idnits 2.17.1 draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC1145, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC1145 though, so this could be OK. -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC1110, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC1110 though, so this could be OK. -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC1072, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC1072 though, so this could be OK. -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC1106, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC1106 though, so this could be OK. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC4614, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC4614, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2004-10-11) -- 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 (March 15, 2011) is 4763 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1072 (Obsoleted by RFC 1323, RFC 2018, RFC 6247) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1106 (Obsoleted by RFC 6247) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1110 (Obsoleted by RFC 6247) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1145 (Obsoleted by RFC 1146, RFC 6247) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1146 (Obsoleted by RFC 6247) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1379 (Obsoleted by RFC 6247) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1644 (Obsoleted by RFC 6247) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1693 (Obsoleted by RFC 6247) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4614 (Obsoleted by RFC 7414) Summary: 9 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group L. Eggert 3 Internet-Draft Nokia 4 Obsoletes: 1072, 1106, 1110, 1145, March 15, 2011 5 1146, 1379, 1644, 1693 6 (if approved) 7 Updates: 4614 (if approved) 8 Intended status: Informational 9 Expires: September 16, 2011 11 Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110, RFC1145, 12 RFC1146, RFC1379, RFC1644 and RFC1693 to Historic Status 13 draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-02 15 Abstract 17 This document recommends that several TCP extensions that have never 18 seen widespread use be moved to Historic status. The affected RFCs 19 are RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110, RFC1145, RFC1146, RFC1379, RFC1644 and 20 RFC1693. 22 Status of this Memo 24 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 25 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 29 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 30 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 16, 2011. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 42 document authors. All rights reserved. 44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 46 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 47 publication of this document. Please review these documents 48 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 49 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 50 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 51 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 52 described in the Simplified BSD License. 54 1. Introduction 56 TCP has a long history, and several proposed TCP extensions have 57 never seen widespread deployment. Section 5 of the TCP "roadmap" 58 document [RFC4614] already classifies a number of TCP extensions as 59 Historic and describes the reasons for doing so, but it does not 60 instruct the RFC Editor and IANA to change the status of these RFCs 61 in the RFC database and the relevant IANA registries. The sole 62 purpose of this document is to do just that. Please refer to Section 63 5 of [RFC4614] for justification. 65 2. RFC Editor Considerations 67 The RFC Editor is requested to change the status of the following 68 RFCs to Historic [RFC2026]: 70 o [RFC1072] on "TCP Extensions for Long-Delay Paths" 72 o [RFC1106] and [RFC1110] related to the "TCP Big Window and NAK 73 Options" 75 o [RFC1145] and [RFC1146] related to the "TCP Alternate Checksum 76 Options" 78 o [RFC1379] and [RFC1644] on "TCP Extensions for Transactions" 80 o [RFC1693] on "TCP Partial Order Service" 82 3. IANA Considerations 84 IANA is requested to mark the TCP options 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 85 and 15 documented in [RFC1072], [RFC1146], [RFC1644] and [RFC1693] as 86 "obsolete" in the TCP option numbers registry [TCPOPTREG], with a 87 reference to this RFC. 89 (None of the other documents moved to Historic status had TCP options 90 numbers assigned; no IANA action is therefore required for them.) 92 4. Security Considerations 94 This document has no known security implications. 96 [Note to the RFC Editor: Please remove this section upon 97 publication.] 99 5. Acknowledgments 101 Lars Eggert is partly funded by [TRILOGY], a research project 102 supported by the European Commission under its Seventh Framework 103 Program. 105 6. References 107 6.1. Normative References 109 [RFC1072] Jacobson, V. and R. Braden, "TCP extensions for long-delay 110 paths", RFC 1072, October 1988. 112 [RFC1106] Fox, R., "TCP big window and NAK options", RFC 1106, 113 June 1989. 115 [RFC1110] McKenzie, A., "Problem with the TCP big window option", 116 RFC 1110, August 1989. 118 [RFC1145] Zweig, J. and C. Partridge, "TCP alternate checksum 119 options", RFC 1145, February 1990. 121 [RFC1146] Zweig, J. and C. Partridge, "TCP alternate checksum 122 options", RFC 1146, March 1990. 124 [RFC1379] Braden, B., "Extending TCP for Transactions -- Concepts", 125 RFC 1379, November 1992. 127 [RFC1644] Braden, B., "T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions 128 Functional Specification", RFC 1644, July 1994. 130 [RFC1693] Connolly, T., Amer, P., and P. Conrad, "An Extension to 131 TCP : Partial Order Service", RFC 1693, November 1994. 133 [RFC4614] Duke, M., Braden, R., Eddy, W., and E. Blanton, "A Roadmap 134 for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification 135 Documents", RFC 4614, September 2006. 137 6.2. Informative References 139 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 140 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 142 [TCPOPTREG] 143 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "TCP Option 144 Kind Numbers", http://www.iana.org/assignments/ 145 tcp-parameters/tcp-parameters.xml. 147 [TRILOGY] "Trilogy Project", http://www.trilogy-project.org/. 149 Author's Address 151 Lars Eggert 152 Nokia Research Center 153 P.O. Box 407 154 Nokia Group 00045 155 Finland 157 Phone: +358 50 48 24461 158 Email: lars.eggert@nokia.com 159 URI: http://research.nokia.com/people/lars_eggert