Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Zimmermann
Request for Comments: 7805
Obsoletes: 675 721 761 813 816 879 896 W. Eddy
1078 6013 MTI Systems
Updates: 7414 L. Eggert
Category: Informational NetApp
ISSN: 2070-1721 April 2016
Moving Outdated TCP Extensions and TCP-Related Documents
to Historic or Informational Status
Abstract
This document reclassifies several TCP extensions and TCP-related
documents that either have been superseded, have never seen
widespread use, or are no longer recommended for use to "Historic"
status. The affected documents are RFCs 675, 721, 761, 813, 816,
879, 896, 1078, and 6013. Additionally, this document reclassifies
RFCs 700, 794, 814, 817, 872, 889, 964, and 1071 to "Informational"
status.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; 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
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7805.
Zimmermann, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 7805 Outdated TCP Extensions and Documents April 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Status Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Moving to "Historic" Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Moving to "Informational" Status . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
TCP has a long history. Over time, many RFCs have accumulated that
describe aspects of the TCP protocol, implementation, and extensions.
Some of these have been superseded, are no longer recommended for
use, or have simply never seen widespread use.
Sections 6 and 7.1 of the TCP roadmap document [RFC 7414] already
reclassified a number of TCP extensions as "Historic" and describes
the reasons for doing so, but it did not instruct the RFC Editor to
change the status of these RFCs in the RFC database. The purpose of
this document is to do just that.
In addition, this document reclassifies all other documents mentioned
in the TCP roadmap that currently have an "Unknown" status to either
"Historic" or "Informational".
Zimmermann, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 7805 Outdated TCP Extensions and Documents April 2016
2. Status Changes
The following two sections give a short justification why a specific
TCP extension or a TCP-related document is being reclassified as
"Historic" or "Informational". In addition, the letter code after an
RFC number indicates from which original status a particular RFC is
changed to "Historic" or "Informational" (see BCP 9 [RFC 2026] for an
explanation of these categories):
S - Standards Track (Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, or
Internet Standard)
E - Experimental
I - Informational
H - Historic
B - Best Current Practice
U - Unknown (not formally defined)
For the content of the documents itself, the reader is referred
either to the corresponding RFC or, for a brief description, to the
TCP roadmap document [RFC 7414].
2.1. Moving to "Historic" Status
This document changes the status of the following RFCs to "Historic"
[RFC 2026]:
o [RFC 675] U, "Specification of Internet Transmission Control
Program" was replaced by the final TCP specification [RFC 793]
o [RFC 721] U, "Out-of-Band Control Signals in a Host-to-Host
Protocol" was a proposal that was not incorporated into the final
TCP specification [RFC 793]
o [RFC 761] U, "DoD Standard Transmission Control Protocol" was
replaced by the final TCP specification [RFC 793]
o [RFC 813] U, "Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP" was
incorporated into [RFC 1122]
o [RFC 816] U, "Fault Isolation and Recovery" was incorporated into
[RFC 1122] and [RFC 5461]
Zimmermann, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 7805 Outdated TCP Extensions and Documents April 2016
o [RFC 879] U, "The TCP Maximum Segment Size and Related Topics" was
incorporated into [RFC 1122] and [RFC 6691]
o [RFC 896] U, "Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetworks" was
incorporated into [RFC 1122] and [RFC 6633]
o [RFC 1078] U, "TCP Port Service Multiplexer (TCPMUX)" should be
deprecated, because:
* It modifies the TCP connection establishment semantics by also
completing the three-way handshake when a service is not
available.
* It requires all new connections to be received on a single
port, which limits the number of connections between two
machines.
* It complicates firewall implementation and management because
all services share the same port number.
* There are very limited deployments, and these are not used in
an Internet context. (The only reported use is for SGI's Data
Migration Facility in private networks.)
o [RFC 6013] E, "TCP Cookie Transactions (TCPCT)" should be
deprecated (although only published in 2011) because:
* It uses the experimental TCP option codepoints, which prohibit
a large-scale deployment.
* [RFC 7413] and [TCP-EDO] are alternatives that have more "rough
consensus and running code" behind them.
* There are no known wide-scale deployments.
2.2. Moving to "Informational" Status
This document changes the status of the following RFCs to
"Informational" [RFC 2026]:
o [RFC 700] U, "A Protocol Experiment", which presents a field report
about the deployment of a very early version of TCP
o [RFC 794] U, "Pre-emption", which recommends that operating
systems need to manage their limited resources, which may include
TCP connection state
o [RFC 814] U, "Name, Addresses, Ports, and Routes", which gives
guidance on designing tables and algorithms to keep track of
various identifiers within a TCP/IP implementation
o [RFC 817] U, "Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol
Implementation", which contains general implementation suggestions
Zimmermann, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 7805 Outdated TCP Extensions and Documents April 2016
o [RFC 872] U, "TCP-on-a-LAN", which concludes that the fear of
using TCP on a local network is unfounded
o [RFC 889] U, "Internet Delay Experiments", which describes
experiments with the TCP retransmission timeout calculation
o [RFC 964] U, "Some Problems with the Specification of the Military
Standard Transmission Control Protocol", which points out several
specification bugs in the US Military's MIL-STD-1778 document,
which was intended as a successor to [RFC 793]
o [RFC 1071] U, "Computing the Internet Checksum", which lists a
number of implementation techniques for efficiently computing the
Internet checksum
3. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security considerations. Each RFC
listed in this document attempts to address the security
considerations of the specification it contains.
4. References
4.1. Normative References
[RFC 675] Cerf, V., Dalal, Y., and C. Sunshine, "Specification of
Internet Transmission Control Program", RFC 675,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 0675, December 1974,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 675>.
[RFC 700] Mader, E., Plummer, W., and R. Tomlinson, "Protocol
experiment", RFC 700, DOI 10.17487/RFC 0700, August 1974,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 700>.
[RFC 721] Garlick, L., "Out-of-Band Control Signals in a Host-to-
Host Protocol", RFC 721, DOI 10.17487/RFC 0721, September
1976, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 721>.
[RFC 761] Postel, J., "DoD standard Transmission Control Protocol",
RFC 761, DOI 10.17487/RFC 0761, January 1980,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 761>.
[RFC 794] Cerf, V., "Pre-emption", RFC 794, DOI 10.17487/RFC 0794,
September 1981, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 794>.
[RFC 813] Clark, D., "Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP",
RFC 813, DOI 10.17487/RFC 0813, July 1982,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 813>.
Zimmermann, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 7805 Outdated TCP Extensions and Documents April 2016
[RFC 814] Clark, D., "Name, addresses, ports, and routes", RFC 814,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 0814, July 1982,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 814>.
[RFC 816] Clark, D., "Fault isolation and recovery", RFC 816,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 0816, July 1982,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 816>.
[RFC 817] Clark, D., "Modularity and efficiency in protocol
implementation", RFC 817, DOI 10.17487/RFC 0817, July 1982,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 817>.
[RFC 872] Padlipsky, M., "TCP-on-a-LAN", RFC 872,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 0872, September 1982,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 872>.
[RFC 879] Postel, J., "The TCP Maximum Segment Size and Related
Topics", RFC 879, DOI 10.17487/RFC 0879, November 1983,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 879>.
[RFC 889] Mills, D., "Internet Delay Experiments", RFC 889,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 0889, December 1983,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 889>.
[RFC 896] Nagle, J., "Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetworks",
RFC 896, DOI 10.17487/RFC 0896, January 1984,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 896>.
[RFC 964] Sidhu, D. and T. Blumer, "Some problems with the
specification of the Military Standard Transmission
Control Protocol", RFC 964, DOI 10.17487/RFC 0964, November
1985, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 964>.
[RFC 1071] Braden, R., Borman, D., and C. Partridge, "Computing the
Internet checksum", RFC 1071, DOI 10.17487/RFC 1071,
September 1988, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 1071>.
[RFC 1078] Lottor, M., "TCP port service Multiplexer (TCPMUX)",
RFC 1078, DOI 10.17487/RFC 1078, November 1988,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 1078>.
[RFC 6013] Simpson, W., "TCP Cookie Transactions (TCPCT)", RFC 6013,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 6013, January 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6013>.
Zimmermann, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 7805 Outdated TCP Extensions and Documents April 2016
4.2. Informative References
[RFC 793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC 0793, September 1981,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 793>.
[RFC 1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 1122, October 1989,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 1122>.
[RFC 2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC 2026, October 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2026>.
[RFC 5461] Gont, F., "TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors", RFC 5461,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 5461, February 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5461>.
[RFC 6633] Gont, F., "Deprecation of ICMP Source Quench Messages",
RFC 6633, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6633, May 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6633>.
[RFC 6691] Borman, D., "TCP Options and Maximum Segment Size (MSS)",
RFC 6691, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6691, July 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6691>.
[RFC 7413] Cheng, Y., Chu, J., Radhakrishnan, S., and A. Jain, "TCP
Fast Open", RFC 7413, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7413, December 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7413>.
[RFC 7414] Duke, M., Braden, R., Eddy, W., Blanton, E., and A.
Zimmermann, "A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol
(TCP) Specification Documents", RFC 7414,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7414, February 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7414>.
[TCP-EDO] Touch, J. and W. Eddy, "TCP Extended Data Offset Option",
Work in Progress, draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-edo-04, November
2015.
Zimmermann, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 7805 Outdated TCP Extensions and Documents April 2016
Acknowledgments
The authors thank John Leslie, Pasi Sarolahti, Richard Scheffenegger,
Martin Stiemerling, Joe Touch, Valdis Kletnieks, and Greg Skinner for
their contributions.
Lars Eggert has received funding from the European Union's Horizon
2020 research and innovation program 2014-2018 under grant agreement
No. 644866 (SSICLOPS). This document reflects only the authors'
views, and the European Commission is not responsible for any use
that may be made of the information it contains.
Authors' Addresses
Alexander Zimmermann
Email: alexander@zimmermann.eu.com
Wesley M. Eddy
MTI Systems
Suite 170, 18013 Cleveland Parkway
Cleveland, OH 44135
United States
Phone: +1-216-433-6682
Email: wes@mti-systems.com
Lars Eggert
NetApp
Sonnenallee 1
Kirchheim 85551
Germany
Phone: +49 151 12055791
Email: lars@netapp.com
Zimmermann, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 7805 - úplné znění
Plné znění RFC 7805:
English version: RFC 7805