faqs.org - Internet FAQ Archives

RFC 6247 - Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC 1072, RFC 11

Or Display the document by number

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         L. Eggert
Request for Comments: 6247                                         Nokia
Obsoletes: 1072, 1106, 1110, 1145,                              May 2011
           1146, 1379, 1644, 1693
Updates: 4614
Category: Informational
ISSN: 2070-1721

        Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC 1072, RFC 1106,
   RFC 1110, RFC 1145, RFC 1146, RFC 1379, RFC 1644, and RFC 1693 to
                            Historic Status


   This document reclassifies several TCP extensions that have never
   seen widespread use to Historic status.  The affected RFCs are RFC
   1072, RFC 1106, RFC 1110, RFC 1145, RFC 1146, RFC 1379, RFC 1644, and
   RFC 1693.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
   approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must

   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

1.  Introduction

   TCP has a long history, and several proposed TCP extensions have
   never seen widespread deployment.  Section 5 of the TCP "roadmap"
   document [RFC4614] already classifies a number of TCP extensions as
   Historic and describes the reasons for doing so, but it does not
   instruct the RFC Editor and IANA to change the status of these RFCs
   in the RFC database and the relevant IANA registries.  The sole
   purpose of this document is to do just that.  Please refer to Section
   5 of [RFC4614] for justification.

2.  RFC Editor Considerations

   Per this document, the RFC Editor has changed the status of the
   following RFCs to Historic [RFC2026]:

   o  [RFC1072] on "TCP Extensions for Long-Delay Paths"

   o  [RFC1106] and [RFC1110] related to the "TCP Big Window and Nak

   o  [RFC1145] and [RFC1146] related to the "TCP Alternate Checksum

   o  [RFC1379] and [RFC1644] on "T/TCP -- Extensions for Transactions
      Functional Specification"

   o  [RFC1693] on "An Extension to TCP : Partial Order Service"

3.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has marked the TCP options 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15
   documented in [RFC1072], [RFC1146], [RFC1644], and [RFC1693] as
   "obsolete" in the "TCP Option Kind Numbers" registry [TCPOPTREG],
   with a reference to this RFC.

4.  Security Considerations

   As mentioned in [RFC4614], the TCP Extensions for Transactions
   (T/TCP) [RFC1379][RFC1644] are reported to have security issues

5.  Acknowledgments

   Lars Eggert is partly funded by [TRILOGY], a research project
   supported by the European Commission under its Seventh Framework

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1072]    Jacobson, V. and R. Braden, "TCP extensions for long-
                delay paths", RFC 1072, October 1988.

   [RFC1106]    Fox, R., "TCP big window and NAK options", RFC 1106,
                June 1989.

   [RFC1110]    McKenzie, A., "Problem with the TCP big window option",
                RFC 1110, August 1989.

   [RFC1145]    Zweig, J. and C. Partridge, "TCP alternate checksum
                options", RFC 1145, February 1990.

   [RFC1146]    Zweig, J. and C. Partridge, "TCP alternate checksum
                options", RFC 1146, March 1990.

   [RFC1379]    Braden, B., "Extending TCP for Transactions --
                Concepts", RFC 1379, November 1992.

   [RFC1644]    Braden, B., "T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions
                Functional Specification", RFC 1644, July 1994.

   [RFC1693]    Connolly, T., Amer, P., and P. Conrad, "An Extension to
                TCP : Partial Order Service", RFC 1693, November 1994.

   [RFC4614]    Duke, M., Braden, R., Eddy, W., and E. Blanton, "A
                Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
                Specification Documents", RFC 4614, September 2006.

6.2.  Informative References

   [DEVIVO]     de Vivo, M., de Vivo, G., Koeneke, R., and G. Isern,
                "Internet Vulnerabilities Related to TCP/IP and T/TCP",
                ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communications Review (CCR), Vol.
                29, No. 1, January 1999.

   [RFC2026]    Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
                3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

   [TCPOPTREG]  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "TCP Option
                Kind Numbers", <http://www.iana.org>.

   [TRILOGY]    "Trilogy Project", <http://www.trilogy-project.org/>.

Author's Address

   Lars Eggert
   Nokia Research Center
   P.O. Box 407
   Nokia Group  00045

   Phone: +358 50 48 24461
   EMail: lars.eggert@nokia.com
   URI:   http://research.nokia.com/people/lars_eggert


User Contributions:

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