Moving Undeployed TCP Extensions to Historic and Informational Status -- An addition to RFC 6247
draft-zimmermann-tcpm-undeployed-00

TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions                       A. Zimmermann
(TCPM) WG                                                   NetApp, Inc.
Internet-Draft                                                   W. Eddy
Obsoletes: 675 761 721 813 816 879 896                       MTI Systems
6013 (if approved)                                             L. Eggert
Updates: 4614bis (if approved)                              NetApp, Inc.
Intended status: Informational                              July 2, 2014
Expires: January 3, 2015

Moving Undeployed TCP Extensions to Historic and Informational Status --
                        An addition to RFC 6247
                  draft-zimmermann-tcpm-undeployed-00

Abstract

   This document reclassifies several TCP extensions that have either
   been superceded or never seen widespread use to Historic status.  The
   affected RFCs are RFC 675, RFC 761, RFC 721, RFC 813, RFC 816, RFC
   879, RFC 896, RFC 6013.  Additionally, it reclassifies RFC 814, RFC
   817, RFC 872, RFC 964, RFC 1078 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 3, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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

Zimmermann, et al.       Expires January 3, 2015                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft          Undeployed TCP Extensions              July 2014

   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 accumulated that
   described aspects of the TCP protocol, implementation, and
   extensions.  Some of these have become outdated or simply have never
   seen widespread deployment.  Section 6 and 7.1 of the TCP Roadmap
   document [I-D.ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis] 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 6 and 7.1 of [I-D.ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis]
   for justification.

2.  RFC Editor Considerations

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

   o  [RFC0675] on "Specification of Internet Transmission Control
      Program"

   o  [RFC0761] on "DoD standard Transmission Control Protocol"

   o  [RFC0721] on "Out-of-Band Control Signals in a Host-to-Host
      Protocol"

   o  [RFC0813] on "Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP"

   o  [RFC0816] on "Fault Isolation and Recovery

   o  [RFC0879] on "TCP Maximum Segment Size and Related Topics"

   o  [RFC6013] on "TCP Cookie Transactions"

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

   o  [RFC0814] on "Name, addresses, ports, and routes"

Zimmermann, et al.       Expires January 3, 2015                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft          Undeployed TCP Extensions              July 2014

   o  [RFC0817] on "Modularity and efficiency in protocol
      implementation"

   o  [RFC0872] on "TCP-on-a-LAN"

   o  [RFC0964] on "Some problems with the specification of the Military
      Standard Transmission Control Protocol"

   o  [RFC1078] on "TCP port service Multiplexer (TCPMUX)"

3.  Open Questions for TCPM Working Group

   o  How should [RFC0896] be handled?  (Nagle algorithm and discussion)
      Informational?

   o  Should TCPMUX be Historic?  It is easy to find on systems, but
      does anyone actually use it anymore, or is it even desirable?

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.  References

5.1.  Normative References

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

   [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,

Zimmermann, et al.       Expires January 3, 2015                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft          Undeployed TCP Extensions              July 2014

              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.

   [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.

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

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

5.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis]
              Duke, M., Braden, R., Eddy, W., Blanton, E., and A.
              Zimmermann, "A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol
              (TCP) Specification Documents",
              draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis-05 (work in progress),
              April 2014.

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

Authors' Addresses

   Alexander Zimmermann
   NetApp, Inc.
   Sonnenallee 1
   Kirchheim  85551
   Germany

   Phone: +49 89 900594712
   Email: alexander.zimmermann@netapp.com

Zimmermann, et al.       Expires January 3, 2015                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft          Undeployed TCP Extensions              July 2014

   Wesley M. Eddy
   MTI Systems
   3000 Aerospace 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 January 3, 2015                [Page 5]