Network Working Group M. Duke
Internet-Draft Boeing Phantom Works
Expires: April 8, 2005 R. Braden
USC Information Sciences Institute
W. Eddy
NASA GRC/Verizon FNS
E. Blanton
Purdue University
October 8, 2004
A Roadmap for TCP Specification Documents
draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-roadmap-00
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 8, 2005.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
Abstract
This document contains a "roadmap" to the Requests for Comments (RFC)
documents relating to the Internet's Transmission Control Protocol
Duke, et al. Expires April 8, 2005 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap October 2004
(TCP). This roadmap provides a brief summary of the documents
defining TCP and various TCP extensions that have accumulated in the
RFC series. This serves as a rough guide and quick reference for
both TCP implementers and other parties that need help consuming the
vast cornucopia of TCP-related RFCs.
Duke, et al. Expires April 8, 2005 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap October 2004
1. Introduction
One critical part of an Internet host's software is a correct and
efficient implementation of the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
[RFC0793]. As TCP has evolved over the years, many distinct
documents have become part of the accepted standard for TCP. At the
same time, a large number of more experimental modifications to TCP
have been published in the RFC series.
As an introduction to newcomers and an attempt to organize the
plethora of information for old hands, this document contains a
"roadmap" to the TCP-related RFCs. It provides a brief summary of
the relevant RFC documents that define TCP. This can give rough
guidance to implementers on the relevance and significance of various
standards track extensions, informational notes, and best current
practices
This roadmap includes a brief description of the contents and
relevance of each TCP-related RFC. In some cases, we simply supply
the abstract or some key summary sentence from the text as a terse
description. In addition, a letter code after each RFC number
indicates its category in the RFC series:
S - Standards Track (Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, or
Standard)
E - Experimental
B - Best Current Practice
I - Informational
Note that the category of each RFC does not necessarily reflect its
current relevance. For instance, RFC 2581 is nearly universally
deployed although it is only a "Proposed Standard". Similarly, some
"Informational" RFCs actually contain technical proposals for
changing TCP.
Section 2 lists the RFCs that form the core TCP specification.
Section 3 lists some RFCs that provide suggestions for implementers
or describe best current practices concerning issues raised by
particular network environments. Section 4 lists RFCs that are
experimental and may one day become standards, Section 5 lists some
deprecated extensions, Section 6 contains case studies and analysis,
and Section 7 provides tips and tools for implementers. Within each
section, RFCs are listed in chronological order.
When this document describes a features as "available in modern
operating systems", we mean that the feature is at least present in
widely deployed versions of today's Linux, BSD-derived, and Windows
operating systems. Many other specific operating systems are in use
on the Internet, and feature support varies widely both among them
Duke, et al. Expires April 8, 2005 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap October 2004
and among specific versions of even the few operating systems in the
above list. However, if we say a feature is found in "modern
operating systems", the reader may fairly safely bet that it can at
least be found in most presently maintained commercial Unix flavors,
Cisco IOS versions, and various real-time and embedded kernels that
offer TCP support.
Duke, et al. Expires April 8, 2005 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap October 2004
2. Core Specification
A small number of documents compose the core specification of TCP.
These can be grouped into the base documents, describing things like
the header format and state machine operation, documents describing
congestion control behaviors, and documents that detail SACK use for
efficient loss recovery. At this time every conformant TCP
implementation should implement:
Base protocol: RFC 793, as extended and clarified by RFC 1122, RFC
1323, RFC 2873, and RFC 2988. These documents are described in
Section 2.1
Congestion control: RFC 2581, RFC 3042, RFC 3168, RFC 3390, and
RFC 3782. Section 2.2 discusses these RFCs.
SACK: RFC 2018, RFC 2883, and RFC 3517 are noted in Section 2.3
In addition to these core documents, there are a number of standards
track documents that describe the TCP MIB statistics that are
required to be kept. These documents are listed in Section 2.4 and
their history is sketched, as a somewhat complex relationship exists
between them.
2.1 Base Protocol
RFC 0793 S: "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7 (Sep 81)
This is the fundamental TCP specification document. Written by
Jon Postel as part of the Internet protocol suite's core, it
describes the TCP packet format, the TCP state machine and event
processing, and TCP's semantics for data transmission,
reliability, flow control, multiplexing, and acknowledgement.
Although the precedence and security compartment portions are
mostly irrelevant today, the majority of this document still
acurately describes modern TCPs. [RFC0793]
RFC 1122 S: "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers"
(Oct 89)
This document updates and clarifies RFC 793; fixing some
specification bugs and oversights. It also explains some features
such as keep-alives and Karn's and Jacobson's RTO estimation
algorithms [karn][vj88]. ICMP interactions are mentioned and some
tips are given for efficient implementation. RFC 1122 lists the
various features that MUST, SHOULD, MAY, SHOULD NOT, and MUST NOT
be present in standards-conforming TCP implementations. [RFC1122]
Duke, et al. Expires April 8, 2005 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap October 2004
RFC 1323 S: "TCP Extensions for High Performance" (May 92)
This document introduces window scaling, timestamps, and
protection against wrapped sequence numbers for efficient and safe
operation over paths with large bandwidth-delay products. These
are all commonly found in modern operating systems; however, they
may require manual tuning and configuration. There are some
corner cases in this specification that are still under
discussion. [RFC1323]
RFC 2873 S: "TCP Processing of the IPv4 Precendence Field" (Jun 00)
This document removes from the TCP specification all processing of
the precedence bits of the TOS byte of the IP header. This
resolves a conflict between RFC 793 and Diff-Serv. [RFC2873]
RFC 2988 S: "Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer" (Nov 00)
Abstract: "This document defines the standard algorithm that
Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) senders are required to use to
compute and manage their retransmission timer. It expands on the
discussion in section 4.2.3.1 of RFC 1122 and upgrades the
requirement of supporting the algorithm from a SHOULD to a MUST."
[RFC2988]
2.2 Congestion Control
RFC 2581 S: "TCP Congestion Control" (Apr 99)
This document defines the current versions of Van Jacobson's
congestion avoidance and control mechanisms for TCP, based on his
1988 SIGCOMM paper [vj88]. [RFC2581]
RFC 3042 S: "Enhancing TCP's Loss Recovery Using Limited Transmit"
(Jan 01)
Abstract: "This document proposes a new Transmission Control
Protocol (TCP) mechanism that can be used to more effectively
recover lost segments when a connection's congestion window is
small, or when a large number of segments are lost in a single
transmission window." [RFC3042]
RFC 3168 S: "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
to IP" (Sep 01)
This document defines a means of detecting congestion without
resorting to loss. Although congestion notification takes place
Duke, et al. Expires April 8, 2005 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap October 2004
at the IP level, support is required at the transport level to
echo the bits and adapt the sending rate. This document updates
RFC 793 to define two previously-unused flag bits in the TCP
header. [RFC3168]
RFC 3390 S: "Increasing TCP'S Initial Window" (Oct 02)
This document permits a TCP to use an initial window larger that
one packet during in the slow-start phase, updating RFC 2581.
[RFC3390]
RFC 3782 S: "The NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery
Algorithm" (Apr 04)
This document specifies a slight modification to the standard Reno
fast recovery algorithm, whereby a TCP sender can use partial
acknowledgements to make inferences determining the next segment
to send in situations where SACK would be helpful, but isn't
available. [RFC3782]
2.3 SACK-based Loss Recovery
RFC 2018 S: "TCP Selective Acknowledgement Options" (Oct 96)
This document defines the sective acknowledgement (SACK)
mechanism, providing more fine-grained acknowledgement information
than the basic cummulative acknowledgement mechanism. Exchange of
SACK information is widely implemented in modern operating
systems. [RFC2018]
RFC 2883 S: "An Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement (SACK)
Option for TCP" (Jul 00)
This document extends RFC 2018 to cover the case of acknowledging
duplicate packets. [RFC2883]
RFC 3517 S: "A Conservative Selective Acknowledgement (SACK)-based
Loss Recovery Algorithm for TCP" (Apr 03)
This document describes a TCP loss recovery algorithm which uses
available SACK information to intelligently recover when more than
one segment is lost from a single flight of data. While support
for the exchange of SACK information is widely implemented, not
all implementations use an algorithm as sophisticated as that
described in RFC 3517. [RFC3517]
Duke, et al. Expires April 8, 2005 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap October 2004
2.4 TCP MIBs
The first MIB module defined for use with SNMP (in RFC 1066 and its
update, RFC 1156) was a single monolithic MIB module, called MIB-I.
This evolved over time to be MIB-II (RFC 1213). It then became
apparent that having a single monolithic MIB module was not scalable,
given the number and breadth of MIB data definitions that needed to
be included. Thus, additional MIB modules were defined, and those
parts of MIB-II which needed to evolve were split off. Eventually,
the remaining parts of MIB-II were also split off, with the
TCP-specific part being documented in RFC 2012.
RFC 2012 is the primary document that implementers should presently
be concerned with for MIB-II. If implementers desire to support
MIB-I, then RFC 1156 is the document to refer to, although it has
been obsoleted by the MIB-II specification in RFC 1213. Although a
standards track document, RFC 2452 is considered a historic mistake
by the MIB community, as it is based on the idea of parallel IPv4 and
IPv6 structures. The community has decided that while new structures
are needed to accomodate IPv6, a single generic structure for both
IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, to aid in definition, implementation, and
transition between IPv4 and IPv6.
RFC 1156 S: "Management Information Base for Network Management of
TCP/IP-based Internets" (May 90)
This document describes the required MIB fields for TCP
implementations, with minor corrections and no technical changes
from RFC 1066, which it obsoletes. This is the standards track
document for MIB-I. [RFC1156]
RFC 2012 S: "SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the Transmission
Control Protocol using SMIv2" (Nov 96)
This document defines the TCP MIB, updating RFC 1213.[RFC2012]
RFC 2452 S: "IP Version 6 Management Information Base for the
Transmission Control Protocol" (Dec 98)
This document augments RFC 2012 by adding an IPv6-specific
connection table. The rest of 2012 holds for any IP version.
((Shouldn't 2452 "Update" 2012 ?)) [RFC2452]
Duke, et al. Expires April 8, 2005 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap October 2004
3. Special Cases and Implementation Hints
RFC 1144 S: "Compressing TCP/IP headers for low-speed serial links"
(Feb 90)
This document contains Van Jacobson's classic specification of
TCP/IP header compression. It is notable for its elegance and
clarity. [RFC1144]
RFC 1948 I: "Defending Against Sequence Number Attacks" (May 96)
The sequence number guessing TCP vulnerability is described in
this document and means for defending it from exploitation are
discussed in this document. Some variation is implemented in most
modern operating systems. [RFC1948]
RFC 2140 I: "TCP Control Block Interdependence" (Apr 97)
This document suggests how TCP connections between the same
endpoints might share information, such as their congestion
control state. To some degree, this is done in practice by a few
modern operating systems. [RFC2140]
RFC 2488 B: "Enhancing TCP Over Satellite Channels using Standard
Mechanisms" (Jan 99)
From abstract: "While TCP works over satellite channels there are
several IETF standardized mechanisms that enable TCP to more
effectively utilize the available capacity of the network path.
This document outlines some of these TCP mitigations. At this
time, all mitigations discussed in this document are IETF
standards track mechanisms (or are compliant with IETF
standards)." [RFC2488]
RFC 2525 I: "Known TCP Implementation Problems" (Mar 99)
From abstract: "This memo catalogs a number of known TCP
implementation problems. The goal in doing so is to improve
conditions in the existing Internet by enhancing the quality of
current TCP/IP implementations." [RFC2525]
RFC 3360 B: "Inappropriate TCP Resets Considered Harmful" (Aug 02)
This document is a plea to firewall vendors not to send gratuitous
TCP RST (Reset) packets when unassigned TCP header bits are used.
This practice prevents desirable extension and evolution of the
protocol and hence is inimical to the future of the Internet.
[RFC3360]
Duke, et al. Expires April 8, 2005 [Page 9]
RFC 3449 B: "TCP Performance Implications of Network Path Asymmetry"
(Dec 02)
From abstract: "This document describes TCP performance problems
that arise because of asymmetric effects. These problems arise in
several access networks, including bandwidth-asymmetric networks
and packet radio subnetworks, for different underlying reasons.
However, the end result on TCP performance is the same in both
cases: performance often degrades significantly because of
imperfection and variability in the ACK feedback from the receiver
to the sender. The document details several mitigations to these
effects, which have either been proposed or evaluated in the
literature, or are currently deployed in networks." [RFC3449]
RFC 3481 B: "TCP over Second (2.5G) and Third (3G) Generation
Wireless Networks" (Feb 03)
From abstract: "This document describes a profile for optimizing
TCP to adapt so that it handles paths including second (2.5G) and
third (3G) generation wireless networks." [RFC3481]
RFC 3493 I: "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6" (Feb 03)
This document describes the de facto standard sockets API for
programming with TCP, which is implemented nearly ubiquitously in
modern operating systems and programming languages. [RFC3493]
Duke, et al. Expires April 8, 2005 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap October 2004
4. Experimental TCP Extensions
These documents may one day join the standards track, but they are
currently not recommended for implementation.
RFC 2861 E: "TCP Congestion Window Validation" (Jun 00)
Decaying the congestion window if it hasn't been recently
utilized. [RFC2861]
RFC 3465 E: "TCP Congestion Control with Appropriate Byte Counting
(ABC)" (Feb 03)
Congestion control using number of bytes acknowledged rather than
number of acknowledgements received. Implemented in Linux.
[RFC3465]
RFC 3522 E: "The Eifel Detection Algorithm for TCP" (Apr 03)
Use of timestamps to detect spurious timeouts. [RFC3522]
RFC 3540 E: "Robust Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) signaling
with Nonces" (Jun 03)
Modified ECN to address security concerns. [RFC3540]
RFC 3649 E: "HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestion Windows" (Dec 03)
A modification to TCP's steady state behavior in order to
efficiently use very large windows is described in this document.
RFC 3742 E: "Limited Slow-Start for TCP with Large Congestion
Windows" (Mar 04)
This document describes a more conservative slow-start behavoir to
prevent massive amounts of loss when connections use very large
windows. [RFC3742]
Duke, et al. Expires April 8, 2005 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap October 2004
5. Deprecated TCP Extensions
The RFCs listed here define extensions that failed to arouse
substantial interest, or were found to be defective.
RFC 1146 E "TCP Alternate Checksum Options" (Mar 90)
This document defined a mechanism for using TCP checksums other
than the 16-bit ones-complement, which might be more robust.
[RFC1146]
RFC 1379 I "Extending TCP for Transactions -- Concepts" (Nov 92)
See RFC 1644. [RFC1379]
RFC 1644 E "T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions Functional
Specification" (Jul 94)
The inventors of T/TCP believed that cached connection state could
be used to eliminate TCP's 3-way handshake, to support single-
packet request/response exchanges. RFCs 1379 and 1644 show that
it is far from simple. Furthermore, T/TCP floundered on the ease
of denial-of-service attacks that can result. [RFC1644]
RFC 1693 E "An Extension to TCP: Partial Order Service" (Nov 94)
This document defines a TCP extension for applications where the
order that application layer objects are received in is relatively
unimportant, citing multimedia and database applications as
examples. In practice, these applications either made due with
the mismatch of standard TCP for their goals, or used other more
specialized transport protocols. [RFC1693]
Duke, et al. Expires April 8, 2005 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap October 2004
6. Case Studies and Protocol Analysis
RFC 1337 I: "TIME-WAIT Assassination Hazards in TCP" (May 92)
This document points out a problem with acting on received reset
segments while in the TIME-WAIT state. The main reccommendation
is that hosts in TIME-WAIT ignore resets. [RFC1337]
RFC 2415 I: "Simulation Studies of Increased Initial TCP Window Size"
(Sep 98)
Results of some simulations using TCP initial windows greater than
1 segment are presented in this document. The analysis indicates
that user-perceived performance can be improved by increasing the
initial window to 3 segments. [RFC2415]
RFC 2416 I: "When TCP Starts Up With Four Packets Into Only Three
Buffers" (Sep 98)
This document uses simulation results to clear up some concerns
about using an initial window of 4 segments when the network path
has less provisioning. [RFC2416]
RFC 2760 I: "Ongoing TCP Research Related to Satellites" (Feb 00)
This document discusses the advantages and disadvantages of
several different experimental means of improving TCP performance
over long-delay or error-prone paths. These include: T/TCP,
larger initial windows, byte counting, delayed acknowledgements,
slow start thresholds, NewReno and SACK-based loss recovery, FACK
[FACK], ECN, various corruption-detection mechanisms, congestion
avoidance changes for fairness, use of multiple parallel flows,
pacing, header compression, state sharing, and ACK congestion
control, filtering, and reconstruction. [RFC2760]
RFC 2884 I: "Performance Evaluation of Explicit Congestion
Notification (ECN) in IP Networks" (Jul 00)
This document describes experimental results that show some
improvements to the performance of both short and long-lived
connections due to ECN. [RFC2884]
RFC 2914 B: "Congestion Control Principles" (Sep 00)
The use of end-to-end congestion control for preventing congestion
collapse and providing fairness to TCP is motivated by this
document. [RFC2914]
Duke, et al. Expires April 8, 2005 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap October 2004
RFC 2923 I: "TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery" (Sep 00)
From abstract: "This memo catalogs several known Transmission
Control Protocol (TCP) implementation problems dealing with Path
Maximum Transmission Unit Discovery (PMTUD), including the
long-standing black hole problem, stretch acknowlegements (ACKs)
due to confusion between Maximum Segment Size (MSS) and segment
size, and MSS advertisement based on PMTU." [RFC2923]
RFC 2963 I: "A Rate Adaptive Shaper for Differentiated Services" (Oct
2000)
This document describes how TCP performance can be improved in
diffserv networks using rate adaptive shapers and color markers.
[RFC2963]
RFC 3135 I: "Performance Enhancing Proxies Intended to Mitigate
Link-Related Degradations" (Jun 01)
From abstract: "This document is a survey of Performance Enhancing
Proxies (PEPs) often employed to improve degraded TCP performance
caused by characteristics of specific link environments, for
example, in satellite, wireless WAN, and wireless LAN
environments. Different types of Performance Enhancing Proxies
are described as well as the mechanisms used to improve
performance." [RFC3135]
Duke, et al. Expires April 8, 2005 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap October 2004
7. Tools and Tutorials
RFC 1180 I: "TCP/IP Tutorial" (Jan 91) This document is an extremely
brief overview of the TCP/IP protocol suite as a whole. It gives
some explanation as to how and where TCP fits in. [RFC1180]
RFC 1470 I: "FYI on a Network Management Tool Catalog: Tools for
Monitoring and Debugging TCP/IP Internets and Interconnected Devices"
(Jun 93)
A few of the tools that this document describes are still
maintained and in use today, such as ttcp and tcpdump, however,
many of the tools described do not related specifically to TCP and
are no longer used or easily available. [RFC1470]
RFC 2398 I: "Some Testing Tools for TCP Implementors" (Aug 98)
A number of TCP packet generation and analysis tools are described
in this document. While some of these tools are no longer readily
available or widely used, for the most part they are still
relevant and useable. [RFC2398]
Duke, et al. Expires April 8, 2005 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap October 2004
8. Historical
The documents listed in this section contain information that is
largely duplicated by the standards documents in Section 2, however
some of them contain a greater depth of problem statement
explanation, or other historical context.
RFC 813: "Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP" (July 82)
This document contains an early discussion of Silly Window
Syndrome and its avoidance, and motivates and describes the use of
delayed acknowledgements. [RFC0813]
RFC 817: "Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol Implementation" (July
82)
The suggestions for implementation in this document are general
and not TCP-specific, however they have been used to develop TCP
implementations and describe some performance implications of the
interactions between various layers in the Internet stack.
[RFC0817]
RFC 876: "The TCP Maximum Segment Size and Related Topics" (Nov 83)
Abstract: This memo discusses the TCP Maximum Segment Size Option
and related topics. The purposes is to clarify some aspects of
TCP and its interaction with IP. This memo is a clarification to
the TCP specification, and contains information that may be
considered as "advice to implementers". [RFC0876]
RFC 896: "Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetworks" (Jan 84)
This document contains some early experiences with congestion
collapse and some initial thoughts on how to avoid it using
congestion control in TCP. [RFC0896]
RFC 964: "Some Problems with the Specification of the Military
Standard Transmission Control Protocol" (Nov 85)
The US Military wrote their own document defining TCP in addition
to RFC 793. A few serious specification bugs are detailed in RFC
964, reminding us of the difficulty in specification writing (even
when working from existing documents!). [RFC0964]
RFC 1066: "Management Information Base for Network Management of
TCP/IP-based Internets" (Aug 88)
This was the first document describing the TCP MIB. It is
Duke, et al. Expires April 8, 2005 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap October 2004
obsoleted by RFC 1156. [RFC1066]
RFC 1072: "TCP Extensions for Long-Delay Paths" (Oct 88)
Early explanations of the mechanisms that were later described by
RFCs 1323 and 2018 are found in this document. [RFC1072]
RFC 1185: "TCP Extension for High-Speed Paths" (Oct 90)
More advanced strategies for dealing with sequence number wrapping
and detecting duplicates from earlier connections are outlined in
this document that builds on RFC 1072. [RFC1185]
RFC 1213 S: "Management Information Base for Network Management of
TCP/IP-based Internets: MIB-II" (Mar 91)
This document describes the second version of the MIB in a
monolithic form. RFC 2012 updates this document, by splitting out
the TCP-specific portions. [RFC1213]
Duke, et al. Expires April 8, 2005 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap October 2004
9. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security considerations. Each RFC
listed in this document attempts to address the security
considerations of the proposals it contains.
Duke, et al. Expires April 8, 2005 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap October 2004
10. Acknowledgments
This document grew out of a discussion on the end2end-interest
mailing list, the public list of the End-to-End Research Group of the
IRTF. We thank Joe Touch and Reiner Ludwig for their contributions,
in particular. The chairs of the TCPM working group, Mark Allman and
Ted Faber, have been instrumental in the development of this
document. Keith McCloghrie provided some useful notes and
clarification on the various MIB-related RFCs.
Duke, et al. Expires April 8, 2005 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap October 2004
11. References
11.1 Core Specification
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
793, September 1981.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[RFC1156] McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information Base
for network management of TCP/IP-based internets", RFC
1156, May 1990.
[RFC1323] Jacobson, V., Braden, B. and D. Borman, "TCP Extensions
for High Performance", RFC 1323, May 1992.
[RFC2012] McCloghrie, K., "SNMPv2 Management Information Base for
the Transmission Control Protocol using SMIv2", RFC 2012,
November 1996.
[RFC2018] Mathis, M., Mahdavi, J., Floyd, S. and A. Romanow, "TCP
Selective Acknowledgment Options", RFC 2018, October 1996.
[RFC2452] Daniele, M., "IP Version 6 Management Information Base for
the Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 2452, December
1998.
[RFC2581] Allman, M., Paxson, V. and W. Stevens, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 2581, April 1999.
[RFC2873] Xiao, X., Hannan, A., Paxson, V. and E. Crabbe, "TCP
Processing of the IPv4 Precedence Field", RFC 2873, June
2000.
[RFC2883] Floyd, S., Mahdavi, J., Mathis, M. and M. Podolsky, "An
Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement (SACK) Option
for TCP", RFC 2883, July 2000.
[RFC2988] Paxson, V. and M. Allman, "Computing TCP's Retransmission
Timer", RFC 2988, November 2000.
[RFC3042] Allman, M., Balakrishnan, H. and S. Floyd, "Enhancing
TCP's Loss Recovery Using Limited Transmit", RFC 3042,
January 2001.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S. and D. Black, "The Addition of
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 3168,
Duke, et al. Expires April 8, 2005 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap October 2004
September 2001.
[RFC3390] Allman, M., Floyd, S. and C. Partridge, "Increasing TCP's
Initial Window", RFC 3390, October 2002.
[RFC3517] Blanton, E., Allman, M., Fall, K. and L. Wang, "A
Conservative Selective Acknowledgment (SACK)-based Loss
Recovery Algorithm for TCP", RFC 3517, April 2003.
[RFC3782] Floyd, S., Henderson, T. and A. Gurtov, "The NewReno
Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery Algorithm", RFC 3782,
April 2004.
11.2 Special Cases and Implementation Hints
[RFC1144] Jacobson, V., "Compressing TCP/IP headers for low-speed
serial links", RFC 1144, February 1990.
[RFC1948] Bellovin, S., "Defending Against Sequence Number Attacks",
RFC 1948, May 1996.
[RFC2140] Touch, J., "TCP Control Block Interdependence", RFC 2140,
April 1997.
[RFC2488] Allman, M., Glover, D. and L. Sanchez, "Enhancing TCP Over
Satellite Channels using Standard Mechanisms", BCP 28, RFC
2488, January 1999.
[RFC2525] Paxson, V., Dawson, S., Fenner, W., Griner, J., Heavens,
I., Lahey, K., Semke, J. and B. Volz, "Known TCP
Implementation Problems", RFC 2525, March 1999.
[RFC3360] Floyd, S., "Inappropriate TCP Resets Considered Harmful",
BCP 60, RFC 3360, August 2002.
[RFC3449] Balakrishnan, H., Padmanabhan, V., Fairhurst, G. and M.
Sooriyabandara, "TCP Performance Implications of Network
Path Asymmetry", BCP 69, RFC 3449, December 2002.
[RFC3481] Inamura, H., Montenegro, G., Ludwig, R., Gurtov, A. and F.
Khafizov, "TCP over Second (2.5G) and Third (3G)
Generation Wireless Networks", BCP 71, RFC 3481, February
2003.
[RFC3493] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J. and W.
Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", RFC
3493, February 2003.
Duke, et al. Expires April 8, 2005 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap October 2004
11.3 Experimental TCP Extensions
[RFC2861] Handley, M., Padhye, J. and S. Floyd, "TCP Congestion
Window Validation", RFC 2861, June 2000.
[RFC3465] Allman, M., "TCP Congestion Control with Appropriate Byte
Counting (ABC)", RFC 3465, February 2003.
[RFC3522] Ludwig, R. and M. Meyer, "The Eifel Detection Algorithm
for TCP", RFC 3522, April 2003.
[RFC3540] Spring, N., Wetherall, D. and D. Ely, "Robust Explicit
Congestion Notification (ECN) Signaling with Nonces", RFC
3540, June 2003.
[RFC3649] Floyd, S., "HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestion Windows",
RFC 3649, December 2003.
[RFC3742] Floyd, S., "Limited Slow-Start for TCP with Large
Congestion Windows", RFC 3742, March 2004.
11.4 Deprecated TCP Extensions
[RFC1146] Zweig, J. and C. Partridge, "TCP alternate checksum
options", RFC 1146, March 1990.
[RFC1379] Braden, B., "Extending TCP for Transactions -- Concepts",
RFC 1379, November 1992.
[RFC1644] Braden, B., "T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions
Functional Specification", RFC 1644, July 1994.
[RFC1693] Connolly, T., Amer, P. and P. Conrad, "An Extension to TCP
: Partial Order Service", RFC 1693, November 1994.
11.5 Case Studies and Protocol Analysis
[RFC1337] Braden, B., "TIME-WAIT Assassination Hazards in TCP", RFC
1337, May 1992.
[RFC2415] Poduri, K., "Simulation Studies of Increased Initial TCP
Window Size", RFC 2415, September 1998.
[RFC2416] Shepard, T. and C. Partridge, "When TCP Starts Up With
Four Packets Into Only Three Buffers", RFC 2416, September
1998.
[RFC2760] Allman, M., Dawkins, S., Glover, D., Griner, J., Tran, D.,
Duke, et al. Expires April 8, 2005 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap October 2004
Henderson, T., Heidemann, J., Touch, J., Kruse, H.,
Ostermann, S., Scott, K. and J. Semke, "Ongoing TCP
Research Related to Satellites", RFC 2760, February 2000.
[RFC2884] Hadi Salim, J. and U. Ahmed, "Performance Evaluation of
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) in IP Networks",
RFC 2884, July 2000.
[RFC2914] Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41, RFC
2914, September 2000.
[RFC2923] Lahey, K., "TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery", RFC
2923, September 2000.
[RFC2963] Bonaventure, O. and S. De Cnodder, "A Rate Adaptive Shaper
for Differentiated Services", RFC 2963, October 2000.
[RFC3135] Border, J., Kojo, M., Griner, J., Montenegro, G. and Z.
Shelby, "Performance Enhancing Proxies Intended to
Mitigate Link-Related Degradations", RFC 3135, June 2001.
11.6 Tools and Tutorials
[RFC1180] Socolofsky, T. and C. Kale, "TCP/IP tutorial", RFC 1180,
January 1991.
[RFC1470] Enger, R. and J. Reynolds, "FYI on a Network Management
Tool Catalog: Tools for Monitoring and Debugging TCP/IP
Internets and Interconnected Devices", RFC 1470, June
1993.
[RFC2151] Kessler, G. and S. Shepard, "A Primer On Internet and
TCP/IP Tools and Utilities", RFC 2151, June 1997.
[RFC2398] Parker, S. and C. Schmechel, "Some Testing Tools for TCP
Implementors", RFC 2398, August 1998.
11.7 Historical
[RFC0813] Clark, D., "Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP",
RFC 813, July 1982.
[RFC0817] Clark, D., "Modularity and efficiency in protocol
implementation", RFC 817, July 1982.
[RFC0876] Smallberg, D., "Survey of SMTP implementations", RFC 876,
September 1983.
Duke, et al. Expires April 8, 2005 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap October 2004
[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.
[RFC1066] McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information Base
for network management of TCP/IP-based internets", RFC
1066, August 1988.
[RFC1072] Jacobson, V. and R. Braden, "TCP extensions for long-delay
paths", RFC 1072, October 1988.
[RFC1185] Jacobson, V., Braden, B. and L. Zhang, "TCP Extension for
High-Speed Paths", RFC 1185, October 1990.
[RFC1213] McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information Base
for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets:MIB-II",
STD 17, RFC 1213, March 1991.
11.8 Informative References Ouside the RFC Series
[FACK] Mathis, M. and J. Mahdavi, "Forward Acknowledgement: Refining
TCP Congestion Control", ACM SIGCOMM, August 1996.
[karn] Karn, P. and C. Partridge, "Round Trip Time Estimation", ACM
SIGCOMM, August 1987.
[vj88] Jacobson, V., "Congestion Avoidance and Control", ACM
SIGCOMM, August 1988.
Authors' Addresses
Martin Duke
Boeing Phantom Works
PO Box 3707, MC 3W-51
Seattle, WA 98124-2207
Phone: 253-657-8203
EMail: mduke26@comcast.net
Duke, et al. Expires April 8, 2005 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap October 2004
Robert Braden
USC Information Sciences Institute
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
Phone: 310-448-9173
EMail: braden@isi.edu
Wesley M. Eddy
NASA GRC/Verizon FNS
EMail: weddy@grc.nasa.gov
Ethan Blanton
Purdue University
EMail: eblanton@cs.purdue.edu
Duke, et al. Expires April 8, 2005 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft TCP Roadmap October 2004
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Duke, et al. Expires April 8, 2005 [Page 26]
