idnits 2.17.1 draft-hoffman-telnet-uri-05.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 14. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 165. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 142. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 149. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 155. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (May 3, 2005) is 6933 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1738 (Obsoleted by RFC 4248, RFC 4266) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2396 (Obsoleted by RFC 3986) Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 9 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group P. Hoffman 3 Internet-Draft VPN Consortium 4 Expires: November 4, 2005 May 3, 2005 6 The telnet URI Scheme 7 draft-hoffman-telnet-uri-05.txt 9 Status of this Memo 11 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 12 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 13 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 14 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 16 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 17 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 18 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 19 Drafts. 21 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 22 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 23 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 24 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 26 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 27 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 29 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 4, 2005. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 38 Abstract 40 This document specifies the telnet Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) 41 scheme that was originally specified in RFC 1738. The purpose of 42 this document is to allow RFC 1738 to be made obsolete while keeping 43 the information about the scheme on standards track. 45 1. Introduction 47 URIs were previously defined in [RFC2396], which was updated by 48 [RFC3986]. Those documents also specify how to define schemes for 49 URIs. 51 The first definition for many URI schemes appeared in [RFC1738]. 52 Because that document has been made obsolete, this document copies 53 the telnet URI scheme from it to allow that material to remain on 54 standards track. 56 2. Scheme Definition 58 The Telnet URL scheme is used to designate interactive services that 59 may be accessed by the Telnet protocol. 61 A telnet URL takes the form: 63 telnet://:@:/ 65 The final "/" character may be omitted. If : is omitted, the 66 port defaults to 23. The : can be omitted, as well as the 67 whole : part. Few implementations handle the user 68 name and password very well, if at all. 70 This URL does not designate a data object, but rather an interactive 71 service. Remote interactive services vary widely in the means by 72 which they allow remote logins; in practice, the and 73 supplied are advisory only: clients accessing a telnet URL 74 merely advise the user of the suggested username and password. 76 Many RFCs have added various services to the Telnet protocol for 77 better authentication, encryption of traffic, or both. Those RFCs 78 have not specified new URI schemes for Telnet to invoke those 79 services (along the lines of "https" being a different URI scheme 80 from "http"). Some modern telnet clients attempt to invoke those 81 more-secure versions of Telnet when resolving a "telnet" URL. 83 3. Security Considerations 85 There are many security considerations for URI schemes discussed in 86 [RFC3986]. 88 The Telnet protocol normally uses passwords in the clear for 89 authentication, and normally offers no privacy. In normal telnet, 90 both the user's identity and their password are exposed without any 91 protection; after that, the contents of the entire Telnet session is 92 exposed without any protection. 94 Many extensions have been made to Telnet to make it more secure in 95 different ways. In particular, [RFC2941] gives a framework based on 96 a telnet option that many other security extensions have leveraged 97 off of. These extensions are certainly worthwhile methods for 98 reducing the obvious problems with exposing the user's name, 99 password, and plaintext of the session in the clear. 101 Although some modern telnet clients attempt to invoke those more- 102 secure versions of Telnet when resolving a "telnet" URL, other telnet 103 clients do not, so a user cannot rely on this type of security unless 104 it is explicitly enabled and the results of the security negotiation 105 are checked. 107 4. Informative References 109 [RFC1738] Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L., and M. McCahill, "Uniform 110 Resource Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, December 1994. 112 [RFC2396] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 113 Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, 114 August 1998. 116 [RFC2941] Ts'o, T. and J. Altman, "Telnet Authentication Option", 117 RFC 2941, September 2000. 119 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 120 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, 121 RFC 3986, January 2005. 123 Author's Address 125 Paul Hoffman 126 VPN Consortium 127 127 Segre Place 128 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 129 US 131 Email: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org 133 Intellectual Property Statement 135 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 136 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 137 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 138 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 139 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 140 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 141 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 142 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 144 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 145 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 146 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 147 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 148 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 149 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 151 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 152 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 153 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 154 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 155 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 157 Disclaimer of Validity 159 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 160 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 161 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 162 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 163 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 164 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 165 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 167 Copyright Statement 169 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject 170 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 171 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 173 Acknowledgment 175 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 176 Internet Society.