faqs.org - Internet FAQ Archives

RFC 3795 - Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF A


Or Display the document by number




Network Working Group                                           R. Sofia
Request for Comments: 3795                                 P. Nesser, II
Category: Informational                       Nesser & Nesser Consulting
                                                               June 2004

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

Status of this Memo

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

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).

Abstract

   This document describes IPv4 addressing dependencies in an attempt to
   clarify the necessary steps in re-designing and re-implementing
   specifications to become network address independent, or at least, to
   dually support IPv4 and IPv6.  This transition requires several
   interim steps, one of them being the evolution of current IPv4
   dependent specifications to a format independent of the type of IP
   addressing schema used.  Hence, it is hoped that specifications will
   be re-designed and re-implemented to become network address
   independent, or at least to dually support IPv4 and IPv6.

   To achieve that step, it is necessary to survey and document all IPv4
   dependencies experienced by current standards (Full, Draft, and
   Proposed) as well as Experimental RFCs.  Hence, this document
   describes IPv4 addressing dependencies that deployed IETF Application
   Area documented Standards may experience.

Table of Contents

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

1.  Introduction

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

2.  Document Organization

   The remainder sections are organized as follows.  Sections 3, 4, 5,
   and 6 describe, respectively, the raw analysis of Internet Standards
   [2]:

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

3.  Full Standards

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

3.1.  RFC854: Telnet Protocol Specifications

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.2.  RFC 855: Telnet Option Specifications

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.3.  RFC 856: Binary Transmission Telnet Option

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.4.  RFC 857: Echo Telnet Option

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.5.  RFC 858: Suppress Go Ahead Telnet Option

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.6.  RFC 859: Status Telnet Option

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.7.  RFC 860: Timing Mark Telnet Option

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.8.  RFC 861: Extended Options List Telnet Option

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.9.  RFC 862: Echo Protocol

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.10.  RFC 863: Discard Protocol

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.11.  RFC 864: Character Generator Protocol

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.12.  RFC 865: Quote of the Day Protocol

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.13.  RFC 866: Active Users Protocol

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.14.  RFC 867: Daytime Protocol

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.15.  RFC 868: Time Server Protocol

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.16.  RFC 959: File Transfer Protocol

   Section 4.1.2 (TRANSFER PARAMETER COMMANDS) describes the port
   command using the following format:

     "A port command would be:
         PORT h1,h2,h3,h4,p1,p2
         where h1 is the high order 8 bits of the internet host
         address."

   This is a clear reference to an IPv4 address.  In sections 4.2.1 and
   4.2.2, on reply codes, the code:

     "227 Entering Passive Mode (h1,h2,h3,h4,p1,p2)"

   also needs to be reworked for IPv6 addressing.  Also, Section 5.3.2
   (FTP COMMAND ARGUMENTS) contains:

      "<host-number> ::= <number>,<number>,<number>,<number>
       <port-number> ::= <number>,<number>
       <number> ::= any decimal integer 1 through 255"

   This needs to be solved to transition to IPv6.

3.17.  RFC 1350: Trivial File Transfer Protocol

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.18.  RFC 1870: SMTP Service Extension for Message Size
       Declaration

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.19.  RFC 1939: Post Office Protocol - Version 3

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

3.20.  RFC 2920: SMTP Service Extension for Command Pipelining

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.  Draft Standards

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

4.1.  RFC 954: NICNAME/WHOIS

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.2.  RFC 1184: Telnet Linemode Option

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.3.  RFC 1288: The Finger User Information Protocol

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   Section 3.2.1 (Common Variables) provides the following variable
   definitions:

      "Peer Address (peer.peeraddr, pkt.peeraddr), Peer Port
      (peer.peerport, pkt.peerport): These are the 32-bit Internet
      address and 16-bit port number of the peer.

      Host Address (peer.hostaddr, pkt.hostaddr), Host Port
      (peer.hostport, pkt.hostport): These are the 32-bit Internet
      address and 16-bit port number of the host.  They are included
      among the state variables to support multi-homing."

   Section 3.4.3 (Receive Procedure) defines the following procedure:

      "The source and destination Internet addresses and ports in the IP
      and UDP headers are matched to the correct peer.  If there is no
      match a new instantiation of the protocol machine is created and
      the association mobilized."

   Section 3.6 (Access Control Issues) proposes a simple authentication
   scheme in the following way:

      "If a more comprehensive trust model is required, the design can
      be based on an access-control list with each entry consisting of a
      32-bit Internet address, 32-bit mask and three-bit mode.  If the
      logical AND of the source address (pkt.peeraddr) and the mask in
      an entry matches the corresponding address in the entry and the
      mode (pkt.mode) matches the mode in the entry, the access is
      allowed; otherwise an ICMP error message is returned to the
      requestor.  Through appropriate choice of mask, it is possible to
      restrict requests by mode to individual addresses, a particular
      subnet or net addresses, or have no restriction at all.  The
      access-control list would then serve as a filter controlling which
      peers could create associations."

   Appendix B Section 3 (B.3 Commands) defines the following command:

      "Set Trap Address/Port (6): The command association identifier,
      status and data fields are ignored.  The address and port number
      for subsequent trap messages are taken from the source address and
      port of the control message itself.  The initial trap counter for
      trap response messages is taken from the sequence field of the
      command.  The response association identifier, status and data
      fields are not significant.  Implementations should include sanity
      timeouts which prevent trap transmissions if the monitoring
      program does not renew this information after a lengthy interval."

   The address clearly assumes the IPv4 version.  Also, there are
   numerous places in sample code and in algorithms that use the above
   mentioned variables.  It seems that there is no reason to modify the
   actual protocol.  A small number of textual changes and an update to
   implementations, so they can understand both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses,
   will suffice to have a NTP version that works on both network layer
   protocols.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.7.  RFC 1832: eXternal Data Representation Standard

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.8.  RFC 2045: Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME),
      Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.10.  RFC 2047: MIME, Part Three: Message Header Extensions
       for Non-ASCII Text

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.13.  RFC 2347: TFTP Option Extension

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.14.  RFC 2348: TFTP Blocksize Option

   Section "Blocksize Option Specification" gives the following example:

      "For example:

         +-------+--------+---+--------+---+--------+---+--------+---+
         |   1   | foobar | 0 | octet  | 0 | blksize| 0 |  1428  | 0 |
         +-------+--------+---+--------+---+--------+---+--------+---+

      is a Read Request, for the file named "foobar", in octet (binary)
      transfer mode, with a block size of 1428 octets (Ethernet MTU,
      less the TFTP, UDP and IP header lengths)."

   Clearly, the given blocksize example would not work with IPv6 header
   sizes, but it has no practical implications, since larger blocksizes
   are also available.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.16.  RFC 2355: TN3270 Enhancements

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   Section 3.2.2. (Server-based Naming Authority) states:

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

4.18.  RFC 2616: Hypertext Transfer Protocol HTTP/1.1

   Section 3.2.2 (http URL) states:

      "The "http" scheme is used to locate network resources via the
      HTTP protocol.  This section defines the scheme-specific syntax
      and semantics for http URLs.

     http_URL = "http:" "//" host [ ":" port ] [ abs_path [ "?" query ]]

      If the port is empty or not given, port 80 is assumed.  The
      semantics are that the identified resource is located at the
      server listening for TCP connections on that port of that host,
      and the Request-URI for the resource is abs_path (section 5.1.2).
      The use of IP addresses in URLs SHOULD be avoided whenever
      possible (see RFC 1900 [24])."

   The text is version neutral, but it is unclear whether individual
   implementations will support IPv6 addresses.  In fact, the use of the
   ":"separator in IPv6 addresses will cause misinterpretation when
   parsing URI's.  There are other discussions regarding a server
   recognizing its own IP addresses, spoofing DNS/IP address
   combinations, as well as issues regarding multiple HTTP servers
   running on a single IP interface.  Again, the text is version
   neutral, but clearly, such statements represent implementation
   issues.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.21.  RFC 3282: Content Language Headers

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.22.  RFC 3461: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Service
       Extension for Delivery Status Notifications

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.23.  RFC 3462: The Multipart/Report Content Type for the
       Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.24.  RFC 3463: Enhanced Mail System Status Codes

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.  Proposed Standards

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

5.1.  RFC 698: Telnet extended ASCII option

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.2.  RFC 726: Remote Controlled Transmission and Echoing Telnet
      option

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.3.  RFC 727: Telnet logout option

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.4.  RFC 735: Revised Telnet byte macro option

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.5.  RFC 736: Telnet SUPDUP option

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.6.  RFC 749: Telnet SUPDUP-Output option

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.7.  RFC 779: Telnet send-location option

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.8.  RFC 885: Telnet end of record option

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.9.  RFC 927: TACACS user identification Telnet option

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.10.  RFC 933: Output marking Telnet option

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.11.  RFC 946: Telnet terminal location number option

   Section "TTYLOC Number" states:

      "The TTYLOC number is a 64-bit number composed of two (2) 32-bit
      numbers: The 32-bit official ARPA Internet host address (may be
      any one of the addresses for multi-homed hosts) and a 32-bit
      number representing the terminal on the specified host.  The host
      address of [0.0.0.0] is defined to be "unknown", the terminal
      number of FFFFFFFF (hex, r or-1 in decimal) is defined to be
      "unknown" and the terminal number of FFFFFFFE (hex, or -2 in
      decimal) is defined to be "detached" for processes that are not
      attached to a terminal."

   The clear reference to 32-bit numbers, and to the use of literal
   addresses in the form [0.0.0.0] is clearly an IPv4-dependency.  Thus,
   the text above needs to be re-written.

5.12.  RFC 977: Network News Transfer Protocol

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.13.  RFC 1041: Telnet 3270 regime option

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.15.  RFC 1053: Telnet X.3 PAD option

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.16.  RFC 1073: Telnet window size option

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.17.  RFC 1079: Telnet terminal speed option

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.18.  RFC 1091: Telnet terminal-type option

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.19.  RFC 1096: Telnet X display location option

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.21.  RFC 1276: Replication and Distributed Operations extensions
       to provide an Internet Directory using X.500

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.24.  RFC 1372: Telnet Remote Flow Control Option

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.25.  RFC 1415: FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification

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

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.27.  RFC 1496: Rules for downgrading messages from X.400/88 to
       X.400/84 when MIME content-types are present in the messages

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.29.  RFC 1572: Telnet Environment Option

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.31.  RFC 1738: Uniform Resource Locators

   Section 3.1. (Common Internet Scheme Syntax) states:

     "host
         The fully qualified domain name of a network host, or its IP
         address as a set of four decimal digit groups separated by ".".
         Fully qualified domain names take the form as described in
         Section 3.5 of RFC 1034 [13] and Section 2.1 of RFC 1123 [4]: a
         sequence of domain labels separated by ".", each domain label
         starting and ending with an alphanumerical character and
         possibly also containing "-" characters.  The rightmost domain
         label will never start with a digit, though, which
         syntactically distinguishes all domain names from the IP
         addresses."

   Clearly, this is only valid when using IPv4 addresses.  Later in
   Section 5. (BNF for specific URL schemes), there is the following
   text:

      "; URL schemeparts for ip based protocols:

       ip-schemepart  = "//" login [ "/" urlpath ]

       login          = [ user [ ":" password ] "@" ] hostport
       hostport       = host [ ":" port ]
       host           = hostname | hostnumber"

   Again, this also has implications in terms of IP-version neutrality.

5.32.  RFC 1740: MIME Encapsulation of Macintosh Files -
       MacMIME

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.33.  RFC 1767: MIME Encapsulation of EDI Objects

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.34.  RFC 1808: Relative Uniform Resource Locators

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   Section 6.5. (Query referral) makes the following statement:

      "When referrals are included in the body of a response to a query,
      each referral is listed in a separate SERVER-TO-ASK block as shown
      below.

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

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

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

   Section 4 (Caching) states the following:

      "A client can cache all information it gets from a server for some
      time.  For example records, IP-addresses of Whois++ servers, the
      Directory of Services server etc.

      A client can itself choose for how long it should cache the
      information.

      The IP-address of the Directory of Services server might not
      change for a day or two, and neither might any other information."

   Also, subsection 4.1. (Caching a Whois++ servers hostname) contains:

      "An example of cached information that might change is the cached
      hostname, IP-address and portnumber which a client gets back in a
      servers-to-ask response.  That information is cached in the server
      since the last poll, which might occurred several weeks ago.
      Therefore, when such a connection fails, the client should fall
      back to use the serverhandle instead, which means that it contacts
      the Directory of Services server and queries for a server with
      that serverhandle.  By doing this, the client should always get
      the last known hostname.

      An algorithm for this might be:

         response := servers-to-ask response from server A
         IP-address := find ip-address for response.hostname in DNS
         connect to ip-address at port response.portnumber
         if connection fails {
            connect to Directory of Services server
            query for host with serverhandle response.serverhandle
            response := response from Directory of Services server
            IP-address := find ip-address for response.hostname in DNS
            connect to ip-address at port response.portnumber
            if connection fails {
                exit with error message
            }
          }
          Query this new server"

   The paragraph does not contain IPv4 specific syntax.  Hence, IPv6
   compliance will be implementation dependent.

5.38.  RFC 1985: SMTP Service Extension for Remote Message
       Queue Starting

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.40.  RFC 2034: SMTP Service Extension for Returning Enhanced
       Error Codes

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.42.  RFC 2077: The Model Primary Content Type for
       Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.43.  RFC 2079: Definition of an X.500 Attribute Type and an
       Object Class to Hold Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.44.  RFC 2086: IMAP4 ACL extension

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.45.  RFC 2087: IMAP4 QUOTA extension

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.46.  RFC 2088: IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.47.  RFC 2122: VEMMI URL Specification

   Section 3 (Description of the VEMMI scheme) states:

      "The VEMMI URL scheme is used to designate multimedia interactive
      services conforming to the VEMMI standard (ITU/T T.107 and ETS 300
      709).

      A VEMMI URL takes the form:
          vemmi://<host>:<port>/<vemmiservice>;
          <attribute>=<value>

      as specified in Section 3.1. of RFC 1738.  If :<port> is omitted,
      the port defaults to 575 (client software may choose to ignore the
      optional port number in order to increase security).  The
      <vemmiservice> part is optional and may be omitted."

   IPv4 dependencies may relate to the possibility of the <host> portion
   containing an IPv4 address, as defined in RFC 1738 (see section 5.31.
   above).  Once the problem is solved in the context of RFC 1738, this
   issue will be automatically solved.

5.48.  RFC 2141: URN Syntax

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.50.  RFC 2156: MIXER (Mime Internet X.400 Enhanced Relay):
       Mapping between X.400 and RFC 822/MIME

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.52.  RFC 2158: X.400 Image Body Parts

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.53.  RFC 2159: A MIME Body Part for FAX

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.55.  RFC 2163: Using the Internet DNS to Distribute MIXER
       Conformant Global Address Mapping

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.57.  RFC 2165: Service Location Protocol

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

      "The previous responders' Address Specification is specified as

        <Previous Responders' Address Specification> ::=
               <addr-spec> |
               <addr-spec>, <Previous Responders' Address Specification>

      i.e., a list separated by commas with no intervening white space.
      The Address Specification is the address of the Directory Agent or
      Service Agent which supplied the previous response.  The format
      for Address Specifications in Service Location is defined in
      section 20.4.  The comma delimiter is required between each
      <addr-spec>.  The use of dotted decimal IP address notation should
      only be used in environments which have no Domain Name Service."

   Later, in Section 20.4. (Address Specification in Service Location)
   there is also the following reference to addr-spec:

      "The address specification used in Service Location is:

      <addr-spec> ::= [<user>:<password>@]<host>[:<port>]

        <host>      ::= Fully qualified domain name |
                        dotted decimal IP address notation

      When no Domain Name Server is available, SAs and DAs must use
      dotted decimal conventions for IP addresses.  Otherwise, it is
      preferable to use a fully qualified domain name wherever possible
      as renumbering of host addresses will make IP addresses invalid
      over time."

   The whole Section 21. (Protocol Requirements) defines the
   requirements for each of the elements of this protocol.  Several IPv4
   statements are made, but the syntax used is sufficiently neutral to
   apply to the use of IPv6.

   Section 22. (Configurable Parameters and Default Values) states:

      "There are several configuration parameters for Service Location.
      Default values are chosen to allow protocol operation without the
      need for selection of these configuration parameters, but other
      values may be selected by the site administrator.  The
      configurable parameters will allow an implementation of Service
      Location to be more useful in a variety of scenarios.

      Multicast vs.  Broadcast
            All Service Location entities must use multicast by default.
            The ability to use broadcast messages must be configurable
            for UAs and SAs.  Broadcast messages are to be used in
            environments where not all Service Location entities have
            hardware or software which supports multicast.

      Multicast Radius
            Multicast requests should be sent to all subnets in a site.
            The default multicast radius for a site is 32.  This value
            must be configurable.  The value for the site's multicast
            TTL may be obtained from DHCP using an option which is
            currently unassigned."

   Once again, nothing here precludes IPv6, Section 23.

   (Non-configurable Parameters) states:

      "IP Port number for unicast requests to Directory Agents:

            UDP and TCP Port Number:                          427

      Multicast Addresses

            Service Location General Multicast Address:       224.0.1.22
            Directory Agent Discovery Multicast Address:      224.0.1.35

      A range of 1024 contiguous multicast addresses for use as Service
      Specific Discovery Multicast Addresses will be assigned by IANA."

   Clearly, the statements above require specifications related to the
   use of IPv6 multicast addresses with equivalent functionality.

5.58.  RFC 2177: IMAP4 IDLE command

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.59.  RFC 2183: Communicating Presentation Information in
       Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition Header Field

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.60.  RFC 2192: IMAP URL Scheme

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

5.61.  RFC 2193: IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals

   Section 6. (Formal Syntax) presents the following statement:

      "referral_response_code = "[" "REFERRAL" 1*(SPACE <url>) "]"; See
      [RFC-1738] for <url> definition"

   The above presents dependencies on RFC 1738 URL definitions, which
   have already been mentioned in this document, section 5.31.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.63.  RFC 2221: IMAP4 Login Referrals

   Section 4.1. (LOGIN and AUTHENTICATE Referrals) provides the
   following example:

      "Example:  C: A001 LOGIN MIKE PASSWORD
                 S: A001 NO [REFERRAL IMAP://MIKE@SERVER2/] Specified
                         user is invalid on this server. Try SERVER2."

   Even though the syntax "user@SERVER2" is presented often, there are
   no specifications related to the format of "SERVER2".  Hence, it is
   up to individual implementations to determine acceptable values for
   the hostname.  This may or not include explicit IPv6 addresses.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.65.  RFC 2231: MIME Parameter Value and Encoded Word
       Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and Continuations

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.67.  RFC 2244: Application Configuration Access Protocol

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.71.  RFC 2253: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3):
       UTF-8 String Representation of Distinguished Names

   Section 7.1. (Disclosure) states:

      "Distinguished Names typically consist of descriptive information
      about the entries they name, which can be people, organizations,
      devices or other real-world objects.  This frequently includes
      some of the following kinds of information:

      - the common name of the object (i.e., a person's full name)
      - an email or TCP/IP address
      - its physical location (country, locality, city, street address)
      - organizational attributes (such as department name or
        affiliation)"

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

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.73.  RFC 2255: The LDAP URL Format

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

5.74.  RFC 2256: A Summary of the X.500(96) User Schema for use
       with LDAPv3

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.76.  RFC 2294: Representing the O/R Address hierarchy in the
       X.500 Directory Information Tree

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.77.  RFC 2298: An Extensible Message Format for Message
       Disposition Notifications

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.78.  RFC 2301: File Format for Internet Fax

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.80.  RFC 2334: Server Cache Synchronization Protocol

   Appendix B, part 2.0.1 (Mandatory Common Part) states:

     "Cache Key
         This is a database lookup key that uniquely identifies a piece
         of data which the originator of a CSA Record wishes to
         synchronize with its peers for a given "Protocol ID/Server
         Group ID" pair.  This key will generally be a small opaque byte
         string which SCSP will associate with a given piece of data in
         a cache.  Thus, for example, an originator might assign a
         particular 4 byte string to the binding of an IP address with
         that of an ATM address.  Generally speaking, the originating
         server of a CSA record is responsible for generating a Cache
         Key for every element of data that the given server originates
         and which the server wishes to synchronize with its peers in
         the SG."

   The statement above is simply meant as an example.  Hence, any IPv4
   possible dependency of this protocol is an implementation issue.

5.81.  RFC 2342: IMAP4 Namespace

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.82.  RFC 2359: IMAP4 UIDPLUS extension

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.83.  RFC 2368: The mailto URL scheme

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.84.  RFC 2369: The Use of URLs as Meta-Syntax for Core Mail
       List Commands and their Transport through Message Header Fields

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.85.  RFC 2371: Transaction Internet Protocol Version 3.0

   In section 7. (TIP Transaction Manager Identification and Connection
   Establishment):

      "The <hostport> component comprises:

         <host>[:<port>]

      where <host> is either a <dns name> or an <ip address>; and <port>
      is a decimal number specifying the port at which the transaction
      manager (or proxy) is listening for requests to establish TIP
      connections.  If the port number is omitted, the standard TIP port
      number (3372) is used.

      A <dns name> is a standard name, acceptable to the domain name
      service.  It must be sufficiently qualified to be useful to the
      receiver of the command.

      An <ip address> is an IP address, in the usual form: four decimal
      numbers separated by period characters."

   This section has to be re-written to become IP-version neutral.
   Besides adding a reference to the use of IPv6 addresses, the "host"
   field should only be defined as a "dns name".  However, if the use of
   literal IP addresses is to be included, the format specified in RFC
   2372 has to be followed.

   Later in section 8. (TIP Uniform Resource Locators):

      "A TIP URL takes the form:

         tip://<transaction manager address>?<transaction string>

      where <transaction manager address> identifies the TIP transaction
      manager (as defined in Section 7 above); and <transaction string>
      specifies a transaction identifier, which may take one of two
      forms (standard or non-standard):

      i. "urn:" <NID> ":" <NSS>

         A standard transaction identifier, conforming to the proposed
         Internet Standard for Uniform Resource Names (URNs), as
         specified by RFC2141; where <NID> is the Namespace Identifier,
         and <NSS> is the Namespace Specific String.  The Namespace ID
         determines the syntactic interpretation of the Namespace
         Specific String.  The Namespace Specific String is a sequence
         of characters representing a transaction identifier (as defined
         by <NID>).  The rules for the contents of these fields are
         specified by [6] (valid characters, encoding, etc.).

         This format of <transaction string> may be used to express
         global transaction identifiers in terms of standard
         representations.  Examples for <NID> might be <iso> or <xopen>.
         e.g.,

            tip://123.123.123.123/?urn:xopen:xid

         Note that Namespace Ids require registration.  See [7] for
         details on how to do this."

   There are other references in section 8, regarding the use of literal
   IP addresses.  Therefore, this section also needs to be re-written,
   and special care should be taken to avoid the use of IP (either IPv4
   or IPv6) literal addresses.  However, if such use is exemplified, the
   format specified in RFC 2732 has to be respected.

5.86.  RFC 2384: POP URL Scheme

   Section 3. (POP Scheme) states:

      "A POP URL is of the general form:

           pop://<user>;auth=<auth>@<host>:<port>

      Where <user>, <host>, and <port> are as defined in RFC 1738, and
      some or all of the elements, except "pop://" and <host>, may be
      omitted."

   RFC 1738 (please refer to section 5.31) has a potential IPv4
   limitation.  Hence, RFC 2384 will only be IPv6 compliant when RFC
   1738 becomes properly updated.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.89.  RFC 2389: Feature negotiation mechanism for the File
       Transfer Protocol

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.90.  RFC 2392: Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource
       Locators (CIDMID-URL)

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.91.  RFC 2397: The "data" URL scheme

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.95.  RFC 2424: Content Duration MIME Header Definition

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.97.  RFC 2426: vCard MIME Directory Profile

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.98.  RFC 2428: FTP Extensions for IPv6 and NATs

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

5.99.  RFC 2445: Internet Calendaring and Scheduling Core Object
       Specification (iCalendar)

   Section 4.8.4.7 (Unique Identifier) states:

      "Property Name: UID

      Purpose: This property defines the persistent, globally unique
      identifier for the calendar component.

      Value Type: TEXT

      Property Parameters: Non-standard property parameters can be
      specified on this property.

      Conformance: The property MUST be specified in the "VEVENT",
      "VTODO", "VJOURNAL" or "VFREEBUSY" calendar components.

      Description: The UID itself MUST be a globally unique identifier.
      The generator of the identifier MUST guarantee that the identifier
      is unique.  There are several algorithms that can be used to
      accomplish this.  The identifier is RECOMMENDED to be the
      identical syntax to the [RFC 822] addr-spec.  A good method to
      assure uniqueness is to put the domain name or a domain literal IP
      address of the host on which the identifier was created on the
      right hand side of the "@", and on the left hand side, put a
      combination of the current calendar date and time of day (i.e.,
      formatted in as a DATE-TIME value) along with some other currently
      unique (perhaps sequential) identifier available on the system
      (for example, a process id number).  Using a date/time value on
      the left hand side and a domain name or domain literal on the
      right hand side makes it possible to guarantee uniqueness since no
      two hosts should be using the same domain name or IP address at
      the same time.  Though other algorithms will work, it is
      RECOMMENDED that the right hand side contain some domain
      identifier (either of the host itself or otherwise) such that the
      generator of the message identifier can guarantee the uniqueness
      of the left hand side within the scope of that domain."

   Although the above does not explicitly state the use of IPv4
   addresses, it addresses the explicit use of RFC 822 (obsoleted by RFC
   2822).  To become IPv6 compliant it should follow the guidelines for
   RFC 2822 (see section 5.129).

5.100.  RFC 2446: iCalendar Transport-Independent Interoperability
        Protocol (iTIP) Scheduling Events, BusyTime, To-dos and
        Journal Entries

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.101.  RFC 2447: iCalendar Message-Based Interoperability
        Protocol (iMIP)

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.102.  RFC 2449: POP3 Extension Mechanism

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.103.  RFC 2476: Message Submission

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

5.104.  RFC 2480: Gateways and MIME Security Multiparts

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.105.  RFC 2518: HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.106.  RFC 2530: Indicating Supported Media Features Using
        Extensions to DSN and MDN

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.107.  RFC 2532: Extended Facsimile Using Internet Mail

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.110.  RFC 2554: SMTP Service Extension for Authentication

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.111.  RFC 2557: MIME Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents,
        such as HTML

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.112.  RFC 2589: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3):
        Extensions for Dynamic Directory Services

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.114.  RFC 2596: Use of Language Codes in LDAP

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.115.  RFC 2608: Service Location Protocol, Version 2

   Section 8.1. (Service Request) contains the following:

      "
       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |       Service Location header (function = SrvRqst = 1)        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |      length of <PRList>       |        <PRList> String        \
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   length of <service-type>    |    <service-type> String      \
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    length of <scope-list>     |     <scope-list> String       \
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  length of predicate string   |  Service Request <predicate>  \
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  length of <SLP SPI> string   |       <SLP SPI> String        \
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

         ...

      <PRList> is the Previous Responder List.  This <string-list>
      contains dotted decimal notation IP (v4) addresses, and is
      iteratively multicast to obtain all possible results (see Section
      6.3).  UAs SHOULD implement this discovery algorithm.  SAs MUST
      use this to discover all available DAs in their scope, if they are
      not already configured with DA addresses by some other means."

   And later:

      "A SA silently drops all requests which include the SA's address
      in the <PRList>.  An SA which has multiple network interfaces MUST
      check if any of the entries in the <PRList> equal any of its
      interfaces.  An entry in the PRList which does not conform to an
      IPv4 dotted decimal address is ignored:  The rest of the <PRList>
      is processed normally and an error is not returned."

   To become IPv6 compliant, this protocol requires a new version.

5.116.  RFC 2609: Service Templates and Service: Schemes

   Section 2.1. (Service URL Syntax) defines:

      "The ABNF for a service: URL is:

         hostnumber      =   ipv4-number
         ipv4-number     =   1*3DIGIT 3("." 1*3DIGIT)"

   This document presents many other references to hostnumber, which
   requires an update to support IPv6.

5.117.  RFC 2640: Internationalization of the File Transfer Protocol

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.118.  RFC 2645: ON-DEMAND MAIL RELAY (ODMR) SMTP
        with Dynamic IP Addresses

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.119.  RFC 2646: The Text/Plain Format Parameter

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.120.  RFC 2651: The Architecture of the Common Indexing
        Protocol (CIP)

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.121.  RFC 2652: MIME Object Definitions for the Common
        Indexing Protocol

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.122.  RFC 2653: CIP Transport Protocols

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

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

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.125.  RFC 2739: Calendar Attributes for vCard and LDAP

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.126.  RFC 2806: URLs for Telephone Calls

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.127.  RFC 2821: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol

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

5.128.  RFC 2822: Internet Message Format

   Section 3.4.1 (Addr-spec specification) contains:

      "The domain portion identifies the point to which the mail is
      delivered.  In the dot-atom form, this is interpreted as an
      Internet domain name (either a host name or a mail exchanger name)
      as described in [STD3, STD13, STD14].  In the domain-literal form,
      the domain is interpreted as the literal Internet address of the
      particular host.  In both cases, how addressing is used and how
      messages are transported to a particular host is covered in the
      mail transport document [RFC2821].  These mechanisms are outside
      of the scope of this document.

      The local-part portion is a domain dependent string.  In
      addresses, it is simply interpreted on the particular host as a
      name of a particular mailbox."

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

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.131.  RFC 2852: Deliver By SMTP Service Extension

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.136.  RFC 2912: Indicating Media Features for MIME Content

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.137.  RFC 2913: MIME Content Types in Media Feature
        Expressions

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.138.  RFC 2919: List-Id: A Structured Field and Namespace for
        the Identification of Mailing Lists

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.139.  RFC 2938: Identifying Composite Media Features

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.140.  RFC 2965: HTTP State Management Mechanism

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

5.141.  RFC 2971: IMAP4 ID extension

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.142.  RFC 2987: Registration of Charset and Languages Media
        Features Tags

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.143.  RFC 3009: Registration of parityfec MIME types

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   Section 6.2.1. (DNS Server Address) states:

      "The dnsServerAddress element represents the IP address of the
      Domain Name Service (DNS) server which should be used when
      connected to this POP.

      The address is represented in the form of a string in dotted-
      decimal notation (e.g., 192.168.101.1).

      Syntax:
         <!-- Domain Name Server IP address -->
         <!ELEMENT dnsServerAddress (#PCDATA)>
         <!ATTLIST dnsServerAddress
                 value NOTATION (IPADR) #IMPLIED>"

   Additionally, it is stated in Section 6.2.9. (Default Gateway
   Address):

      "The defaulttGatewayAddress element represents the address of the
      default gateway which should be used when connected to this POP.
      The address is represented in the form of a string in dotted-
      decimal notation (e.g., 192.168.101.1).

      Syntax:
        <!-- Default Gateway IP address (in dotted decimal notation) -->
        <!ELEMENT defaultGatewayAddress (#PCDATA)>
        <!ATTLIST defaultGatewayAddress
                value NOTATION (IPADR) #IMPLIED>"

   It should be straightforward to implement elements that are IPv6
   aware.

5.145.  RFC 3023: XML Media Types

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.146.  RFC 3028: Sieve: A Mail Filtering Language

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.147.  RFC 3030: SMTP Service Extensions for Transmission of
        Large and Binary MIME Messages

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.148.  RFC 3049: TN3270E Service Location and Session
        Balancing

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.150.  RFC 3080: The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core
        (BEEP)

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.151.  RFC 3081: Mapping the BEEP Core onto TCP

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.152.  RFC 3111: Service Location Protocol Modifications for IPv6

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

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

5.154.  RFC 3404: Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
        Part Four: The Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)
        Resolution Application

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

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.  Experimental RFCs

   Experimental RFCs belong to the category of "non-standard"
   specifications.  This group involves specifications considered "off-
   track", e.g., specifications that haven't yet reach an adequate
   standardization level, or that have been superseded by more recent
   specifications.

   Experimental RFCs represent specifications that are currently part of
   some research effort, and that are often propriety in nature, or used
   in limited arenas.  They are documented to the Internet community in
   order to allow potential interoperability or some other potential
   useful scenario.  In a few cases, they are presented as alternatives
   to the mainstream solution of an acknowledged problem.

6.1.  RFC 887: Resource Location Protocol

   Section 3.1 (Request Messages) contains:

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

      though, may never return an IP address for a resource which is the
      same as an IP address listed with the resource name in the request
      message.  In this case it must treat the resource as if it was
      unsupported at that IP address and omit it from any reply list.

   <Does-Anyone-Provide?>
      This message parallels the <Do-You-Provide?> message again with
      the "third-party" variant described above.  As before, the
      confirming host is required to return its own IP address as well
      as the IP addresses of any other hosts it believes may provide the
      named resource and is prohibited from returning the same IP
      address in the reply resource specifier as was listed in the
      request resource specifier.  As in the <Do-You-Provide?> case and
      for the same reason, this message also may not be broadcast."

   Throughout this section, there are several other references to IP
   address.  To avoid ambiguity, a reference to IPv6 addressing should
   be added.

   Section 4.1. (Resource Lists) presents the following qualifier
   format:

      "In addition, resource specifiers in all <Who-Anywhere-Provides?>,
      <Does-Anyone-Provide?> and <They-Provide> messages also contain an
      additional qualifier following the <Protocol-ID>.  This qualifier
      has the format

                   +--------+--------+--------+--------+---//---+
                   |        |                                   |
                   |IPLength|          IP-Address-List          |
                   |        |                                   |
                   +--------+--------+--------+--------+---//---+

      where

      <IPLength>
         is the number of IP addresses containing in the following <IP-
         Address-List> (the <IP-Address-List> field thus occupies the
         last 4*<IPLength> octets in its resource specifier).  In
         request messages, this is the maximum number of qualifying
         addresses which may be included in the corresponding reply
         resource specifier.  Although not particularly useful, it may
         be 0 and in that case provides no space for qualifying the
         resource name with IP addresses in the returned specifier.  In
         reply messages, this is the number of qualifying addresses
         known to provide the resource.  It may not exceed the number
         specified in the corresponding request specifier.  This field
         may not be 0 in a reply message unless it was supplied as 0 in

         the request message and the confirming host would have returned
         one or more IP addresses had any space been provided.

      <IP-Address-List>
         is a list of four-octet IP addresses used to qualify the
         resource specifier with respect to those particular addresses.
         In reply messages, these are the IP addresses of the confirming
         host (when appropriate) and the addresses of any other hosts
         known to provide that resource (subject to the list length
         limitations).  In request messages, these are the IP addresses
         of hosts for which resource information may not be returned.
         In such messages, these addresses should normally be
         initialized to some "harmless" value (such as the address of
         the querying host) unless it is intended to specifically
         exclude the supplied addresses from consideration in any reply
         messages."

   This section requires re-writing considering the 128-bit length of
   IPv6 addresses, and will clearly impact implementations.

6.2.  RFC 909: Loader Debugger Protocol (LDP)

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   The only dependency this protocol presents is included in Appendix A
   (ROS Header Format):

      "ClockIdentifier ::= CHOICE {
                        referenceClock[0] PrintableString,
                        inetaddr[1] OCTET STRING,
                        psapaddr[2] OCTET STRING
        }"

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.7.  RFC 1204: Message Posting Protocol

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.8.  RFC 1235: Coherent File Distribution Protocol

   Section "Protocol Specification" provides the following example, for
   the Initial Handshake:

      "The ticket server replies with a "This is Your Ticket" (TIYT)
      packet containing the ticket.  Figure 2 shows the format of this
      packet.

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |      'T'      |      'I'      |      'Y'      |      'T'      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                           "ticket"                            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                       BLKSZ (by default 512)                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                             FILSZ                             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            IP address of CFDP server (network order)          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   client UDP port# (cfdpcln)  |   server UDP port# (cfdpsrv)  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Fig. 2: "This Is Your Ticket" packet."

   This protocol assumes IPv4 multicast, but could be converted to IPv6
   multicast with a little effort.

6.9.  RFC 1279: X.500 and Domains

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

6.10.  RFC 1312: Message Send Protocol 2

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.11.  RFC 1339: Remote Mail Checking Protocol

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.13.  RFC 1459: Internet Relay Chat Protocol

   There are only two specific IPv4 addressing references.  The first is
   presented in Section 6.2. (Command Response):

      "203     RPL_TRACEUNKNOWN
                       "???? <class> [<client IP address in dot form>]""

   The second appears in Section 8.12 (Configuration File):

      "In specifying hostnames, both domain names and use of the 'dot'
      notation (127.0.0.1) should both be accepted."

   After correcting the above, IPv6 support can be added
   straightforwardly.

6.14.  RFC 1465: Routing Coordination for X.400 MHS Services
       Within a Multi Protocol / Multi Network Environment Table
       Format V3 for Static Routing

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.15.  RFC 1505: Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.16.  RFC 1528: Principles of Operation for the TPC.INT Subdomain:
       Remote Printing -- Technical Procedures

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.19.  RFC 1639: FTP Operation Over Big Address Records

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

6.20.  RFC 1641: Using Unicode with MIME

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.21.  RFC 1756: Remote Write Protocol - Version 1.0

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.24.  RFC 1806: Communicating Presentation Information in
       Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition Header

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.26.  RFC 1846: SMTP 521 Reply Code

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.28.  RFC 1874: SGML Media Types

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.29.  RFC 1986: Experiments with a Simple File Transfer Protocol
       for Radio Links using Enhanced Trivial File Transfer Protocol

   This protocol is IPv4 dependent, as can be seen from the segment
   presented below, taken from Section 2. (PROTOCOL DESCRIPTION):

      "Table 3: ETFTP Data Encapsulation

      +------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
      |Ethernet(14)|            |            |ETFTP/      |           |
      |SLIP(2)     |IP(20)      |UDP(8)      |NETBLT(24)  |DATA(1448) |
      |AX.25(20)   |            |            |            |           |
      +------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+"

6.30.  RFC 2016: Uniform Resource Agents (URAs)

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.31.  RFC 2066: TELNET CHARSET Option

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.32.  RFC 2075: IP Echo Host Service

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.33.  RFC 2090: TFTP Multicast Option

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

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.35.  RFC 2161: A MIME Body Part for ODA

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.38.  RFC 2217: Telnet Com Port Control Option

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.39.  RFC 2295: Transparent Content Negotiation in HTTP

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.40.  RFC 2296: HTTP Remote Variant Selection Algorithm
       RVSA/1.0

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   This protocol assumes IPv4 addressing in its schema, as shown in
   Section 3. (Attribute definitions):

      "( nisSchema.1.19 NAME 'ipHostNumber'
         DESC 'IP address as a dotted decimal, eg. 192.168.1.1,
               omitting leading zeros'
         EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match
         SYNTAX 'IA5String{128}' )

       ( nisSchema.1.20 NAME 'ipNetworkNumber'
         DESC 'IP network as a dotted decimal, eg. 192.168,
               omitting leading zeros'
         EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match
         SYNTAX 'IA5String{128}' SINGLE-VALUE )

       ( nisSchema.1.21 NAME 'ipNetmaskNumber'
         DESC 'IP netmask as a dotted decimal, eg. 255.255.255.0,
               omitting leading zeros'
         EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match
         SYNTAX 'IA5String{128}' SINGLE-VALUE )"

   The document does try to provide some IPv6 support as in Section 5.4.
   (Interpreting Hosts and Networks):

   "Hosts with IPv6 addresses MUST be written in their "preferred" form
   as defined in section 2.2.1 of [RFC1884], such that all components of
   the address are indicated and leading zeros are omitted.  This
   provides a consistent means of resolving ipHosts by address."

   However, the defined format mentioned above has been replaced, hence
   it is no longer valid.

6.42.  RFC 2310: The Safe Response Header Field

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.43.  RFC 2483: URI Resolution Services Necessary for URN
       Resolution

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.46.  RFC 2569: Mapping between LPD and IPP Protocols

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.50.  RFC 2656: Registration Procedures for SOIF Template Types

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

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

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.52.  RFC 2756: Hyper Text Caching Protocol

   This specification claims to be both IPv4 and IPv6 aware, but in
   Section 2.8. (An HTCP/0.0 AUTH has the following structure), it makes
   the following statement:

      "SIGNATURE   is a COUNTSTR [3.1] which holds the HMAC-MD5 digest
                   (see [RFC 2104]), with a B value of 64, of the
                   following elements, each of which is digested in its
                   "on the wire" format, including transmitted padding
                   if any is covered by a field's associated LENGTH:

                   IP SRC ADDR                           [4 octets]
                   IP SRC PORT                           [2 octets]
                   IP DST ADDR                           [4 octets]
                   IP DST PORT                           [2 octets]
                   HTCP MAJOR version number             [1 octet]
                   HTCP MINOR version number             [1 octet]
                   SIG-TIME                              [4 octets]
                   SIG-EXPIRE                            [4 octets]
                   HTCP DATA                             [variable]
                   KEY-NAME (the whole COUNTSTR [3.1])   [variable]"

   The given SIGNATURE calculation should be expanded to support IPv6 16
   byte addresses.

6.53.  RFC 2774: An HTTP Extension Framework

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.54.  RFC 2974: Session Announcement Protocol

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

6.55.  RFC 3018: Unified Memory Space Protocol Specification

   In section 3.4 (Address Formats), there are explicit references to
   IPv4 addressing:

      "The following address format numbers are definite for nodes,
      immediately connected to the global IPv4 network:

      N 4-0-0 (4)
      N 4-0-1 (4-1)
      N 4-0-2 (4-2)

   The appropriate formats of 128-bit addresses:

   Octets:
      +0              +1              +2              +3
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   0: |0 1 0 0|0 0|0 0|                   Free                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   4: |                              Free                             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   8: |            Free               |           IP address          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   12:|           IP address          |      Local memory address     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   0: |0 1 0 0|0 0|0 1|                   Free                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   4: |                              Free                             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   8: |     Free      |                  IP address                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   12:|   IP address  |             Local memory address              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   0: |0 1 0 0|0 0|1 0|                   Free                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   4: |                            Free                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   8: |                         IP address                            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   12:|                     Local memory address                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Free

      It is not used by the protocol.

   IP address

      It sets the node address in the global IPv4 network."

   This section needs to be re-written, so that the specification
   becomes IPv6 compliant.

6.56.  RFC 3082: Notification and Subscription for SLP

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

6.57.  RFC 3088: OpenLDAP Root Service An experimental LDAP
       referral service

   Section 5. (Using the Service) states:

      "The service supports LDAPv3 and LDAPv2+ [LDAPv2+] clients over
      TCP/IPv4.  Future incarnations of this service may support
      TCP/IPv6 or other transport/internet protocols."

7.  Summary of Results

   This survey contemplates 257 RFCs, having 34 (12.84%) been identified
   as having some form of IPv4 dependency.  Results are broken down as
   follows:

         Standards:                         1 out of  20 or  5.00%
         Draft Standards:                   4 out of  25 or 16.00%
         Proposed Standards:               19 out of 155 or 12.26%
         Experimental RFCs:                10 out of  57 or 17.54%

   Of the 33 identified, the majority simply require minor actions, such
   as adding a caveat to IPv6 addressing that would avoid ambiguity, or
   re-writing a section to avoid IP-version dependent syntax.  The
   remaining instances are documented below.  The authors have attempted
   to organize the results in a format that allows easy referencing by
   other protocol designers.

7.1.  Full Standards

7.1.1.  RFC 959: STD 9 File Transfer Protocol

   Problems have already been fixed in [5].

7.2.  Draft Standards

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

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

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

7.2.2.  RFC 2396: URI Syntax

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

7.2.3.  RFC 2616: Hypertext Transfer Protocol HTTP/1.1

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

7.3.  Proposed Standards

7.3.1.  RFC 946: Telnet Terminal LOC

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

7.3.2.  RFC 1738: URLs

   URL's with IPv4 dependencies have already been addressed in [3].

   Note that these dependencies affect other specifications as well,
   such as RFC 2122, RFC 2192, RFC 2193, RFC 2255, RFC 2371, and RFC
   2384.  All of these protocols have to revisited, and are not
   described separately in this memo.

7.3.3.  RFC 2165: Service Location Protocol

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

7.3.4.  RFC 2384: POP3 URL Scheme

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

7.3.5.  RFC 2608: Service Location Protocol v2

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

7.3.6.  RFC 2821: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol

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

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

   Extensions should be defined to support IPv6 addresses.

7.4.  Experimental RFCs

7.4.1.  RFC 1235: The Coherent File Distribution Protocol

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

7.4.2.  RFC 1459: Internet Relay Chat Protocol

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

7.4.3.  RFC 1986: Simple File Transfer Using Enhanced TFTP

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

7.4.4.  RFC 2090: TFTP Multicast Option

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

7.4.5.  RFC 2307: Using LDAP as a NIS

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

8.  Acknowledgements

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

9.  Security Considerations

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

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [1] Nesser, II, P. and A. Bergstrom, Editor, "Introduction to the
       Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards",
       RFC 3789, June 2004.

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

10.2.  Informative References

   [3] Hinden, R., Carpenter, B. and L. Masinter, "Format for Literal
       IPv6 Addresses in URL's", RFC 2732, December 1999.

   [4] Guttman, E., "Service Location Protocol Modifications for IPv6",
       RFC 3111, May 2001.

   [5] Allman, M., Ostermann, S. and C. Metz, "FTP Extensions for IPv6
       and NATs", RFC 2428, September 1998.

   [6] Hagino, J. and M. Nakamura, "SMTP operational experience in mixed
       IPv4/IPv6 environements",  Work in Progress.

11.  Authors' Addresses

   Rute Sofia
   FCCN
   Av. Brasil, 101
   1700 Lisboa, Portugal

   Phone: +351 91 2507372
   EMail: rsofia@zmail.pt

   Philip J. Nesser II
   Principal
   Nesser & Nesser Consulting
   13501 100th Ave NE, #5202
   Kirkland, WA 98034

   Phone: +1 425 481 4303
   Fax:   +1 425 482 9721
   EMail: phil@nesser.com

12.  Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
   ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

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

 

User Contributions:

Comment about this RFC, ask questions, or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA