Moving Undeployed TCP Extensions to Historic and Informational Status -- An addition to RFC 6247
draft-ietf-tcpm-undeployed-00

Abstract

This document reclassifies several TCP extensions that have either been superceded or never seen widespread use to Historic status.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.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on June 1, 2015.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2014 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 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.

1. Introduction

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 Some of these have become outdated or simply have never seen widespread deployment.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 [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 [I-D.ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis] for justification.

2. RFC Editor Considerations

The RFC Editor is requested to change the status of the following RFCs to Historic [RFC2026]:

• [RFC0675] on "Specification of Internet Transmission Control Program"
• [RFC0721] on "Out-of-Band Control Signals in a Host-to-Host Protocol"
• [RFC0879] on "TCP Maximum Segment Size and Related Topics"
• [RFC1078] on "TCP port service Multiplexer (TCPMUX)"
• [RFC6013] on "TCP Cookie Transactions"

The RFC Editor is requested to change the status of the following RFCs to Informational [RFC2026]:

• [RFC0813] on "Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP"
• [RFC0814] on "Name, addresses, ports, and routes"
• [RFC0816] on "Fault Isolation and Recovery
• [RFC0817] on "Modularity and efficiency in protocol implementation"
• [RFC0872] on "TCP-on-a-LAN"
• [RFC0896] on "Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetworks"
• [RFC0964] on "Some problems with the specification of the Military Standard Transmission Control Protocol"

3. Security Considerations

This document introduces no new security considerations. Each RFC listed in this document attempts to address the security considerations of the specification it contains.

4. References

4.1. Normative References

4.2. Informative References

Authors' Addresses

Table of Contents

• 1. Introduction
• 2. RFC Editor Considerations
• 3. Security Considerations
• 4. References
• 4.1. Normative References
• 4.2. Informative References
• Authors' Addresses