Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Eggert
Request for Comments: 6247 Nokia
Obsoletes: 1072, 1106, 1110, 1145, May 2011
1146, 1379, 1644, 1693
Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC 1072, RFC 1106,
RFC 1110, RFC 1145, RFC 1146, RFC 1379, RFC 1644, and RFC 1693 to
This document reclassifies several TCP extensions that have never
seen widespread use to Historic status. The affected RFCs are RFC
1072, RFC 1106, RFC 1110, RFC 1145, RFC 1146, RFC 1379, RFC 1644, and
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
Copyright (c) 2011 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
Eggert Informational [Page 1]RFC 6247 Undeployed TCP Extensions to Historic May 2011
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.
TCP has a long history, and several proposed TCP extensions have
never seen widespread deployment. Section 5 of the TCP "roadmap"
document [RFC4614] 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
5 of [RFC4614] for justification.
2. RFC Editor Considerations
Per this document, the RFC Editor has changed the status of the
following RFCs to Historic [RFC2026]:
o [RFC1072] on "TCP Extensions for Long-Delay Paths"
o [RFC1106] and [RFC1110] related to the "TCP Big Window and Nak
o [RFC1145] and [RFC1146] related to the "TCP Alternate Checksum
o [RFC1379] and [RFC1644] on "T/TCP -- Extensions for Transactions
o [RFC1693] on "An Extension to TCP : Partial Order Service"
3. IANA Considerations
IANA has marked the TCP options 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15
documented in [RFC1072], [RFC1146], [RFC1644], and [RFC1693] as
"obsolete" in the "TCP Option Kind Numbers" registry [TCPOPTREG],
with a reference to this RFC.
4. Security Considerations
As mentioned in [RFC4614], the TCP Extensions for Transactions
(T/TCP) [RFC1379][RFC1644] are reported to have security issues
Eggert Informational [Page 2]RFC 6247 Undeployed TCP Extensions to Historic May 20115. Acknowledgments
Lars Eggert is partly funded by [TRILOGY], a research project
supported by the European Commission under its Seventh Framework
6. References6.1. Normative References
[RFC1072] Jacobson, V. and R. Braden, "TCP extensions for long-
delay paths", RFC 1072, October 1988.
[RFC1106] Fox, R., "TCP big window and NAK options", RFC 1106,
[RFC1110] McKenzie, A., "Problem with the TCP big window option",
RFC 1110, August 1989.
[RFC1145] Zweig, J. and C. Partridge, "TCP alternate checksum