Movatterモバイル変換

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                     A. ZimmermannRequest for Comments: 7805Obsoletes:675721761813816879896                           W. Eddy6013                                         MTI SystemsUpdates:7414                                                  L. EggertCategory: Informational                                           NetAppISSN: 2070-1721                                               April 2016Moving Outdated TCP Extensions and TCP-Related Documentsto Historic or Informational StatusAbstract   This document reclassifies several TCP extensions and TCP-related   documents that either have been superseded, have never seen   widespread use, or are no longer recommended for use to "Historic"   status.  The affected documents are RFCs 675, 721, 761, 813, 816,   879, 896, 1078, and 6013.  Additionally, this document reclassifies   RFCs 700, 794, 814, 817, 872, 889, 964, and 1071 to "Informational"   status.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; seeSection 2 of RFC 5741.   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttp://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7805.Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                     [Page 1]

RFC 7805          Outdated TCP Extensions and Documents       April 2016Copyright Notice   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the   document authors.  All rights reserved.   This document is subject toBCP 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   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.Table of Contents1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22.  Status Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32.1.  Moving to "Historic" Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32.2.  Moving to "Informational" Status  . . . . . . . . . . . .43.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81.  Introduction   TCP has a long history.  Over time, many RFCs have accumulated that   describe aspects of the TCP protocol, implementation, and extensions.   Some of these have been superseded, are no longer recommended for   use, or have simply never seen widespread use.   Sections6 and7.1 of the TCP roadmap document [RFC7414] already   reclassified a number of TCP extensions as "Historic" and describes   the reasons for doing so, but it did not instruct the RFC Editor to   change the status of these RFCs in the RFC database.  The purpose of   this document is to do just that.   In addition, this document reclassifies all other documents mentioned   in the TCP roadmap that currently have an "Unknown" status to either   "Historic" or "Informational".Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                     [Page 2]

RFC 7805          Outdated TCP Extensions and Documents       April 20162.  Status Changes   The following two sections give a short justification why a specific   TCP extension or a TCP-related document is being reclassified as   "Historic" or "Informational".  In addition, the letter code after an   RFC number indicates from which original status a particular RFC is   changed to "Historic" or "Informational" (seeBCP 9 [RFC2026] for an   explanation of these categories):      S - Standards Track (Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, or      Internet Standard)      E - Experimental      I - Informational      H - Historic      B - Best Current Practice      U - Unknown (not formally defined)   For the content of the documents itself, the reader is referred   either to the corresponding RFC or, for a brief description, to the   TCP roadmap document [RFC7414].2.1.  Moving to "Historic" Status   This document changes the status of the following RFCs to "Historic"   [RFC2026]:   o  [RFC675]  U, "Specification of Internet Transmission Control      Program" was replaced by the final TCP specification [RFC793]   o  [RFC721]  U, "Out-of-Band Control Signals in a Host-to-Host      Protocol" was a proposal that was not incorporated into the final      TCP specification [RFC793]   o  [RFC761]  U, "DoD Standard Transmission Control Protocol" was      replaced by the final TCP specification [RFC793]   o  [RFC813]  U, "Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP" was      incorporated into [RFC1122]   o  [RFC816]  U, "Fault Isolation and Recovery" was incorporated into      [RFC1122] and [RFC5461]Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                     [Page 3]

RFC 7805          Outdated TCP Extensions and Documents       April 2016   o  [RFC879]  U, "The TCP Maximum Segment Size and Related Topics" was      incorporated into [RFC1122] and [RFC6691]   o  [RFC896]  U, "Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetworks" was      incorporated into [RFC1122] and [RFC6633]   o  [RFC1078] U, "TCP Port Service Multiplexer (TCPMUX)" should be      deprecated, because:      *  It modifies the TCP connection establishment semantics by also         completing the three-way handshake when a service is not         available.      *  It requires all new connections to be received on a single         port, which limits the number of connections between two         machines.      *  It complicates firewall implementation and management because         all services share the same port number.      *  There are very limited deployments, and these are not used in         an Internet context.  (The only reported use is for SGI's Data         Migration Facility in private networks.)   o  [RFC6013] E, "TCP Cookie Transactions (TCPCT)" should be      deprecated (although only published in 2011) because:      *  It uses the experimental TCP option codepoints, which prohibit         a large-scale deployment.      *  [RFC7413] and [TCP-EDO] are alternatives that have more "rough         consensus and running code" behind them.      *  There are no known wide-scale deployments.2.2.  Moving to "Informational" Status   This document changes the status of the following RFCs to   "Informational" [RFC2026]:   o  [RFC700] U, "A Protocol Experiment", which presents a field report      about the deployment of a very early version of TCP   o  [RFC794]  U, "Pre-emption", which recommends that operating      systems need to manage their limited resources, which may include      TCP connection state   o  [RFC814]  U, "Name, Addresses, Ports, and Routes", which gives      guidance on designing tables and algorithms to keep track of      various identifiers within a TCP/IP implementation   o  [RFC817]  U, "Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol      Implementation", which contains general implementation suggestionsZimmermann, et al.            Informational                     [Page 4]

RFC 7805          Outdated TCP Extensions and Documents       April 2016   o  [RFC872]  U, "TCP-on-a-LAN", which concludes that the fear of      using TCP on a local network is unfounded   o  [RFC889]  U, "Internet Delay Experiments", which describes      experiments with the TCP retransmission timeout calculation   o  [RFC964]  U, "Some Problems with the Specification of the Military      Standard Transmission Control Protocol", which points out several      specification bugs in the US Military's MIL-STD-1778 document,      which was intended as a successor to [RFC793]   o  [RFC1071] U, "Computing the Internet Checksum", which lists a      number of implementation techniques for efficiently computing the      Internet checksum3.  Security Considerations   This document introduces no new security considerations.  Each RFC   listed in this document attempts to address the security   considerations of the specification it contains.4.  References4.1.  Normative References   [RFC675]   Cerf, V., Dalal, Y., and C. Sunshine, "Specification of              Internet Transmission Control Program",RFC 675,              DOI 10.17487/RFC0675, December 1974,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc675>.   [RFC700]   Mader, E., Plummer, W., and R. Tomlinson, "Protocol              experiment",RFC 700, DOI 10.17487/RFC0700, August 1974,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc700>.   [RFC721]   Garlick, L., "Out-of-Band Control Signals in a Host-to-              Host Protocol",RFC 721, DOI 10.17487/RFC0721, September              1976, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc721>.   [RFC761]   Postel, J., "DoD standard Transmission Control Protocol",RFC 761, DOI 10.17487/RFC0761, January 1980,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc761>.   [RFC794]   Cerf, V., "Pre-emption",RFC 794, DOI 10.17487/RFC0794,              September 1981, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc794>.   [RFC813]   Clark, D., "Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP",RFC 813, DOI 10.17487/RFC0813, July 1982,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc813>.Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                     [Page 5]

RFC 7805          Outdated TCP Extensions and Documents       April 2016   [RFC814]   Clark, D., "Name, addresses, ports, and routes",RFC 814,              DOI 10.17487/RFC0814, July 1982,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc814>.   [RFC816]   Clark, D., "Fault isolation and recovery",RFC 816,              DOI 10.17487/RFC0816, July 1982,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc816>.   [RFC817]   Clark, D., "Modularity and efficiency in protocol              implementation",RFC 817, DOI 10.17487/RFC0817, July 1982,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc817>.   [RFC872]   Padlipsky, M., "TCP-on-a-LAN",RFC 872,              DOI 10.17487/RFC0872, September 1982,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc872>.   [RFC879]   Postel, J., "The TCP Maximum Segment Size and Related              Topics",RFC 879, DOI 10.17487/RFC0879, November 1983,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc879>.   [RFC889]   Mills, D., "Internet Delay Experiments",RFC 889,              DOI 10.17487/RFC0889, December 1983,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc889>.   [RFC896]   Nagle, J., "Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetworks",RFC 896, DOI 10.17487/RFC0896, January 1984,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc896>.   [RFC964]   Sidhu, D. and T. Blumer, "Some problems with the              specification of the Military Standard Transmission              Control Protocol",RFC 964, DOI 10.17487/RFC0964, November              1985, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc964>.   [RFC1071]  Braden, R., Borman, D., and C. Partridge, "Computing the              Internet checksum",RFC 1071, DOI 10.17487/RFC1071,              September 1988, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1071>.   [RFC1078]  Lottor, M., "TCP port service Multiplexer (TCPMUX)",RFC 1078, DOI 10.17487/RFC1078, November 1988,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1078>.   [RFC6013]  Simpson, W., "TCP Cookie Transactions (TCPCT)",RFC 6013,              DOI 10.17487/RFC6013, January 2011,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6013>.Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                     [Page 6]

RFC 7805          Outdated TCP Extensions and Documents       April 20164.2.  Informative References   [RFC793]   Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.   [RFC1122]  Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -              Communication Layers", STD 3,RFC 1122,              DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision              3",BCP 9,RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.   [RFC5461]  Gont, F., "TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors",RFC 5461,              DOI 10.17487/RFC5461, February 2009,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5461>.   [RFC6633]  Gont, F., "Deprecation of ICMP Source Quench Messages",RFC 6633, DOI 10.17487/RFC6633, May 2012,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6633>.   [RFC6691]  Borman, D., "TCP Options and Maximum Segment Size (MSS)",RFC 6691, DOI 10.17487/RFC6691, July 2012,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6691>.   [RFC7413]  Cheng, Y., Chu, J., Radhakrishnan, S., and A. Jain, "TCP              Fast Open",RFC 7413, DOI 10.17487/RFC7413, December 2014,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7413>.   [RFC7414]  Duke, M., Braden, R., Eddy, W., Blanton, E., and A.              Zimmermann, "A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol              (TCP) Specification Documents",RFC 7414,              DOI 10.17487/RFC7414, February 2015,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7414>.   [TCP-EDO]  Touch, J. and W. Eddy,"TCP Extended Data Offset Option",              Work in Progress,draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-edo-04, November              2015.Zimmermann, et al.            Informational                     [Page 7]

RFC 7805          Outdated TCP Extensions and Documents       April 2016Acknowledgments   The authors thank John Leslie, Pasi Sarolahti, Richard Scheffenegger,   Martin Stiemerling, Joe Touch, Valdis Kletnieks, and Greg Skinner for   their contributions.   Lars Eggert has received funding from the European Union's Horizon   2020 research and innovation program 2014-2018 under grant agreement   No. 644866 (SSICLOPS).  This document reflects only the authors'   views, and the European Commission is not responsible for any use   that may be made of the information it contains.Authors' Addresses   Alexander Zimmermann   Email: alexander@zimmermann.eu.com   Wesley M. Eddy   MTI Systems   Suite 170, 18013 Cleveland Parkway   Cleveland, OH  44135   United States   Phone: +1-216-433-6682   Email: wes@mti-systems.com   Lars Eggert   NetApp   Sonnenallee 1   Kirchheim  85551   Germany   Phone: +49 151 12055791   Email: lars@netapp.comZimmermann, et al.            Informational                     [Page 8]