idnits 2.17.1 draft-zimmermann-tcpm-undeployed-01.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 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.) -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC1078, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC1078 though, so this could be OK. -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC721, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC721 though, so this could be OK. -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC6013, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC6013 though, so this could be OK. -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC675, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC675 though, so this could be OK. -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC879, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC879 though, so this could be OK. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC4614bis, 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 -- The document date (July 29, 2014) is 3558 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 675 (Obsoleted by RFC 7805) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 721 (Obsoleted by RFC 7805) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 813 (Obsoleted by RFC 7805) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 816 (Obsoleted by RFC 7805) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 879 (Obsoleted by RFC 7805, RFC 9293) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 896 (Obsoleted by RFC 7805) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1078 (Obsoleted by RFC 7805) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6013 (Obsoleted by RFC 7805) == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis-05 Summary: 9 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions A. Zimmermann 3 (TCPM) WG NetApp, Inc. 4 Internet-Draft W. Eddy 5 Obsoletes: 675 721 879 1078 6013 MTI Systems 6 (if approved) L. Eggert 7 Updates: 4614bis (if approved) NetApp, Inc. 8 Intended status: Informational July 29, 2014 9 Expires: January 30, 2015 11 Moving Undeployed TCP Extensions to Historic and Informational Status -- 12 An addition to RFC 6247 13 draft-zimmermann-tcpm-undeployed-01 15 Abstract 17 This document reclassifies several TCP extensions that have either 18 been superceded or never seen widespread use to Historic status. The 19 affected RFCs are RFC 675, RFC 721, RFC 879, RFC 1078, and RFC 6013. 20 Additionally, it reclassifies RFC 813, RFC 814, RFC 816, RFC 817, RFC 21 872, RFC 896, and RFC 964 to Informational status. Most of those 22 RFCs are today part of RFC 1122. 24 Status of this Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 30, 2015. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 1. Introduction 58 TCP has a long history. Over time, many RFCs accumulated that 59 described aspects of the TCP protocol, implementation, and 60 extensions. Some of these have become outdated or simply have never 61 seen widespread deployment. Section 6 and 7.1 of the TCP Roadmap 62 document [I-D.ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis] already classifies a number 63 of TCP extensions as "historic" and describes the reasons for doing 64 so, but it does not instruct the RFC Editor and IANA to change the 65 status of these RFCs in the RFC database and the relevant IANA 66 registries. The sole purpose of this document is to do just that. 67 Please refer to Section 6 and 7.1 of [I-D.ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis] 68 for justification. 70 2. RFC Editor Considerations 72 The RFC Editor is requested to change the status of the following 73 RFCs to Historic [RFC2026]: 75 o [RFC0675] on "Specification of Internet Transmission Control 76 Program" 78 o [RFC0721] on "Out-of-Band Control Signals in a Host-to-Host 79 Protocol" 81 o [RFC0879] on "TCP Maximum Segment Size and Related Topics" 83 o [RFC1078] on "TCP port service Multiplexer (TCPMUX)" 85 o [RFC6013] on "TCP Cookie Transactions" 87 The RFC Editor is requested to change the status of the following 88 RFCs to Informational [RFC2026]: 90 o [RFC0813] on "Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP" 92 o [RFC0814] on "Name, addresses, ports, and routes" 93 o [RFC0816] on "Fault Isolation and Recovery 95 o [RFC0817] on "Modularity and efficiency in protocol 96 implementation" 98 o [RFC0872] on "TCP-on-a-LAN" 100 o [RFC0896] on "Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetworks" 102 o [RFC0964] on "Some problems with the specification of the Military 103 Standard Transmission Control Protocol" 105 3. Security Considerations 107 This document introduces no new security considerations. Each RFC 108 listed in this document attempts to address the security 109 considerations of the specification it contains. 111 4. References 113 4.1. Normative References 115 [RFC0675] Cerf, V., Dalal, Y., and C. Sunshine, "Specification of 116 Internet Transmission Control Program", RFC 675, 117 December 1974. 119 [RFC0721] Garlick, L., "Out-of-Band Control Signals in a Host-to- 120 Host Protocol", RFC 721, September 1976. 122 [RFC0813] Clark, D., "Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP", 123 RFC 813, July 1982. 125 [RFC0814] Clark, D., "Name, addresses, ports, and routes", RFC 814, 126 July 1982. 128 [RFC0816] Clark, D., "Fault isolation and recovery", RFC 816, 129 July 1982. 131 [RFC0817] Clark, D., "Modularity and efficiency in protocol 132 implementation", RFC 817, July 1982. 134 [RFC0872] Padlipsky, M., "TCP-on-a-LAN", RFC 872, September 1982. 136 [RFC0879] Postel, J., "TCP maximum segment size and related topics", 137 RFC 879, November 1983. 139 [RFC0896] Nagle, J., "Congestion control in IP/TCP internetworks", 140 RFC 896, January 1984. 142 [RFC0964] Sidhu, D. and T. Blumer, "Some problems with the 143 specification of the Military Standard Transmission 144 Control Protocol", RFC 964, November 1985. 146 [RFC1078] Lottor, M., "TCP port service Multiplexer (TCPMUX)", 147 RFC 1078, November 1988. 149 [RFC6013] Simpson, W., "TCP Cookie Transactions (TCPCT)", RFC 6013, 150 January 2011. 152 4.2. Informative References 154 [I-D.ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis] 155 Duke, M., Braden, R., Eddy, W., Blanton, E., and A. 156 Zimmermann, "A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol 157 (TCP) Specification Documents", 158 draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis-05 (work in progress), 159 April 2014. 161 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 162 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 164 Authors' Addresses 166 Alexander Zimmermann 167 NetApp, Inc. 168 Sonnenallee 1 169 Kirchheim 85551 170 Germany 172 Phone: +49 89 900594712 173 Email: alexander.zimmermann@netapp.com 175 Wesley M. Eddy 176 MTI Systems 177 3000 Aerospace Parkway 178 Cleveland, OH 44135 180 Phone: 216-433-6682 181 Email: wes@mti-systems.com 182 Lars Eggert 183 NetApp, Inc. 184 Sonnenallee 1 185 Kirchheim 85551 186 Germany 188 Phone: +49 89 900594306 189 Email: lars@netapp.com