Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-tcpm-undeployed
draft-ietf-tcpm-undeployed
TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions (TCPM) WG A. Zimmermann
Internet-Draft NetApp, Inc.
Obsoletes: 675 721 761 813 816 879 896 W. Eddy
1078 6013 (if approved) MTI Systems
Updates: 7414 (if approved) L. Eggert
Intended status: Informational NetApp, Inc.
Expires: April 15, 2016 October 13, 2015
Moving Outdated TCP Extensions and TCP-related Documents to
Historic and Informational Status
draft-ietf-tcpm-undeployed-03
Abstract
This document reclassifies several TCP extensions and TCP-related
documents that have either been superseded, have never seen
widespread use, or are no longer recommended for use to "Historic"
status. The affected RFCs are RFC 675, RFC 721, RFC 761, RFC 813,
RFC 816, RFC 879, RFC 896, RFC 1078, and RFC 6013. Additionally,
this document reclassifies RFC 700, RFC 794, RFC 814, RFC 817, RFC
872, RFC 889, RFC 964, and RFC 1071 to "Informational" status.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 15, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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
Zimmermann, et al. Expires April 15, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Outdated TCP Extensions and Documents October 2015
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. 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.
Section 6 and 7.1 of the TCP roadmap document [RFC7414] 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".
2. RFC Editor Considerations
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 [RFC2026] 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)
Zimmermann, et al. Expires April 15, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Outdated TCP Extensions and Documents October 2015
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 [RFC7414].
2.1. Moving to "Historic" Status
The RFC Editor is requested to change the status of the following
RFCs to "Historic" [RFC2026]:
o [RFC0675] U, "Specification of Internet Transmission Control
Program" was replaced by the final TCP specification [RFC0793]
o [RFC0721] U, "Out-of-Band Control Signals in a Host-to-Host
Protocol" was a proposal that was not incorporated into the final
TCP specification [RFC0793]
o [RFC0761] U, "DoD standard Transmission Control Protocol" was
replaced by the final TCP specification [RFC0793]
o [RFC0813] U, "Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP" was
incorporated into [RFC1122]
o [RFC0816] U, "Fault Isolation and Recovery" was incorporated into
[RFC1122] and [RFC5461]
o [RFC0879] U, "The TCP Maximum Segment Size and Related Topics" was
incorporated into [RFC1122] and [RFC6691]
o [RFC0896] U, "Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetworks" was
incorporated into [RFC1122] and [RFC6633]
o [RFC1078] 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 no known client-side deployments.
o [RFC6013] E: "TCP Cookie Transactions (TCPCT)" should be
deprecated (although only published in 2011), because:
Zimmermann, et al. Expires April 15, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Outdated TCP Extensions and Documents October 2015
* It uses the experimental TCP option codepoints, which prohibits
a large-scale deployment.
* [RFC7413] and [I-D.ietf-tcpm-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
The RFC Editor is requested to change the status of the following
RFCs to "Informational" [RFC2026]:
o [RFC0700] U, "A Protocol Experiment", which presents a field
report about the deployment of a very early version of TCP
o [RFC0794] U, "Pre-emption", which recommends that operating
systems need to manage their limited resources, which may include
TCP connection state
o [RFC0814] 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 [RFC0817] U, "Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol
Implementation", which contains general implementation suggestions
o [RFC0872] U, "TCP-on-a-LAN", which concludes that the fear of
using TCP on a local network is unfounded
o [RFC0889] U, "Internet Delay Experiments", which which describes
experiments with the TCP retransmission timeout calculation
o [RFC0964] 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 [RFC0793]
o [RFC1071] U, "Computing the Internet Checksum", which lists a
number of implementation techniques for efficiently computing the
Internet checksum
3. IANA Considerations
None of the documents moved to "Historic" or "Informational" status
have assigned TCP options numbers. Therefore, no IANA actions are
required.
Zimmermann, et al. Expires April 15, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Outdated TCP Extensions and Documents October 2015
4. 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.
5. Acknowledgments
The authors thank John Leslie, Pasi Sarolahti, Richard Scheffenegger,
Martin Stiemerling, and Joe Touch for their contributions.
Alexander Zimmermann and Lars Eggert have 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.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC0675] Cerf, V., Dalal, Y., and C. Sunshine, "Specification of
Internet Transmission Control Program", RFC 675, DOI
10.17487/RFC0675, December 1974,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc675>.
[RFC0700] Mader, E., Plummer, W., and R. Tomlinson, "Protocol
experiment", RFC 700, DOI 10.17487/RFC0700, August 1974,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc700>.
[RFC0721] Garlick, L., "Out-of-Band Control Signals in a Host-to-
Host Protocol", RFC 721, DOI 10.17487/RFC0721, September
1976, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc721>.
[RFC0761] Postel, J., "DoD standard Transmission Control Protocol",
RFC 761, DOI 10.17487/RFC0761, January 1980,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc761>.
[RFC0794] Cerf, V., "Pre-emption", RFC 794, DOI 10.17487/RFC0794,
September 1981, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc794>.
[RFC0813] Clark, D., "Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP",
RFC 813, DOI 10.17487/RFC0813, July 1982,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc813>.
Zimmermann, et al. Expires April 15, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Outdated TCP Extensions and Documents October 2015
[RFC0814] Clark, D., "Name, addresses, ports, and routes", RFC 814,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0814, July 1982,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc814>.
[RFC0816] Clark, D., "Fault isolation and recovery", RFC 816, DOI
10.17487/RFC0816, July 1982,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc816>.
[RFC0817] Clark, D., "Modularity and efficiency in protocol
implementation", RFC 817, DOI 10.17487/RFC0817, July 1982,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc817>.
[RFC0872] Padlipsky, M., "TCP-on-a-LAN", RFC 872, DOI 10.17487/
RFC0872, September 1982,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc872>.
[RFC0879] Postel, J., "The TCP Maximum Segment Size and Related
Topics", RFC 879, DOI 10.17487/RFC0879, November 1983,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc879>.
[RFC0889] Mills, D., "Internet Delay Experiments", RFC 889, DOI
10.17487/RFC0889, December 1983,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc889>.
[RFC0896] Nagle, J., "Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetworks",
RFC 896, DOI 10.17487/RFC0896, January 1984,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc896>.
[RFC0964] Sidhu, D. and T. Blumer, "Some problems with the
specification of the Military Standard Transmission
Control Protocol", RFC 964, DOI 10.17487/RFC0964, November
1985, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc964>.
[RFC1071] Braden, R., Borman, D., and C. Partridge, "Computing the
Internet checksum", RFC 1071, DOI 10.17487/RFC1071,
September 1988, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1071>.
[RFC1078] Lottor, M., "TCP port service Multiplexer (TCPMUX)", RFC
1078, DOI 10.17487/RFC1078, November 1988,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1078>.
[RFC6013] Simpson, W., "TCP Cookie Transactions (TCPCT)", RFC 6013,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6013, January 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6013>.
Zimmermann, et al. Expires April 15, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Outdated TCP Extensions and Documents October 2015
6.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-tcpm-tcp-edo]
Touch, J. and W. Eddy, "TCP Extended Data Offset Option",
draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-edo-03 (work in progress), April 2015.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, DOI 10.17487/
RFC1122, October 1989,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.
[RFC5461] Gont, F., "TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors", RFC 5461, DOI
10.17487/RFC5461, February 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5461>.
[RFC6633] Gont, F., "Deprecation of ICMP Source Quench Messages",
RFC 6633, DOI 10.17487/RFC6633, May 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6633>.
[RFC6691] Borman, D., "TCP Options and Maximum Segment Size (MSS)",
RFC 6691, DOI 10.17487/RFC6691, July 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6691>.
[RFC7413] Cheng, Y., Chu, J., Radhakrishnan, S., and A. Jain, "TCP
Fast Open", RFC 7413, DOI 10.17487/RFC7413, December 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7413>.
[RFC7414] 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/
RFC7414, February 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7414>.
Authors' Addresses
Zimmermann, et al. Expires April 15, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Outdated TCP Extensions and Documents October 2015
Alexander Zimmermann
NetApp, Inc.
Sonnenallee 1
Kirchheim 85551
Germany
Phone: +49 89 900594712
Email: alexander.zimmermann@netapp.com
Wesley M. Eddy
MTI Systems
Suite 170, 18013 Cleveland Parkway
Cleveland, OH 44135
Phone: 216-433-6682
Email: wes@mti-systems.com
Lars Eggert
NetApp, Inc.
Sonnenallee 1
Kirchheim 85551
Germany
Phone: +49 89 900594306
Email: lars@netapp.com
Zimmermann, et al. Expires April 15, 2016 [Page 8]
