doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 227 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc6247.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc6247.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..eb311d2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc6247.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,227 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         L. Eggert
+Request for Comments: 6247                                         Nokia
+Obsoletes: 1072, 1106, 1110, 1145,                              May 2011
+           1146, 1379, 1644, 1693
+Updates: 4614
+Category: Informational
+ISSN: 2070-1721
+
+
+        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
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document reclassifies several TCP extensions that have never
+   seen widespread use to Historic status.  The affected RFCs are RFC
+   1072, RFC 1106, RFC 1110, RFC 1145, RFC 1146, RFC 1379, RFC 1644, and
+   RFC 1693.
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
+   published for informational purposes.
+
+   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
+   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
+   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
+   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
+   approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
+   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
+
+   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
+   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
+   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 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
+
+
+
+
+Eggert                        Informational                     [Page 1]
+
+RFC 6247          Undeployed TCP Extensions to Historic         May 2011
+
+
+   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, and several proposed TCP extensions have
+   never seen widespread deployment.  Section 5 of the TCP "roadmap"
+   document [RFC4614] 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
+   5 of [RFC4614] for justification.
+
+2.  RFC Editor Considerations
+
+   Per this document, the RFC Editor has changed the status of the
+   following RFCs to Historic [RFC2026]:
+
+   o  [RFC1072] on "TCP Extensions for Long-Delay Paths"
+
+   o  [RFC1106] and [RFC1110] related to the "TCP Big Window and Nak
+      Options"
+
+   o  [RFC1145] and [RFC1146] related to the "TCP Alternate Checksum
+      Options"
+
+   o  [RFC1379] and [RFC1644] on "T/TCP -- Extensions for Transactions
+      Functional Specification"
+
+   o  [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.
+
+4.  Security Considerations
+
+   As mentioned in [RFC4614], the TCP Extensions for Transactions
+   (T/TCP) [RFC1379][RFC1644] are reported to have security issues
+   [DEVIVO].
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Eggert                        Informational                     [Page 2]
+
+RFC 6247          Undeployed TCP Extensions to Historic         May 2011
+
+
+5.  Acknowledgments
+
+   Lars Eggert is partly funded by [TRILOGY], a research project
+   supported by the European Commission under its Seventh Framework
+   Program.
+
+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.
+
+
+
+
+Eggert                        Informational                     [Page 3]
+
+RFC 6247          Undeployed TCP Extensions to Historic         May 2011
+
+
+   [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
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Eggert                        Informational                     [Page 4]
+