<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
    <!ENTITY RFC0675 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.0675.xml'>
    <!ENTITY RFC0721 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.0721.xml'>
    <!ENTITY RFC0879 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.0879.xml'>
    <!ENTITY RFC1078 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.1078.xml'>
    <!ENTITY RFC6013 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6013.xml'>

    <!ENTITY RFC0813 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.0813.xml'>
    <!ENTITY RFC0814 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.0814.xml'>
    <!ENTITY RFC0816 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.0816.xml'>
    <!ENTITY RFC0817 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.0817.xml'>
    <!ENTITY RFC0872 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.0872.xml'>
    <!ENTITY RFC0896 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.0896.xml'>
    <!ENTITY RFC0964 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.0964.xml'>
    <!ENTITY RFC2026 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2026.xml'>
    <!ENTITY ietf-tcpm-4614bis SYSTEM 'http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis-05.xml'>
]>

<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<!-- For a complete list and description of processing instructions (PIs),
     please see http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/authoring/README.html. -->
<!-- Below are generally applicable Processing Instructions (PIs) that most I-Ds
     might want to use. (Here they are set differently than their defaults in
     xml2rfc v1.32) -->
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc="no"?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. default: 3 -->
<!-- control references -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically -->
<!-- control vertical white space
     (using these PIs as follows is recommended by the RFC Editor) -->
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<!-- do not start each main section on a new page -->
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<!-- keep one blank line between list items -->
<!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions -->


<rfc category="info" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-zimmermann-tcpm-undeployed-01"
updates="4614bis" obsoletes="675 721 879 1078 6013">

    <!-- FRONT MATTER -->
    <front>
        <title abbrev="Undeployed TCP Extensions">Moving Undeployed TCP
        Extensions to Historic and Informational Status -- An addition to
        RFC 6247</title>

        <author initials="A" surname="Zimmermann" fullname="Alexander Zimmermann">
            <organization>NetApp, Inc.</organization>
            <address>
                <postal>
                    <street>Sonnenallee 1</street>
                    <city>Kirchheim</city>
                    <code>85551</code>
                    <country>Germany</country>
                </postal>
                <phone>+49 89 900594712</phone>
                <email>alexander.zimmermann@netapp.com</email>
            </address>
        </author>

        <author initials="W" surname="Eddy" fullname="Wesley M. Eddy">
            <organization >MTI Systems</organization>
            <address>
                <postal>
                    <street>3000 Aerospace Parkway</street>
                    <city>Cleveland</city>
                    <region>OH</region>
                    <code>44135</code>
                </postal>
                <phone>216-433-6682</phone>
                <email>wes@mti-systems.com</email>
            </address>
        </author>

        <author initials="L" surname="Eggert" fullname="Lars Eggert">
            <organization>NetApp, Inc.</organization>
            <address>
                <postal>
                    <street>Sonnenallee 1</street>
                    <city>Kirchheim</city>
                    <code>85551</code>
                    <country>Germany</country>
                </postal>
                <phone>+49 89 900594306</phone>
                <email>lars@netapp.com</email>
            </address>
        </author>

        <date month="July" year="2014" />

        <!-- Meta-data Declarations -->
        <area>Transport</area>

        <workgroup>TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions (TCPM) WG</workgroup>

        <abstract>
            <t>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 721, RFC 879, RFC 1078,
			and RFC 6013. Additionally, it reclassifies RFC 813, RFC 814, RFC
			816, RFC 817, RFC 872, RFC 896, and RFC 964 to Informational
			status. Most of those RFCs are today part of RFC 1122.</t>
        </abstract>
    </front>

    <!--  MAIN MATTER -->
    <middle>
        <section title="Introduction" anchor="intro">
	        <t>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 <xref target="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
            <xref target="I-D.ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis"/> for justification.</t>
        </section>

        <section title="RFC Editor Considerations">
	        <t>The RFC Editor is requested to change the status of the
            following RFCs to Historic <xref target="RFC2026"/>:
            <list style="symbols">
                <t><xref target="RFC0675"/> on "Specification of Internet
                Transmission Control Program"</t>

                <t><xref target="RFC0721"/> on "Out-of-Band Control Signals
                in a Host-to-Host Protocol"</t>

                <t><xref target="RFC0879"/> on "TCP Maximum Segment Size and
                Related Topics"</t>

				<t><xref target="RFC1078"/> on "TCP port service Multiplexer
                (TCPMUX)"</t>

                <t><xref target="RFC6013"/> on "TCP Cookie Transactions"</t>
	        </list></t>

            <t>The RFC Editor is requested to change the status of the
            following RFCs to Informational <xref target="RFC2026"/>:
            <list style="symbols">
                <t><xref target="RFC0813"/> on "Window and Acknowledgement
                Strategy in TCP"</t>

                <t><xref target="RFC0814"/> on "Name, addresses, ports, and
                routes"</t>

                <t><xref target="RFC0816"/> on "Fault Isolation and Recovery</t>

				<t><xref target="RFC0817"/> on "Modularity and efficiency in
                protocol implementation"</t>

                <t><xref target="RFC0872"/> on "TCP-on-a-LAN"</t>

				<t><xref target="RFC0896"/> on "Congestion Control in IP/TCP
				Internetworks"</t>

                <t><xref target="RFC0964"/> on "Some problems with the
                specification of the Military Standard Transmission Control
                Protocol"</t>
	        </list></t>
        </section>

<!--
        <section title="IANA Considerations" anchor="ianacons">
	        <t>IANA is requested to mark the TCP options 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12,
            13, 14 and 15 documented in <xref target="RFC1072"/>,
            <xref target="RFC1146"/>, <xref target="RFC1644"/> and
            <xref target="RFC1693"/> as "obsolete" in the TCP option numbers
            registry <xref target="TCPOPTREG"/>, with a reference to this
            RFC.</t>

            <t>(None of the other documents moved to Historic status had TCP
            options numbers assigned; no IANA action is therefore required for
            them.)</t>
        </section>
-->
        <section title="Security Considerations" anchor="seccons">
	        <t>This document introduces no new security considerations. Each RFC
            listed in this document attempts to address the security
            considerations of the specification it contains.</t>
        </section>
    </middle>

    <!-- BACK MATTER -->
    <back>
        <references title='Normative References'>
            &RFC0675;
            &RFC0721;
            &RFC0879;
            &RFC1078;
            &RFC6013;

            &RFC0813;
            &RFC0814;
            &RFC0816;
            &RFC0817;
            &RFC0872;
            &RFC0896;
            &RFC0964;
        </references>

        <references title='Informative References'>
            &RFC2026;
            &ietf-tcpm-4614bis;
        </references>
    </back>
</rfc>
