[ RFC Index | RFC Search | Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | Cities ]
Alternate Formats: rfc2626.txt | rfc2626.txt.pdf
RFC 2626 - The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)
|
 |
RFC2626 - The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)
Network Working Group P. Nesser II
Request for Comments: 2626 Nesser & Nesser Consulting
Category: Informational June 1999
The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)
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 (1999). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
The Year 2000 Working Group (WG) has conducted an investigation into
the millennium problem as it regards Internet related protocols.
This investigation only targeted the protocols as documented in the
Request For Comments Series (RFCs). This investigation discovered
little reason for concern with regards to the functionality of the
protocols. A few minor cases of older implementations still using
two digit years (ala RFC 850) were discovered, but almost all
Internet protocols were given a clean bill of health. Several cases
of "period" problems were discovered, where a time field would "roll
over" as the size of field was reached. In particular, there are
several protocols, which have 32 bit, signed integer representations
of the number of seconds since January 1, 1970 which will turn
negative at Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 GMT 2038. Areas whose protocols will
be effected by such problems have been notified so that new revisions
will remove this limitation.
1. Introduction
According to the trade press billions of dollars will be spend the
upcoming years on the year 2000 problem, also called the millennium
problem (though the third millennium will really start in 2001). This
problem consists of the fact that many software packages and some
protocols use a two-digit field for the year in a date field. Most of
the problems seem to be in administrative and financial programs, or
in the hardcoded microcomputers found in electronic equipment. A lot
of organizations are now starting to make an inventory of which
software and tools they use will suffer from the millennium problem.
With the increasing popularity of the Internet, more and more
organizations use the Internet as a serious business tool. This
means that most organizations will want to analyze the millennium
problems due to the use of Internet protocols and popular Internet
software. In the trade press the first articles suggest that the
Internet will collapse at midnight the 31st of December 1999.
To counter these suggestions, and to avoid having countless companies
redo the same investigation, this effort was undertaken by the IETF.
The Year 2000 WG has made an inventory of all-important Internet
protocols that have been documented in the Request for Comments (RFC)
series. Only protocols directly related to the Internet will be
considered.
This document is divided into a number of sections. Section 1 is the
Introduction which you are now reading. Section 2 is a disclaimer
about the completeness of this effort. Section 3 describes areas in
which millenium problems have been found, while Section 4 describes a
few other "period" problems. Section 5 describes potential fixes to
problems that have been identified. Section 6 describes the
methodology used in the investigation. Sections 7 through 22 are
devoted to the 15 different groupings of protocols and RFCs. Section
23 discusses security considerations, Section 24 is devoted to
references, and Section 25 is the author contact information.
Appendix A is the list of RFCs examined broken down by category.
Appendix B is a PERL program used to make a first cut identification
of problems, and Appendix C is the output of that PERL program.
The editor of this document would like to acknowledge the critical
contributions of the follow for direct performance of research and
the provision of text: Alex Latzko, Robert Elz, Erik Huizer, Gillian
Greenwood, Barbara Jennings, R.E. (Robert) Moore, David Mills, Lynn
Kubinec, Michael Patton, Chris Newman, Erik-Jan Bos, Paul Hoffman,
and Rick H. Wesson. The pace with which this group has operated has
only been achievable by the intimate familiarity of the contributors
with the protocols and ready access to the collective knowledge of
the IETF.
2. Disclaimer
This RFC is not complete. It is an effort to analyze the Y2K impact
on hundreds of protocols but is likely to have missed some protocols
and misunderstood others. Organizations should not attempt to claim
any legitimacy or approval for any particular protocol based on this
document. The efforts have concentrated on the identification of
potential problems, rather than solutions to any of the problems that
have been identified. Any proposed solutions are only that: proposed.
A formal engineering review should take place before any solution is
adopted.
It should also be noted that the research was performd on RFCs 1
through 2128. At that time the IESG was charted with not allowing
any new RFCs to be published that had any Year 2000 issues. Since
that cutoff time there has been work to correct issues discovered by
this Working Group. In particular, RWhois as documented by RFC 1714
has been updated to fix the problems found. RFC 2167 now documents a
fixed version of the RWhois protocol. The work of this group was to
look backwards, and hence new RFC's which supplant the old are
expected to make the information in this RFC obsolete. The work of
this group will truly be complete when this document is completely
obsolete.
A number of people have suggested looking into other "special" dates.
For example, the first leap year, the first "double digit" day
(January 10, 2000), January 1, 2001, etc. There is not one place
where days have been used in the protocols defined by the RFC series
so there is little reason to believe that any of these special dates
will have any impact.
3. Summary of Year 2000 Problems
Here is a brief description of all the Millennium issues discovered
in the course of this research. Note that many of the RFCs are
unclear on the issue. They mandate the use of UTCTime but do not
specify whether the two-digit or four-digit year representation
should be used.
3.1 "Directory Services"
rfc1274.txt - References UTC date/time
rfc1276.txt - References UTC date/time for version control.
rfc1488.txt - References UTC Time as printable strings.
rfc1608.txt - Refers to uTCTimeSyntax
rfc1609.txt - Refers to uTCTimeSyntax
rfc1778.txt - Refers to uTCTimeSyntax
3.2 "Information Services and File Transfer"
HTTP 1.1, as defined in RFC 2068, requires all newly generated date
stamps to conform to RFC 1123 date formats which are Year 2000
compliant, but it also requires acceptance of the older non-compliant
RFC850 formats. Some specific recommendations have been passed to
the HTTP WG.
HTML 2.0, as defined in RFC 1866, could allow a very subtle Year 2000
problem, but once again this recommendation has been passed on the
HTML WG.
RFC 1778 on String Representations of Standard Attribute Syntax's
define UTC Time in Section 2.21 and uses that definition in Section
2.25 on User Certificates. Since UTC Time is being used, there is a
potential millennium issue.
RFC 1440 on SIFT/UFT: Sender-Initiated/Unsolicited File Transfer
defines an optional DATE command in Section 5 of the form mm/dd/yy
which is subject to millennium issues.
3.3 "Electronic Mail"
After reviewing all mail-related RFCs, it was discovered that while
some obsolete standards required two-digit years, all currently used
standards require four-digit years and are thus not prone to typical
Year 2000 problems.
RFCs 821 and 822, the main basis for SMTP mail exchange and message
format, originally required two-digit years. However, both of these
RFCs were later modified by RFC 1123 in 1989, which strongly
recommended 4-digit years.
3.4 "Name Serving"
While not a protocol issue, there is a common habit of writing serial
numbers for DNS zone files in the form YYXXXXXX. The only real
requirement on the serial numbers is that they be increasing (see RFC
1982 for a complete description) and a change from 99XXXXXX to
00XXXXXX cause a failure. See the section on "Name Serving" for a
complete description of the issues.
3.5 "Network Management"
Version 2 of SNMP's MIB definition language (SMIv2) specifies the use
of UCTTimes for time stamping MIB modules. Even though these time
stamps do not flow in any network protocols, there could be as issue
with management applications, depending on implementations.
3.6 "Network News"
There does exist a problem in both NNTP, RFC 977, and the Usenet News
Message Format, RFC 10336. They both specify two-digit year format.
A working group has been formed to update the network news protocols
in general, and addressing this problem is on their list of work
items.
3.7 "Real-Time Services"
A Year 2000 problem does occur in the Simple Network Paging Protocol,
versions 2 & 3. Both define a HOLDuntil option which uses a
YYMMDDHHMMSS+/-GMT field. Version 3 also defines a MSTAtus command,
which is required to store,dates and times as YYMMDDHHMMSS+/-GMT.
There is a small Year 2000 issue in RFC 1786 on the Representation of
IP Routing Policies in the ripe-81++ Routing Registry. In Appendices
C the "changed" object parameter defines a format of <email-address>
YYMMDD, and similarly in Appendix D "withdrawn" object identifier has
he format of YYMMDD. Since these are only identifiers there should
be little operational impact. Some application software may need to
be modified.
3.8 "Security"
RFC 1507 on Distributed Authentication Security Services (DASS) use
UTCTime. Because of the imprecision of the UTC time definition there
could be problems with this protocol.
RFCs 1421-1424 specifies that PEM uses UTC time formats which could
have a Millennium issue.
4. Summary of Other "Periodicity" Problems
By far, the largest area of "period" problems occurs in the year
2038. Many protocols use a 32-bit field to record the number of
seconds since January 1, 1970.
4.1 "Name Serivces"
DNS Security uses 32-bit timestamps which will roll over in 2038.
This issue has been refered to the appropriate Working Group so that
the details of rollover can be established.
4.2 "Routing"
IDPR suffers from the classic Year 2038 problem, by having a
timestamp counter which rolls over at that time.
5. Suggested Solutions
The real solution to the problem is to use 4 digit year fields for
applications and hardware systems. For counters that key off of a
certain time (January 1, 1970 for example) need to either: define a
wrapping solution, or to define a larger number space (greater than
32-bits), or to make more efficient use of the 32-bit space. However,
it will be impossible to completely replace currently deployed
systems, so solutions for handling problems are in order.
5.1 Fixed Solution
A number of organizations and groups have suggested a fixed solution
to the problem of two digit years. Given a two-digit year YY, if YY
is greater than or equal to 50, the year shall be interpreted as
19YY; and where YY is less than 50, the year shall be intrepreted as
20YY.
While a simple and straightforward solution, it only pushes the
problem off 40 to 50 years, until the artificially generated Year
2050 problem needs to be addressed. However, it is easy to implement
and deploy, so it might be the most commonly adopted solution.
5.2 Sliding Window
Another solution is the "sliding window" approach. In this approach,
some value N is selected, and any two digit year that is less than or
equal to the current two digit year plus N is considered the future,
while any other two digit year is considered in the past.
For example, choosing N equal to 10, If the current year is 2012,
and I get a two digit year that is any of 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
19, 20, 21 or 22, assume it is 20YY (i.e. the future), otherwise
consider it to be in the past(1923-1999, 2000-2011).
This solution has two advantages. First, no new fixed year problems
are introduced. Second, different applications and protocols could
choose different values of N. The drawback is that this solution is
harder to implement, and to work well the value of N will need to be
constant across different implementations.
6. Methodology
The first task was dividing the types of RFC's into logical groups
rather than the strict numeric publishing order. Sixteen specific
areas were identified. They are: "Autoconfiguration" , "Directory
Services", "Disk Sharing", "Games and Chat" ,"Information Services &
File Transfer", "Network & Transport Layer", "Electronic Mail",
"NTP", Name Serving", "Network Management", "News", "Real Time
Services", "Routing", "Security", "Virtual Terminal", and "Other".
In addition to these categories, many hundreds of RFC's were
immediately eliminated based on content. That is not to say that all
Informational RFC's were not considered, many did contain some
technical content or overview whichdemanded scrutiny.
Each area was assigned to a team for investigation. Although each
team used whatever additional investigation techniques which seemed
appropriate (including completely reading each RFC, and in some cases
the source code for the reference implementation) at minimum each
team used an automatic scanning system to search for the following
items (case insensitively) in each RFC:
- date
- GMT
- UTCTime
- year
- yy (that is not part of yyyy)
- two-digit, 2-digit, 2digit
- century
- 1900 & 2000
Note that all of these strings except "UTCTime" may occur in
conjunction with a date format that accommodates the Year 2000
crossing, as well as with one that does not. So "hits" on these
string do not necessarily indicate Year 2000 problems: they simply
identify elements that need to be examined.
After the documents were scanned, therefore, each "hit" was examined
individually. Those that cause no Year 2000 problems (e.g., those
that encode the year as a two-byte integer, or as a four-character
display string) are not discussed here. Those that do cause Year
2000 problems are identified in this document, and the nature and
impact of the problems they cause are described.
7. Autoconfiguration
7.1 Summary
The RFC's which were categorized into this group were primarily the
BOOT Protocol (BOOTP) and the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP) for both IP version four and six.
Examination of the BOOTP protocols and most popular implementations
show no year 2000 problems. All times are references as 32 bit
integers in seconds of UTC time. An investigation of all DHCP and
the IPv6 Autoconfiguration mechanisms produced no year 2000 problems.
All references to time, in particular lease lengths, are 32 bit
integers in seconds, allowing lease times of well over 100 years.
7.2 Specifics
The following RFCs were examined for possible millennium problems:
906, 951, 1048, 1084, 1395, 1497, 1531, 1532, 1533, 1534, 1541, 1542,
1970, & 1971. RFC 951's only reference to time or dates is a two-
byte field in the packet, which is number of second since the hosts,
was booted. RFC's 1048, 1084, 1395, 1497, 1531, & 1532 have either
no references to dates and time, or they are the same as the RFCs,
which obsoleted them, discussed in the next paragraph.
RFC 1533 enumerates all the known DHCP field types and a number of
these have to do with time. Section 3.4 defines a "Time Offset"
field which specifies the offset of the clients subnet in seconds
from UTC. This 4 byte field has no millennium issues. Section 9.2
defines the IP Address Lease Time field which is used by clients to
request a specific lease time. This four byte field is an unsigned
integer containing a number of seconds. Section 9.9 defines a
Renewal Time Value field, Section 9.10 defines a Rebinding Time
Value, both of which are similarly 32 bit fields, which have no
millennium issues.
RFC 1534 has no references to times or dates.
RFC 1541 has two mentions of times/dates. The first is the "secs"
field which, similarly to RFC 951, is a 16-bit field for the number
of seconds since the host has booted. There is also a discussion in
section 3.3 about "Interpretation and Representation of Time Values"
which while clearly states that there is no millennium or period
problems.
RFC 1542 also references the "secs" field mentioned previously.
RFC 1970 mentions a number of variables, which are time related. In
section 4.2 "Router Advertisement Message Format" the following
fields are defined: Router Lifetime, Reachable Time, & Retrans Timer.
In section 4.6.2 "Prefix Information" the following are defined:
Valid Lifetime, & Preferred Lifetime. In section 6.2.1 "Router
Configuration Variables the following are defined: MaxRtrAdvInterval,
MinRtrAdvInterval, AdvReachableTime, AdvRetransTimer,
AdvDefaultLifetime, AdvValidLifetime, & AdvPreferredLifetime. All of
these fields specify counters of some sort which have no millennium
or periodicity problems.
RFC 1971 has some discussion of preferred lifetimes, depreciated
lifetimes and valid lifetimes of leases, but only discusses them in
an expository way.
8. Directory Services
8.1 Summary
The RFC's which were categorized into this group were primarily X.500
related RFC's, Whois, Rwhois, Whois++, and the Lightweight Directory
Access Protocol (LDAP).
Upon review of the Directory Services related RFC's, no serious year
2000 problems were discovered. Some minor issues were noted and
explained below in the specific portion of this section.
8.2 Specifics
RFCs that mentioned UTC Time or made reference to uTCTimeSyntax could
fail to be Y2K compliant. These should be updated to specify the four
year version of uTCTimeSyntax rather than giving the option of using
a two-year date representation. The following RFCs fall into this
category:
rfc1274.txt - References UTC date/time
rfc1276.txt - References UTC date/time for version control.
rfc1488.txt - References UTC Time as printable strings.
rfc1608.txt - Refers to uTCTimeSyntax
rfc1609.txt - Refers to uTCTimeSyntax
rfc1778.txt - Refers to uTCTimeSyntax
Two RFC's have unusual date specifications and specify their own date
format. Both of these support Y2K compliant dates.
RFC1714 (RWhois) specifies date formats that are not Y2K compliant,
but it also supports dates that are. Implementers of the RWhois
protocol should only use the %MY4 format
RFC1834 (Whois++) requires the use of dates, but it didn't specify
the format, syntax, or representation of the date string to be used.
9. Disk Sharing
9.1 Summary
The RFC's which were categorized into this group were those related
to the Network File System (NFS). Other popular disk sharing
protocols like SMB and AFS were referred to their respective
trustee's for review.
After careful review, NFS has no year 2000 problems.
9.2 Specifics
The references to time in this protocol are the times of file data
modification, file access, and file metadata change (mtime, atime,
and time, respectively). These times are kept as 32 bit unsigned
quantities in seconds since 1970-01-01, and so the NFS protocol will
not experience an Epoch event until the year 2106.
10. Games and Chat
10.1 Summary
The RFC's which were categorized into this group were related to the
Internet Relay Chat Protocol (IRC). No millennium problems exist in
the IRC protocol.
10.2 Specifics
There is only a single instance of time or date related information
in the IRC protocol as specified by RFC 1459. Section 4.3.4 defines
a TIME message type which queries a server for its local time. No
mention is made of the format of the reply or how it is parsed, the
assumption being specific implementations will handle the reply and
parse it appropriately.
11. Information Services & File Transfer
11.1 Summary
The RFC's which were categorized into this group were divided among
World Wide Web (WWW) protocols and File Transfer Protocols (FTP).
WWW protocols include the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), a
variety of Uniform Resource formats (URL, URAs, etc.) and the
HyperText Markup Language(HTML). FTP protocols include the well
known FTP protocol, the Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP) and a
variety of extensions to these protocols. Other information services
includes the Finger Protocol and the LPD protocol.
HTTP 1.1, as defined in RFC 2068, requires all newly generated date
stamps to conform to RFC 1123 date formats which are Year 2000
compliant, but it also requires acceptance of the older non-compliant
RFC850 formats. Some specific recommendations are listed below and
have been passed to the HTTP WG.
HTML 2.0, as defined in RFC 1866, could allow a very subtle Year 2000
problem, but once again this recommendation has been passed on the
HTML WG.
RFC 1778 on String Representations of Standard Attribute Syntax's
define UTC Time in Section 2.21 and uses that definition in Section
2.25 on User Certificates. Since UTC Time is being used, there is a
potential millennium issue.
RFC 1440 on SIFT/UFT: Sender-Initiated/Unsolicited File Transfer
defines an optional DATE command in Section 5 of the form mm/dd/yy
which is subject to millennium issues.
11.2 Specifics
The main IETF standards-track document on the HTTP protocol is
RFC2068 on HTTP 1.1. It notes that historically three different date
formats have been used, and that one of them uses a two-digit year
field. In section 3.3.1 it requires HTTP 1.1 implementations to
generate this RFC1123 format:
Sun, 06 Nov 1994 08:49:37 GMT ; RFC 822, updated by RFC 1123
instead of this RFC850 format:
Sunday, 06-Nov-94 08:49:37 GMT ; RFC 850, obsoleted by RFC 1036
Unfortunately, many existing servers, serving on the order of one
fifth of the current HTTP traffic, send dates in the ambiguous RFC850
format.
Section 19.3 of the RFC2068 says this:
o HTTP/1.1 clients and caches should assume that an RFC-850 date
which appears to be more than 50 years in the future is in fact
in the past (this helps solve the "year 2000" problem).
This avoids a "stale cache" problem, which would cause the user to
see out-of-date data.
RFC 1986 documents experiments with a simple file transfer program
over radio links using Enhanced Trivial FTP (ETFTP). There are a
number of timers defined which are all in seconds and have no year
2000 issues.
In RFC 1866, on HTML 2.0,the <META> tag allows the embedding of
recommended values for some HTTP headers, including Expires. E.g.
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Expires"
CONTENT="Tue, 04 Dec 1993 21:29:02 GMT">
Servers should rewrite these dates into RFC1123 format if necessary.
RFC 1807 defines a format for bibliographic records and it specifies
a DATE format, which requires 4 digit year fields.
RFC 1788 defines ICMP Domain Name messages. Section 3 defines a
Domain Name Reply Packet, which contains a signed 32-bit integer.
This timer is not Year 2000 reliant and is certainly large enough for
it purposes.
RFC 1784 on TFTP Timeout Intervals and Transfer Size Options uses a
field for the number of seconds for the timeout. It is an ASCII
value from 1 to 255 octets in length. There is no Y2K issue.
RFC 1778 on String Representations of Standard Attribute Syntax's
define UTC Time in Section 2.21 and uses that definition in Section
2.25 on User Certificates. Since UTC Time is being used, there is a
potential millennium issue.
RFC 1777 on LDAP defines a timelimit in Section 4.3 which is
expressed in seconds, but does not define any limits.
RFC 1440 on SIFT/UFT: Sender-Initiated/Unsolicited File Transfer
defines an optional DATE command in Section 5 of the form mm/dd/yy,
which is subject to millennium issues.
RFC 1068 on the Background File Transfer Protocol (BFTP) defines two
commands in Sections B.2.12 and B.2.13, the Submit and Time commands.
>From the example usage's given in Appendix C it is clear that this
protocol will function correctly though the year 9999.
RFC 1037 on NFILE (a file access protocol) discusses the a Date
representation in Section 7.1 as the number of seconds since January
1, 1900, but does not limit the field size. There should be no Y2K
issues.
RFC 998 on NETBLT defines a Death time in Section 8, which is the
sender's death time in seconds.
RFC 978 on the Voice File Interchange Protocol defines the Total Time
of a message to be a 32-bit number of deci-seconds. This limits the
size of a message but has no millennium issues.
RFC 969 was obsoleted by RFC 998.
RFC 916 defines the Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol (RATP).
Three timers are discussed in an expository manner in Section 5.4 and
its subsections. There are no relevant issues.
RFCs 2122, 2056, 2055, 2054, 2044, 2016, 1960, 1959, 1874, 1865, 1862,
1843, 1842, 1823, 1815, 1808, 1798, 1785, 1783, 1782, 1779, 1766,
1738, 1737, 1736, 1729, 1728, 1727, 1639, 1633, 1630, 1625, 1554,
1545, 1530, 1529, 1528, 1489, 1486, 1436, 1415, 1413, 1350, 1345,
1312, 1302, 1288, 1278, 1241, 1235, 1196, 1194, 1179, 1123, 1003, 971,
965, 959, 949, 913, 887, 866, 865, 864, 863, 862, 797, 795, 783, 775,
765, 751, 743, 742, 740, 737, 725, 722, 707, 691, 683, 662, 640, 624,
614, 607, 599, 412, 411, 410, 407, and 406 were found to have no
references to dates or times, and hence no millennium issues.
RFCs 712, 697, 633, 630, 622, 610, 593, 592, 589, 573, 571, 570, 553,
551, 549, 543, 535, 532, 525, 520, 514, 506, 505, 504, 501, 499, 493,
490, 487, 486, 485, 480, 479, 478, 477, 472, 468, 467, 463, 454, 451,
448, 446, 438, 437, 436, 430, 429, 418, 414, and 409 were not
available for review.
RFCS below 400 were considered too obsolete to even consider.
12. Network & Transport Layer
12.1 Summary
The RFC's which were categorized into this group were the Internet
Protocol (IP) versions four and six, the Transmission Control
Protocol (TCP), the User Datagram Protocol (UDP), the Point-to-Point
Protocol (PPP) and its extensions, Internet Control Message Protocol
(ICMP), the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) and Remote Procedure
Call (RPC) protocol. A variety of less known protocols were also
examined.
After careful review of the nearly 400 RFC's in this catagory, no
millennium or year 2000 problems were found.
12.2 Specifics
RFC 2125 on the PPP Bandwidth Allocation Protocol (BAP) in section
5.3 discusses the use if mandatory timers, but gives no mention as to
how they are implemented.
RFC 2114 on a Data Link Switching Client Access Protocol defines a
retry timer of five seconds in Section 3.4.1.
RFC 2097 on the PPP NetBIOS Frame Control Protocol discuesses several
timer and timeouts in Section 2.1, none of which suffers from a year
2000 problem.
RFC 2075 on the IP Echo Host Service discusses timestamps and has no
millennium issues.
RFC 2005 on the Applicability for Mobile IP discusses using
timestamps as a security measure to avoid replay attacks (Section
3.), but does not quantify them. There are no expected issues.
RFC 2002 on IP Mobility Support uses a 16-bit field for the lifetime
of a connection and notes the 18.2 hour limitation that this imposes.
Section 5.6.1 on replay protection requires the use of 64-bit time
fields, of a similar format to NTP packets.
RFC 1981 on Path MTU Discovery for IPv6 discusses timestamps and
their potential use to purge stale information in section 5.3. There
is no millennium issues in this use.
RFC 1963 on the PPP Serial Data Transport Protocol defines a flow
expiration time in section 4.9 which has no year 2000 issues.
RFC 1833 on Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2 defines a
variable in Section 2.2.1 called RPCBPROC_GETTIME which returns the
local time in seconds since 1/1/1970. Since this value is not fields
width dependent, it may or may not wrap around the 32-bit value
depending on the operating system parameters.
RFC 1762 on the PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol discusses a
number of timers in Section 5 (General Considerations). None of
these timers experience any millennium issues.
RFC 1761 on Snoop Version 2 Packet Capture File Format discusses two
32-bit timestamp values on Section 4 on Packet Record Formats. The
first of these may wrap in the year 2038, but should not effect
anything of any import.
RFC 1755 on ATM Signalling Support for IP Over ATM discusses timing
issues in Section 3.4 on VC Teardown. These limited timers have no
year 2000 issues.
RFC 1692 on the Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux) defines a TTL
in Section 2.3 and a timer in Section 3.3. Neither of these suffer
from any millennium or year 2000 issues.
RFC 1661 on PPP defines three timers in Section 4.6, none of which
have any year 2000 issues.
RFC 1644 on T/TCP (TCP Extensions for Transactions) mentions RFC 1323
and the extended timers recommended in it.
RFC 1575 defines an echo function for CNLP discusses in the narrative
the use of the Lifetime Field in Section 5.3. There is nothing to
suggest that there is any year 2000 issues.
RFC 1329 on Dual MAC FDDI Networks discusses ARP cache administration
in Section 9.3 and 9.4 and various timers to expire entries.
RFC 1256 on ICMP Router Discovery Messages talks about lifetime
fields in Section 2 and defines three router configuration variables
in Section 4.1. None of these have any millennium issues.
RFC 792 on ICMP discusses Timestamps and Timestamp Reply messages
which define a 32-bit timestamp which contains the number of
milliseconds since midnight UT.
RFC 791 on the Internet Protocol defines a packet type 68 which is an
Internet Timestamp, which defines a 32-bit field which contains the
number of milliseconds since midnght UT.
RFC 781 was defines the same option which is codified in RFC 791 as a
packet type 68.
RFC's 2126, 2118, 2113, 2107, 2106, 2105, 2098, 2067, 2043, 2023,
2019, 2018, 2009, 2004, 2003, 2001, 1994, 1993, 1990, 1989, 1979,
1978, 1977, 1976, 1975, 1974, 1973, 1972, 1967, 1962, 1954, 1946,
1937, 1936, 1934, 1933, 1932, 1931, 1926, 1924, 1919, 1918, 1917,
1916, 1915, 1897, 1888, 1887, 1885, 1884, 1883, 1881, 1878, 1877,
1868, 1860, 1859, 1853, 1841, 1832, 1831, 1809, 1795, 1791, 1770,
1764, 1763, 1756, 1754, 1752, 1744, 1735, 1726, 1719, 1717, 1710,
1707, 1705, 1698, 1693, 1688, 1687, 1686, 1683, 1682, 1681, 1680,
1679, 1678, 1677, 1676, 1674, 1673, 1672, 1671, 1670, 1669, 1667,
1663, 1662, 1638, 1634, 1631, 1629, 1624, 1622, 1621, 1620, 1619,
1618, 1613, 1605, 1604, 1598, 1590, 1577, 1570, 1561, 1560, 1553,
1552, 1551, 1549, 1548, 1547, 1538, 1526, 1518, 1498, 1490, 1483,
1475, 1466, 1454, 1435, 1434, 1433, 1393, 1390, 1385, 1379, 1378,
1377, 1376, 1375, 1374, 1365, 1363, 1362, 1356, 1347, 1337, 1335,
1334, 1333, 1332, 1331, 1326, 1323, 1314, 1307, 1306, 1294, 1293,
1277, 1263, 1240, 1237, 1236, 1234, 1226, 1223, 1220, 1219, 1210,
1209, 1201, 1191, 1188, 1185, 1172, 1171, 1166, 1162, 1151, 1146,
1145, 1144, 1141, 1139, 1134, 1132, 1122, 1110, 1106, 1103, 1088,
1086, 1085, 1078, 1072, 1071, 1070, 1069, 1063, 1062, 1057, 1055,
1051, 1050, 1046, 1045, 1044, 1042, 1030, 1029, 1027, 1025, 1016,
1008, 1007, 1006, 1002, 1001, 994, 986, 983, 982, 970, 964, 963, 962,
955, 948, 942, 941, 940, 936, 935, 932, 926, 925, 924, 922, 919, 917,
914, 905, 903, 896, 895, 894, 893, 892, 891, 889, 879, 877, 874, 872,
871, 848, 829, 826, 824, 815, 814, 813, 801, 793, 789, 787, 777, 768,
761, 760, 759, 730, 704, 696, 695, 692, 690, 689, 687, 685, 680, 675,
674, 660, 632, 626, 613, 611 were reviewed but were found to have no
millennium references.
RFC's 594, 591, 576, 550, 548, 528, 521, 489, 488, 473, 460, 459, 450,
449, 445, 442, 434, 426, 417, 398, 395, 394, 359, 357, 348, 347, 346,
343, 312, 301, 300, 271, 241, 210, 203, 202, 197, 190, 178, 176, 175,
166, 165, 161, 151, 150, 146, 145, 143, 142, 128, 127, 123, 122, 93,
91, 80, 79, 70, 67, 65, 62, 60, 59, 56, 55, 54, 53, 41, 38, 33, 23,
22, 20, 19, 17, 12 were deemed too old to be considered for millennium
investigation.
13. Electronic Mail
13.1 Summary
The RFC's which were categorized into this group were the Simple Mail
Transfer Protocol (SMTP), Internet Mail Access Protocol (IMAP), Post
Office Protocol (POP), Multipurpose Internet Mail Exchange (MIME),
and X.400 to SMTP interaction.
After reviewing all mail-related RFCs, it was discovered that while
some obsolete standards required two-digit years, all currently used
standards require four-digit years and are thus not prone to typical
Year 2000 problems.
13.2 Specifics
RFCs 821 and 822, the main basis for SMTP mail exchange and message
format, originally required two-digit years. However, both of these
RFCs were later modified by RFC 1123 in 1989, which strongly
recommended 4-digit years. Although there might be a few very old
SMTP systems using two-digit years, it is believed that almost all
mail sent over the Internet today uses four-digit years. Mail that
contains two-digit years in its SMTP headers will not "fail", but
might be mis-sorted in message stores and mail user agents. This
problem is avoided entirely by taking the RFC 1123 change as a
requirement, rather than merely as a recommendation.
IMAP versions 1, 2, and 3 used two-digit years, but IMAP version 4
(defined in RFCs 1730 and 1732 in 1994) requires four-digit years.
There are still a few IMAP 2 servers and clients in use on the
Internet today, but IMAP version 4 has already taken over almost all
of the IMAP market. Mail stored on an IMAP server or client with
two-digit years will not "fail", but could possibly be mis-sorted or
prematurely expired.
RFC 1153 describes a format for digests of mailing lists, and uses
two-digit dates. This format is not widely used. The use of two-digit
dates could possibly cause missorting of stored messages.
RFC 1327, which describes mapping between X.400 mail and SMTP mail,
uses the UTCTime format.
RFC 1422 describes the structure of certificates that were used in
PEM (and are expected to be used in many other mail and non-mail
services). Those certificates use dates in UTCTime format. Poorly
written software might prematurely expire or validate a certificate
based on comparisons of the date with the current date, although no
current software is known to do this.
14. Network Time Protocols
14.1 Summary
The RFC's which were categorized into this group were the Network
Time Protocol (NTP), and the Time Protocol.
NTP has been certified year 2000 compliant, while the Time Protocol
will "roll over" at Thu Feb 07 00:54:54 2036 GMT. Since NTP is the
current defacto standard for network time this does not seem to be an
issue.
14.2 Specifics
There is no reference anywhere in the NTP specification or
implementation to any reference epoch other than 1 January 1900. In
short, NTP doesn't know anything about the millennium.
>From the Time Protocol RFC (868):
S: Send the time as a 32 bit binary number.
...
The time is the number of seconds since 00:00 (midnight) 1 January
1900 GMT, such that the time 1 is 12:00:01 am on 1 January 1900
GMT; this base will serve until the year 2036.
15. Name Services
15.1 Summary
The RFC's which were categorized into this group were the Domain Name
System (DNS), it's advanced add on features (Incremental Zone
Transfer, etc.).
There have been no year 2000 relayed problems found with the DNS
protocols, or common implementations of them.
15.2 Specifics
One is a common practice of writing serial numbers in zone files as
if they represent a date, and using only two digits of the year.
That practice cannot survive into the year 2000. This is not a
protocol problem, the serial number is simply an integer, and any
value is OK, provided it always increases (see rfc1982 for a
definition of what that means). In any case, a change from 97abcd
(or similar) to 00abcd would be a decrease and so is not permitted.
Zone file maintainers have two choices, one easy (though irrational)
one would be to continue from 99 to 100 and so on. The other, is
simply to switch, at any time between now and when the serial number
first needs updating after the year 2000, to use 4 digits to
represent the year instead of 2. As long as there are no more than 6
digits in the "abcd" part, and this is done sometime before the year
2100, this is always an increase, and therefore always safe. Should
any zone files be of the form yyabcdefg (with 7 digits after a 2-
digit year) then the procedures of section 7 of rfc2182 should be
adopted to convert the serial number to some other value.
The other item of note is related to timestamps in DNS security.
Those are represented as 32 bit counts of seconds, based in 1970, and
hence have no year 2000 problems. however, they do obviously have a
natural end of life, and sometime before that time is reached, the
definitions of those fields need to be corrected, perhaps to allow
them to represent the number of seconds elapsed since the base,
modulo 2^32, which is likely to be adequate for the purposes of DNS
security (signatures and keys are unlikely to need to be valid for
more than 70 years). In any case, more work is needed in this area
in the not too far distant future.
16 Network Management
16.1 Summary
The RFC's which were categorized into this group were the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMP), a large number of Management
Information Bases (MIBs) and the Common Management Information
Protocol over TCP/IP (CMOT).
Although a few discrepancies have been found and outlined below, none
of them should have an impact on interoperability.
16.2 Specifics
16.2.1 Use of GeneralizedTime in CMOT as defined in RFCs 1095 and
1189.
The standards for CMOT specify an unusual use for the GeneralizedTime
type. (GeneralizedTime has a four-digit representation of the year.)
If the system generating the PDU does not have the current time, yet
does have the time since last boot, then GeneralizedTime can be used
to encode this information. The time since last boot will be added
to the base time "0001 Jan 1 00:00:00.00" using the Gregorian
calendar algorithm.
This is really a "Year 0" problem rather than a Year 2000 problem,
and in any case, CMOT is not currently deployed.
16.2.2 UTCTime in SNMP Definitions
UTCTime is an ASN.1 type that includes a two-digit representation of
the year. There are several options for UTCTime in ASN.1, that vary
in precision and in local versus GMT, but these options all have
two-digit years. The standards for SNMP definitions specify one
particular format:
YYMMDDHHMMZ
The first usage of UTCTime in the standards for SNMP definitions goes
all the way back to RFC 1303. It has persisted unchanged up through
the current specifications in RFC 1902. The role of UTCTime in SNMP
definitions is to record the history of an SNMP MIB module in the
module itself, via two ASN.1 macros:
o LAST-UPDATED
o REVISION
Management applications that store and use MIB modules need to be
smart about interpreting these UTCTimes, by prepending a "19" or a
"20" as appropriate.
16.2.3 Objects in the Printer MIB (RFC 1559)
There are two objects in the Printer MIB that allow use of a date as
an object value with no explicit guidance for formatting the value.
The objects are prtInterpreterLangVersion and prtInterpreterVersion.
Both are defined with a syntax of OCTET STRING. The descriptions for
the objects allow the object value to contain a date, version code or
other product specific information to identify the interpreter or
language. The descriptions do not include an explicit statement
recommending use of a four-digit year when a date is used as the
object value.
16.2.4 Dates in Mobile Network Tracing Records (RFC 2041)
The RFC specifies trace headers and footers with date fields that are
character arrays of size 32. While 32 characters certainly provide
enough room for a four-digit year, there's no explicit statement that
these years must be represented with four digits.
17 Network News
17.1 Summary
The RFC's which were categorized into this group were related to the
Network News Protocol (NNTP).
There does exist a problem in both NNTP, RFC 977, and the Usenet News
Message Format, RFC 10336. They both specify two-digit year format.
A working group has been formed to update the network news protocols
in general, and addressing this problem is on their list of work
items.
17.2 Specifics
The NNTP transfer protocols defined in RFC 977. Sections 3.7.1, the
definition of the NEWGROUPS command, and 3.8.1, the NEWNEWS command,
that dates must be specified in YYMMDD format.
The format for USENET news messages is defined in RFC 1036. The Date
line is defined in section 2.1.2 and it is specified in RFC-822
format. It specifically disallows the standard UNIX ctime(3) format,
which would allow for four digit years. Section 2.2.4 on Expires
also mandates the same two-digit year format.
18. Real Time Services
18.1 Summary
The RFC's which were categorized into this group were related to IP
Multicast, RTP, and Internet Stream Protocol. A Year 2000 problem
does occur in the Simple Network Paging Protocol, versions 2 & 3.
Both define a HOLDuntil option which uses a YYMMDDHHMMSS+/-GMT field.
Version 3 also defines a MSTAtus command, which is required to store,
dates and times as YYMMDDHHMMSS+/-GMT.
18.2 Specifics
RFC 2102 discusses Multicast support for NIMROD and has no mention of
dates or time. RFC 2090 on TFTP Multicast options is also free from
any date/time references.
RFC 2038 on RTP MPEG formats has three references to time: a
Presentation Time Stamp (PTS), a Decoding Time Stamp (DTS), and a
System Clock (SC) reference time. Each RTP packet contains a
timestamp derived from the sender 90 kHz clock reference. Each of
the header fields are defined in section 2.1, 3, and 3.3 are 32 bit
fields. No mention is made of a "zero" start time, so it is presumed
that this format will be valid until at least 2038.
Similarly RFC 2035 on the RTP JPEG format defines the same timestamp
in section 3. RFC 2032 on RTP H.261 video streams uses a calculated
time based on the original frame so once again there is no millennium
issue. RFC 2029 on the RTP format for Sun's CellB video encoding
mentions the RTP timestamp in section 2.1.
RFC 2022 defines support for multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based ATM
networks. Section 5. defines a timeout value for connections
between one and twenty minutes. Section 5.1.1 discusses several
timers that are bound between five and ten seconds, while 5.1.3
requires an inactivity timer, which should also run between one and
twenty minutes. Sections 5.1.5, 5.1.5.1, 5.1.5.2, 5.2.2, 5.4, 5.4.1,
5.4.2, 5.4.3, 6.1.3 and Appendix E all defines numerous timers, none
of which have any millennium issues.
RFC 1890 on RTP profiles for audio and video conferences discusses a
sampling frequency which has no issues. RFC 1889 on RTP discusses
time formats in section 4, as the same 64 bit unsigned integer format
that NTP uses. There is a "period" problem, which will occur in the
year 2106. Section 5.1 is a more formalized discussion of the
timestamp properties, while Section 6.3.1 discusses a variety of
different timers all using the 64 bit field format, or a compressed
32-bit version of the inner octet of bytes. Section 8.2 discusses
loop detection and how the various timers are used to determine if
looping occurs.
RFC 1861 on Version 3 of the Simple Network Paging Protocol does have
a Year 2000 problem. The protocol defines a HOLDuntil command in
section 4.5.6 and a MSTAtus command in section 4.6.10, both of which
require dates/times to be stored as YYMMDDHHMMSS+/-GMT. Clearly this
format will be invalid after the end of 1999.
RFC 1821 has no date/time references. RFC 1819 on Version 2 of the
Internet Stream Protocol defines a HELLO message format in section
6.1.2, which does contain a timer which is updated every millisecond.
No year 2000 problems exist with this protocol.
RFC 1645 on Version 2 of the Simple Network Paging Protocol contains
the same HOLDuntil field problem as version 3. The definition is
contained section 4.4.6.
RFC 1458 on the Requirements of Multicast Protocols discusses a
retransmission timer in section 4.23. and a general discussion of
timer expiration in section 5, neither of which have any millennium
concerns. RFC 1301 on the Multicast Transport Protocol defines a
heartbeat interval of time in section 2.1, as well as retention and
windows. Formal definitions for each are contained in sections
2.2.7, 2.2.8 and 2.2.9. The heartbeat is a 32 bit unsigned field,
while the Window and Retention are both 16 bit unsigned fields.
Section 3.4.2 gives examples values for these fields, which indicate
no millennium issues.
RFC 1193 on Client Requirements for Real Time Services talks about
time in section 4.4, but there are no Year 2000 issues. RFC 1190
have been obsoleted by RFC 1819, but the hello timer issues are
similar.
RFCs 1789, 1768, 1703, 1614, 1569, 1568, 1546, 1469, 1453, 1313,
1257, 1197, 1112, 1054, 988, 966, 947, 809, 804, 803, 798, 769, 741,
511, 508, 420, 408 and 251 contain no date or time references.
19. Routing
19.1 Summary
The RFC's which were categorized into this group were Routing
Information Protocol (RIP), the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)
protocol, Classless InterDomain Routing (CIDR),the Border Gateway
Protocol (BGP), and the InterDomain Routing Protocol (IDRP).
After careful examination both BGP and RIP have been found Year 2000
compliant.
There is a small Year 2000 issue in RFC 1786 on the Representation of
IP Routing Policies in the ripe-81++ Routing Registry. In Appendices
C the "changed" object parameter defines a format of <email-address>
YYMMDD, and similarly in Appendix D "withdrawn" object identifier has
he format of YYMMDD. Since these are only identifiers there should
be little operational impact. Some application software may need to
be modified.
IDPR suffers from the classic Year 2038 problem, by having a
timestamp counter which rolls over at that time.
19.2 Specifics
RFC 2091 on Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits defines
three required and one optional timers in section 6. The Database
Timer (6.1), the Hold down Timer (6.2), the Retransmission Time (6.3)
and the Over-Subscription Timer (6.4) are all counters, which have no
millennium, issues. RFC 2081 on the applicability of RIPng discusses
deletion of routes for a variety of issues, one of which is the
garbage- collection timer exceeds 120 seconds. There are no Year
2000 issues. RFC 2080 on RIPng for IPv6, discusses various times in
section 2.6, none of which have any millennium problems.
RFC 1987 on Ipsilon's General Switch Management protocol there is a
Duration field defined in section 4, which has no relevant problems.
Section 8.2 defines the procedure for dealing with timers. RFC 1953
on Ipsilon's Flow Management Specification for IPv4 defines the same
procedure in section 3.2, as well as a lifetime field in the Redirect
Message (Section 4.1). There are no millennium issues in either
case.
There is a small Year 2000 issue in RFC 1786 on the Representation of
IP Routing Policies in the ripe-81++ Routing Registry. In Appendices
C the "changed" object parameter defines a format of <email-address>
YYMMDD, and similarly in Appendix D "withdrawn" object identifier has
he format of YYMMDD. Since these are only identifiers there should
be little operational impact. Some application software may need to
be modified.
RFC 1771 defines the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). BGP does not
have knowledge of absolute time, only relative time. There are five
timers defined: Hold Timer, ConnectRetry Timer, KeepAlive Timer,
MinRoueAdvertisementInterval and MinASOriginationInterval. There are
no known issues regarding BGP and the millennium.
In RFC 1584, which defines Multicast Extensions to OSPF, three timers
are defined in section 8.2: IGMPPollingInterval, IGMPTimeout, and
IGMP polling timer. Section 8.4 defines an age parameter for the
local groups database and section 9.3 outlines how to implement that
age parameter. It is not expected that any connections lifetime will
be long enough to cause any issues with these timers.
RFC 1583, OSPF, there are two types of timers defined in section 4.4,
single-shot timers and interval timers. There are a number of timers
defined in Section 9 including: HelloInterval, RouterDeadInterval,
InfTransDelay, Hello Timer, Wait Timer and RxmtInterval. Section 10
also defines the Inactivity Timer. No millennium problem exists for
any of these timers.
RFC 1582 is an earlier version of RFC 2091. Section 7 documents the
same timers as noted above, with the same lack of a millennium issue.
RFC 1504 on Appletalk Update-Based Routing Protocol defines a 10-
second period in Section 3, and hence has no relevant issues.
RFC 1479 which specifies IDPR Version 1, defines a timestamp field in
section 1.5.1, which is a 32 bit unsigned integer number of seconds
since January 1, 1970. The authors recognize the problem of
timestamp exhaustion in 2038, but feel that the protocol will not be
in use for that period. Sections 1.7, 2.1, and 4.3.1 also discuss
the timestamp field. RFC 1478 on the IDPR Architecture, also
discusses the same timestamp field in section 3.3.4. RFC 1477 again
refers to the IDPR timestamp in section 4.2. Thus IDPR has no Year
2000 issue, but does have a period problem in the year 2038.
RFC 1075 on Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol devotes
section 7 to time values. None of the timers have any millennium
issues. RFC 1074, on the NFSNET backbone SPF IGP defines several
hardcoded timers values in section 5.
RFC 1058 on RIP discusses the 30-second timers in section 3.3. There
is no millennium issues related to RIP.
RFC 995 on the Requirements for Internet Gateways has extensive
discussions of timers in section 7.1 and throughout A.1 and A.2.
None of these timers suffer from the millennium problem.
RFC 911 on EGP on Berkeley Unix recommend timer values of 30 and 120
seconds.
RFC 904 which defines the Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP). There are
a number of timers discussed in sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.4. None of
these timers suffer from any relevant problems.
RFCs 2103, 2092, 2073, 2072, 2042, 2008, 1998, 1997, 1992, 1966, 1955,
1940, 1930, 1925, 1923, 1863, 1817, 1812, 1793, 1787, 1774, 1773,
1772, 1765, 1753, 1745, 1723, 1722, 1721, 1716, 1702, 1701, 1668,
1656, 1655, 1654, 1587, 1586, 1585, 1581, 1520, 1519, 1517, 1482,
1476, 1439, 1403, 1397, 1388, 1387, 1383, 1380, 1371, 1370, 1364,
1338, 1322, 1268, 1267, 1266, 1265, 1264, 1254, 1246, 1245, 1222,
1195, 1164, 1163, 1142, 1136, 1133, 1126, 1125, 1124,1104, 1102, 1092,
1009, 985, 981, 975, 950, 898, 890, 888, 875, and 823 contain no date
or time references.
20. Security
20.1 Summary
The RFC's which were categorized into this group were kerberos
authentication protocol, Remote Authentication Dial In User Service
(RADIUS), One Time Password System (OTP), Privacy Enhanced Mail
(PEM), security extensions to a variety of protocols including (but
not limited to) RIPv2, HTTP, MIME, PPP, IP, Telnet and FTP.
Encryption and authentication algorithms are also examined.
RFC 1507 on Distributed Authentication Security Services (DASS)
discusses time and secure time in an expository manner in Sections
1.2.2, 1.4.4 and 2.1. Section 3.6 defines absolute time as an UTC
time with a precision of 1 second, and Section 4.1 discusses ANS.1
encoding of time values. Because of the imprecision of the UTC time
definition there could be problems with this protocol.
RFCs 1421-1424 specifies that PEM uses UTC time formats which could
have a Millennium issue since the year specification only provides
the last two digits of the year.
20.2 Specifics
RFC 2082 on RIP-2 MD5 Authentication requires storage of security
keys for a specified lifetime in sections 4.1 and 4.2. There are no
millennium issues in this protocol.
RFC 2078 on the GSSAPI Version 2 defines numerous calls that use
timers for inputs and outputs. Sections 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.1.5,
2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.5 and 2.2.6 all use the lifetime_rec field, which
is defined as an integer counter in seconds. There should be no
relevant problems with this protocol.
RFC 2069 on Digest Authentication for HTTP, defines a 'date' and a
1123 formats which is not subject to millennium issues. Section 3.2
discusses dates and times in the context of thwarting replay attacks,
but have no relevant issues.
RFC 2065 on DNS Security extensions first discusses time in section
2.3.3. The SIG RDATA format is defined in Section 4.1 discusses
"time signed" field and defines it to be a 32 bit unsigned integer
number of seconds since January 1, 1970. There will be a period
problem in 2038 because of rollover. Section 4.5 on the file
representations of SIG RRs specifies the time field is expressed as
YYYYMMDDHHMMSS which is clearly Year 2000 compliant.
RFC 2059 on RADIUS account formats defines a "time" attribute, which
is optional which is a 32 bit unsigned integer number of seconds
since January 1, 1970. Likewise RFC 2058 on RADIUS also defines this
optional attribute in the same way. There will be a potential period
problem that occurs on 2038.
RFC 2035 on the Simple Public Key GSSAPI Mechanism talks about secure
timestamps in the background and overview sections only in an
expository manner.
RFC 1969 on the PPP DES Encryption Protocol uses time as an example
in Section 4 when discussing how to encrypt the first packet of a
stream. It is suggested that the first 32 bits be used for the
number of seconds since January 1, 1970. There could thus be a
potential operations problem in 2038.
RFC 1898 on the CyberCash Credit Card Protocol provides an example
message in Section 2.7 which uses a date field of the form
YYYYMMDDHHMM that is clearly Y2K compliant.
RFC 1510, which defines Kerberos Version 5, makes extensive use of
times in the security model. There are discussions in the
Introduction, as well as Sections 1.2, and 3.1.3. Kerberos uses
ASN.1 definitions to abstract values, and hence defines a base
definition for KerberosTime which is a generalized time format in
Section 5.2. >From the text: "Example: The only valid format for UTC
time 6 minutes, 27 seconds after 9 p.m. on 6 November 1985 is
19851106210627Z." A side note is that the MIT reference
implementation of the Kerberos, by default set the expiration of
tickets to December 31, 1999. This is not protocol related but could
have some operational impacts.
RFC 1509 on GSSAPI C-bindings makes a single reference that all
counters are in seconds and assigned as 32 bit unsigned integers.
Hence GSSAPI mechanisms may have problems in 2038.
RFC 1507 on Distributed Authentication Security Services (DASS)
discusses time and secure time in an expository manner in Sections
1.2.2, 1.4.4 and 2.1. Section 3.6 defines absolute time as an UTC
time with a precision of 1 second, and Section 4.1 discusses ANS.1
encoding of time values. Because of the imprecision of the UTC time
definition there could be problems with this protocol.
RFC 1424 on PEM Part IV defines a self-signed certificate request in
Section 3.1. The validity period start and end times are both
suggested to be January 1, 1970. RFC 1422 on PEM Part II defines the
validity period for a certificate in Section 3.3.6. It is
recommended that UTC Time formats are used, and notes the lack of a
century so that comparisons between different centuries must be done
with care. No suggestions on how to do this are included. Sections
3.5.2 also discusses validity period in PEM CRLs. RFC 1421 on PEM
Part I discusses validity periods in an expository way. PEM as a
whole could have problems after December 31, 1999 based on its use of
UTC Time.
RFCs 1113, 1114, and 1115 specify the original version of PEM and
have been obsoleted bye 1421, 1422, 1423, & 1424.
RFCs 2104, 2085, 2084, 2057, 2040, 2015, 1984, 1968, 1964, 1961, 1949,
1948, 1938, 1929, 1928, 1858, 1852, 1851, 1829, 1828, 1827, 1826,
1825, 1824, 1760, 1751, 1750, 1704, 1675, 1579, 1535, 1511, 1492,
1457, 1455, 1423, 1416, 1412, 1411, 1409, 1408, 1321, 1320, 1319,
1281, 1244, 1186, 1170, 1156, 1108, 1004, 972, 931, 927, 912, and 644
contain no date or time references.
21. Virtual Terminal
21.1 Summary
The RFC's which were categorized into this group were Telnet and its
many extensions, as well as the Secure SHell (SSH) protocol. The X
window system was not considered since it is not an IETF protocol.
Official acknowledgement by the trustee's of the X window system was
given that they will examine the protocol.
Unencrypted Telnet and TN3270 have both been found to be Year 2000
Compliant. The SSH protocols are also Year 2000 compliant.
21.2 Specifics
RFC 1013 on the X Windows version 11 alpha protocol defines are 32
bit unsigned integer timestamp in Section 4.
RFCs 2066, 1647, 1576, 1572, 1571, 1372, 1282, 1258, 1221, 1205, 1184,
1143, 1116, 1097, 1096, 1091, 1080, 1079, 1073, 1053, 1043, 1041,
1005, 946, 933, 930, 929, 907, 885, 884, 878, 861, 860, 859, 858, 857,
856, 855, 854, 851, 818, 802, 782, 779, 764, 749, 748, 747, 746, 736,
735, 734, 732, 731, 729, 728, 727, 726, 721, 719, 718, 701, 698, 658,
657, 656, 655, 654, 653, 652, 651, 647, 636, 431, 399, 393, 386, 365,
352, 340, 339, 328, 311, 297, 231, and 215 contain no date or time
references.
RFCs 703, 702, 688, 679, 669, 659, 600, 596, 595, 587, 563, 562, 560,
559, 513, 495, 470, 466, 461, 447, 435, 377, 364, 318, 296, 216, 206,
205, 177, 158, 139, 137, 110, 97 were unavailable.
22. Other
22.1 Summary
This grouping was a hodge-podge of informational RFCs, April Fool's
Jokes, IANA lists, and experimental RFCs. None were found to have
any millennium issues.
22.2 Specifics
RFCs 2123, 2036, 2014, 2000, 1999, 1958, 1935, 1900, 1879, 1855, 1822,
1814, 1810, 1799, 1776, 1718, 1715, 1700, 1699, 1640, 1627, 1610,
1607, 1601, 1600, 1599, 1594, 1580, 1578, 1574, 1550, 1540, 1539,
1527, 1499, 1463, 1462, 1438, 1410, 1402, 1401, 1391, 1367, 1366,
1360, 1359, 1358, 1349, 1340, 1336, 1325, 1324, 1300, 1291, 1287,
1261, 1250, 1249, 1206, 1200, 1199, 1177, 1175, 1174, 1152, 1149,
1140, 1135, 1127, 1118, 1111, 1100, 1099, 1077, 1060, 1039, 1020,
1019, 999, 997, 992, 990, 980, 960, 945, 944, 943, 939, 909, 902, 900,
899, 873, 869, 846, 845, 844, 843, 842, 840, 839, 838, 837, 836, 835,
834, 833, 832, 831, 820, 817, 800, 776, 774, 770, 766, 762, 758, 755,
750, 745, 717, 637, 603, 602, 590, 581, 578, 529, 527, 526, 523, 519,
518, 496, 491, 432, 404, 403, 401, 372, 363, 356, 345, 330, 329, 327,
317, 316, 313, 295, 282, 263, 242, 239, 234, 232, 225, 223, 213, 209,
204, 198, 195, 173, 170, 169, 167, 154, 149, 148, 147, 140, 138, 132,
131, 130, 129, 126, 121, 112, 109, 107, 100, 95, 90, 68, 64, 57, 52,
51, 46, 43, 37, 27, 25, 21, 15, 10, and 9 were examined and none were
found to have any date or time references, let alone millennium or Year
2000 issues.
23. Security Considerations
Although this document does consider the implications of various
security protocols, there is no need for additional security
considerations. The effect of a potential year 2000 problem may
cause some security problems, but those problems are more of specific
applications rather than protocol deficiencies introduced in this
document.
24. References
Because of the exhaustive nature of this investigation, the reader is
referred to the list of published RFC's available from the IETF
Secretariat or the RFC Editor, rather than republishing them here.
25. Editors' Address
Philip J. Nesser II
Nesser & Nesser Consulting
13501 100th Ave N.E.
Suite 5202
Kirkland, WA 98052
Phone: 425-481-4303
EMail: pjnesser@nesser.com
pjnesser@martigny.ai.mit.edu
Appendix A: List of RFC's for each Area
The following list contains the RFC's grouped by area that were
searched for year 2000 problems.
Each line contains three fields are separated by '::'. The first
filed is the RFC number, the second field is the type of RFC (S =
Standard, DS = Draft Standard, PS = Proposed Standard, E =
Experimental, H = Historical, I = Informational, BC = Best Current
Practice, '' = No Type), and the third field is the Title.
A.1 Autoconfiguration
1971:: PS:: IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
1970:: PS:: Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)
1542:: PS:: Clarifications and Extensions for the Bootstrap Protocol
1541:: PS:: Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
1534:: PS:: Interoperation Between DHCP and BOOTP
1533:: PS:: DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor Extensions
1532:: PS:: Clarifications and Extensions for the Bootstrap Protocol
1531:: PS:: Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
1497:: DS:: BOOTP Vendor Information Extensions
1395:: DS:: BOOTP Vendor Information Extensions
1084:: DS:: BOOTP vendor information extensions
1048:: DS:: BOOTP vendor information extensions
951:: DS:: Bootstrap Protocol
906:: :: Bootstrap loading using TFTP
A.2 Directory Services
2120:: E :: Managing the X.500 Root Naming Context
2079:: PS:: Definition of X.500 Attribute Types and an Object Class
to Hold Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)
1943:: I:: Building an X.500 Directory Service in the US
1914:: PS:: How to interact with a Whois++ mesh
1913:: PS:: Architecture of the Whois++ Index Service
1838:: E:: Use of the X.500 Directory to support mapping between
X.400 and RFC 822 Addresses
1837:: E:: Representing Tables and Subtrees in the X.500 Directory
1836:: E:: Representing the O/R Address hierarchy in the X.500
Directory Information Tree
1835:: PS:: Architecture of the WHOIS++ service
1834:: I:: Whois and Network Information Lookup Service Whois++
1781:: PS:: Using the OSI Directory to Achieve User Friendly Naming
1714:: I:: Referral Whois Protocol (RWhois)
1684:: I:: Introduction to White Pages services based on X.500
1637:: E:: DNS NSAP Resource Records
1632:: I:: A Revised Catalog of Available X.500 Implementations
1617:: I:: Naming and Structuring Guidelines for X.500 Directory Pilots
1609:: E:: Charting Networks in the X.500 Directory
1608:: E:: Representing IP Information in the X.500 Directory
1588:: I:: WHITE PAGES MEETING REPORT
1562:: I:: Naming Guidelines for the AARNet X.500 Directory Service
1491:: I:: A Survey of Advanced Usages of X.500
1488:: PS:: The X.500 String Representation of Standard Attribute
Syntaxes
1487:: PS:: X.500 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
1485:: PS:: A String Representation of Distinguished Names
1484:: E:: Using the OSI Directory to achieve User Friendly Naming
1430:: I:: A Strategic Plan for Deploying an Internet X.500
Directory Service
1400:: I:: Transition and Modernization of the Internet Registration
Service
1384:: I:: Naming Guidelines for Directory Pilots
1355:: I:: Privacy and Accuracy Issues in Network Information
Center Databases
1330:: I:: Recommendations for the Phase I Deployment of OSI
Directory Services (X.500) and OSI Message Handling
Services (X.400) within the ESnet Community
1309:: I:: Technical Overview of Directory Services Using the
X.500 Protocol
1308:: I:: Executive Introduction to Directory Services Using the
X.500 Protocol
1292:: I:: A Catalog of Available X.500 Implementations
1279:: :: X.500 and Domains
1276:: PS:: Replication and Distributed Operations extensions to
provide an Internet Directory using X.500
1275:: I:: Replication Requirements to provide an Internet Directory
using X.500
1274:: PS:: The COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema
1255:: I:: A Naming Scheme for c=US
1218:: :: A Naming Scheme for c=US
1202:: I:: Directory Assistance Service
1107:: :: Plan for Internet directory services
954:: DS:: NICNAME/WHOIS
953:: H:: Hostname Server
812:: :: NICNAME/WHOIS
756:: :: NIC name server - a datagram-based information utility
752:: :: Universal host table
============ ==========================================================
Disk Sharing
1813:: I:: NFS Version 3 Protocol Specification
1094:: H:: NFS: Network File System Protocol specification
============ ==========================================================
Games and Chat
1459:: E:: Internet Relay Chat Protocol
======================================================================
Information Services & File Transfer
2122:: PS:: VEMMI URL Specification
2070:: PS:: Internationalization of the Hypertext Markup Language
2068:: PS:: Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1
2056:: PS:: Uniform Resource Locators for Z39.50
2055:: I:: WebNFS Server Specification
2054:: I:: WebNFS Client Specification
2044:: I:: UTF-8, a transformation format of Unicode and ISO 10646
2016:: E:: Uniform Resource Agents (URAs)
1986:: E:: Experiments with a Simple File Transfer Protocol for
Radio Links using Enhanced Trivial File Transfer
Protocol (ETFTP)
1980:: I:: A Proposed Extension to HTML: Client-Side Image Maps
1960:: PS:: A String Representation of LDAP Search Filters
1959:: PS:: An LDAP URL Format
1945:: I:: Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0
1942:: E:: HTML Tables
1874:: E:: SGML Media Types
1867:: E:: Form-based File Upload in HTML
1866:: PS:: Hypertext Markup Language - 2.0
1865:: I:: EDI Meets the Internet: Frequently Asked Questions
about Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) on the Internet
1862:: I:: Report of the IAB Workshop on Internet Information
Infrastructure, October 12-14, 1994
1843:: I:: HZ - A Data Format for Exchanging Files of Arbitrarily
Mixed Chinese and ASCII characters
1842:: I:: ASCII Printable Characters-Based Chinese Character
Encoding for Internet Messages
1823:: I:: The LDAP Application Program Interface
1815:: I:: Character Sets ISO-10646 and ISO-10646-J-1
1808:: PS:: Relative Uniform Resource Locators
1807:: I:: A Format for Bibliographic Records
1798:: PS:: Connection-less Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
1788:: E:: ICMP Domain Name Messages
1785:: I:: TFTP Option Negotiation Analysis
1784:: PS:: TFTP Timeout Interval and Transfer Size Options
1783:: PS:: TFTP Blocksize Option
1782:: PS:: TFTP Option Extension
1779:: DS:: A String Representation of Distinguished Names
1778:: DS:: The String Representation of Standard Attribute Syntaxes
1777:: DS:: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
1766:: PS:: Tags for the Identification of Languages
1738:: PS:: Uniform Resource Locators (URL)
1737:: I:: Functional Requirements for Uniform Resource Names
1736:: I:: Functional Requirements for Internet Resource Locators
1729:: I:: Using the Z39.50 Information Retrieval Protocol in the
Internet Environment
1728:: I:: Resource Transponders
1727:: I:: A Vision of an Integrated Internet Information Service
1639:: E:: FTP Operation Over Big Address Records (FOOBAR)
1633:: I:: Integrated Services in the Internet Architecture
1630:: I:: Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW
1625:: I:: WAIS over Z39.50-1988
1558:: I:: A String Representation of LDAP Search Filters
1554:: I:: ISO-2022-JP-2: Multilingual Extension of ISO-2022-JP
1545:: E:: FTP Operation Over Big Address Records (FOOBAR)
1530:: I:: Principles of Operation for the TPC.INT Subdomain:
General Principles and Policy
1529:: I:: Principles of Operation for the TPC.INT Subdomain:
Remote Printing -- Administrative Policies
1528:: E:: Principles of Operation for the TPC.INT Subdomain:
Remote Printing -- Technical Procedures
1489:: I:: Registration of a Cyrillic Character Set
1486:: E:: An Experiment in Remote Printing
1440:: E:: SIFT/UFT: Sender-Initiated/Unsolicited File Transfer
1436:: I:: The Internet Gopher Protocol (a distributed document
search and retrieval protocol)
1415:: PS:: FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification
1413:: PS:: Identification Protocol
1350:: S:: THE TFTP PROTOCOL (REVISION 2)
1345:: I:: Character Mnemonics & Character Sets
1312:: E:: Message Send Protocol
1302:: I:: Building a Network Information Services Infrastructure
1288:: DS:: The Finger User Information Protocol
1278:: I:: A String Encoding of Presentation Address
1241:: E:: A Scheme for an Internet Encapsulation Protocol: Version 1
1235:: E:: The Coherent File Distribution Protocol
1196:: DS:: The Finger User Information Protocol
1194:: DS:: The Finger User Information Protocol
1179:: I:: Line Printer Daemon Protocol
1123:: S:: Requirements for Internet hosts - application and support
1068:: :: Background File Transfer Program BFTP
1037:: H:: NFILE - a file access protocol
1003:: :: Issues in defining an equations representation standard
998:: E:: NETBLT: A bulk data transfer protocol
978:: :: Voice File Interchange Protocol VFIP
971:: :: Survey of data representation standards
969:: :: NETBLT: A bulk data transfer protocol
965:: :: Format for a graphical communication protocol
959:: S:: File Transfer Protocol
949:: :: FTP unique-named store command
916:: H:: Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol RATP
913:: H:: Simple File Transfer Protocol
887:: E:: Resource Location Protocol
866:: S:: Active users
865:: S:: Quote of the Day Protocol
864:: S:: Character Generator Protocol
863:: S:: Discard Protocol
862:: S:: Echo Protocol
797:: :: Format for Bitmap files
795:: :: Service mappings
783:: DS:: TFTP Protocol revision 2
775:: :: Directory oriented FTP commands
765:: :: File Transfer Protocol specification
751:: :: Survey of FTP mail and MLFL
743:: :: FTP extension: XRSQ/XRCP
742:: PS:: NAME/FINGER Protocol
740:: H:: NETRJS Protocol
737:: :: FTP extension: XSEN
725:: :: RJE protocol for a resource sharing network
722:: :: Thoughts on interactions in distributed services
712:: :: Distributed Capability Computing System DCCS
707:: :: High-level framework for network-based resource sharing
697:: :: CWD command of FTP
691:: :: One more try on the FTP
683:: :: FTPSRV - Tenex extension for paged files
662:: :: Performance improvement in ARPANET file transfers
from Multics
640:: :: Revised FTP reply codes
633:: :: IMP/TIP preventive maintenance schedule
630:: :: FTP error code usage for more reliable mail service
624:: :: Comments on the File Transfer Protocol
622:: :: Scheduling IMP/TIP down time
614:: :: Response to RFC 607: "Comments on the File Transfer
Protocol"
610:: :: Further datalanguage design concepts
607:: :: Comments on the File Transfer Protocol
599:: :: Update on NETRJS
593:: :: Telnet and FTP implementation schedule change
592:: :: Some thoughts on system design to facilitate resource
sharing
589:: :: CCN NETRJS server messages to remote user
573:: :: Data and file transfer: Some measurement results
571:: :: Tenex FTP problem
570:: :: Experimental input mapping between NVT ASCII and UCSB
On Line System
553:: :: Draft design for a text/graphics protocol
551:: :: [Letter from Feinroth re: NYU, ANL, and LBL entering
the net, and FTP protocol]
549:: :: Minutes of Network Graphics Group meeting, 15-17
July 1973
543:: :: Network journal submission and delivery
542:: :: File Transfer Protocol
535:: :: Comments on File Access Protocol
532:: :: UCSD-CC Server-FTP facility
525:: :: MIT-MATHLAB meets UCSB-OLS -an example of resource sharing
520:: :: Memo to FTP group: Proposal for File Access Protocol
514:: :: Network make-work
506:: :: FTP command naming problem
505:: :: Two solutions to a file transfer access problem
504:: :: Distributed resources workshop announcement
501:: :: Un-muddling "free file transfer"
499:: :: Harvard's network RJE
493:: :: E.W., Jr Graphics Protocol
490:: :: Surrogate RJS for UCLA-CCN
487:: :: Free file transfer
486:: :: Data transfer revisited
485:: :: MIX and MIXAL at UCSB
480:: :: Host-dependent FTP parameters
479:: :: Use of FTP by the NIC Journal
478:: :: FTP server-server interaction - II
477:: :: Remote Job Service at UCSB
472:: :: Illinois' reply to Maxwell's request for graphics
information NIC 14925
468:: :: FTP data compression
467:: :: Proposed change to Host-Host Protocol:Resynchronization
of connection status
463:: :: FTP comments and response to RFC 430
454:: :: File Transfer Protocol - meeting announcement and a new
proposed document
451:: :: Tentative proposal for a Unified User Level Protocol
448:: :: Print files in FTP
446:: :: Proposal to consider a network program resource notebook
438:: :: FTP server-server interaction
437:: :: Data Reconfiguration Service at UCSB
436:: :: Announcement of RJS at UCSB
430:: :: Comments on File Transfer Protocol
429:: :: Character generator process
418:: :: Server file transfer under TSS/360 at NASA Ames
414:: :: File Transfer Protocol FTP status and further comments
412:: :: User FTP documentation
411:: :: New MULTICS network software features
410:: :: Removal of the 30-second delay when hosts come up
409:: :: Tenex interface to UCSB's Simple-Minded File System
407:: H:: Remote Job Entry Protocol
406:: :: Scheduled IMP software releases
396:: :: Network Graphics Working Group meeting - second iteration
387:: :: Some experiences in implementing Network Graphics
Protocol Level 0
385:: :: Comments on the File Transfer Protocol
382:: :: Mathematical software on the ARPA Network
374:: :: IMP system announcement
373:: :: Arbitrary character sets
368:: :: Comments on "Proposed Remote Job Entry Protocol"
367:: :: Network host status
366:: :: Network host status
361:: :: Deamon processes on host 106
360:: :: Proposed Remote Job Entry Protocol
354:: :: File Transfer Protocol
351:: :: Graphics information form for the ARPANET graphics
resources notebook
342:: :: Network host status
338:: :: EBCDIC/ASCII mapping for network RJE
336:: :: Level 0 Graphic Input Protocol
335:: :: New interface - IMP/360
332:: :: Network host status
325:: :: Network Remote Job Entry program - NETRJS
324:: :: RJE Protocol meeting
314:: :: Network Graphics Working Group meeting
310:: :: Another look at Data and File Transfer Protocols
309:: :: Data and File Transfer workshop announcement
307:: :: Using network Remote Job Entry
306:: :: Network host status
299:: :: Information management system
298:: :: Network host status
294:: :: On the use of "set data type" transaction in
File Transfer Protocol
293:: :: Network host status
292:: :: E.W., Jr Graphics Protocol: Level 0 only
288:: :: Network host status
287:: :: Status of network hosts
286:: :: Network library information system
285:: :: Network graphics
283:: :: NETRJT: Remote Job Service Protocol for TIPS
281:: :: Suggested addition to File Transfer Protocol
268:: :: Graphics facilities information
267:: :: Network host status
266:: :: Network host status
265:: :: File Transfer Protocol
264:: :: Data Transfer Protocol
255:: :: Status of network hosts
252:: :: Network host status
250:: :: Some thoughts on file transfer
238:: :: Comments on DTP and FTP proposals
217:: :: Specifications changes for OLS, RJE/RJOR, and SMFS
199:: :: Suggestions for a network data-tablet graphics protocol
192:: :: Some factors which a Network Graphics Protocol must
consider
191:: :: Graphics implementation and conceptualization at
Augmentation Research Center
189:: :: Interim NETRJS specifications
184:: :: Proposed graphic display modes
183:: :: EBCDIC codes and their mapping to ASCII
181:: :: Modifications to RFC 177
174:: :: UCLA - computer science graphics overview
172:: :: File Transfer Protocol
163:: :: Data transfer protocols
141:: :: Comments on RFC 114: A File Transfer Protocol
134:: :: Network Graphics meeting
133:: :: File transfer and recovery
125:: :: Response to RFC 86: Proposal for network standard format
for a graphics data stream
114:: :: File Transfer Protocol
105:: :: Network specifications for Remote Job Entry and Remote
Job Output Retrieval at UCSB
98:: :: Logger Protocol proposal
94:: :: Some thoughts on network graphics
88:: :: NETRJS: A third level protocol for Remote JobEntry
86:: :: Proposal for a network standard format for a data stream
to control graphics display
83:: :: Language-machine for data reconfiguration
========== ============================================================
Internet & Network Layer
2126:: PS:: ISO Transport Service on top of TCP (ITOT)
2125:: PS:: The PPP Bandwidth Allocation Protocol (BAP) The PPP
Bandwidth Allocation Control Protocol (BACP)
2118:: I:: Microsoft Point-To-Point Compression (MPPC) Protocol
2114:: I:: Data Link Switching Client Access Protocol
2113:: PS:: IP Router Alert Option
2107:: I:: Ascend Tunnel Management Protocol - ATMP
2106:: I:: Data Link Switching Remote Access Protocol
2105:: I:: Cisco Systems' Tag Switching Architecture Overview
2098:: I:: Toshiba's Router Architecture Extensions for ATM:Overview
2097:: PS:: The PPP NetBIOS Frames Control Protocol (NBFCP)
2075:: I:: IP Echo Host Service
2067:: DS:: IP over HIPPI
2043:: PS:: The PPP SNA Control Protocol (SNACP)
2023:: PS:: IP Version 6 over PPP
2019:: PS:: Transmission of IPv6 Packets Over FDDI
2018:: PS:: TCP Selective Acknowledgment Options
2009:: E:: GPS-Based Addressing and Routing
2005:: PS:: Applicability Statement for IP Mobility Support
2004:: PS:: Minimal Encapsulation within IP
2003:: PS:: IP Encapsulation within IP
2002:: PS:: IP Mobility Support
2001:: PS:: TCP Slow Start, Congestion Avoidance, Fast Retransmit,
and Fast Recovery Algorithms
1994:: DS:: PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol (CHAP)
1993:: I:: PPP Gandalf FZA Compression Protocol
1990:: DS:: The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP)
1989:: DS:: PPP Link Quality Monitoring
1981:: PS:: Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6
1979:: I:: PPP Deflate Protocol
1978:: I:: PPP Predictor Compression Protocol
1977:: I:: PPP BSD Compression Protocol
1976:: I:: PPP for Data Compression in Data Circuit-Terminating
Equipment (DCE)
1975:: I:: PPP Magnalink Variable Resource Compression
1974:: I:: PPP Stac LZS Compression Protocol
1973:: PS:: PPP in Frame Relay
1972:: PS:: A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over
Ethernet Networks
1967:: I:: PPP LZS-DCP Compression Protocol (LZS-DCP)
1963:: I:: PPP Serial Data Transport Protocol (SDTP)
1962:: PS:: The PPP Compression Control Protocol (CCP)
1954:: I:: Transmission of Flow Labelled IPv4 on ATM Data Links
Ipsilon Version 1.0
1946:: I:: Native ATM Support for ST2+
1937:: I:: Local/Remote Forwarding Decision in Switched Data
Link Subnetworks
1936:: I:: Implementing the Internet Checksum in Hardware
1934:: I:: Ascend's Multilink Protocol Plus (MP+)
1933:: PS:: Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers
1932:: I:: IP over ATM: A Framework Document
1931:: I:: Dynamic RARP Extensions and Administrative Support for
Automatic Network Address Allocation
1926:: I:: An Experimental Encapsulation of IP Datagrams on
Top of ATM
1924:: I:: A Compact Representation of IPv6 Addresses
1919:: I:: Classical versus Transparent IP Proxies
1918:: BC:: Address Allocation for Private Internets
1917:: BC:: An Appeal to the Internet Community to Return Unused
IP Networks (Prefixes) to the IANA
1916:: I:: Enterprise Renumbering
1915:: BC:: Variance for The PPP Connection Control Protocol and
The PPP Encryption Control Protocol
1897:: E:: IPv6 Testing Address Allocation
1888:: E:: OSI NSAPs and IPv6
1887:: I:: An Architecture for IPv6 Unicast Address Allocation
1885:: PS:: Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
1884:: PS:: IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture
1883:: PS:: Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification
1881:: I:: IPv6 Address Allocation Management
1878:: I:: Variable Length Subnet Table For IPv4
1877:: I:: PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol Extensions for
Name Server Addresses
1868:: E:: ARP Extension - UNARP
1860:: I:: Variable Length Subnet Table For IPv4
1859:: I:: ISO Transport Class 2 Non-use of Explicit Flow Control
over TCP RFC1006 extension
1853:: I:: IP in IP Tunneling
1841:: I:: PPP Network Control Protocol for LAN Extension
1833:: PS:: Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2
1832:: PS:: XDR
1831:: PS:: RPC
1809:: I:: Using the Flow Label Field in IPv6
1795:: I:: Data Link Switching
1791:: E:: TCP And UDP Over IPX Networks With Fixed Path MTU
1770:: I:: IPv4 Option for Sender Directed Multi-Destination Delivery
1764:: PS:: The PPP XNS IDP Control Protocol (XNSCP)
1763:: PS:: The PPP Banyan Vines Control Protocol (BVCP)
1762:: DS:: The PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol (DNCP)
1761:: I:: Snoop Version 2 Packet Capture File Format
1756:: E:: REMOTE WRITE PROTOCOL - VERSION 1.0
1755:: PS:: ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM
1754:: I:: IP over ATM Working Group's Recommendations for the
ATM Forum's Multiprotocol BOF Version 1
1752:: PS:: The Recommendation for the IP Next Generation Protocol
1744:: I:: Observations on the Management of the Internet Address
Space
1735:: E:: NBMA Address Resolution Protocol (NARP)
1726:: I:: Technical Criteria for Choosing IP
1719:: I:: A Direction for IPng
1717:: PS:: The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP)
1710:: I:: Simple Internet Protocol Plus White Paper
1707:: I:: CATNIP
1705:: I:: Six Virtual Inches to the Left
1698:: I:: Octet Sequences for Upper-Layer OSI to Support Basic
Communications Applications
1693:: E:: An Extension to TCP
1692:: PS:: Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux)
1688:: I:: IPng Mobility Considerations
1687:: I:: A Large Corporate User's View of IPng
1686:: I:: IPng Requirements
1683:: I:: Multiprotocol Interoperability In IPng
1682:: I:: IPng BSD Host Implementation Analysis
1681:: I:: On Many Addresses per Host
1680:: I:: IPng Support for ATM Services
1679:: I:: HPN Working Group Input to the IPng Requirements
Solicitation
1678:: I:: IPng Requirements of Large Corporate Networks
1677:: I:: Tactical Radio Frequency Communication Requirements
for IPng
1676:: I:: INFN Requirements for an IPng
1674:: I:: A Cellular Industry View of IPng
1673:: I:: Electric Power Research Institute Comments on IPng
1672:: I:: Accounting Requirements for IPng
1671:: I:: IPng White Paper on Transition and Other Considerations
1670:: I:: Input to IPng Engineering Considerations
1669:: I:: Market Viability as a IPng Criteria
1667:: I:: Modeling and Simulation Requirements for IPng
1663:: PS:: PPP Reliable Transmission
1662:: S:: PPP in HDLC-like Framing
1661:: S:: The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)
1644:: E:: T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions Functional
Specification
1638:: PS:: PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP)
1634:: I:: Novell IPX Over Various WAN Media (IPXWAN)
1631:: I:: The IP Network Address Translator (Nat)
1629:: DS:: Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation in the Internet
1626:: PS:: Default IP MTU for use over ATM AAL5
1624:: I:: Computation of the Internet Checksum via Incremental
Update
1622:: I:: Pip Header Processing
1621:: I:: Pip Near-term Architecture
1620:: I:: Internet Architecture Extensions for Shared Media
1619:: PS:: PPP over SONET/SDH
1618:: PS:: PPP over ISDN
1613:: I:: cisco Systems X.25 over TCP (XOT)
1605:: I:: SONET to Sonnet Translation
1604:: PS:: Definitions of Managed Objects for Frame Relay Service
1598:: PS:: PPP in X.25
1590:: I:: Media Type Registration Procedure
1577:: PS:: Classical IP and ARP over ATM
1575:: DS:: An Echo Function for CLNP (ISO 8473)
1570:: PS:: PPP LCP Extensions
1561:: E:: Use of ISO CLNP in TUBA Environments
1560:: I:: The MultiProtocol Internet
1553:: PS:: Compressing IPX Headers Over WAN Media (CIPX)
1552:: PS:: The PPP Internetwork Packet Exchange Control
Protocol (IPXCP)
1551:: I:: Novell IPX Over Various WAN Media (IPXWAN)
1549:: DS:: PPP in HDLC Framing
1548:: DS:: The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)
1547:: I:: Requirements for an Internet Standard
Point-to-Point Protocol
1538:: I:: Advanced SNA/IP
1526:: I:: Assignment of System Identifiers for TUBA/CLNP Hosts
1518:: PS:: An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR
1498:: I:: On the Naming and Binding of Network Destinations
1490:: DS:: Multiprotocol Interconnect over Frame Relay
1483:: PS:: Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Adaptation Layer 5
1475:: E:: TP/IX
1466:: I:: Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space
1454:: I:: Comparison of Proposals for Next Version of IP
1435:: I:: IESG Advice from Experience with Path MTU Discovery
1434:: I:: Data Link Switching
1433:: E:: Directed ARP
1393:: E:: Traceroute Using an IP Option
1390:: S:: Transmission of IP and ARP over FDDI Networks
1385:: I:: EIP
1379:: I:: Extending TCP for Transactions -- Concepts
1378:: PS:: The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)
1377:: PS:: The PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol (OSINLCP)
1376:: PS:: The PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol (DNCP)
1375:: I:: Suggestion for New Classes of IP Addresses
1374:: PS:: IP and ARP on HIPPI
1365:: I:: An IP Address Extension Proposal
1363:: E:: A Proposed Flow Specification
1362:: I:: Novell IPX Over Various WAN Media (IPXWAN)
1356:: PS:: Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 and ISDN in the
Packet Mode
1347:: I:: TCP and UDP with Bigger Addresses (TUBA), A Simple
Proposal for Internet Addressing and Routing
1337:: I:: TIME-WAIT Assassination Hazards in TCP
1335:: :: A Two-Tier Address Structure for the Internet
1334:: PS:: PPP Authentication Protocols
1333:: PS:: PPP Link Quality Monitoring
1332:: PS:: The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol (IPCP)
1331:: PS:: The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) for the Transmission
of Multi-protocol Datagrams over Point-to-Point Links
1329:: I:: Thoughts on Address Resolution for Dual MAC FDDI Networks
1326:: I:: Mutual Encapsulation Considered Dangerous
1323:: PS:: TCP Extensions for High Performance
1314:: PS:: A File Format for the Exchange of Images in the Internet
1307:: E:: Dynamically Switched Link Control Protocol
1306:: I:: Experiences Supporting By-Request Circuit-Switched T3
Networks
1294:: PS:: Multiprotocol Interconnect over Frame Relay
1293:: PS:: Inverse Address Resolution Protocol
1277:: PS:: Encoding Network Addresses to Support Operation Over
Non-OSI Lower Layers
1263:: I:: TCP Extensions Considered Harmful
1256:: PS:: ICMP Router Discovery Messages
1240:: PS:: OSI Connectionless Transport Services on top of UDP
1237:: PS:: Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation in the Internet
1236:: :: IP to X.121 Address Mapping for DDN
1234:: PS:: Tunneling IPX Traffic through IP Networks
1226:: E:: Internet Protocol Encapsulation of AX.25 Frames
1223:: :: OSI CLNS and LLC1 Protocols on Network Systems HYPERchannel
1220:: PS:: Point-to-Point Protocol Extensions for Bridging
1219:: :: On the Assignment of Subnet Numbers
1210:: :: Network and Infrastructure User Requirements for
Transatlantic Research Collaboration - Brussels,
July 16-18, and Washington July 24-25, 1990
1209:: DS:: The Transmission of IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service
1201:: H:: Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Networks
1191:: DS:: Path MTU Discovery
1188:: DS:: A Proposed Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams
over FDDI Networks
1185:: E:: TCP Extension for High-Speed Paths
1172:: PS:: The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Initial Configuration
Options
1171:: DS:: The Point-to-Point Protocol for the Transmission of
Multi-Protocol Datagrams Over Point-to-Point Links
1166:: :: Internet Numbers
1162:: :: Connectionless Network Protocol (ISO 8473) and End
System to Intermediate System (ISO 9542) Management
Information Base
1151:: E:: Version 2 of the Reliable Data Protocol (RDP)
1146:: E:: TCP Alternate Checksum Options
1145:: E:: TCP Alternate Checksum Options
1144:: PS:: Compressing TCP/IP headers for low-speed serial links
1141:: :: Incremental Updating of the Internet Checksum
1139:: PS:: Echo function for ISO 8473
1134:: PS:: Point-to-Point Protocol
1132:: S:: Standard for the transmission of 802.2 packets over
IPX networks
1122:: S:: Requirements for Internet hosts - communication layers
1110:: :: Problem with the TCP big window option
1106:: :: TCP big window and NAK options
1103:: PS:: Proposed standard for the transmission of IP datagrams
over FDDI Networks
1088:: S:: Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams over
NetBIOS networks
1086:: :: ISO-TP0 bridge between TCP and X.25
1085:: :: ISO presentation services on top of TCP/IP based internets
1078:: :: TCP port service Multiplexer TCPMUX
1072:: E:: TCP extensions for long-delay paths
1071:: :: Computing the Internet checksum
1070:: :: Use of the Internet as a subnetwork for experimentation
with the OSI network layer
1069:: :: Guidelines for the use of Internet-IP addressesin the
ISO Connectionless-Mode Network Protocol
1063:: :: IP MTU Discovery options
1062:: :: Internet numbers
1057:: I:: RPC
1055:: S:: Nonstandard for transmission of IP datagrams over serial
lines
1051:: S:: Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams and ARP
packets over ARCNET networks
1050:: H:: RPC
1046:: :: Queuing algorithm to provide type-of-service for IP links
1045:: E:: VMTP
1044:: S:: Internet Protocol on Network System's HYPERchannel
1042:: S:: Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams over
IEEE 802 networks
1030:: :: On testing the NETBLT Protocol over divers networks
1029:: :: More fault tolerant approach to address resolution for
a Multi-LAN system of Ethernets
1027:: :: Using ARP to implement transparent subnet gateways
1025:: :: TCP and IP bake off
1016:: :: Something a host could do with source quench
1008:: :: Implementation guide for the ISO Transport Protocol
1007:: :: Military supplement to the ISO Transport Protocol
1006:: S:: ISO transport services on top of the TCP
1002:: S:: Protocol standard for a NetBIOS service on a TCP/UDP
transport
1001:: S:: Protocol standard for a NetBIOS service on a TCP/UDP
transport
994:: :: Final text of DIS 8473,Protocol for Providing the
Connectionless-mode Network Service
986:: :: Guidelines for the use of Internet-IP addressesin the
ISO Connectionless-Mode Network Protocol [Working draft]
983:: :: ISO transport arrives on top of the TCP
982:: :: Guidelines for the specification of the structure of the
Domain Specific Part DSP of the ISO standard NSAP address
970:: :: On packet switches with infinite storage
964:: :: Some problems with the specification of the Military
Standard Transmission Control Protocol
963:: :: Some problems with the specification of the Military
Standard Internet Protocol
962:: :: TCP-4 prime
955:: :: Towards a transport service for transaction processing
applications
948:: :: Two methods for the transmission of IP datagrams over
IEEE 802.3 networks
942:: :: Transport protocols for Department of Defense data
networks
941:: :: Addendum to the networkservice definition covering
network layer addressing
940:: :: Toward an Internet standard scheme for subnetting
936:: :: Another Internet subnet addressing scheme
935:: :: Reliable link layer protocols
932:: :: Subnetwork addressing scheme
926:: :: Protocol for providing the connectionless mode network
services
925:: :: Multi-LAN address resolution
924:: :: Official ARPA-Internet protocols for connecting
personal computers to the Internet
922:: S:: Broadcasting Internet datagrams in the presence of subnets
919:: S:: Broadcasting Internet datagrams
917:: :: Internet subnets
914:: H:: Thinwire protocol for connecting personal computers to
the Internet
905:: :: ISO Transport Protocol specification ISO DP 8073
903:: S:: Reverse Address Resolution Protocol
896:: :: Congestion control in IP/TCP internetworks
895:: S:: Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams over
experimental Ethernet networks
894:: S:: Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams over
Ethernet networks
893:: :: Trailer encapsulations
892:: :: ISO Transport Protocol specification [Draft]
891:: S:: DCN local-network protocols
889:: :: Internet delay experiments
879:: :: TCP maximum segment size and related topics
877:: S:: Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams over
public data networks
874:: :: Critique of X.25
872:: :: TCP-on-a-LAN
871:: :: Perspective on the ARPANET reference model
848:: :: Who provides the "little" TCP services?
829:: :: Packet satellite technology reference sources
826:: S:: Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol
824:: :: CRONUS Virtual Local Network
815:: :: IP datagram reassembly algorithms
814:: :: Name, addresses, ports, and routes
813:: :: Window and acknowlegement strategy in TCP
801:: :: NCP/TCP transition plan
793:: S:: Transmission Control Protocol
792:: S:: Internet Control Message Protocol
791:: S:: Internet Protocol
789:: :: Vulnerabilities of network control protocols
787:: :: Connectionless data transmission survey/tutorial
781:: :: Specification of the Internet Protocol IP timestamp option
777:: :: Internet Control Message Protocol
768:: S:: User Datagram Protocol
761:: :: DOD Standard Transmission Control Protocol
760:: :: DoD standard Internet Protocol
759:: H:: Internet Message Protocol
730:: :: Extensible field addressing
704:: :: IMP/Host and Host/IMP Protocol change
696:: :: Comments on the IMP/Host and Host/IMP Protocol changes
695:: :: Official change in Host-Host Protocol
692:: :: Comments on IMP/Host Protocol changes RFCs 687 and 690
690:: :: Comments on the proposed Host/IMP Protocol changes
689:: :: Tenex NCP finite state machine for connections
687:: :: IMP/Host and Host/IMP Protocol changes
685:: :: Response time in cross network debugging
680:: :: Message Transmission Protocol
675:: :: Specification of Internet Transmission Control Program
674:: :: Procedure call documents - version 2
660:: :: Some changes to the IMP and the IMP/Host interface
632:: :: Throughput degradations for single packet messages
626:: :: On a possible lockup condition in IMP subnet due to
message sequencing
613:: :: Network connectivity
611:: :: Two changes to the IMP/Host Protocol to improve
user/network communications
594:: :: Speedup of Host-IMP interface
591:: :: Addition to the Very Distant Host specifications
576:: :: Proposal for modifying linking
550:: :: NIC NCP experiment
548:: :: Hosts using the IMP Going Down message
528:: :: Software checksumming in the IMP and network reliability
521:: :: Restricted use of IMP DDT
489:: :: Comment on resynchronization of connection status proposal
488:: :: NLS classes at network sites
476:: :: IMP/TIP memory retrofit schedule rev. 2
473:: :: MIX and MIXAL?
460:: :: NCP survey
459:: :: Network questionnaires
450:: :: MULTICS sampling timeout change
449:: :: Current flow-control scheme for IMPSYS
445:: :: IMP/TIP preventive maintenance schedule
442:: :: Current flow-control scheme for IMPSYS
434:: :: IMP/TIP memory retrofit schedule
426:: :: Reconnection Protocol
417:: :: Link usage violation
398:: :: ICP sockets
395:: :: Switch settings on IMPs and TIPs
394:: :: Two proposed changes to the IMP-Host Protocol
359:: :: Status of the release of the new IMP System
357:: :: Echoing strategy for satellite links
348:: :: Discard process
347:: :: Echo process
346:: :: Satellite considerations
343:: :: IMP System change notification
312:: :: Proposed change in IMP-to-Host Protocol
301:: :: BBN IMP #5 and NCC schedule March 4, 1971
300:: :: ARPA Network mailing lists
271:: :: IMP System change notifications
241:: :: Connecting computers to MLC ports
210:: :: Improvement of flow control
203:: :: Achieving reliable communication
202:: :: Possible deadlock in ICP
197:: :: Initial Connection Protocol - Reviewed
190:: :: DEC PDP-10-IMLAC communications system
178:: :: Network graphic attention handling
176:: :: Comments on "Byte size for connections"
175:: :: Comments on "Socket conventions reconsidered"
166:: :: Data Reconfiguration Service
165:: :: Proffered official Initial Connection Protocol
161:: :: Solution to the race condition in the ICP
151:: :: Comments on a proffered official ICP
150:: :: Use of IPC facilities
146:: :: Views on issues relevant to data sharing on computer
networks
145:: :: Initial Connection Protocol control commands
143:: :: Regarding proffered official ICP
142:: :: Time-out mechanism in the Host-Host Protocol
128:: :: Bytes
127:: :: Comments on RFC 123
123:: :: Proffered official ICP
122:: :: Network specifications for UCSB's Simple-Minded File
System
93:: :: Initial Connection Protocol
91:: :: Proposed User-User Protocol
80:: :: Protocols and data formats
79:: :: Logger Protocol error
70:: :: Note on padding
67:: :: Proposed change to Host/IMP spec to eliminate marking
65:: :: Comments on Host/Host Protocol document #1
62:: :: Systems for interprocess communication in a resource
sharing computer network
60:: :: Simplified NCP Protocol
59:: :: Flow control - fixed versus demand allocation
56:: :: Third level protocol
55:: :: Prototypical implementation of the NCP
54:: :: Official protocol proffering
53:: :: Official protocol mechanism
41:: :: IMP-IMP teletype communication
38:: :: Comments on network protocol from NWG/RFC #36
33:: :: New Host-Host Protocol
23:: :: Transmission of multiple control messages
22:: :: Host-host control message formats
20:: :: ASCII format for network interchange
19:: :: Two protocol suggestions to reduce congestion at
swap bound nodes
17:: :: Some questions re
12:: :: IMP-Host interface flow diagrams
=====================================================================
Mail
2112:: PS:: The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type
2111:: PS:: Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource Locators
2110:: PS:: MIME E-mail Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents, such
as HTML (MHTML)
2109:: PS:: HTTP State Management Mechanism
2095:: PS:: IMAP/POP AUTHorize Extension for Simple Challenge/Response
2088:: PS:: IMAP4 non-synchroniziong literals
2087:: PS:: IMAP4 QUOTA extension
2086:: PS:: IMAP4 ACL extension
2077:: PS:: The Model Primary Content Type for Multipurpose
Internet Mail Extensions
2076:: I:: Common Internet Message Headers
2062:: I:: Internet Message Access Protocol - Obsolete Syntax
2061:: I:: IMAP4 COMPATIBILITY WITH IMAP2BIS
2060:: PS:: INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION 4rev1
2049:: DS:: Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Five
2048:: BC:: Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four
2047:: DS:: MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part Three
2046:: DS:: Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two
2045:: DS:: Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One
2034:: PS:: SMTP Service Extension for Returning Enhanced Error Codes
2033:: I:: Local Mail Transfer Protocol
2017:: PS:: Definition of the URL MIME External-Body Access-Type
1991:: I:: PGP Message Exchange Formats
1985:: PS:: SMTP Service Extension for Remote Message Queue Starting
1957:: I:: Some Observations on Implementations of the Post Office
Protocol (POP3)
1947:: I:: Greek Character Encoding for Electronic Mail Messages
1939:: S:: Post Office Protocol - Version 3
1927:: I:: Suggested Additional MIME Types for Associating Documents
1922:: I:: Chinese Character Encoding for Internet Messages
1911:: E:: Voice Profile for Internet Mail
1896:: I:: The text/enriched MIME Content-type
1895:: I:: The Application/CALS-1840 Content-type
1894:: PS:: An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status
Notifications
1893:: PS:: Enhanced Mail System Status Codes
1892:: PS:: The Multipart/Report Content Type for the Reporting
of Mail System Administrative Messages
1891:: PS:: SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifications
1873:: E:: Message/External-Body Content-ID Access Type
1872:: E:: The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type
1870:: S:: SMTP Service Extension for Message Size Declaration
1869:: S:: SMTP Service Extensions
1864:: DS:: The Content-MD5 Header Field
1854:: PS:: SMTP Service Extension for Command Pipelining
1848:: PS:: MIME Object Security Services
1847:: PS:: Security Multiparts for MIME
1846:: E:: SMTP 521 reply code
1845:: E:: SMTP Service Extension for Checkpoint/Restart
1844:: I:: Multimedia E-mail (MIME) User Agent checklist
1830:: E:: SMTP Service Extensions for Transmission of Large
and Binary MIME Messages
1820:: I:: Multimedia E-mail (MIME) User Agent Checklist
1806:: E:: Communicating Presentation Information in Internet
Messages
1804:: E:: Schema Publishing in X.500 Directory
1803:: I:: Recommendations for an X.500 Production Directory Service
1801:: E:: MHS use of the X.500 Directory to support MHS Routing
1767:: PS:: MIME Encapsulation of EDI Objects
1741:: I:: MIME Content Type for BinHex Encoded Files
1740:: PS:: MIME Encapsulation of Macintosh files - MacMIME
1734:: PS:: POP3 AUTHentication command
1733:: I:: DISTRIBUTED ELECTRONIC MAIL MODELS IN IMAP4
1732:: I:: IMAP4 COMPATIBILITY WITH IMAP2 AND IMAP2BIS
1731:: PS:: IMAP4 Authentication mechanisms
1730:: PS:: INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION 4
1725:: DS:: Post Office Protocol - Version 3
1711:: I:: Classifications in E-mail Routing
1685:: I:: Writing X.400 O/R Names
1653:: DS:: SMTP Service Extension for Message Size Declaration
1652:: DS:: SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport
1651:: DS:: SMTP Service Extensions
1649:: I:: Operational Requirements for X.400 Management Domains
in the GO-MHS Community
1648:: PS:: Postmaster Convention for X.400 Operations
1642:: E:: UTF-7 - A Mail-Safe Transformation Format of Unicode
1641:: E:: Using Unicode with MIME
1616:: I:: X.400(1988) for the Academic and Research Community
in Europe
1615:: I:: Migrating from X.400(84) to X.400(88)
1563:: I:: The text/enriched MIME Content-type
1557:: I:: Korean Character Encoding for Internet Messages
1556:: I:: Handling of Bi-directional Texts in MIME
1555:: I:: Hebrew Character Encoding for Internet Messages
1544:: PS:: The Content-MD5 Header Field
1524:: I:: A User Agent Configuration Mechanism For Multimedia
Mail Format Information
1523:: I:: The text/enriched MIME Content-type
1522:: DS:: MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part Two
1521:: DS:: MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part One
1506:: I:: A tutorial on gatewaying between X.400 and Internet mail
1505:: E:: Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages
1502:: PS:: X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets
1496:: PS:: Rules for downgrading messages from X.400/88 to X.400/84
when MIME content-types are present in the messages
1495:: PS:: Mapping between X.400 and RFC-822 Message Bodies
1494:: PS:: Equivalences between 1988 X.400 and RFC-822 Message Bodies
1468:: I:: Japanese Character Encoding for Internet Messages
1465:: E:: Routing coordination for X.400 MHS services within a
multi protocol / multi network environment Table Format
V3 for static routing
1460:: DS:: Post Office Protocol - Version 3
1456:: I:: Conventions for Encoding the Vietnamese Language VISCII
1437:: I:: The Extension of MIME Content-Types to a New Medium
1429:: I:: Listserv Distribute Protocol
1428:: I:: Transition of Internet Mail from Just-Send-8 to
8Bit-SMTP/MIME
1427:: PS:: SMTP Service Extension for Message Size Declaration
1426:: PS:: SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport
1425:: PS:: SMTP Service Extensions
1405:: E:: Mapping between X.400(1984/1988) and Mail-11 (DECnet mail)
1357:: I:: A Format for E-mailing Bibliographic Records
1344:: I:: Implications of MIME for Internet Mail Gateways
1343:: I:: A User Agent Configuration Mechanism For Multimedia
Mail Format Information
1342:: PS:: Representation of Non-ASCII Text in Internet Message
Headers
1341:: PS:: MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions)
1339:: E:: Remote Mail Checking Protocol
1328:: PS:: X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading
1327:: PS:: Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 and RFC 822
1225:: DS:: Post Office Protocol - Version 3
1211:: :: Problems with the Maintenance of Large Mailing Lists
1204:: E:: Message Posting Protocol (MPP)
1203:: H:: Interactive Mail Access Protocol - Version 3
1176:: E:: Interactive Mail Access Protocol - Version 2
1168:: :: Intermail and Commercial Mail Relay Services
1159:: E:: Message Send Protocol
1154:: E:: Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages
1153:: E:: Digest Message Format
1148:: E:: Mapping between X.400 (1988) / ISO 10021 and RFC 822
1138:: I:: Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 and RFC 822
1137:: E:: Mapping between full RFC 822 and RFC 822 with restricted
encoding
1090:: :: SMTP on X.25
1082:: H:: Post Office Protocol - version 3
1081:: PS:: Post Office Protocol - version 3
1064:: H:: Interactive Mail Access Protocol
1056:: I:: PCMAIL
1049:: S:: Content-type header field for Internet messages
1047:: :: Duplicate messages and SMTP
1026:: PS:: Addendum to RFC 987
993:: :: PCMAIL
987:: PS:: Mapping between X.400 and RFC 822
984:: :: PCMAIL
976:: :: UUCP mail interchange format standard
974:: S:: Mail routing and the domain system
937:: H:: Post Office Protocol - version 2
934:: :: Proposed standard for message encapsulation
918:: :: Post Office Protocol
915:: :: Network mail path service
910:: :: Multimedia mail meeting notes
886:: :: Proposed standard for message header munging
876:: :: Survey of SMTP implementations
841:: :: Specification for message format for Computer Based
Message Systems
822:: S:: Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text messages
821:: S:: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol
808:: :: Summary of computer mail services meeting held at BBN
on 10 January 1979
807:: :: Multimedia mail meeting notes
805:: :: Computer mail meeting notes
788:: :: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol
786:: :: Mail Transfer Protocol
785:: :: Mail Transfer Protocol
784:: :: Mail Transfer Protocol
780:: :: Mail Transfer Protocol
773:: :: Comments on NCP/TCP mail service transition strategy
772:: :: Mail Transfer Protocol
771:: :: Mail transition plan
767:: :: Structured format for transmission of multi-media
documents
763:: :: Role mailboxes
757:: :: Suggested solution to the naming, addressing, and
delivery problem for ARPANET message systems
754:: :: Out-of-net host addresses for mail
753:: :: Internet Message Protocol
744:: :: MARS - a Message Archiving and Retrieval Service
733:: :: Standard for theformat of ARPA network text messages
724:: :: Proposed official standard for the format of ARPA
Network messages
720:: :: Address specification syntax for network mail
714:: :: Host-Host Protocol for an ARPANET-type network
713:: :: MSDTP-Message Services Data Transmission Protocol
706:: :: On the junk mail problem
577:: :: Mail priority
574:: :: Announcement of a mail facility at UCSB
561:: :: Standardizingnetwork mail headers
555:: :: Responses to critiques of the proposed mail protocol
539:: :: Thoughts on the mail protocol proposed in RFC524
534:: :: Lost message detection
533:: :: Message-ID numbers
524:: :: Proposed Mail Protocol
516:: :: Lost message detection
512:: :: More on lost message detection
510:: :: Request for network mailbox addresses
498:: :: On mail service to CCN
475:: :: FTP and network mail system
469:: :: Network mail meeting summary
458:: :: Mail retrieval via FTP
453:: :: Meeting announcement to discuss a network mail system
333:: :: Proposed experiment with a Message Switching Protocol
278:: :: Revision of theMail Box Protocol
224:: :: Comments on Mailbox Protocol
221:: :: Mail Box Protocol
196:: :: Mail Box Protocol
58:: :: Logical message synchronization
42:: :: Message data types
=====================================================================
NTP
2030:: I:: Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP) Version 4 for IPv4,
IPv6 and OSI
1769:: I:: Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP)
1708:: I:: NTP PICS PROFORMA For the Network Time Protocol Version 3
1589:: I:: A Kernel Model for Precision Timekeeping
1361:: I:: Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP)
1305:: PS:: Network Time Protocol (v3)
1165:: E:: Network Time Protocol (NTP) over the OSI Remote Operations
Service
1129:: :: Internet time synchronization
1128:: :: Measured performance of the Network Time Protocol in the
Internet system
1119:: S:: Network Time Protocol version 2 specification and
implementation
1059:: :: Network Time Protocol version 1 specification and
implementation
958:: :: Network Time Protocol NTP
957:: :: Experiments in network clock synchronization
956:: :: Algorithms for synchronizing network clocks
868:: S:: Time Protocol
867:: S:: Daytime Protocol
778:: H:: DCNET Internet Clock Service
738:: :: Time server
29:: :: Response to RFC 28
28:: :: Time standards
=====================================================================
Name Serving
2053:: I:: The AM (Armenia) Domain
2052:: E:: A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)
2010:: I:: Operational Criteria for Root Name Servers
1996:: PS:: A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone Changes
(DNS NOTIFY)
1995:: PS:: Incremental Zone Transfer in DNS
1982:: PS:: Serial Number Arithmetic
1956:: I:: Registration in the MIL Domain
1912:: I:: Common DNS Operational and Configuration Errors
1886:: PS:: DNS Extensions to support IP version 6
1876:: E:: A Means for Expressing Location Information in the
Domain Name System
1794:: I:: DNS Support for Load Balancing
1713:: I:: Tools for DNS debugging
1712:: E:: DNS Encoding of Geographical Location
1706:: I:: DNS NSAP Resource Records
1664:: E:: Using the Internet DNS to Distribute RFC1327 Mail
Address Mapping Tables
1591:: I:: Domain Name System Structure and Delegation
1537:: I:: Common DNS Data File Configuration Error
1536:: I:: Common DNS Implementation Errors and Suggested Fixes.
1480:: I:: The US Domain
1464:: E:: Using the Domain Name System To Store Arbitrary
String Attributes
1394:: I:: Relationship of Telex Answerback Codes to Internet Domains
1386:: I:: The US Domain
1348:: E:: DNS NSAP RRs
1183:: E:: New DNS RR Definitions
1101:: :: DNS encoding of network names and other types
1035:: S:: Domain names - implementation and specification
1034:: S:: Domain names - concepts and facilities
1033:: :: Domain administrators operations guide
1032:: :: Domain administrators guide
1031:: :: MILNET name domain transition
973:: :: Domain system changes and observations
952:: :: DoD Internet host table specification
921:: :: Domain name system implementation schedule - revised
920:: :: Domain requirements
897:: :: Domain name system implementation schedule
883:: :: Domain names
882:: :: Domain names
881:: :: Domain names plan and schedule
849:: :: Suggestions for improved host table distribution
830:: :: Distributed system for Internet name service
819:: :: Domain naming convention for Internet user applications
811:: :: Hostnames Server
810:: :: DoD Internet host table specification
799:: :: Internet name domains
796:: :: Address mappings
627:: :: ASCII text file of hostnames
625:: :: On-line hostnames service
623:: :: Comments on on-line host name service
620:: :: Request for monitor host table updates
608:: :: Host names on-line
606:: :: Host names on-line
289:: :: What we hope is an official list of host names
280:: :: Draft of host names
273:: :: More on standard host names
247:: :: Proffered set of standard host names
237:: :: NIC view of standard host names
236:: :: Standard host names
233:: :: Standardization of host call letters
229:: :: Standard host names
226:: :: Standardization of host mnemonics
=====================================================================
Network Management
2128:: PS:: Dial Control Management Information Base using SMIv2
2127:: PS:: ISDN Management Information Base
2124:: I:: Light-weight Flow Admission Protocol Specification
Version 1.0
2108:: PS:: Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.3 Repeater
Devices using SMIv2
2096:: PS:: IP Forwarding Table MIB
2089:: I:: V2ToV1 Mapping SNMPv2 onto SNMPv1 within a bi-lingual
SNMP agent
2074:: PS:: Remote Network Monitoring MIB Protocol Identifiers
2064:: E:: Traffic Flow Measurement
2063:: E:: Traffic Flow Measurement
2051:: PS:: Definitions of Managed Objects for APPC
2041:: I:: Mobile Network Tracing
2039:: I:: Applicability of Standards Track MIBs to Management
of World Wide Web Servers
2037:: PS:: Entity MIB
2024:: PS:: Definitions of Managed Objects for Data Link Switching
using SNMPv2
2021:: PS:: Remote Network Monitoring Management Information
Base Version 2 using SMIv2
2020:: PS:: Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.12 Interfaces
2013:: PS:: SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the User
Datagram Protocol using SMIv2
2012:: PS:: SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the
Transmission Control Protocol
2011:: PS:: SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the Internet
Protocol using SMIv2
2006:: PS:: The Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Mobility
Support using SMIv2
1944:: I:: Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices
1910:: E:: User-based Security Model for SNMPv2
1909:: E:: An Administrative Infrastructure for SNMPv2
1908:: DS:: Coexistence between Version 1 and Version 2 of the
Internet-standard Network Management Framework
1907:: DS:: Management Information Base for Version 2 of the
Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
1906:: DS:: Transport Mappings for Version 2 of the Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
1905:: DS:: Protocol Operations for Version 2 of the Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
1904:: DS:: Conformance Statements for Version 2 of the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
1903:: DS:: Textual Conventions for Version 2 of the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
1902:: DS:: Structure of Management Information for Version 2 of
the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
1901:: E:: Introduction to Community-based SNMPv2
1857:: I:: A Model for Common Operational Statistics
1856:: I:: The Opstat Client-Server Model for Statistics Retrieval
1850:: DS:: OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base
1792:: E:: TCP/IPX Connection Mib Specification
1759:: PS:: Printer MIB
1757:: DS:: Remote Network Monitoring Management Information Base
1749:: PS:: IEEE 802.5 Station Source Routing MIB using SMIv2
1748:: DS:: IEEE 802.5 MIB using SMIv2
1747:: PS:: Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA Data Link Control
1743:: DS:: IEEE 802.5 MIB using SMIv2
1742:: PS:: AppleTalk Management Information Base II
1724:: DS:: RIP Version 2 MIB Extension
1697:: PS:: Relational Database Management System (RDBMS)
Management Information Base (MIB) using SMIv2
1696:: PS:: Modem Management Information Base (MIB) using SMIv2
1695:: PS:: Definitions of Managed Objects for ATM Management
Version 8.0 using SMIv2
1694:: DS:: Definitions of Managed Objects for SMDS Interfaces
using SMIv2
1666:: PS:: Definitions of Managed Obje