Movatterモバイル変換

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         L. EggertRequest for Comments: 6247                                         NokiaObsoletes:1072,1106,1110,1145,                              May 20111146,1379,1644,1693Updates:4614Category: InformationalISSN: 2070-1721Moving the Undeployed TCP ExtensionsRFC 1072,RFC 1106,RFC 1110,RFC 1145,RFC 1146,RFC 1379,RFC 1644, andRFC 1693 toHistoric StatusAbstract   This document reclassifies several TCP extensions that have never   seen widespread use to Historic status.  The affected RFCs areRFC1072,RFC 1106,RFC 1110,RFC 1145,RFC 1146,RFC 1379,RFC 1644, andRFC 1693.Status of This Memo   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is   published for informational purposes.   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has   received public review and has been approved for publication by the   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents   approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet   Standard; 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/rfc6247.Copyright Notice   Copyright (c) 2011 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 mustEggert                        Informational                     [Page 1]

RFC 6247          Undeployed TCP Extensions to Historic         May 2011   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as   described in the Simplified BSD License.1.  Introduction   TCP has a long history, and several proposed TCP extensions have   never seen widespread deployment.Section 5 of the TCP "roadmap"   document [RFC4614] already classifies a number of TCP extensions as   Historic and describes the reasons for doing so, but it does not   instruct the RFC Editor and IANA to change the status of these RFCs   in the RFC database and the relevant IANA registries.  The sole   purpose of this document is to do just that.  Please refer toSection5 of [RFC4614] for justification.2.  RFC Editor Considerations   Per this document, the RFC Editor has changed the status of the   following RFCs to Historic [RFC2026]:   o  [RFC1072] on "TCP Extensions for Long-Delay Paths"   o  [RFC1106] and [RFC1110] related to the "TCP Big Window and Nak      Options"   o  [RFC1145] and [RFC1146] related to the "TCP Alternate Checksum      Options"   o  [RFC1379] and [RFC1644] on "T/TCP -- Extensions for Transactions      Functional Specification"   o  [RFC1693] on "An Extension to TCP : Partial Order Service"3.  IANA Considerations   IANA has marked the TCP options 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15   documented in [RFC1072], [RFC1146], [RFC1644], and [RFC1693] as   "obsolete" in the "TCP Option Kind Numbers" registry [TCPOPTREG],   with a reference to this RFC.4.  Security Considerations   As mentioned in [RFC4614], the TCP Extensions for Transactions   (T/TCP) [RFC1379][RFC1644] are reported to have security issues   [DEVIVO].Eggert                        Informational                     [Page 2]

RFC 6247          Undeployed TCP Extensions to Historic         May 20115.  Acknowledgments   Lars Eggert is partly funded by [TRILOGY], a research project   supported by the European Commission under its Seventh Framework   Program.6.  References6.1.  Normative References   [RFC1072]    Jacobson, V. and R. Braden, "TCP extensions for long-                delay paths",RFC 1072, October 1988.   [RFC1106]    Fox, R., "TCP big window and NAK options",RFC 1106,                June 1989.   [RFC1110]    McKenzie, A., "Problem with the TCP big window option",RFC 1110, August 1989.   [RFC1145]    Zweig, J. and C. Partridge, "TCP alternate checksum                options",RFC 1145, February 1990.   [RFC1146]    Zweig, J. and C. Partridge, "TCP alternate checksum                options",RFC 1146, March 1990.   [RFC1379]    Braden, B., "Extending TCP for Transactions --                Concepts",RFC 1379, November 1992.   [RFC1644]    Braden, B., "T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions                Functional Specification",RFC 1644, July 1994.   [RFC1693]    Connolly, T., Amer, P., and P. Conrad, "An Extension to                TCP : Partial Order Service",RFC 1693, November 1994.   [RFC4614]    Duke, M., Braden, R., Eddy, W., and E. Blanton, "A                Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)                Specification Documents",RFC 4614, September 2006.6.2.  Informative References   [DEVIVO]     de Vivo, M., de Vivo, G., Koeneke, R., and G. Isern,                "Internet Vulnerabilities Related to TCP/IP and T/TCP",                ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communications Review (CCR), Vol.                29, No. 1, January 1999.   [RFC2026]    Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision                3",BCP 9,RFC 2026, October 1996.Eggert                        Informational                     [Page 3]

RFC 6247          Undeployed TCP Extensions to Historic         May 2011   [TCPOPTREG]  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "TCP Option                Kind Numbers", <http://www.iana.org>.   [TRILOGY]    "Trilogy Project", <http://www.trilogy-project.org/>.Author's Address   Lars Eggert   Nokia Research Center   P.O. Box 407   Nokia Group  00045   Finland   Phone: +358 50 48 24461   EMail: lars.eggert@nokia.com   URI:http://research.nokia.com/people/lars_eggertEggert                        Informational                     [Page 4]