TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions (TCPM) WG A. Zimmermann
Internet-Draft NetApp, Inc.
Obsoletes: 675 721 761 813 816 879 896 W. Eddy
1078 6013 (if approved) MTI Systems
Updates: 7414 (if approved) L. Eggert
Intended status: Informational NetApp, Inc.
Expires: June 6, 2015 December 3, 2014

Moving Outdated TCP Extensions and TCP-related Documents to Historic and Informational Status


This document reclassifies several TCP extensions and TCP-related documents that have either been superseded, never seen widespread use, or are no longer recommended for use to Historic status. The affected RFCs are RFC 675, RFC 721, RFC 761, RFC 813, RFC 816, RFC 879, RFC 896, RFC 1078, and RFC 6013. Additionally, it reclassifies RFC 700, RFC 794, RFC 814, RFC 817, RFC 872, RFC 889, RFC 964, and RFC 1071 to Informational status.

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

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 6, 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 ( 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 have accumulated that describe aspects of the TCP protocol, implementation, and extensions. Some of these have become superseded, are no longer recommended for use, or simply have never seen widespread use, respectively deployment.

Section 6 and 7.1 of the TCP Roadmap document [RFC7414] already classify a number of TCP extensions as "historic" and describes the reasons for doing so, but it does not instruct the RFC Editor to change the status of these RFCs in the RFC database.

The purpose of this document is to do just that. In addition, it moves all remaining TCP-related documents of the TCP Roadmap document with an "unknown" status either to Historic or Informational.

2. Terminology

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. These words only have such normative significance when in ALL CAPS, not when in lower case.

3. RFC Editor Considerations

The following two sections give a short justification, why a specific TCP extension or a TCP-related document should be moved to Historic or Informational. For the content itself, the reader is referred either to the corresponding RFC or, for a brief description, to the TCP Roadmap document [RFC7414].

3.1. Moving to Historic Status

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

3.2. Moving to Informational Status

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

4. IANA Considerations

None of the documents moved to Historic or Informational status had TCP options numbers assigned. Therefore no IANA action is required for them.

5. 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.

6. Acknowledgments

The authors thank John Leslie, Pasi Sarolahti, Richard Scheffenegger, and Joe Touch for their contributions.

7. References

7.1. Normative References

[RFC0675] Cerf, V., Dalal, Y. and C. Sunshine, "Specification of Internet Transmission Control Program", RFC 675, December 1974.
[RFC0700] Mader, E., Plummer, W. and R. Tomlinson, "Protocol experiment", RFC 700, August 1974.
[RFC0721] Garlick, L., "Out-of-Band Control Signals in a Host-to-Host Protocol", RFC 721, September 1976.
[RFC0761] Postel, J., "DoD standard Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 761, January 1980.
[RFC0794] Cerf, V., "Pre-emption", RFC 794, September 1981.
[RFC0813] Clark, D., "Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP", RFC 813, July 1982.
[RFC0814] Clark, D., "Name, addresses, ports, and routes", RFC 814, July 1982.
[RFC0816] Clark, D., "Fault isolation and recovery", RFC 816, July 1982.
[RFC0817] Clark, D., "Modularity and efficiency in protocol implementation", RFC 817, July 1982.
[RFC0872] Padlipsky, M., "TCP-on-a-LAN", RFC 872, September 1982.
[RFC0879] Postel, J., "TCP maximum segment size and related topics", RFC 879, November 1983.
[RFC0889] Mills, D., "Internet delay experiments", RFC 889, December 1983.
[RFC0896] Nagle, J., "Congestion control in IP/TCP internetworks", RFC 896, January 1984.
[RFC0964] Sidhu, D. and T. Blumer, "Some problems with the specification of the Military Standard Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 964, November 1985.
[RFC1071] Braden, R., Borman, D., Partridge, C. and W. Plummer, "Computing the Internet checksum", RFC 1071, September 1988.
[RFC1078] Lottor, M., "TCP port service Multiplexer (TCPMUX)", RFC 1078, November 1988.
[RFC6013] Simpson, W., "TCP Cookie Transactions (TCPCT)", RFC 6013, January 2011.

7.2. Informative References

[I-D.ietf-tcpm-tcp-edo] Touch, J. and W. Eddy, "TCP Extended Data Offset Option", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-edo-01, October 2014.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793, September 1981.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5461] Gont, F., "TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors", RFC 5461, February 2009.
[RFC6633] Gont, F., "Deprecation of ICMP Source Quench Messages", RFC 6633, May 2012.
[RFC6691] Borman, D., "TCP Options and Maximum Segment Size (MSS)", RFC 6691, July 2012.
[RFC7413] Cheng, Y., Chu, J., Radhakrishnan, S. and A. Jain, "TCP Fast Open", December 2014.
[RFC7414] Duke, M., Braden, R., Eddy, W., Blanton, E. and A. Zimmermann, "A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification Documents", December 2014.

Authors' Addresses

Alexander Zimmermann NetApp, Inc. Sonnenallee 1 Kirchheim, 85551 Germany Phone: +49 89 900594712 EMail:
Wesley M. Eddy MTI Systems Suite 170, 18013 Cleveland Parkway Cleveland, OH 44135 Phone: 216-433-6682 EMail:
Lars Eggert NetApp, Inc. Sonnenallee 1 Kirchheim, 85551 Germany Phone: +49 89 900594306 EMail:

Table of Contents