TCP Implementation Problems That Need To Be Documented

Document Type Expired Internet-Draft (tcpimpl WG)
Last updated 1998-03-12
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Expired & archived
plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state Expired
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft can be found at


The TCP-IMPL working group has documented a number of TCP implementation problems [PADHV98]. However, a significant number still have not been fully described and documented in the form used in [PADHV98]. This memo briefly describes a number of these, including commentary as to the authors' opinions regarding the importance of documenting the problem. This memo is *not* intended to ever see light as an RFC of some form; its sole function is to facilitate working group discussion of which problems are more pressing to document than others, and to aid in arriving at a decision as to when [PADHV98] will be sufficiently complete to merit its publication as an Informational RFC. We divide the descriptions into ''serious'' problems, meaning those we think should be included in [PADHV98] prior to its publication; ''security'' problems, which might not be viewed as implementation problems per se, but represent significant security problems of which TCP implementors should be aware; and ''less serious'' problems, those that, if the working group fails to find volunteers to document them, should not hold up [PADHV98]. It might be worthwhile to separate the security problems out into their own document. We particularly solicit working group input on this subject.


Vern Paxson (
Mark Allman (

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)