RFC 6247

🎀 RFC 6247: Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC 1072, RFC 1106, RFC 1110, RFC 1145, RFC 1146, RFC 1379, RFC 1644, and RFC 1693 to Historic Status

okay bestie, this one is a total cleanup doc 🧹✨ the IETF is basically saying "these TCP extensions never really caught on, so we're retiring them to Historic status." no drama, just tidying up the shelves 💅

Series: Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) 🌸 Request for Comments: 6247 Author: Lars Eggert, Nokia 🦋 Date: May 2011 📅 Category: Informational 📚 ISSN: 2070-1721 Obsoletes: 1072, 1106, 1110, 1145, 1146, 1379, 1644, 1693 🗑️ Updates: 4614 🔄

---

Abstract

okay so this doc reclassifies a bunch of TCP extensions that never got widespread use over to Historic status 🕰️ the ones getting the retirement treatment are RFC 1072, RFC 1106, RFC 1110, RFC 1145, RFC 1146, RFC 1379, RFC 1644, and RFC 1693 💀

Status of This Memo

this one is not an Internet Standards Track spec, it's just published for info purposes 📖

it's a product of the IETF 🌈 it represents the consensus of the IETF community and it got public review and was approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) ✨ not every doc the IESG approves is a candidate for any level of Internet Standard, so see Section 2 of RFC 5741 if you want the deets 🤓

for the current status, any errata, and how to give feedback, check http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6247 🔗

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. 🔒

this doc is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) as in effect on the date of publication 📜 please read these carefully because they spell out your rights and restrictions for this doc 🫶 code components pulled out of this doc must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions, and they come without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License 💜

1. Introduction ✨

okay so TCP has a long history, and a bunch of proposed extensions never got widely deployed 🥹 Section 5 of the TCP "roadmap" document [RFC4614] already marks a number of TCP extensions as Historic and explains why 📝 but it doesn't tell the RFC Editor and IANA to actually change the status of those RFCs in the RFC database and the relevant IANA registries 🙈 that's the whole job of this doc, bestie 💅 for the justification, go to Section 5 of [RFC4614] 🧚

2. RFC Editor Considerations 🖋️

per this doc, the RFC Editor has changed the status of the following RFCs to Historic [RFC2026]:

• [RFC1072] on "TCP Extensions for Long-Delay Paths" 🛰️
• [RFC1106] and [RFC1110] related to the "TCP Big Window and Nak Options" 🪟
• [RFC1145] and [RFC1146] related to the "TCP Alternate Checksum Options" ✅
• [RFC1379] and [RFC1644] on "T/TCP -- Extensions for Transactions Functional Specification" 🔁
• [RFC1693] on "An Extension to TCP : Partial Order Service" 🧩

3. IANA Considerations 🏷️

IANA has marked the TCP options 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 documented in [RFC1072], [RFC1146], [RFC1644], and [RFC1693] as "obsolete" in the "TCP Option Kind Numbers" registry [TCPOPTREG], with a reference to this RFC 📋 it's giving organized registry energy 🗂️

4. Security Considerations 🔐

🚨 okay this part is serious, bestie. as mentioned in [RFC4614], the TCP Extensions for Transactions (T/TCP) [RFC1379][RFC1644] are reported to have security issues [DEVIVO]. the plot twist is real and it's not giving safe 💀

5. Acknowledgments 🫶

Lars Eggert is partly funded by [TRILOGY], a research project supported by the European Commission under its Seventh Framework Program 🇪🇺 thank you, funders 🌷

6. References 📚

6.1. Normative References

• [RFC1072] Jacobson, V. and R. Braden, "TCP extensions for long-delay paths", RFC 1072, October 1988. 🛰️
• [RFC1106] Fox, R., "TCP big window and NAK options", RFC 1106, June 1989. 🪟
• [RFC1110] McKenzie, A., "Problem with the TCP big window option", RFC 1110, August 1989. 🤔
• [RFC1145] Zweig, J. and C. Partridge, "TCP alternate checksum options", RFC 1145, February 1990. ✅
• [RFC1146] Zweig, J. and C. Partridge, "TCP alternate checksum options", RFC 1146, March 1990. ✅
• [RFC1379] Braden, B., "Extending TCP for Transactions -- Concepts", RFC 1379, November 1992. 🔁
• [RFC1644] Braden, B., "T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions Functional Specification", RFC 1644, July 1994. 🔁
• [RFC1693] Connolly, T., Amer, P., and P. Conrad, "An Extension to TCP : Partial Order Service", RFC 1693, November 1994. 🧩
• [RFC4614] Duke, M., Braden, R., Eddy, W., and E. Blanton, "A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification Documents", RFC 4614, September 2006. 🗺️

6.2. Informative References

• [DEVIVO] de Vivo, M., de Vivo, G., Koeneke, R., and G. Isern, "Internet Vulnerabilities Related to TCP/IP and T/TCP", ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communications Review (CCR), Vol. 29, No. 1, January 1999. 🕵️
• [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 📜
• [TCPOPTREG] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "TCP Option Kind Numbers", http://www.iana.org. 🔢
• [TRILOGY] "Trilogy Project", http://www.trilogy-project.org/. 🌍

Author's Address 💌

Lars Eggert
Nokia Research Center
P.O. Box 407
Nokia Group  00045
Finland

Phone: +358 50 48 24461
EMail: lars.eggert@nokia.com
URI:   http://research.nokia.com/people/lars_eggert

and that's the whole thing, bestie 🦋💖 eight old TCP extensions, one clean status change, zero drama. periodt 👑