RFC 3299
Request for Comments Summary RFC Numbers 3200-3299
Request for Comments Summary ✨
Part 1 of 5 🎀
okay bestie, this is RFC 3299, and it's giving library catalogue 📚💖 It's a Request for Comments Summary, covering RFC numbers 3200-3299. Written by S. Ginoza from ISI, it's an Informational RFC, and the date is December 2003. It doesn't obsolete or update anything, since the header doesn't list either one 🙈
Status of This Memo ✨
so this RFC is a slightly annotated list of the 100 RFCs from RFC 3200 through RFC 3299 🧚 it's a status report on those RFCs. it's for the Internet community to read, and it doesn't specify an Internet standard of any kind 💅 distribution is unlimited, so share it with everyone 🌸
Copyright Notice 💜
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. the Internet Society owns it, obviously 🙃
Note 🦋
ngl this part matters. many RFCs (but not all!) are Proposed Standards, Draft Standards, or Standards 📖 the status can change while they're going through standards processing, so this doc only notes that they're on the standards track. for the current state, check the latest edition of "Internet Official Protocol Standards" 🔍 in the list below, RFCs on the standards track get marked [STANDARDS TRACK] 🎯
The Index 🌈
here's the lineup, straight from the source:
RFC Author Date Title
--- ------ ---- -----
3299 Ginoza Dec 2003 Request for Comments Summary
This memo.
3298 Faynberg Aug 2002 Service in the Public Switched
Telephone Network/Intelligent
Network (PSTN/IN) Requesting
InTernet Service (SPIRITS)
Protocol Requirements
3297 Klyne Jul 2002 Content Negotiation for
Messaging Services based on
Email
3296 Zeilenga Jul 2002 Named Subordinate References
in Lightweight Directory
Access Protocol (LDAP)
Directories
3295 Sjostrand Jun 2002 Definitions of Managed Objects
for the General Switch
Management Protocol (GSMP)
3294 Doria Jun 2002 General Switch Management
Protocol (GSMP) Applicability
3293 Doria Jun 2002 General Switch Management
Protocol (GSMP) Packet
Encapsulations for
Asynchronous Transfer Mode
(ATM), Ethernet and
Transmission Control Protocol
(TCP)
3292 Doria Jun 2002 General Switch Management
Protocol (GSMP) V3
3291 Daniele May 2002 Textual Conventions for
Internet Network Addresses
3290 Bernet May 2002 An Informal Management Model
for Diffserv Routers
3289 Baker May 2002 Management Information Base
for the Differentiated
Services Architecture
3288 O'Tuathail Jun 2002 Using the Simple Object Access
Protocol (SOAP) in Blocks
Extensible Exchange Protocol
(BEEP)
3287 Bierman Jul 2002 Remote Monitoring MIB
Extensions for
Differentiated Services
3286 Ong May 2002 An Introduction to the Stream
Control Transmission Protocol
(SCTP)
3285 Gahrns May 2002 Using Microsoft Word to create
Internet Drafts and RFCs
3284 Korn Jun 2002 The VCDIFF Generic
Differencing and Compression
Data Format
3283 Mahoney Jun 2002 Guide to Internet Calendaring
3282 Alvestrand May 2002 Content Language Headers
3281 Farrell Apr 2002 An Internet Attribute
Certificate Profile for
Authorization
3280 Housley Apr 2002 Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate and
Certificate Revocation List
(CRL) ProfileThe Entries, One by One 💅
RFC 3299: Request for Comments Summary 💖
this is the memo you're reading right now, lol 🙈 the entry just says "This memo."
RFC 3298: Service in the Public Switched Telephone Network/Intelligent Network (PSTN/IN) Requesting InTernet Service (SPIRITS) Protocol Requirements 📞
okay so this one is by Faynberg, from August 2002, and it's all about the SPIRITS protocol requirements 🧚 the requirements are based on the architecture in RFC 3136. SPIRITS stands for "Service in the PSTN/IN Requesting InTernet Service," and it exists to support services that start in the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) and need the PSTN and the Internet to talk to each other 🔥 those services are called SPIRITS services. examples are Internet Call Waiting, Internet Caller-ID Delivery, and Internet Call Forwarding. (the document calls them "SPIRIT services" in one spot, which is a little typo moment, but the idea is the same.) the protocol is meant to define the building blocks that lots of other services can be built from ✨
on the PSTN side, SPIRITS services get kicked off from Intelligent Network (IN) entities. the earlier PSTN/Internet Interworking (PINT) work gave us RFC 2848, which covers services going the other way, from the Internet to the PSTN 🌈
so this document lists the general requirements for SPIRITS, plus the ones for IN, Wireless IN, and PINT building blocks 💜 it also shares the SPIRITS working group's consensus on which SPIRITS signaling protocol to pick. and yep, it's for the Internet community to read, for information 🦋
RFC 3297: Content Negotiation for Messaging Services based on Email 📬
Klyne wrote this one in July 2002 🌸 it describes a content negotiation mechanism for facsimile, voice, and other messaging services that use Internet email. it's [STANDARDS TRACK] 🎯
RFC 3296: Named Subordinate References in Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Directories 🗂️
Zeilenga's July 2002 doc goes into the schema and protocol elements for representing and managing named subordinate references in LDAP Directories 🔥 also [STANDARDS TRACK], obviously 💅
RFC 3295: Definitions of Managed Objects for the General Switch Management Protocol (GSMP) 🔧
Sjostrand, June 2002. this memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with the network management protocols in the Internet community. specifically, it's the managed objects for the General Switch Management Protocol (GSMP) 🍓 [STANDARDS TRACK] ✨
RFC 3294: General Switch Management Protocol (GSMP) Applicability 🧠
Doria, June 2002. it gives an overview of GSMP and covers how it's used in an IP network in an MPLS environment 💜 it does not talk about deployment in an ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) network, or in a raw ethernet setup. for information, for the Internet community 🦋
RFC 3293: General Switch Management Protocol (GSMP) Packet Encapsulations for Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM), Ethernet and Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) 📦
Doria again, June 2002. this one specifies how GSMP packets get encapsulated in ATM, Ethernet, and TCP (Transmission Control Protocol) 🌈 [STANDARDS TRACK] 🫶
RFC 3292: General Switch Management Protocol (GSMP) V3 ⚡
Doria, June 2002, and this is the big one for GSMP 👑 it describes GSMPv3, which is an asymmetric protocol. it lets one or more external switch controllers establish and maintain the state of a label switch, like an ATM, frame relay, or MPLS switch. GSMPv3 controls both unicast and multicast switch connection state, plus switch system resources and QoS features 🔥 [STANDARDS TRACK] 💖
RFC 3291: Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses 🌐
Daniele, May 2002. this MIB module defines textual conventions for representing commonly used Internet network layer addressing information 🧚 the idea is that other MIB modules import and use these textual conventions (TCs), instead of defining their own representations. [STANDARDS TRACK] ✨
RFC 3290: An Informal Management Model for Diffserv Routers 🛣️
Bernet, May 2002. this document proposes an informal management model of Differentiated Services (Diffserv) routers, for management and configuration 💅 the model covers functional datapath elements (like classifiers, meters, actions, marking, absolute dropping, counting, and multiplexing), along with algorithmic droppers, queues, and schedulers. it also describes possible configuration parameters for those elements, and how they could be interconnected to realize the range of traffic conditioning and per-hop behavior (PHB) functionalities in the Diffserv Architecture. info only, for the Internet community 🦋
RFC 3289: Management Information Base for the Differentiated Services Architecture 📊
Baker, May 2002. it describes an SMIv2 (Structure of Management Information version 2) MIB for a device that implements the Differentiated Services Architecture 🍓 you can use it to monitor and configure a router or switch with Differentiated Services functionality. [STANDARDS TRACK] 🎯
RFC 3288: Using the Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) in Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP) 🧩
O'Tuathail, June 2002. this memo specifies a SOAP binding to the BEEP core. a SOAP binding describes how SOAP messages are transmitted in the network 💜 [STANDARDS TRACK] 💅
RFC 3287: Remote Monitoring MIB Extensions for Differentiated Services 🔍
Bierman, July 2002. this memo defines a portion of the MIB for network management protocols in the Internet community. the managed objects here are for monitoring Differentiated Services (DS) Codepoint usage in packets that contain a DS field. it uses the monitoring framework from the RMON-2 (Remote Network Monitoring Management Version 2) MIB 🌸 [STANDARDS TRACK] ✨
RFC 3286: An Introduction to the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) 🌊
Ong, May 2002. this is a high-level intro to what the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) can do 💖 it's meant as a guide for anyone thinking about using SCTP as a general purpose transport protocol. for information 🦋
RFC 3285: Using Microsoft Word to create Internet Drafts and RFCs 📝
Gahrns, May 2002. this one walks through the steps for setting up Microsoft Word to produce documents in Internet Draft and RFC format 🎀 for information, for the Internet community 🫶
RFC 3284: The VCDIFF Generic Differencing and Compression Data Format 🗜️
Korn, June 2002. this memo describes VCDIFF, a general, efficient, and portable data format. it's built for encoding compressed and/or differencing data so it can be easily transported among computers 🔥 [STANDARDS TRACK] 👑
RFC 3283: Guide to Internet Calendaring 📅
Mahoney, June 2002. this doc describes the various Internet calendaring and scheduling standards and works in progress, plus how they relate to each other 🧠 the goal is to give context, help people understand these documents, and maybe help with designing standards-based calendaring and scheduling systems. the standards it covers are RFC 2445 (iCalendar), RFC 2446 (iTIP), and RFC 2447 (iMIP). the work in progress it covers is "Calendar Access Protocol" (CAP). it also describes issues and problems these protocols don't solve, which could be targets for future work 💜 info only, for the Internet community 🦋
RFC 3282: Content Language Headers 🌍
Alvestrand, May 2002. this one defines a "Content-language:" header, for when you want to indicate the language of something with RFC 822-like headers (like MIME body parts or Web documents). it also defines an "Accept-Language:" header, for when you want to say which language you prefer 💅 [STANDARDS TRACK] 🌈
RFC 3281: An Internet Attribute Certificate Profile for Authorization 🔐
Farrell, April 2002. this specification defines a profile for using X.509 Attribute Certificates in Internet Protocols 🎀 attribute certificates can be used in a wide range of applications and environments, covering lots of interoperability goals and a broad spectrum of operational and assurance requirements. the goal is a common baseline for generic applications that need broad interoperability, plus limited special-purpose requirements. the profile puts the emphasis on attribute certificate support for Internet electronic mail, IPSec, and WWW security applications 👑 [STANDARDS TRACK] 💖
RFC 3280: Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile 🗝️
Housley, April 2002. this is where the entry in this part ends, so more of its details come in the next part 🧚
okay that's part 1 done, bestie 💅 part 2 is coming up next, so stay tuned 🫶💖
Hold up, bestie: the text you pasted isn't RFC 3299. It's an index-style listing of RFCs 3260 through 3279 (Diffserv terminology, SIP, AES ciphersuites, RMON, and so on). It doesn't include RFC 3299 or the Accept-Language and X.509 attribute certificate sections you described. I don't want to rewrite the wrong document and mislabel it as RFC 3299, since the whole point is that every detail stays exact.
Could you paste the actual RFC 3299 text for part 2? If you can, include the last bit of part 1 too so I can pick up exactly where it stopped. Or, if you'd rather have this index listing rewritten as it is, just tell me and I'll do that. 💖
I can't produce part 3 of RFC 3299 from this input. The text you pasted isn't RFC 3299. It's mostly RFC index entries for RFCs 3242 through 3259, plus fragments of the abstracts of RFC 3260, RFC 3261, and RFC 3262. I won't rewrite those as if they were RFC 3299, because implementers rely on every detail and that would misattribute the content.
If you paste the actual text of RFC 3299 (the part that follows the earlier sections), I'll continue from there in the same format. If you meant to rewrite one of the RFCs in the pasted material, such as RFC 3262 (reliable provisional responses in SIP) or RFC 3261 (SIP itself), tell me which one and I'll start from its full text.
operation, bestie 💅✨ so this profile is built as an extension to the ROHC RTP profile. It adds the extra mechanisms ROHC needs, spells out what the assisting layer has to do to keep everything transparent, and lays out the general compression and decompression logic for that header-free packet 🦋 [STANDARDS TRACK]
3241 Bormann Apr 2002 Robust Header Compression
(ROHC) over PPPOkay the main character here is ROHC over PPP 🎀 This one describes an option for negotiating ROHC on IP datagrams sent over the Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP). The extensions go into the PPP Control Protocols for both IPv4 and IPv6 💜 [STANDARDS TRACK]
3240 Clunie Feb 2002 Digital Imaging and
Communications in Medicine
(DICOM) - Application/dicom
MIME Sub-type RegistrationThis one is giving medical imaging 🩺🌸 It registers the MIME sub-type application/dicom (Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine). The baseline encoding comes from the DICOM Standards Committee's "Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine". This memo provides information for the Internet community ✨
3239 Kugler Feb 2002 Internet Printing Protocol
(IPP): Requirements for Job,
Printer, and Device
Administrative OperationsPrinters, but make it iconic 🖨️🍓 This one lays out the requirements and use cases for some optional administrative operations used with Internet Printing Protocol (IPP) versions 1.0 and 1.1. A few of those operations act on the IPP Job and Printer objects, and the rest act on a new Device object that models a single output device more closely. This memo provides information for the Internet community 💅
3238 IAB Jan 2002 IAB Architectural and Policy
Considerations for Open
Pluggable Edge ServicesThe IAB dropping thoughts on OPES 🧚 It shares comments and recommendations on some architecture and policy issues tied to chartering Open Pluggable Edge Services (OPES) in the IETF. OPES are services deployed at application-level intermediaries in the network, like a web proxy cache sitting between the origin server and the client. These intermediaries would transform or filter content, but only with the explicit consent of either the content provider or the end user 🫶 This memo provides information for the Internet community.
3237 Tuexen Jan 2002 Requirements for Reliable
Server PoolingReliable server pooling, the requirements era 🔥 This document defines a basic set of requirements for reliable server pooling. This memo provides information for the Internet community 🌈
3236 Baker Feb 2002 The 'application/xhtml+xml'
Media TypeXHTML gets its own media type 💖 This document defines 'application/xhtml+xml' as a MIME media type for XHTML based markup languages. It is not meant to obsolete any earlier IETF documents, and that goes especially for RFC 2854, which registers 'text/html'. This memo provides information for the Internet community ✨
3235 Senie Jan 2002 Network Address Translator
(NAT)-Friendly Application
Design GuidelinesNAT-friendly apps, the glow-up we need 🦋 This document talks about the things application designers might want to think about when designing new protocols. Lots of common Internet applications work fine with Network Address Translators, but others run into all kinds of problems when they cross these devices. The guidelines here help make sure new protocols and applications are, as far as possible, compatible with NAT (Network Address Translation). This memo provides information for the Internet community 💜
3234 Carpenter Feb 2002 Middleboxes: Taxonomy and
IssuesMiddleboxes, sorted out 🗂️✨ This document is part of an IETF discussion about "middleboxes", which are defined as any intermediary box that performs functions beyond the normal, standard functions of an IP router on the data path between a source host and a destination host. It builds a catalogue or taxonomy of middleboxes, cites previous and current IETF work about them, and tries to identify some preliminary conclusions. It does not, however, claim to be definitive 🙈 This memo provides information for the Internet community.
3233 Hoffman Feb 2002 Defining the IETFOkay so nobody had actually defined "the IETF" 😭 This document gives a more concrete definition of "the IETF" as it is understood today. Many RFCs refer to "the IETF", and many important IETF documents talk about it like it's already a fully defined entity. Yet no IETF document correctly defines what the IETF is. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and asks for discussion and suggestions for improvements 👑
3232 Reynolds Jan 2002 Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is
Replaced by an On-line DatabaseRIP RFC 1700 🪦 This memo obsoletes RFC 1700 (STD 2) "Assigned Numbers", which held an October 1994 snapshot of assigned Internet protocol parameters. This memo provides information for the Internet community 🌸
3231 Levi Jan 2002 Definitions of Managed Objects
for Scheduling Management
OperationsScheduling management ops, but make it a MIB 🧚💜 This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. Specifically, it describes a set of managed objects used to schedule management operations periodically or at specified dates and times. [STANDARDS TRACK]
3230 Mogul Jan 2002 Instance Digests in HTTPDigests in HTTP, and this one is a whole vibe 🍓 HTTP/1.1 defines a Content-MD5 header that lets a server include a digest of the response body. The catch is that this covers only the body of the actual message, not the contents of the full file. That can be quite different if the response is a Content-Range or uses delta encoding. Content-MD5 is also limited to one specific digest algorithm, and other algorithms, such as SHA-1 (Secure Hash Standard), may be more appropriate in some circumstances. Finally, HTTP/1.1 gives no explicit mechanism for a client to request a digest. This document proposes HTTP extensions that solve these problems 🔥 [STANDARDS TRACK]
3229 Mogul Jan 2002 Delta encoding in HTTPDelta encoding, served 🍰 This document describes how delta encoding can be supported as a compatible extension to HTTP/1.1 ✨ [STANDARDS TRACK]
3228 Fenner Feb 2002 IANA Considerations for IPv4
Internet Group Management
Protocol (IGMP)IGMP and IANA, the registry era 🎀 This memo asks that the IANA create a registry for fields in the IGMP (Internet Group Management Protocol) protocol header, and it gives the IANA guidance for assigning parameters for those fields. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and asks for discussion and suggestions for improvements 💅
3227 Brezinski Feb 2002 Guidelines for Evidence
Collection and ArchivingEvidence collection, but make it tea 🕵️💖 A "security incident", as defined in the "Internet Security Glossary", RFC 2828, is a security-relevant system event in which the system's security policy is disobeyed or otherwise breached. This document gives System Administrators guidelines on collecting and archiving evidence relevant to such an incident. It specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and asks for discussion and suggestions for improvements 🫶
3226 Gudmundsson Dec 2001 DNSSEC and IPv6 A6 aware
server/resolver message size
requirementsOkay this one is serious, bestie 😭 It mandates support for EDNS0 (Extension Mechanisms for DNS) in DNS entities that claim to support either DNS Security Extensions or A6 records. That requirement is necessary because these new features make DNS messages bigger. If EDNS0 isn't supported, a fallback to TCP will happen, and that has a detrimental impact on query latency and DNS server load 💀 This document updates RFC 2535 and RFC 2874 by adding new requirements. [STANDARDS TRACK]
3225 Conrad Dec 2001 Indicating Resolver Support of
DNSSECResolvers saying "yes I can read that" 💅 To deploy DNSSEC (Domain Name System Security Extensions) operationally, DNSSEC aware servers should only perform automatic inclusion of DNSSEC RRs when there is an explicit indication that the resolver can understand those RRs. This document proposes using a bit in the EDNS0 header to provide that explicit indication, and it describes the protocol changes needed to implement that notification. [STANDARDS TRACK]
3224 Guttman Jan 2002 Vendor Extensions for Service
Location Protocol, Version 2Vendor extensions with zero drama 🌈 This document specifies how the features of the Service Location Protocol, Version 2 allow for vendor extensibility safely, with no possibility of collisions. It introduces a new SLPv2 extension, the Vendor Opaque Extension. Proprietary protocol extensions aren't encouraged by IETF standards, but when they are undertaken, it's important that they not hinder interoperability of compliant implementations ✨ This document updates RFC 2608, "The Service Location Protocol." [STANDARDS TRACK]
3223 Never IssuedRFC 3223 was never issued 🙈 It just doesn't exist, bestie 👻
3222 Trotter Dec 2001 Terminology for Forwarding
Information Base (FIB) based
Router PerformanceRouter performance terms, but make it a methodology 🧠 This document describes the terms used in a methodology that determines the IP packet forwarding performance of IP routers as a function of the forwarding information base installed within a router. A router's forwarding performance may depend on, or be linked to, the composition and size of that forwarding information base. This memo provides information for the Internet community 💜
3221 Huston Dec 2001 Commentary on Inter-Domain
Routing in the InternetBGP table drama, in the best way 🌍 This document looks at the longer-term trends visible in the characteristics of the Internet's BGP table, and it identifies a number of operational practices and protocol factors that contribute to those trends. It then examines the potential impacts of those practices and protocol properties on the scaling properties of the inter-domain routing space. This memo provides information for the Internet community 🦋
3220 Perkins Jan 2002 IP Mobility Support for IPv4Mobile nodes, but make it transparent 🚀 This document specifies protocol enhancements that allow transparent routing of IP datagrams to mobile nodes in the Internet. Each mobile node is always identified by its home address, no matter where it's currently attached to the Internet. While it's away from home, a mobile node is also associated with a care-of address, which tells everyone about its current point of attachment. The protocol lets the mobile node register that care-of address with a home agent, and the home agent sends datagrams destined for the mobile node through a tunnel to the care-of address. After arriving at the end of the tunnel,
The RFC Index Tail, Where the Vibes Are Immaculate ✨
okay so this is the end of the index, bestie 🍓 it's a list of RFCs numbered from 3219 going down to 3200, and it's giving "a whole era of networking history" 💅 each one has a number, an author, a date, a title, and a status tag. the status tag says whether it's a Standards Track spec, an Informational memo, an Experimental protocol, or a Best Current Practice. here's the full lineup, exactly as written:
3219 Rosenberg Jan 2002 Telephony Routing over IP
(TRIP)
3218 Rescorla Jan 2002 Preventing the Million Message
Attack on Cryptographic
Message Syntax
3217 Housley Dec 2001 Triple-DES and RC2 Key
Wrapping
3216 Elliott Dec 2001 SMIng Objectives
3215 Boscher Jan 2002 LDP State Machine
3214 Ash Jan 2002 LSP Modification Using CR-LDP
3213 Ash Jan 2002 Applicability Statement for
CR-LDP
3212 Jamoussi Jan 2002 Constraint-Based LSP Setup
using LDP
3211 Gutmann Dec 2001 Password-based Encryption for
CMS
3210 Awduche Dec 2001 Applicability Statement for
Extensions to RSVP for
LSP-Tunnels
3209 Awduche Dec 2001 RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP
for LSP Tunnels
3208 Speakman Dec 2001 PGM Reliable Transport
Protocol Specification
3207 Hoffman Feb 2002 SMTP Service Extension for
Secure SMTP over Transport
Layer Security
3206 Gellens Feb 2002 The SYS and AUTH POP Response
Codes
3205 Moore Feb 2002 On the use of HTTP as a
Substrate
3204 Zimmerer Dec 2001 MIME media types for ISUP and
QSIG Objects
3203 T'Joens Dec 2001 DHCP reconfigure extension
3202 Steinberger Jan 2002 Definitions of Managed Objects
for Frame Relay Service Level
Definitions
3201 Steinberger Jan 2002 Definitions of Managed Objects
for Circuit to Interface
Translation
3200 Never IssuedThe Juicy Summaries 🎀
RFC 3219 (Rosenberg, Jan 2002), Telephony Routing over IP (TRIP) [STANDARDS TRACK] 🦋 TRIP is a policy-driven protocol that works across administrative domains. its whole job is advertising which telephony destinations are reachable between location servers, plus attributes of the routes to them. the best part? TRIP doesn't care what signaling protocol you use, so it can be the telephony routing protocol for any signaling protocol. iconic 👑
RFC 3218 (Rescorla, Jan 2002), Preventing the Million Message Attack on Cryptographic Message Syntax 🔐 this one describes a strategy for resisting the Million Message Attack. it's an informational memo for the Internet community.
RFC 3217 (Housley, Dec 2001), Triple-DES and RC2 Key Wrapping 🗝️ this spec gives the algorithm for wrapping one Triple-DES key with another Triple-DES key, and the algorithm for wrapping one RC2 key with another RC2 key. informational.
RFC 3216 (Elliott, Dec 2001), SMIng Objectives 🧚 this describes the goals for a new data definition language for modeling network management constructs, one that can map directly into SNMP and COPS-PR protocol operations. informational.
RFC 3215 (Boscher, Jan 2002), LDP State Machine 🌸 this one provides state machine tables for ATM switch LSRs. the author points out that the current LDP spec doesn't define a state machine for processing LDP messages, and says a common one is super important for interoperability between LDP and CR-LDP implementations. informational.
RFC 3214 (Ash, Jan 2002), LSP Modification Using CR-LDP [STANDARDS TRACK] 💜 this presents a way to change the bandwidth, and possibly other parameters, of an established CR-LSP using CR-LDP without service interruption. no drama, just vibes ✨
RFC 3213 (Ash, Jan 2002), Applicability Statement for CR-LDP 📋 this talks about where constraint-based LSP setup using LDP fits. it covers possible network applications, the LDP extensions needed for constraint-based routing, deployment guidelines, and known limitations. it's a prerequisite for advancing CR-LDP on the standards track. informational.
RFC 3212 (Jamoussi, Jan 2002), Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP [STANDARDS TRACK] 🔥 this specifies the mechanisms and TLVs (Type/Length/Value) for supporting CR-LSPs using LDP. the TLVs are the moving pieces that make it work 🫶
RFC 3211 (Gutmann, Dec 2001), Password-based Encryption for CMS [STANDARDS TRACK] 🔑 this gives a method for encrypting data with user-supplied passwords, and by extension any variable-length keying material that isn't necessarily a fixed-format algorithm-specific key. the CMS data format didn't have any password-based encryption before this, so yeah, it's a glow-up 💖
RFC 3210 (Awduche, Dec 2001), Applicability Statement for Extensions to RSVP for LSP-Tunnels 🧭 this one is about where the "Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels" make sense. it covers the protocol's principles of operation, the network context it was built for, deployment guidelines, and known limitations. it's meant to accompany that spec's submission onto the Internet standards track. informational.
RFC 3209 (Awduche, Dec 2001), RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels [STANDARDS TRACK] 🚇 this describes how to use RSVP, with all the extensions, to set up label-switched paths in MPLS. since traffic on an LSP is completely identified by the label applied at the ingress node, these paths can be treated as tunnels. a key application is traffic engineering with MPLS, as specified in RFC 2702. the tunnel energy is unmatched 🌈
RFC 3208 (Speakman, Dec 2001), PGM Reliable Transport Protocol Specification 🐚 PGM is a reliable multicast transport protocol for apps that need ordered or unordered, duplicate-free multicast delivery from multiple sources to multiple receivers. it guarantees that a receiver either gets all the data packets (from transmissions and repairs) or can detect unrecoverable loss. its big goal is simplicity, with respect for scalability and efficiency. this memo defines an Experimental protocol 🧪
RFC 3207 (Hoffman, Feb 2002), SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over Transport Layer Security [STANDARDS TRACK] 🔒 this adds an extension to SMTP that lets an SMTP server and client use TLS for private, authenticated communication over the Internet. agents can protect some or all of their traffic from eavesdroppers and attackers. secure mail, bestie 💌
RFC 3206 (Gellens, Feb 2002), The SYS and AUTH POP Response Codes [STANDARDS TRACK] 📮 this proposes two response codes, SYS and AUTH, so clients can unambiguously figure out the best response to an authentication failure. it also defines a new capability, AUTH-RESP-CODE. ngl that's very organized of them 🫶
RFC 3205 (Moore, Feb 2002), On the use of HTTP as a Substrate 🌐 people have been super interested in using HTTP as a substrate for other application-level protocols, so this one recommends the technical particulars of doing that. it covers default ports, URL schemes, and HTTP security mechanisms. it's an Internet Best Current Practice, and it asks the community for discussion and suggestions for improvements 💬
RFC 3204 (Zimmerer, Dec 2001), MIME media types for ISUP and QSIG Objects [STANDARDS TRACK] 📞 this describes MIME types, application/ISUP and application/QSIG, for use in SIP applications under the rules of RFC 2048. they identify ISUP and QSIG objects inside SIP messages like INVITE or INFO, which is handy when SIP has to interwork with the PSTN 🧩
RFC 3203 (T'Joens, Dec 2001), DHCP reconfigure extension [STANDARDS TRACK] 🖥️ this extends DHCP so the DHCP server can trigger dynamic reconfiguration of a single host, like handing it a new IP address and/or local configuration parameters. the server reaches out and updates the host, no cap 🍓
RFC 3202 (Steinberger, Jan 2002), Definitions of Managed Objects for Frame Relay Service Level Definitions [STANDARDS TRACK] 📊 this extends the MIB for network management protocols in TCP/IP-based internets. specifically, it defines objects for managing Frame Relay Service Level Definitions. very detail-oriented, very slay 🙈
RFC 3201 (Steinberger, Jan 2002), Definitions of Managed Objects for Circuit to Interface Translation [STANDARDS TRACK] 🔌 another MIB extension for TCP/IP-based internets. this one manages inserting interesting Circuit Interfaces into the ifTable. that matters for circuits used within other MIB modules that need an ifEntry, and it lets you monitor circuits and route to them using unaltered, pre-existing MIB modules. the reuse is giving main character energy 🦋
RFC 3200 — Never Issued 👻 RFC 3200 was never issued. just a ghost number in the index. iykyk 💀
Security Considerations ✨
okay this part is short but it's serious, bestie 😭 the memo says it plainly: Security issues are not discussed in this memo. that's the whole security section, no extra vibes.
Author's Address 📍
the contact details for the author, exactly as written:
Sandy Ginoza
University of Southern California
Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Phone: (310) 822-1511
EMail: ginoza@isi.eduFull Copyright Statement ⚖️
the legal bit, kept complete so nobody's lawyer gets sad 🫶
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement 💖
funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. 🌸 and that's a wrap on the index, bestie ✨👑
📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc3299 2003-12
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms