Moving Outdated TCP Extensions and TCP-related Documents to Historic and Informational Status
draft-ietf-tcpm-undeployed-02

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: January 30, 2016                                  July 29, 2015

      Moving Outdated TCP Extensions and TCP-related Documents to
                   Historic and Informational Status
                     draft-ietf-tcpm-undeployed-02

Abstract

   This document reclassifies several TCP extensions and TCP-related
   documents that have either been superseded, never seen widespread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, it 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 January 30, 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 January 30, 2016                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft    Outdated TCP Extensions and Documents        July 2015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 become superseded, are no longer recommended for
   use, or simply have never seen widespread use, respectively
   deployment.

   Section 6 and 7.1 of the TCP Roadmap document [RFC7414] already
   classify a number of TCP extensions as "historic" and describes the
   reasons for doing so, but it does 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, it
   moves all remaining TCP-related documents of the TCP Roadmap document
   with an "unknown" status either to Historic or Informational.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].  These
   words only have such normative significance when in ALL CAPS, not
   when in lower case.

3.  RFC Editor Considerations

   The following two sections give a short justification, why a specific
   TCP extension or a TCP-related document should be moved to Historic
   or Informational.  In addition, a letter code after an RFC number
   indicates from what category in the RFC series a particular RFC is
   changed to Historic or Informational status (see BCP 9 [RFC2026] for
   explanation of these categories):

      S - Standards Track (Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, or
      Internet Standard)

      E - Experimental

      I - Informational

Zimmermann, et al.      Expires January 30, 2016                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft    Outdated TCP Extensions and Documents        July 2015

      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 [RFC7414].

3.1.  Moving to Historic Status

   The RFC Editor is requested to change the status of the following
   RFCs to Historic [RFC2026]:

   o  RFC 675 U: "Specification of Internet Transmission Control
      Program" [RFC0675]: this document is replaced by final TCP
      specification [RFC0793].

   o  RFC 721 U: "Out-of-Band Control Signals in a Host-to-Host
      Protocol" [RFC0721]: this proposal is not incorporated into the
      final TCP specification [RFC0793].

   o  RFC 761 U: "DoD standard Transmission Control Protocol" [RFC0761]:
      this document is replaced by final TCP specification [RFC0793].

   o  RFC 813 U: "Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP" [RFC0813]:
      this document is incorporated into RFC 1122 [RFC1122].

   o  RFC 816 U: "Fault Isolation and Recovery" [RFC0816]: this document
      is incorporated into RFC 1122 [RFC1122] and RFC 5461 [RFC5461].

   o  RFC 879 U: "The TCP Maximum Segment Size and Related Topics"
      [RFC0879]: this document is incorporated into RFC 1122 [RFC1122]
      and RFC 6691 [RFC6691].

   o  RFC 896 U: "Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetworks" [RFC0896]:
      this document is incorporated into RFC 1122 [RFC1122] and RFC 6633
      [RFC6633].

   o  RFC 1078 U: "TCP Port Service Multiplexer (TCPMUX)" [RFC1078]:
      this proposal SHOULD not longer recommended for use for the
      following reason:

      *  RFC 1078 destroys the semantics of TCP connection
         establishment.

Zimmermann, et al.      Expires January 30, 2016                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft    Outdated TCP Extensions and Documents        July 2015

      *  RFC 1078 requires all new connections to be received on a
         single port, which limits the number of connections between two
         machines and raises security concerns.
      *  There exist no known client side deployment of RFC 1078.

   o  RFC 6013 E: "TCP Cookie Transactions (TCPCT)" [RFC6013]: although
      RFC 6013 was published in 2011, RFC 6013 SHOULD not longer
      recommended for use for the following reason:

      *  There exist no known wide deployment and use of RFC 6013.
      *  RFC 6013 uses experimental TCP option codepoints, which
         prohibits a large-scale deployment.
      *  RFC 7413 [RFC7413] and [I-D.ietf-tcpm-tcp-edo] are alternatives
         to RFC 6013, which have relatively more "rough consensus and
         running code" behind them.

3.2.  Moving to Informational Status

   The RFC Editor is requested to change the status of the following
   RFCs to Informational [RFC2026]:

   o  RFC 700 U: "A Protocol Experiment" [RFC0700]: this document
      presents a field report about the deployment of a very early
      version of TCP.

   o  RFC 794 U: "PRE-EMPTION" [RFC0794]: this document clarifies that
      operating systems need to manage their limited resources, which
      may include TCP connection state.

   o  RFC 814 U: "Name, Addresses, Ports, and Routes" [RFC0814]: this
      document gives suggestions and guidance for 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"
      [RFC0817]: this document contains general implementation
      suggestions.

   o  RFC 872 U: "TCP-on-a-LAN" [RFC0872]: this document concludes that
      the sometimes expressed fear that using TCP on a local net is a
      bad idea is unfounded.

   o  RFC 889 U: "Internet Delay Experiments" [RFC0889]: this document
      is a status report about experiments concerning the TCP
      retransmission timeout calculation.

   o  RFC 964 U: "Some Problems with the Specification of the Military
      Standard Transmission Control Protocol" [RFC0964]: this document

Zimmermann, et al.      Expires January 30, 2016                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft    Outdated TCP Extensions and Documents        July 2015

      points out several specification bugs in the US Military's MIL-
      STD-1778 document, which was intended as a successor to RFC 793
      [RFC0793].

   o  RFC 1071 U: "Computing the Internet Checksum" [RFC1071]: this
      document lists a number of implementation techniques for
      efficiently computing the Internet checksum.

4.  IANA Considerations

   None of the documents moved to Historic or Informational status had
   TCP options numbers assigned.  Therefore no IANA action is required
   for them.

5.  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.

6.  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.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC0675]  Cerf, V., Dalal, Y., and C. Sunshine, "Specification of
              Internet Transmission Control Program", RFC 675, December
              1974.

   [RFC0700]  Mader, E., Plummer, W., and R. Tomlinson, "Protocol
              experiment", RFC 700, August 1974.

   [RFC0721]  Garlick, L., "Out-of-Band Control Signals in a Host-to-
              Host Protocol", RFC 721, September 1976.

   [RFC0761]  Postel, J., "DoD standard Transmission Control Protocol",
              RFC 761, January 1980.

Zimmermann, et al.      Expires January 30, 2016                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft    Outdated TCP Extensions and Documents        July 2015

   [RFC0794]  Cerf, V., "Pre-emption", RFC 794, September 1981.

   [RFC0813]  Clark, D., "Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP",
              RFC 813, July 1982.

   [RFC0814]  Clark, D., "Name, addresses, ports, and routes", RFC 814,
              July 1982.

   [RFC0816]  Clark, D., "Fault isolation and recovery", RFC 816, July
              1982.

   [RFC0817]  Clark, D., "Modularity and efficiency in protocol
              implementation", RFC 817, July 1982.

   [RFC0872]  Padlipsky, M., "TCP-on-a-LAN", RFC 872, September 1982.

   [RFC0879]  Postel, J., "TCP maximum segment size and related topics",
              RFC 879, November 1983.

   [RFC0889]  Mills, D., "Internet delay experiments", RFC 889, December
              1983.

   [RFC0896]  Nagle, J., "Congestion control in IP/TCP internetworks",
              RFC 896, January 1984.

   [RFC0964]  Sidhu, D. and T. Blumer, "Some problems with the
              specification of the Military Standard Transmission
              Control Protocol", RFC 964, November 1985.

   [RFC1071]  Braden, R., Borman, D., Partridge, C., and W. Plummer,
              "Computing the Internet checksum", RFC 1071, September
              1988.

   [RFC1078]  Lottor, M., "TCP port service Multiplexer (TCPMUX)", RFC
              1078, November 1988.

   [RFC6013]  Simpson, W., "TCP Cookie Transactions (TCPCT)", RFC 6013,
              January 2011.

7.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-tcpm-tcp-edo]
              Touch, J. and W. Eddy, "TCP Extended Data Offset Option",
              draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-edo-01 (work in progress), October
              2014.

   [RFC0793]  Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
              793, September 1981.

Zimmermann, et al.      Expires January 30, 2016                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft    Outdated TCP Extensions and Documents        July 2015

   [RFC1122]  Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
              Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.

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

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC5461]  Gont, F., "TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors", RFC 5461,
              February 2009.

   [RFC6633]  Gont, F., "Deprecation of ICMP Source Quench Messages",
              RFC 6633, May 2012.

   [RFC6691]  Borman, D., "TCP Options and Maximum Segment Size (MSS)",
              RFC 6691, July 2012.

   [RFC7413]  Cheng, Y., Chu, J., Radhakrishnan, S., and A. Jain, "TCP
              Fast Open", December 2014.

   [RFC7414]  Duke, M., Braden, R., Eddy, W., Blanton, E., and A.
              Zimmermann, "A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol
              (TCP) Specification Documents", December 2014.

Authors' Addresses

   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

Zimmermann, et al.      Expires January 30, 2016                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft    Outdated TCP Extensions and Documents        July 2015

   Lars Eggert
   NetApp, Inc.
   Sonnenallee 1
   Kirchheim  85551
   Germany

   Phone: +49 89 900594306
   Email: lars@netapp.com

Zimmermann, et al.      Expires January 30, 2016                [Page 8]