corresponding address in the entry and the
    mode (pkt.mode) matches the mode in the entry, the access is
    allowed; otherwise an ICMP error message is returned to the
    requestor.  Through appropriate choice of mask, it is possible to
    restrict requests by mode to individual addresses, a particular
    subnet or net addresses, or have no restriction at all.  The
    access-control list would then serve as a filter controlling which
    peers could create associations."
 Appendix B Section 3 (B.3 Commands) defines the following command:
    "Set Trap Address/Port (6): The command association identifier,
    status and data fields are ignored.  The address and port number
    for subsequent trap messages are taken from the source address and
    port of the control message itself.  The initial trap counter for
    trap response messages is taken from the sequence field of the
    command.  The response association identifier, status and data
    fields are not significant.  Implementations should include sanity
    timeouts which prevent trap transmissions if the monitoring
    program does not renew this information after a lengthy interval."
 The address clearly assumes the IPv4 version.  Also, there are
 numerous places in sample code and in algorithms that use the above
 mentioned variables.  It seems that there is no reason to modify the
 actual protocol.  A small number of textual changes and an update to
 implementations, so they can understand both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses,
 will suffice to have a NTP version that works on both network layer
 protocols.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 6] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

4.5. RFC 1575: An Echo Function for CLNP (ISO 8473)

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.6. RFC 1652: SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIME Transport

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.7. RFC 1832: eXternal Data Representation Standard

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.8. RFC 2045: Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME),

    Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.9. RFC 2046: MIME, Part Two: Media Types

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.10. RFC 2047: MIME, Part Three: Message Header Extensions

     for Non-ASCII Text
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.11. RFC 2049: MIME Part Five: Conformance Criteria and

     Examples
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.12. RFC 2279: UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.13. RFC 2347: TFTP Option Extension

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 7] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

4.14. RFC 2348: TFTP Blocksize Option

 Section "Blocksize Option Specification" gives the following example:
    "For example:
       +-------+--------+---+--------+---+--------+---+--------+---+
       |   1   | foobar | 0 | octet  | 0 | blksize| 0 |  1428  | 0 |
       +-------+--------+---+--------+---+--------+---+--------+---+
    is a Read Request, for the file named "foobar", in octet (binary)
    transfer mode, with a block size of 1428 octets (Ethernet MTU,
    less the TFTP, UDP and IP header lengths)."
 Clearly, the given blocksize example would not work with IPv6 header
 sizes, but it has no practical implications, since larger blocksizes
 are also available.

4.15. RFC 2349: TFTP Timeout Interval and Transfer Size Options

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.16. RFC 2355: TN3270 Enhancements

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.17. RFC 2396: Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic

     Syntax
 Section 3.2.2. (Server-based Naming Authority) states:
    "The host is a domain name of a network host, or its IPv4 address
    as a set of four decimal digit groups separated by ".".  Literal
    IPv6 addresses are not supported.
     ...
    Note: A suitable representation for including a literal IPv6
    address as the host part of a URL is desired, but has not yet been
    determined or implemented in practice."

4.18. RFC 2616: Hypertext Transfer Protocol HTTP/1.1

 Section 3.2.2 (http URL) states:
    "The "http" scheme is used to locate network resources via the
    HTTP protocol.  This section defines the scheme-specific syntax
    and semantics for http URLs.
   http_URL = "http:" "//" host [ ":" port ] [ abs_path [ "?" query ]]

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 8] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

    If the port is empty or not given, port 80 is assumed.  The
    semantics are that the identified resource is located at the
    server listening for TCP connections on that port of that host,
    and the Request-URI for the resource is abs_path (section 5.1.2).
    The use of IP addresses in URLs SHOULD be avoided whenever
    possible (see RFC 1900 [24])."
 The text is version neutral, but it is unclear whether individual
 implementations will support IPv6 addresses.  In fact, the use of the
 ":"separator in IPv6 addresses will cause misinterpretation when
 parsing URI's.  There are other discussions regarding a server
 recognizing its own IP addresses, spoofing DNS/IP address
 combinations, as well as issues regarding multiple HTTP servers
 running on a single IP interface.  Again, the text is version
 neutral, but clearly, such statements represent implementation
 issues.

4.19. RFC 3191: Minimal GSTN address format in Internet Mail

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.20. RFC 3192: Minimal FAX address format in Internet Mail

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.21. RFC 3282: Content Language Headers

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.22. RFC 3461: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Service

     Extension for Delivery Status Notifications
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.23. RFC 3462: The Multipart/Report Content Type for the

     Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.24. RFC 3463: Enhanced Mail System Status Codes

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.25. RFC 3464: An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status

     Notifications
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 9] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

5. Proposed Standards

 Proposed Standards represent initial level documents in the IETF
 standards track process.  They are stable in terms of design, but do
 not require the existence of implementations.  In several cases,
 these specifications are simply proposed as solid technical ideas, to
 be analysed by the Internet community, but are never implemented or
 advanced in the IETF standards process.

5.1. RFC 698: Telnet extended ASCII option

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.2. RFC 726: Remote Controlled Transmission and Echoing Telnet

    option
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.3. RFC 727: Telnet logout option

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.4. RFC 735: Revised Telnet byte macro option

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.5. RFC 736: Telnet SUPDUP option

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.6. RFC 749: Telnet SUPDUP-Output option

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.7. RFC 779: Telnet send-location option

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.8. RFC 885: Telnet end of record option

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.9. RFC 927: TACACS user identification Telnet option

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 10] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

5.10. RFC 933: Output marking Telnet option

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.11. RFC 946: Telnet terminal location number option

 Section "TTYLOC Number" states:
    "The TTYLOC number is a 64-bit number composed of two (2) 32-bit
    numbers: The 32-bit official ARPA Internet host address (may be
    any one of the addresses for multi-homed hosts) and a 32-bit
    number representing the terminal on the specified host.  The host
    address of [0.0.0.0] is defined to be "unknown", the terminal
    number of FFFFFFFF (hex, r or-1 in decimal) is defined to be
    "unknown" and the terminal number of FFFFFFFE (hex, or -2 in
    decimal) is defined to be "detached" for processes that are not
    attached to a terminal."
 The clear reference to 32-bit numbers, and to the use of literal
 addresses in the form [0.0.0.0] is clearly an IPv4-dependency.  Thus,
 the text above needs to be re-written.

5.12. RFC 977: Network News Transfer Protocol

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.13. RFC 1041: Telnet 3270 regime option

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.14. RFC 1043: Telnet Data Entry Terminal option: DODIIS

     implementation
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.15. RFC 1053: Telnet X.3 PAD option

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.16. RFC 1073: Telnet window size option

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.17. RFC 1079: Telnet terminal speed option

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 11] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

5.18. RFC 1091: Telnet terminal-type option

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.19. RFC 1096: Telnet X display location option

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.20. RFC 1274: The COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.21. RFC 1276: Replication and Distributed Operations extensions

     to provide an Internet Directory using X.500
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.22. RFC 1314: A File Format for the Exchange of Images in the

     Internet
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.23. RFC 1328: X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.24. RFC 1372: Telnet Remote Flow Control Option

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.25. RFC 1415: FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification

 Since this document defines a gateway for interaction between FTAM
 and FTP, the only possible IPv4 dependencies are associated with FTP,
 which has already been investigated above, in section 3.16.

5.26. RFC 1494: Equivalences between 1988 X.400 and RFC-822

     Message Bodies
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.27. RFC 1496: Rules for downgrading messages from X.400/88 to

     X.400/84 when MIME content-types are present in the messages
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 12] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

5.28. RFC 1502: X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.29. RFC 1572: Telnet Environment Option

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.30. RFC 1648: Postmaster Convention for X.400 Operations

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.31. RFC 1738: Uniform Resource Locators

 Section 3.1. (Common Internet Scheme Syntax) states:
   "host
       The fully qualified domain name of a network host, or its IP
       address as a set of four decimal digit groups separated by ".".
       Fully qualified domain names take the form as described in
       Section 3.5 of RFC 1034 [13] and Section 2.1 of RFC 1123 [4]: a
       sequence of domain labels separated by ".", each domain label
       starting and ending with an alphanumerical character and
       possibly also containing "-" characters.  The rightmost domain
       label will never start with a digit, though, which
       syntactically distinguishes all domain names from the IP
       addresses."
 Clearly, this is only valid when using IPv4 addresses.  Later in
 Section 5. (BNF for specific URL schemes), there is the following
 text:
    "; URL schemeparts for ip based protocols:
     ip-schemepart  = "//" login [ "/" urlpath ]
     login          = [ user [ ":" password ] "@" ] hostport
     hostport       = host [ ":" port ]
     host           = hostname | hostnumber"
 Again, this also has implications in terms of IP-version neutrality.

5.32. RFC 1740: MIME Encapsulation of Macintosh Files -

     MacMIME
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 13] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

5.33. RFC 1767: MIME Encapsulation of EDI Objects

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.34. RFC 1808: Relative Uniform Resource Locators

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.35. RFC 1835: Architecture of the WHOIS++ service

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.36. RFC 1913: Architecture of the WHOIS++ Index Service

 Section 6.5. (Query referral) makes the following statement:
    "When referrals are included in the body of a response to a query,
    each referral is listed in a separate SERVER-TO-ASK block as shown
    below.

# SERVER-TO-ASK Version-number: version number of index software, used to insure compatibility Body-of-Query: the original query goes here Server-Handle: WHOIS++ handle of the referred server Host-Name: DNS name or IP address of the referred server Port-Number: Port number to which to connect, if different from the

              // WHOIS++ port number"
 The syntax used does not present specific IPv4 dependencies, but
 implementations should be modified to check, in incoming packets,
 which IP version was used by the original request, so they can
 determine whether or not to return an IPv6 address.

5.37. RFC 1914: How to Interact with a Whois++ Mesh

 Section 4 (Caching) states the following:
    "A client can cache all information it gets from a server for some
    time.  For example records, IP-addresses of Whois++ servers, the
    Directory of Services server etc.
    A client can itself choose for how long it should cache the
    information.
    The IP-address of the Directory of Services server might not
    change for a day or two, and neither might any other information."

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 14] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

 Also, subsection 4.1. (Caching a Whois++ servers hostname) contains:
    "An example of cached information that might change is the cached
    hostname, IP-address and portnumber which a client gets back in a
    servers-to-ask response.  That information is cached in the server
    since the last poll, which might occurred several weeks ago.
    Therefore, when such a connection fails, the client should fall
    back to use the serverhandle instead, which means that it contacts
    the Directory of Services server and queries for a server with
    that serverhandle.  By doing this, the client should always get
    the last known hostname.
    An algorithm for this might be:
       response := servers-to-ask response from server A
       IP-address := find ip-address for response.hostname in DNS
       connect to ip-address at port response.portnumber
       if connection fails {
          connect to Directory of Services server
          query for host with serverhandle response.serverhandle
          response := response from Directory of Services server
          IP-address := find ip-address for response.hostname in DNS
          connect to ip-address at port response.portnumber
          if connection fails {
              exit with error message
          }
        }
        Query this new server"
 The paragraph does not contain IPv4 specific syntax.  Hence, IPv6
 compliance will be implementation dependent.

5.38. RFC 1985: SMTP Service Extension for Remote Message

     Queue Starting
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.39. RFC 2017: Definition of the URL MIME External-Body

     Access-Type
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.40. RFC 2034: SMTP Service Extension for Returning Enhanced

     Error Codes
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 15] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

5.41. RFC 2056: Uniform Resource Locators for Z39.50

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.42. RFC 2077: The Model Primary Content Type for

     Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.43. RFC 2079: Definition of an X.500 Attribute Type and an

     Object Class to Hold Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.44. RFC 2086: IMAP4 ACL extension

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.45. RFC 2087: IMAP4 QUOTA extension

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.46. RFC 2088: IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.47. RFC 2122: VEMMI URL Specification

 Section 3 (Description of the VEMMI scheme) states:
    "The VEMMI URL scheme is used to designate multimedia interactive
    services conforming to the VEMMI standard (ITU/T T.107 and ETS 300
    709).
    A VEMMI URL takes the form:
        vemmi://<host>:<port>/<vemmiservice>;
        <attribute>=<value>
    as specified in Section 3.1. of RFC 1738.  If :<port> is omitted,
    the port defaults to 575 (client software may choose to ignore the
    optional port number in order to increase security).  The
    <vemmiservice> part is optional and may be omitted."
 IPv4 dependencies may relate to the possibility of the <host> portion
 containing an IPv4 address, as defined in RFC 1738 (see section 5.31.
 above).  Once the problem is solved in the context of RFC 1738, this
 issue will be automatically solved.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 16] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

5.48. RFC 2141: URN Syntax

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.49. RFC 2142: Mailbox Names for Common Services, Roles and

     Functions
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.50. RFC 2156: MIXER (Mime Internet X.400 Enhanced Relay):

     Mapping between X.400 and RFC 822/MIME
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.51. RFC 2157: Mapping between X.400 and RFC-822/MIME

     Message Bodies
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.52. RFC 2158: X.400 Image Body Parts

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.53. RFC 2159: A MIME Body Part for FAX

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.54. RFC 2160: Carrying PostScript in X.400 and MIME

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.55. RFC 2163: Using the Internet DNS to Distribute MIXER

     Conformant Global Address Mapping
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.56. RFC 2164: Use of an X.500/LDAP directory to support

     MIXER address mapping
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.57. RFC 2165: Service Location Protocol

 Section 7. (Service Type Request Message Format) and Section 9.
 (Service Registration Message Format) have an 80-bit field from
 addr-spec (see below) which cannot support IPv6 addresses.  Also,
 Section 20.1. (Previous Responders' Address Specification) states:

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 17] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

    "The previous responders' Address Specification is specified as
      <Previous Responders' Address Specification> ::=
             <addr-spec> |
             <addr-spec>, <Previous Responders' Address Specification>
    i.e., a list separated by commas with no intervening white space.
    The Address Specification is the address of the Directory Agent or
    Service Agent which supplied the previous response.  The format
    for Address Specifications in Service Location is defined in
    section 20.4.  The comma delimiter is required between each
    <addr-spec>.  The use of dotted decimal IP address notation should
    only be used in environments which have no Domain Name Service."
 Later, in Section 20.4. (Address Specification in Service Location)
 there is also the following reference to addr-spec:
    "The address specification used in Service Location is:
    <addr-spec> ::= [<user>:<password>@]<host>[:<port>]
      <host>      ::= Fully qualified domain name |
                      dotted decimal IP address notation
    When no Domain Name Server is available, SAs and DAs must use
    dotted decimal conventions for IP addresses.  Otherwise, it is
    preferable to use a fully qualified domain name wherever possible
    as renumbering of host addresses will make IP addresses invalid
    over time."
 The whole Section 21. (Protocol Requirements) defines the
 requirements for each of the elements of this protocol.  Several IPv4
 statements are made, but the syntax used is sufficiently neutral to
 apply to the use of IPv6.
 Section 22. (Configurable Parameters and Default Values) states:
    "There are several configuration parameters for Service Location.
    Default values are chosen to allow protocol operation without the
    need for selection of these configuration parameters, but other
    values may be selected by the site administrator.  The
    configurable parameters will allow an implementation of Service
    Location to be more useful in a variety of scenarios.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 18] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

    Multicast vs.  Broadcast
          All Service Location entities must use multicast by default.
          The ability to use broadcast messages must be configurable
          for UAs and SAs.  Broadcast messages are to be used in
          environments where not all Service Location entities have
          hardware or software which supports multicast.
    Multicast Radius
          Multicast requests should be sent to all subnets in a site.
          The default multicast radius for a site is 32.  This value
          must be configurable.  The value for the site's multicast
          TTL may be obtained from DHCP using an option which is
          currently unassigned."
 Once again, nothing here precludes IPv6, Section 23.
 (Non-configurable Parameters) states:
    "IP Port number for unicast requests to Directory Agents:
          UDP and TCP Port Number:                          427
    Multicast Addresses
          Service Location General Multicast Address:       224.0.1.22
          Directory Agent Discovery Multicast Address:      224.0.1.35
    A range of 1024 contiguous multicast addresses for use as Service
    Specific Discovery Multicast Addresses will be assigned by IANA."
 Clearly, the statements above require specifications related to the
 use of IPv6 multicast addresses with equivalent functionality.

5.58. RFC 2177: IMAP4 IDLE command

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.59. RFC 2183: Communicating Presentation Information in

     Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition Header Field
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.60. RFC 2192: IMAP URL Scheme

 The specification has IPv4 dependencies, as RFC 1738, which is
 integral to the document, is not IPv6 aware.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 19] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

5.61. RFC 2193: IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals

 Section 6. (Formal Syntax) presents the following statement:
    "referral_response_code = "[" "REFERRAL" 1*(SPACE <url>) "]"; See
    [RFC-1738] for <url> definition"
 The above presents dependencies on RFC 1738 URL definitions, which
 have already been mentioned in this document, section 5.31.

5.62. RFC 2218: A Common Schema for the Internet White Pages

     Service
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.63. RFC 2221: IMAP4 Login Referrals

 Section 4.1. (LOGIN and AUTHENTICATE Referrals) provides the
 following example:
    "Example:  C: A001 LOGIN MIKE PASSWORD
               S: A001 NO [REFERRAL IMAP://MIKE@SERVER2/] Specified
                       user is invalid on this server. Try SERVER2."
 Even though the syntax "user@SERVER2" is presented often, there are
 no specifications related to the format of "SERVER2".  Hence, it is
 up to individual implementations to determine acceptable values for
 the hostname.  This may or not include explicit IPv6 addresses.

5.64. RFC 2227: Simple Hit-Metering and Usage-Limiting for

     HTTP
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.65. RFC 2231: MIME Parameter Value and Encoded Word

     Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and Continuations
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.66. RFC 2234: Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.67. RFC 2244: Application Configuration Access Protocol

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 20] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

5.68. RFC 2247: Using Domains in LDAP/X.500 Distinguished

     Names
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.69. RFC 2251: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3)

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.70. RFC 2252: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3):

     Attribute Syntax Definitions
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.71. RFC 2253: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3):

     UTF-8 String Representation of Distinguished Names
 Section 7.1. (Disclosure) states:
    "Distinguished Names typically consist of descriptive information
    about the entries they name, which can be people, organizations,
    devices or other real-world objects.  This frequently includes
    some of the following kinds of information:
  1. the common name of the object (i.e., a person's full name)
  2. an email or TCP/IP address
  3. its physical location (country, locality, city, street address)
  4. organizational attributes (such as department name or

affiliation)"

 This section requires the caveat "Without putting any limitations on
 the version of the IP address.", to avoid ambiguity in terms of IP
 version.

5.72. RFC 2254: The String Representation of LDAP Search Filters

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.73. RFC 2255: The LDAP URL Format

 The specification has IPv4 dependencies, as RFC 1738, which is
 integral to the document, is not IPv6 aware.

5.74. RFC 2256: A Summary of the X.500(96) User Schema for use

     with LDAPv3
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 21] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

5.75. RFC 2293: Representing Tables and Subtrees in the X.500

     Directory
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.76. RFC 2294: Representing the O/R Address hierarchy in the

     X.500 Directory Information Tree
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.77. RFC 2298: An Extensible Message Format for Message

     Disposition Notifications
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.78. RFC 2301: File Format for Internet Fax

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.79. RFC 2305: A Simple Mode of Facsimile Using Internet Mail

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.80. RFC 2334: Server Cache Synchronization Protocol

 Appendix B, part 2.0.1 (Mandatory Common Part) states:
   "Cache Key
       This is a database lookup key that uniquely identifies a piece
       of data which the originator of a CSA Record wishes to
       synchronize with its peers for a given "Protocol ID/Server
       Group ID" pair.  This key will generally be a small opaque byte
       string which SCSP will associate with a given piece of data in
       a cache.  Thus, for example, an originator might assign a
       particular 4 byte string to the binding of an IP address with
       that of an ATM address.  Generally speaking, the originating
       server of a CSA record is responsible for generating a Cache
       Key for every element of data that the given server originates
       and which the server wishes to synchronize with its peers in
       the SG."
 The statement above is simply meant as an example.  Hence, any IPv4
 possible dependency of this protocol is an implementation issue.

5.81. RFC 2342: IMAP4 Namespace

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 22] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

5.82. RFC 2359: IMAP4 UIDPLUS extension

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.83. RFC 2368: The mailto URL scheme

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.84. RFC 2369: The Use of URLs as Meta-Syntax for Core Mail

     List Commands and their Transport through Message Header Fields
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.85. RFC 2371: Transaction Internet Protocol Version 3.0

 In section 7. (TIP Transaction Manager Identification and Connection
 Establishment):
    "The <hostport> component comprises:
       <host>[:<port>]
    where <host> is either a <dns name> or an <ip address>; and <port>
    is a decimal number specifying the port at which the transaction
    manager (or proxy) is listening for requests to establish TIP
    connections.  If the port number is omitted, the standard TIP port
    number (3372) is used.
    A <dns name> is a standard name, acceptable to the domain name
    service.  It must be sufficiently qualified to be useful to the
    receiver of the command.
    An <ip address> is an IP address, in the usual form: four decimal
    numbers separated by period characters."
 This section has to be re-written to become IP-version neutral.
 Besides adding a reference to the use of IPv6 addresses, the "host"
 field should only be defined as a "dns name".  However, if the use of
 literal IP addresses is to be included, the format specified in RFC
 2372 has to be followed.
 Later in section 8. (TIP Uniform Resource Locators):
    "A TIP URL takes the form:
       tip://<transaction manager address>?<transaction string>

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 23] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

    where <transaction manager address> identifies the TIP transaction
    manager (as defined in Section 7 above); and <transaction string>
    specifies a transaction identifier, which may take one of two
    forms (standard or non-standard):
    i. "urn:" <NID> ":" <NSS>
       A standard transaction identifier, conforming to the proposed
       Internet Standard for Uniform Resource Names (URNs), as
       specified by RFC2141; where <NID> is the Namespace Identifier,
       and <NSS> is the Namespace Specific String.  The Namespace ID
       determines the syntactic interpretation of the Namespace
       Specific String.  The Namespace Specific String is a sequence
       of characters representing a transaction identifier (as defined
       by <NID>).  The rules for the contents of these fields are
       specified by [6] (valid characters, encoding, etc.).
       This format of <transaction string> may be used to express
       global transaction identifiers in terms of standard
       representations.  Examples for <NID> might be <iso> or <xopen>.
       e.g.,
          tip://123.123.123.123/?urn:xopen:xid
       Note that Namespace Ids require registration.  See [7] for
       details on how to do this."
 There are other references in section 8, regarding the use of literal
 IP addresses.  Therefore, this section also needs to be re-written,
 and special care should be taken to avoid the use of IP (either IPv4
 or IPv6) literal addresses.  However, if such use is exemplified, the
 format specified in RFC 2732 has to be respected.

5.86. RFC 2384: POP URL Scheme

 Section 3. (POP Scheme) states:
    "A POP URL is of the general form:
         pop://<user>;auth=<auth>@<host>:<port>
    Where <user>, <host>, and <port> are as defined in RFC 1738, and
    some or all of the elements, except "pop://" and <host>, may be
    omitted."
 RFC 1738 (please refer to section 5.31) has a potential IPv4
 limitation.  Hence, RFC 2384 will only be IPv6 compliant when RFC
 1738 becomes properly updated.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 24] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

5.87. RFC 2387: The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.88. RFC 2388: Returning Values from Forms: multipart/form-data

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.89. RFC 2389: Feature negotiation mechanism for the File

     Transfer Protocol
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.90. RFC 2392: Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource

     Locators (CIDMID-URL)
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.91. RFC 2397: The "data" URL scheme

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.92. RFC 2421: Voice Profile for Internet Mail - version 2

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.93. RFC 2422: Toll Quality Voice - 32 kbit/s ADPCM MIME

   Sub-type Registration
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.94. RFC 2423: VPIM Voice Message MIME Sub-type Registration

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.95. RFC 2424: Content Duration MIME Header Definition

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.96. RFC 2425: A MIME Content-Type for Directory Information

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.97. RFC 2426: vCard MIME Directory Profile

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 25] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

5.98. RFC 2428: FTP Extensions for IPv6 and NATs

 This RFC documents an IPv6 extension and hence, it is not considered
 in the context of the current discussion.

5.99. RFC 2445: Internet Calendaring and Scheduling Core Object

     Specification (iCalendar)
 Section 4.8.4.7 (Unique Identifier) states:
    "Property Name: UID
    Purpose: This property defines the persistent, globally unique
    identifier for the calendar component.
    Value Type: TEXT
    Property Parameters: Non-standard property parameters can be
    specified on this property.
    Conformance: The property MUST be specified in the "VEVENT",
    "VTODO", "VJOURNAL" or "VFREEBUSY" calendar components.
    Description: The UID itself MUST be a globally unique identifier.
    The generator of the identifier MUST guarantee that the identifier
    is unique.  There are several algorithms that can be used to
    accomplish this.  The identifier is RECOMMENDED to be the
    identical syntax to the [RFC 822] addr-spec.  A good method to
    assure uniqueness is to put the domain name or a domain literal IP
    address of the host on which the identifier was created on the
    right hand side of the "@", and on the left hand side, put a
    combination of the current calendar date and time of day (i.e.,
    formatted in as a DATE-TIME value) along with some other currently
    unique (perhaps sequential) identifier available on the system
    (for example, a process id number).  Using a date/time value on
    the left hand side and a domain name or domain literal on the
    right hand side makes it possible to guarantee uniqueness since no
    two hosts should be using the same domain name or IP address at
    the same time.  Though other algorithms will work, it is
    RECOMMENDED that the right hand side contain some domain
    identifier (either of the host itself or otherwise) such that the
    generator of the message identifier can guarantee the uniqueness
    of the left hand side within the scope of that domain."
 Although the above does not explicitly state the use of IPv4
 addresses, it addresses the explicit use of RFC 822 (obsoleted by RFC
 2822).  To become IPv6 compliant it should follow the guidelines for
 RFC 2822 (see section 5.129).

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 26] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

5.100. RFC 2446: iCalendar Transport-Independent Interoperability

      Protocol (iTIP) Scheduling Events, BusyTime, To-dos and
      Journal Entries
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.101. RFC 2447: iCalendar Message-Based Interoperability

      Protocol (iMIP)
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.102. RFC 2449: POP3 Extension Mechanism

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.103. RFC 2476: Message Submission

 This RFC contains several discussions on the usage of IP Address
 authorization schemes, but it does not limit those addresses to IPv4.

5.104. RFC 2480: Gateways and MIME Security Multiparts

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.105. RFC 2518: HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.106. RFC 2530: Indicating Supported Media Features Using

      Extensions to DSN and MDN
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.107. RFC 2532: Extended Facsimile Using Internet Mail

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.108. RFC 2533: A Syntax for Describing Media Feature Sets

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.109. RFC 2534: Media Features for Display, Print, and Fax

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.110. RFC 2554: SMTP Service Extension for Authentication

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 27] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

5.111. RFC 2557: MIME Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents,

      such as HTML
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.112. RFC 2589: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3):

      Extensions for Dynamic Directory Services
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.113. RFC 2595: Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.114. RFC 2596: Use of Language Codes in LDAP

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.115. RFC 2608: Service Location Protocol, Version 2

 Section 8.1. (Service Request) contains the following:
    "
     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |       Service Location header (function = SrvRqst = 1)        |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |      length of <PRList>       |        <PRList> String        \
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |   length of <service-type>    |    <service-type> String      \
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |    length of <scope-list>     |     <scope-list> String       \
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |  length of predicate string   |  Service Request <predicate>  \
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |  length of <SLP SPI> string   |       <SLP SPI> String        \
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       ...
    <PRList> is the Previous Responder List.  This <string-list>
    contains dotted decimal notation IP (v4) addresses, and is
    iteratively multicast to obtain all possible results (see Section
    6.3).  UAs SHOULD implement this discovery algorithm.  SAs MUST
    use this to discover all available DAs in their scope, if they are
    not already configured with DA addresses by some other means."

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 28] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

 And later:
    "A SA silently drops all requests which include the SA's address
    in the <PRList>.  An SA which has multiple network interfaces MUST
    check if any of the entries in the <PRList> equal any of its
    interfaces.  An entry in the PRList which does not conform to an
    IPv4 dotted decimal address is ignored:  The rest of the <PRList>
    is processed normally and an error is not returned."
 To become IPv6 compliant, this protocol requires a new version.

5.116. RFC 2609: Service Templates and Service: Schemes

 Section 2.1. (Service URL Syntax) defines:
    "The ABNF for a service: URL is:
       hostnumber      =   ipv4-number
       ipv4-number     =   1*3DIGIT 3("." 1*3DIGIT)"
 This document presents many other references to hostnumber, which
 requires an update to support IPv6.

5.117. RFC 2640: Internationalization of the File Transfer Protocol

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.118. RFC 2645: ON-DEMAND MAIL RELAY (ODMR) SMTP

      with Dynamic IP Addresses
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.119. RFC 2646: The Text/Plain Format Parameter

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.120. RFC 2651: The Architecture of the Common Indexing

      Protocol (CIP)
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.121. RFC 2652: MIME Object Definitions for the Common

      Indexing Protocol
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 29] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

5.122. RFC 2653: CIP Transport Protocols

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.123. RFC 2732: Format for Literal IPv6 Addresses in URL's

 This document defines an IPv6 specific protocol and hence, it is not
 discussed in this document.

5.124. RFC 2738: Corrections to "A Syntax for Describing Media

      Feature Sets"
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.125. RFC 2739: Calendar Attributes for vCard and LDAP

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.126. RFC 2806: URLs for Telephone Calls

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.127. RFC 2821: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol

 The specification discusses A records at length, and the MX record
 handling with the different combinations of A and AAAA records and
 IPv4/IPv6-only nodes might cause several kinds of failure modes.

5.128. RFC 2822: Internet Message Format

 Section 3.4.1 (Addr-spec specification) contains:
    "The domain portion identifies the point to which the mail is
    delivered.  In the dot-atom form, this is interpreted as an
    Internet domain name (either a host name or a mail exchanger name)
    as described in [STD3, STD13, STD14].  In the domain-literal form,
    the domain is interpreted as the literal Internet address of the
    particular host.  In both cases, how addressing is used and how
    messages are transported to a particular host is covered in the
    mail transport document [RFC2821].  These mechanisms are outside
    of the scope of this document.
    The local-part portion is a domain dependent string.  In
    addresses, it is simply interpreted on the particular host as a
    name of a particular mailbox."

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 30] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

 Literal IP addresses should be avoided.  However, in case they are
 used, there should be a reference to the format described in RFC
 2732.

5.129. RFC 2846: GSTN Address Element Extensions in E-mail

      Services
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.130. RFC 2849: The LDAP Data Interchange Format (LDIF) -

      Technical Specification
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.131. RFC 2852: Deliver By SMTP Service Extension

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.132. RFC 2879: Content Feature Schema for Internet Fax (V2)

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.133. RFC 2891: LDAP Control Extension for Server Side Sorting

      of Search Results
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.134. RFC 2910: Internet Printing Protocol/1.1: Encoding and

      Transport
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.135. RFC 2911: Internet Printing Protocol/1.1: Model and

      Semantics
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.136. RFC 2912: Indicating Media Features for MIME Content

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.137. RFC 2913: MIME Content Types in Media Feature

      Expressions
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 31] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

5.138. RFC 2919: List-Id: A Structured Field and Namespace for

      the Identification of Mailing Lists
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.139. RFC 2938: Identifying Composite Media Features

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.140. RFC 2965: HTTP State Management Mechanism

 This document includes several references to host IP addresses, but
 there is no explicit mention to a particular protocol version.  A
 caveat similar to "Without putting any limitations on the version of
 the IP address." should be added, so that there will remain no doubts
 about possible IPv4 dependencies.

5.141. RFC 2971: IMAP4 ID extension

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.142. RFC 2987: Registration of Charset and Languages Media

      Features Tags
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.143. RFC 3009: Registration of parityfec MIME types

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.144. RFC 3017: XML DTD for Roaming Access Phone Book

 Section 6.2.1. (DNS Server Address) states:
    "The dnsServerAddress element represents the IP address of the
    Domain Name Service (DNS) server which should be used when
    connected to this POP.
    The address is represented in the form of a string in dotted-
    decimal notation (e.g., 192.168.101.1).
    Syntax:
       <!-- Domain Name Server IP address -->
       <!ELEMENT dnsServerAddress (#PCDATA)>
       <!ATTLIST dnsServerAddress
               value NOTATION (IPADR) #IMPLIED>"

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 32] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

 Additionally, it is stated in Section 6.2.9. (Default Gateway
 Address):
    "The defaulttGatewayAddress element represents the address of the
    default gateway which should be used when connected to this POP.
    The address is represented in the form of a string in dotted-
    decimal notation (e.g., 192.168.101.1).
    Syntax:
      <!-- Default Gateway IP address (in dotted decimal notation) -->
      <!ELEMENT defaultGatewayAddress (#PCDATA)>
      <!ATTLIST defaultGatewayAddress
              value NOTATION (IPADR) #IMPLIED>"
 It should be straightforward to implement elements that are IPv6
 aware.

5.145. RFC 3023: XML Media Types

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.146. RFC 3028: Sieve: A Mail Filtering Language

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.147. RFC 3030: SMTP Service Extensions for Transmission of

      Large and Binary MIME Messages
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.148. RFC 3049: TN3270E Service Location and Session

      Balancing
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.149. RFC 3059: Attribute List Extension for the Service Location

      Protocol
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.150. RFC 3080: The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core

      (BEEP)
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.151. RFC 3081: Mapping the BEEP Core onto TCP

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 33] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

5.152. RFC 3111: Service Location Protocol Modifications for IPv6

 This is an IPv6 related document and is not discussed in this
 document.

5.153. RFC 3302: Tag Image File Format (TIFF) - image/tiff MIME

      Sub-type Registration
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.154. RFC 3404: Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)

      Part Four: The Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)
      Resolution Application
 This specification has no explicit dependency on IPv4.  However, when
 referring to the URI format specified in RFC 2396 (see section 4.3.
 flags, first paragraph), a reference to RFC 2732 should be also
 added.

5.155. RFC 3501: Internet Message Access Protocol - Version 4rev1

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6. Experimental RFCs

 Experimental RFCs belong to the category of "non-standard"
 specifications.  This group involves specifications considered "off-
 track", e.g., specifications that haven't yet reach an adequate
 standardization level, or that have been superseded by more recent
 specifications.
 Experimental RFCs represent specifications that are currently part of
 some research effort, and that are often propriety in nature, or used
 in limited arenas.  They are documented to the Internet community in
 order to allow potential interoperability or some other potential
 useful scenario.  In a few cases, they are presented as alternatives
 to the mainstream solution of an acknowledged problem.

6.1. RFC 887: Resource Location Protocol

 Section 3.1 (Request Messages) contains:
"<Who-Anywhere-Provides?>
    This message parallels the <Who-Provides?> message with the
    "third-party" variant described above.  The confirming host is
    required to return at least its own IP address (if it provides the
    named resource) as well as the IP addresses of any other hosts it
    believes may provide the named resource.  The confirming host

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 34] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

    though, may never return an IP address for a resource which is the
    same as an IP address listed with the resource name in the request
    message.  In this case it must treat the resource as if it was
    unsupported at that IP address and omit it from any reply list.
 <Does-Anyone-Provide?>
    This message parallels the <Do-You-Provide?> message again with
    the "third-party" variant described above.  As before, the
    confirming host is required to return its own IP address as well
    as the IP addresses of any other hosts it believes may provide the
    named resource and is prohibited from returning the same IP
    address in the reply resource specifier as was listed in the
    request resource specifier.  As in the <Do-You-Provide?> case and
    for the same reason, this message also may not be broadcast."
 Throughout this section, there are several other references to IP
 address.  To avoid ambiguity, a reference to IPv6 addressing should
 be added.
 Section 4.1. (Resource Lists) presents the following qualifier
 format:
    "In addition, resource specifiers in all <Who-Anywhere-Provides?>,
    <Does-Anyone-Provide?> and <They-Provide> messages also contain an
    additional qualifier following the <Protocol-ID>.  This qualifier
    has the format
                 +--------+--------+--------+--------+---//---+
                 |        |                                   |
                 |IPLength|          IP-Address-List          |
                 |        |                                   |
                 +--------+--------+--------+--------+---//---+
    where
    <IPLength>
       is the number of IP addresses containing in the following <IP-
       Address-List> (the <IP-Address-List> field thus occupies the
       last 4*<IPLength> octets in its resource specifier).  In
       request messages, this is the maximum number of qualifying
       addresses which may be included in the corresponding reply
       resource specifier.  Although not particularly useful, it may
       be 0 and in that case provides no space for qualifying the
       resource name with IP addresses in the returned specifier.  In
       reply messages, this is the number of qualifying addresses
       known to provide the resource.  It may not exceed the number
       specified in the corresponding request specifier.  This field
       may not be 0 in a reply message unless it was supplied as 0 in

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 35] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

       the request message and the confirming host would have returned
       one or more IP addresses had any space been provided.
    <IP-Address-List>
       is a list of four-octet IP addresses used to qualify the
       resource specifier with respect to those particular addresses.
       In reply messages, these are the IP addresses of the confirming
       host (when appropriate) and the addresses of any other hosts
       known to provide that resource (subject to the list length
       limitations).  In request messages, these are the IP addresses
       of hosts for which resource information may not be returned.
       In such messages, these addresses should normally be
       initialized to some "harmless" value (such as the address of
       the querying host) unless it is intended to specifically
       exclude the supplied addresses from consideration in any reply
       messages."
 This section requires re-writing considering the 128-bit length of
 IPv6 addresses, and will clearly impact implementations.

6.2. RFC 909: Loader Debugger Protocol (LDP)

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.3. RFC 1143: The Q Method of Implementing TELNET Option

    Negotiation
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.4. RFC 1153: Digest message format (DMF-MAIL)

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.5. RFC 1165: Network Time Protocol (NTP) over the OSI Remote

    Operations Service
 The only dependency this protocol presents is included in Appendix A
 (ROS Header Format):
    "ClockIdentifier ::= CHOICE {
                      referenceClock[0] PrintableString,
                      inetaddr[1] OCTET STRING,
                      psapaddr[2] OCTET STRING
      }"

6.6. RFC 1176: Interactive Mail Access Protocol: Version 2

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 36] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

6.7. RFC 1204: Message Posting Protocol

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.8. RFC 1235: Coherent File Distribution Protocol

 Section "Protocol Specification" provides the following example, for
 the Initial Handshake:
    "The ticket server replies with a "This is Your Ticket" (TIYT)
    packet containing the ticket.  Figure 2 shows the format of this
    packet.
     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |      'T'      |      'I'      |      'Y'      |      'T'      |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                           "ticket"                            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                       BLKSZ (by default 512)                  |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                             FILSZ                             |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |            IP address of CFDP server (network order)          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |   client UDP port# (cfdpcln)  |   server UDP port# (cfdpsrv)  |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                  Fig. 2: "This Is Your Ticket" packet."
 This protocol assumes IPv4 multicast, but could be converted to IPv6
 multicast with a little effort.

6.9. RFC 1279: X.500 and Domains

 This protocol specifies a protocol that assumes IPv4, but does not
 actually have any limitations which would limit its operation in an
 IPv6 environment.

6.10. RFC 1312: Message Send Protocol 2

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.11. RFC 1339: Remote Mail Checking Protocol

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 37] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

6.12. RFC 1440: SIFT/UFT: Sender-Initiated/Unsolicited File

     Transfer
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.13. RFC 1459: Internet Relay Chat Protocol

 There are only two specific IPv4 addressing references.  The first is
 presented in Section 6.2. (Command Response):
    "203     RPL_TRACEUNKNOWN
                     "???? <class> [<client IP address in dot form>]""
 The second appears in Section 8.12 (Configuration File):
    "In specifying hostnames, both domain names and use of the 'dot'
    notation (127.0.0.1) should both be accepted."
 After correcting the above, IPv6 support can be added
 straightforwardly.

6.14. RFC 1465: Routing Coordination for X.400 MHS Services

     Within a Multi Protocol / Multi Network Environment Table
     Format V3 for Static Routing
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.15. RFC 1505: Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.16. RFC 1528: Principles of Operation for the TPC.INT Subdomain:

     Remote Printing -- Technical Procedures
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.17. RFC 1608: Representing IP Information in the X.500

     Directory
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.18. RFC 1609: Charting Networks in the X.500 Directory

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 38] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

6.19. RFC 1639: FTP Operation Over Big Address Records

 This document defines a method for overcoming FTP IPv4 limitations
 and is therefore both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.

6.20. RFC 1641: Using Unicode with MIME

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.21. RFC 1756: Remote Write Protocol - Version 1.0

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.22. RFC 1801: MHS use of the X.500 Directory to support MHS

     Routing
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.23. RFC 1804: Schema Publishing in X.500 Directory

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.24. RFC 1806: Communicating Presentation Information in

     Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition Header
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.25. RFC 1845: SMTP Service Extension for Checkpoint/Restart

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.26. RFC 1846: SMTP 521 Reply Code

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.27. RFC 1873: Message/External-Body Content-ID Access Type

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.28. RFC 1874: SGML Media Types

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 39] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

6.29. RFC 1986: Experiments with a Simple File Transfer Protocol

     for Radio Links using Enhanced Trivial File Transfer Protocol
 This protocol is IPv4 dependent, as can be seen from the segment
 presented below, taken from Section 2. (PROTOCOL DESCRIPTION):
    "Table 3: ETFTP Data Encapsulation
    +------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
    |Ethernet(14)|            |            |ETFTP/      |           |
    |SLIP(2)     |IP(20)      |UDP(8)      |NETBLT(24)  |DATA(1448) |
    |AX.25(20)   |            |            |            |           |
    +------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+"

6.30. RFC 2016: Uniform Resource Agents (URAs)

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.31. RFC 2066: TELNET CHARSET Option

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.32. RFC 2075: IP Echo Host Service

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.33. RFC 2090: TFTP Multicast Option

 This protocol is limited to IPv4 multicast.  It is expected that a
 similar functionality could be implemented on top of IPv6 multicast.

6.34. RFC 2120: Managing the X.500 Root Naming Context

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.35. RFC 2161: A MIME Body Part for ODA

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.36. RFC 2162: MaXIM-11 - Mapping between X.400 / Internet

     mail and Mail-11 mail
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.37. RFC 2169: A Trivial Convention for using HTTP in URN

     Resolution
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 40] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

6.38. RFC 2217: Telnet Com Port Control Option

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.39. RFC 2295: Transparent Content Negotiation in HTTP

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.40. RFC 2296: HTTP Remote Variant Selection Algorithm

     RVSA/1.0
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.41. RFC 2307: An Approach for Using LDAP as a Network

     Information Service
 This protocol assumes IPv4 addressing in its schema, as shown in
 Section 3. (Attribute definitions):
    "( nisSchema.1.19 NAME 'ipHostNumber'
       DESC 'IP address as a dotted decimal, eg. 192.168.1.1,
             omitting leading zeros'
       EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match
       SYNTAX 'IA5String{128}' )
     ( nisSchema.1.20 NAME 'ipNetworkNumber'
       DESC 'IP network as a dotted decimal, eg. 192.168,
             omitting leading zeros'
       EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match
       SYNTAX 'IA5String{128}' SINGLE-VALUE )
     ( nisSchema.1.21 NAME 'ipNetmaskNumber'
       DESC 'IP netmask as a dotted decimal, eg. 255.255.255.0,
             omitting leading zeros'
       EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match
       SYNTAX 'IA5String{128}' SINGLE-VALUE )"
 The document does try to provide some IPv6 support as in Section 5.4.
 (Interpreting Hosts and Networks):
 "Hosts with IPv6 addresses MUST be written in their "preferred" form
 as defined in section 2.2.1 of [RFC1884], such that all components of
 the address are indicated and leading zeros are omitted.  This
 provides a consistent means of resolving ipHosts by address."
 However, the defined format mentioned above has been replaced, hence
 it is no longer valid.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 41] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

6.42. RFC 2310: The Safe Response Header Field

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.43. RFC 2483: URI Resolution Services Necessary for URN

     Resolution
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.44. RFC 2567: Design Goals for an Internet Printing Protocol

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.45. RFC 2568: Rationale for the Structure of the Model and

     Protocol for the Internet Printing Protocol
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.46. RFC 2569: Mapping between LPD and IPP Protocols

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.47. RFC 2649: An LDAP Control and Schema for Holding

     Operation Signatures
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.48. RFC 2654: A Tagged Index Object for use in the Common

     Indexing Protocol
 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.49. RFC 2655: CIP Index Object Format for SOIF Objects

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.50. RFC 2656: Registration Procedures for SOIF Template Types

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.51. RFC 2657: LDAPv2 Client vs. the Index Mesh

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 42] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

6.52. RFC 2756: Hyper Text Caching Protocol

 This specification claims to be both IPv4 and IPv6 aware, but in
 Section 2.8. (An HTCP/0.0 AUTH has the following structure), it makes
 the following statement:
    "SIGNATURE   is a COUNTSTR [3.1] which holds the HMAC-MD5 digest
                 (see [RFC 2104]), with a B value of 64, of the
                 following elements, each of which is digested in its
                 "on the wire" format, including transmitted padding
                 if any is covered by a field's associated LENGTH:
                 IP SRC ADDR                           [4 octets]
                 IP SRC PORT                           [2 octets]
                 IP DST ADDR                           [4 octets]
                 IP DST PORT                           [2 octets]
                 HTCP MAJOR version number             [1 octet]
                 HTCP MINOR version number             [1 octet]
                 SIG-TIME                              [4 octets]
                 SIG-EXPIRE                            [4 octets]
                 HTCP DATA                             [variable]
                 KEY-NAME (the whole COUNTSTR [3.1])   [variable]"
 The given SIGNATURE calculation should be expanded to support IPv6 16
 byte addresses.

6.53. RFC 2774: An HTTP Extension Framework

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.54. RFC 2974: Session Announcement Protocol

 This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.

6.55. RFC 3018: Unified Memory Space Protocol Specification

 In section 3.4 (Address Formats), there are explicit references to
 IPv4 addressing:
    "The following address format numbers are definite for nodes,
    immediately connected to the global IPv4 network:
    N 4-0-0 (4)
    N 4-0-1 (4-1)
    N 4-0-2 (4-2)

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 43] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

 The appropriate formats of 128-bit addresses:
 Octets:
    +0              +1              +2              +3
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 0: |0 1 0 0|0 0|0 0|                   Free                        |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 4: |                              Free                             |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 8: |            Free               |           IP address          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 12:|           IP address          |      Local memory address     |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 0: |0 1 0 0|0 0|0 1|                   Free                        |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 4: |                              Free                             |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 8: |     Free      |                  IP address                   |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 12:|   IP address  |             Local memory address              |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 0: |0 1 0 0|0 0|1 0|                   Free                        |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 4: |                            Free                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 8: |                         IP address                            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 12:|                     Local memory address                      |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 Free
    It is not used by the protocol.
 IP address
    It sets the node address in the global IPv4 network."
 This section needs to be re-written, so that the specification
 becomes IPv6 compliant.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 44] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

6.56. RFC 3082: Notification and Subscription for SLP

 This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware, and thus requires no
 changes.

6.57. RFC 3088: OpenLDAP Root Service An experimental LDAP

     referral service
 Section 5. (Using the Service) states:
    "The service supports LDAPv3 and LDAPv2+ [LDAPv2+] clients over
    TCP/IPv4.  Future incarnations of this service may support
    TCP/IPv6 or other transport/internet protocols."

7. Summary of Results

 This survey contemplates 257 RFCs, having 34 (12.84%) been identified
 as having some form of IPv4 dependency.  Results are broken down as
 follows:
       Standards:                         1 out of  20 or  5.00%
       Draft Standards:                   4 out of  25 or 16.00%
       Proposed Standards:               19 out of 155 or 12.26%
       Experimental RFCs:                10 out of  57 or 17.54%
 Of the 33 identified, the majority simply require minor actions, such
 as adding a caveat to IPv6 addressing that would avoid ambiguity, or
 re-writing a section to avoid IP-version dependent syntax.  The
 remaining instances are documented below.  The authors have attempted
 to organize the results in a format that allows easy referencing by
 other protocol designers.

7.1. Full Standards

7.1.1. RFC 959: STD 9 File Transfer Protocol

 Problems have already been fixed in [5].

7.2. Draft Standards

7.2.1. RFC 1305: Network Time Protocol (version 3): Specification,

      Implementation and Analysis
 As documented in Section 4.4. above, there are too many specific
 references to the use of 32-bit IPv4 addresses.  An updated
 specification to support NTP over IPv6 is needed.  However, there has
 been some work related with this issue, as an already expired

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 45] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

 work in progress, allegedly documents.  Also, there is at least one
 IPv6 NTP implementation.

7.2.2. RFC 2396: URI Syntax

 URI's allow the literal use of IPv4 addresses but have no specific
 recommendations on how to represent literal IPv6 addresses.  This
 problem has already been addressed in [3].

7.2.3. RFC 2616: Hypertext Transfer Protocol HTTP/1.1

 HTTP allows the literal use of IPv4 addresses, but has no specific
 recommendations on how to represent literal IPv6 addresses.  This
 problem has already been addressed in [3].

7.3. Proposed Standards

7.3.1. RFC 946: Telnet Terminal LOC

 There is a dependency in the definition of the TTYLOC Number which
 would require an updated version of the protocol.  However, since
 this functionality is of marginal value today, an updated version
 might not make sense.

7.3.2. RFC 1738: URLs

 URL's with IPv4 dependencies have already been addressed in [3].
 Note that these dependencies affect other specifications as well,
 such as RFC 2122, RFC 2192, RFC 2193, RFC 2255, RFC 2371, and RFC
 2384.  All of these protocols have to revisited, and are not
 described separately in this memo.

7.3.3. RFC 2165: Service Location Protocol

 The problems of this specification have already been addressed in
 [4].

7.3.4. RFC 2384: POP3 URL Scheme

 POP URL IPv4 dependencies have already been addressed in [3].

7.3.5. RFC 2608: Service Location Protocol v2

 The problems of this specification have already been addressed in
 [4].

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 46] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

7.3.6. RFC 2821: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol

 Some textual updates and clarifications to MX processing would likely
 be useful.  The operational scenarios and guidelines to avoid the
 problems have been described in [6].

7.3.7. RFC 3017: XML DTP For Roaming Access Phone Books

 Extensions should be defined to support IPv6 addresses.

7.4. Experimental RFCs

7.4.1. RFC 1235: The Coherent File Distribution Protocol

 The packet format of this protocol depends on IPv4, and would require
 updating to add IPv6 support.  However, the protocol is not believed
 to be in use, so such an update may not be warranted.

7.4.2. RFC 1459: Internet Relay Chat Protocol

 This specification only requires a text update to become IPv6
 compliant.

7.4.3. RFC 1986: Simple File Transfer Using Enhanced TFTP

 This specification only requires a text update to become IPv6
 compliant.

7.4.4. RFC 2090: TFTP Multicast Option

 This protocol relies on IPv4 IGMP Multicast.  To become IPv6
 compliant, a new version should be produced.

7.4.5. RFC 2307: Using LDAP as a NIS

 This document tries to provide IPv6 support but it relies on an
 outdated format for IPv6 addresses.  Thus, there is the need for an
 IPv6 compliant version.

8. Acknowledgements

 Phil would like to acknowledge the support of the Internet Society in
 the research and production of this document.  Additionally, Phil
 would like to thank his partner in all ways, Wendy M. Nesser.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 47] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

9. Security Considerations

 This document provides an exhaustive documentation of current IETF
 documented standards IPv4 address dependencies.  Such process does
 not have security implications in itself.

10. References

10.1. Normative References

 [1] Nesser, II, P. and A. Bergstrom, Editor, "Introduction to the
     Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards",
     RFC 3789, June 2004.
 [2] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process - version 3", BCP 9,
     RFC 2026, October 1996.

10.2. Informative References

 [3] Hinden, R., Carpenter, B. and L. Masinter, "Format for Literal
     IPv6 Addresses in URL's", RFC 2732, December 1999.
 [4] Guttman, E., "Service Location Protocol Modifications for IPv6",
     RFC 3111, May 2001.
 [5] Allman, M., Ostermann, S. and C. Metz, "FTP Extensions for IPv6
     and NATs", RFC 2428, September 1998.
 [6] Hagino, J. and M. Nakamura, "SMTP operational experience in mixed
     IPv4/IPv6 environements",  Work in Progress.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 48] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

11. Authors' Addresses

 Rute Sofia
 FCCN
 Av. Brasil, 101
 1700 Lisboa, Portugal
 Phone: +351 91 2507372
 EMail: rsofia@zmail.pt
 Philip J. Nesser II
 Principal
 Nesser & Nesser Consulting
 13501 100th Ave NE, #5202
 Kirkland, WA 98034
 Phone: +1 425 481 4303
 Fax:   +1 425 482 9721
 EMail: phil@nesser.com

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 49] RFC 3895 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Application Area June 2004

12. Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject
 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
 made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
 http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
 this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
 ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
 Internet Society.

Sofia & Nesser II Informational [Page 50]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc3795.txt · Last modified: 2004/06/08 00:15 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki