diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc4450.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc4450.txt | 619 |
1 files changed, 619 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc4450.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc4450.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..52d9257 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc4450.txt @@ -0,0 +1,619 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group E. Lear +Request for Comments: 4450 Cisco Systems GmbH +Category: Informational H. Alvestrand + Cisco Systems + March 2006 + + + Getting Rid of the Cruft: Report from an Experiment in Identifying and + Reclassifying Obsolete Standards Documents + +Status of This Memo + + This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does + not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this + memo is unlimited. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). + +Abstract + + This memo documents an experiment to review and classify Proposed + Standards as not reflecting documented practice within the world + today. The results identify a set of documents that were marked as + Proposed Standards that are now reclassified as Historic. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction and History ........................................1 + 2. Bulk Decommissioning Procedure ..................................2 + 3. Input, Mailing list, Output, and Observations ...................2 + 4. Discussion ......................................................4 + 5. Next Steps ......................................................5 + 6. IANA Considerations .............................................6 + 7. Security Considerations .........................................6 + 8. Acknowledgements ................................................6 + 9. Normative References ............................................6 + +1. Introduction and History + + RFC 2026, and RFC 1602 before it, specified timelines for review of + immature (draft or proposed) standards. The purpose of such review + was to determine whether such documents should be advanced, retired, + or developed further [1]. + + + + + + +Lear & Alvestrand Informational [Page 1] + +RFC 4450 Cruft Removal March 2006 + + + This procedure has never been followed in the history of the IETF. + Since this procedure has not been followed, members of the community + have suggested that the retiring of a document to Historic is a + significant event, which should be justified carefully -- leading to + the production of documents such as RFC 2556 (OSI Connectionless + Transport Services on top of UDP Applicability Statement for Historic + Status) and RFC 3166 (Request to Move RFC 1403 to Historic Status). + + Such documents require significant time and effort on the part of + authors, area directors, and the RFC Editor. + +2. Bulk Decommissioning Procedure + + From the Fall of 2004 through the Spring of 2005, the authors + conducted an experiment to determine how many Proposed Standards + could be considered obsolete. The experiment was operated as + follows: + + o Identify a group of documents that are standards. + o Assume by default that each document will be retired. + o Create a mailing list for discussion with a policy of open access. + o Allow any document to be removed from the list of those to be + retired for virtually any reason, so long as a reason is provided. + o Present the list to the working group, IETF, and IESG for review. + o Revise list based on comments. + o Write up results. + + The initial intent of the authors was to present a list of documents + to be reclassified as Historic. The NEWTRK working group supported + this view. The IESG, and the IETF as a community, makes the final + decision. We will discuss this further below. + +3. Input, Mailing list, Output, and Observations + + We started with our initial document set being all RFCs with numbers + less than 2000 and a status of Proposed Standard. The input we used, + starting November 25, 2004, can be found in Appendix A. There were + some 125 documents in all. + + A mailing list, old-standards@alvestrand.no, was created to discuss + and remove candidates from this list. A call for participation was + issued to the IETF-Announce list on or around the November 15, 2004. + There were 29 members of the mailing list. Approximately 244 + messages were sent to the list. People were encouraged to consider + the question of whether or not an implementer would either write a + new implementation or maintain an existing one. + + + + + +Lear & Alvestrand Informational [Page 2] + +RFC 4450 Cruft Removal March 2006 + + + After some months the list of documents to be considered was reduced + considerably. This list was then forwarded to the IETF discussion + list on December 16, 2004, and to the NEWTRK working group list for + wider review. + + During review, RFCs 1518 and 1519 were removed, based on the fact + that work is ongoing to revise them. Similarly, RFCs 1381, 1382, + 1471, 1472, 1473, 1582, 1598, and 1755 were removed based on the + belief that they were actively in use. RFC 1584 was removed based on + an expected future dependency. + + Here are the results: + + RFC 1234 (Tunneling IPX Traffic through IP Networks) + RFC 1239 (Reassignment of Experimental MIBs to Standard MIBs) + RFC 1276 (Replication and Distributed Operations Extensions to + provide an Internet Directory Using X.500) + RFC 1285 (FDDI Management Information Base) + RFC 1314 (A File Format for the Exchange of Images in the Internet) + RFC 1328 (X.400 1988 to 1984 Downgrading) + RFC 1370 (Applicability Statement for OSPF) + RFC 1378 (The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)) + RFC 1397 (Default Route Advertisement in BGP2 and BGP3 Version of + the Border Gateway Protocol) + RFC 1414 (Identification MIB) + RFC 1415 (FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification) + RFC 1418 (SNMP over OSI) + RFC 1419 (SNMP over AppleTalk) + RFC 1421 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part I: + Message Encryption and Authentication Procedures) + RFC 1422 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part + II: Certificate-Based Key Management) + RFC 1423 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part + III: Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers) + RFC 1424 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part + IV: Key Certification and Related Services) + RFC 1461 (SNMP MIB Extension for Multiprotocol Interconnect over + X.25) + RFC 1469 (IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks) + RFC 1474 (The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Bridge Network + Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol) + RFC 1478 (An Architecture for Inter-Domain Policy Routing) + RFC 1479 (Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Specification: + Version 1) + RFC 1494 (Equivalences between 1988 X.400 and RFC-822 Message + Bodies) + RFC 1496 (Rules for Downgrading Messages from X.400/88 to X.400/84) + when MIME Content-types Are Present in the Messages + + + +Lear & Alvestrand Informational [Page 3] + +RFC 4450 Cruft Removal March 2006 + + + RFC 1502 (X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets) + RFC 1512 (FDDI Management Information Base) + RFC 1513 (Token Ring Extensions to the Remote Network Monitoring + MIB) + RFC 1525 (Definitions of Managed Objects for Source Routing + Bridges) + RFC 1552 (The PPP Internetworking Packet Exchange Control Protocol + (IPXCP)) + RFC 1553 (Compressing IPX Headers over WAN Media (CIPX)) + RFC 1648 (Postmaster Convention for X.400 Operations) + RFC 1666 (Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA NAUs using SMIv2) + RFC 1692 (Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux)) + RFC 1696 (Modem Management Information Base (MIB) Using SMIv2) + RFC 1742 (AppleTalk Management Information Base II) + RFC 1747 (Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA Data Link Control + (SDLC) Using SMIv2) + RFC 1749 (IEEE 802.5 Station Source Routing MIB using SMIv2) + RFC 1763 (The PPP Banyan Vines Control Protocol (BVCP)) + RFC 1764 (The PPP XNS IDP Control Protocol (XNSCP)) + RFC 1828 (IP Authentication using Keyed MD5) + RFC 1835 (Architecture of the WHOIS++ Service) + RFC 1848 (MIME Object Security Services) + RFC 1913 (Architecture of the Whois++ Index Service) + RFC 1914 (How to Interact with a Whois++ Mesh) + + One additional document, RFC 1829, the ESP DES-CBC transform, was + suggested for Historic status, but in this case, the group consensus + is that the community would benefit from a separate document + describing the security implications of using this algorithm. + +4. Discussion + + As one peruses this list one sees several classes of documents: + + o Multiprotocol functions for protocols that are obsolete, such as + Appletalk or X.400. + o Protocols that were defined but not used, such as PEM or Whois++ + + In either case above, a judgment is necessary as to whether or not a + protocol is both in use and likely to be supported. The parameters + of our experiment were sufficiently conservative to avoid cases where + protocols were likely to continue to be supported. That is, anyone + could remove a document from the list for any reason. In fact, in + some cases we may have been too conservative. Thus, it is also worth + considering the categories of documents that were removed from the + list: + + + + + +Lear & Alvestrand Informational [Page 4] + +RFC 4450 Cruft Removal March 2006 + + + o specifications known to be in full use that should be considered + for advancement + o specifications that are currently under review within the IETF + process + o Specifications that were previously considered for deprecation and + rejected. + + The last category is exclusive to telnet options, which were reviewed + in the late 1990s. Arguably, such options should be reconsidered for + deprecation. Realistically, nobody is going to develop a new version + of telnet that supports the TACACS option, for instance. + Nevertheless, as a first cut we were still left with 61 documents + that could be reclassified. + + In at least one case, discussion of deprecation has spurred work on + documents. For instance, there is a Classless Inter-Domain Routing + (CIDR) update in progress. + +5. Next Steps + + As we mention in the introduction, the current process requires + reconsideration of immature standards, and this review currently does + not occur. This experiment has been an attempt at a procedure that + could ease that review. The final step was working group + consideration of what to do next. There were four options: + + 1. Accept the results of this experiment, issue a last call, and + deprecate standards that remain on the list past last call. This + is an aggressive approach that would preserve the intent of RFC + 2026. + 2. Do not accept the results of this experiment and update RFC 2026 + to indicate a new practice. + 3. Revise the procedure based on the results of this experiment, + based on feedback from the IESG. This option might take into + account the different types of old standards as described above. + 4. Do nothing. This would leave the IETF and the IESG practice + inconsistent with documented practice. + + The working group chose the first option. The RFC Editor is + requested to mark the above listed standards as Historic. + + It should be pointed out that we only looked at proposed standards + and only those RFCs with numbers less than 2000. Should either the + first or third of the above options be accepted, draft standards and + those older than several years should be considered. + + + + + + +Lear & Alvestrand Informational [Page 5] + +RFC 4450 Cruft Removal March 2006 + + + Finally, should NEWTRK deliver a new document classification system, + these documents may provide a basis for one or more new categories of + that. + +6. IANA Considerations + + The IANA databases contain references to many of these documents. + The documents are still the normative definitions for these values, + and the IANA databases do not contain information about the status of + the RFCs referred to. + + Therefore, the IANA should not need to do anything based on this + document. + +7. Security Considerations + + Documents that have security problems may require special attention + and individual documents to indicate what concerns exist, and when or + in what ways an implementation can be deployed to alleviate concerns. + +8. Acknowledgements + + This experiment would have been completely useless without + participation of the members of the old-standards mailing list. Most + notably, Pekka Savalo, Bob Braden, and John Klensin were very active + contributors to the discussions. + +9. Normative References + + [1] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP + 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Lear & Alvestrand Informational [Page 6] + +RFC 4450 Cruft Removal March 2006 + + +Appendix A. Input RFCs + + RFC 0698 (Telnet Extended ASCII Option) + RFC 0726 (Remote Controlled Transmission and Echoing Telnet Option) + RFC 0727 (Telnet Logout Option) + RFC 0735 (Revised Telnet Byte Macro Option) + RFC 0736 (Telnet SUPDUP Option) + RFC 0749 (Telnet SUPDUP-Output Option) + RFC 0779 (Telnet send-location Option) + RFC 0885 (Telnet End of Record Option) + RFC 0927 (TACACS User Identification Telnet Option) + RFC 0933 (Output Marking Telnet Option) + RFC 0946 (Telnet Terminal Location Number Option) + RFC 0977 (Network News Transfer Protocol) + RFC 1041 (Telnet 3270 Regime Option) + RFC 1043 (Telnet Data Entry Terminal Option: DODIIS Implementation) + RFC 1053 (Telnet X.3 PAD Option) + RFC 1073 (Telnet Window sSize Option) + RFC 1079 (Telnet Terminal Speed Option) + RFC 1091 (Telnet Terminal-type Option) + RFC 1096 (Telnet X Display Location Option) + RFC 1144 (Compressing TCP/IP Headers for Low-speed Serial Links) + RFC 1195 (Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual) + RFC 1234 (Tunneling IPX Traffic through IP Networks) + RFC 1239 (Reassignment of Experimental MIBs to Standard MIBs) + RFC 1256 (ICMP Router Discovery Messages) + RFC 1269 (Definitions of Managed Objects for the Border Gateway + Protocol: Version 3) + RFC 1274 (The COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema) + RFC 1276 (Replication and Distributed Operations Extensions to + Provide an Internet Directory Using X.500) + RFC 1277 (Encoding Network Addresses to Support Operation over Non- + OSI Lower Layers) + RFC 1285 (FDDI Management Information Base) + RFC 1314 (A File Format for the Exchange of Images in the Internet) + RFC 1323 (TCP Extensions for High Performance) + RFC 1328 (X.400 1988 to 1984 Downgrading) + RFC 1332 (The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol (IPCP)) + RFC 1370 (Applicability Statement for OSPF) + RFC 1372 (Telnet Remote Flow Control Option) + RFC 1377 (The PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol (OSINLCP)) + RFC 1378 (The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)) + RFC 1381 (SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 LAPB) + RFC 1382 (SNMP MIB Extension for the X.25 Packet Layer) + RFC 1397 (Default Route Advertisement in BGP2 and BGP3 Version of + the Border Gateway Protocol) + RFC 1413 (Identification Protocol) + RFC 1414 (Identification MIB) + + + +Lear & Alvestrand Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 4450 Cruft Removal March 2006 + + + RFC 1415 (FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification) + RFC 1418 (SNMP over OSI) + RFC 1419 (SNMP over AppleTalk) + RFC 1420 (SNMP over IPX) + RFC 1421 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part I: + Message Encryption and Authentication Procedures) + RFC 1422 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part + II: Certificate-Based Key Management) + RFC 1423 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part + III: Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers) + RFC 1424 (Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part + IV: Key Certification and Related Services) + RFC 1461 (SNMP MIB extension for Multiprotocol Interconnect over + X.25) + RFC 1469 (IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks) + RFC 1471 (The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Link Control + Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol) + RFC 1472 (The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Security + Protocols of the Point-to-Point Protocol) + RFC 1473 (The Definitions of Managed Objects for the IP Network + Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol) + RFC 1474 (The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Bridge Network + Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol) + RFC 1478 (An Architecture for Inter-Domain Policy Routing) + RFC 1479 (Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Specification: + Version 1) + RFC 1494 (Equivalences between 1988 X.400 and RFC-822 Message + Bodies) + RFC 1496 (Rules for Downgrading Messages from X.400/88 to X.400/84) + RFC 1502 (X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets) + RFC 1510 (The Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)) + RFC 1512 (FDDI Management Information Base) + RFC 1513 (Token Ring Extensions to the Remote Network Monitoring + MIB) + RFC 1517 (Applicability Statement for the Implementation of + Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR)) + RFC 1518 (An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR) + RFC 1519 (Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address + Assignment and Aggregation Strategy) + RFC 1525 (Definitions of Managed Objects for Source Routing + Bridges) + RFC 1552 (The PPP Internetworking Packet Exchange Control Protocol) + RFC 1553 (Compressing IPX Headers over WAN Media (CIPX)) + RFC 1570 (PPP LCP Extensions) + RFC 1572 (Telnet Environment Option) + RFC 1582 (Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits) + RFC 1584 (Multicast Extensions to OSPF) + RFC 1598 (PPP in X.25) + + + +Lear & Alvestrand Informational [Page 8] + +RFC 4450 Cruft Removal March 2006 + + + RFC 1618 (PPP over ISDN) + RFC 1628 (UPS Management Information Base) + RFC 1648 (Postmaster Convention for X.400 Operations) + RFC 1663 (PPP Reliable Transmission) + RFC 1666 (Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA NAUs Using SMIv2) + RFC 1692 (Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux)) + RFC 1696 (Modem Management Information Base (MIB) Using SMIv2) + RFC 1697 (Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) Management) + RFC 1731 (IMAP4 Authentication Mechanisms) + RFC 1734 (POP3 AUTHentication command) + RFC 1738 (Uniform Resource Locators (URL)) + RFC 1740 (MIME Encapsulation of Macintosh Files - MacMIME) + RFC 1742 (AppleTalk Management Information Base II) + RFC 1747 (Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA Data Link Control) + RFC 1749 (IEEE 802.5 Station Source Routing MIB Using SMIv2) + RFC 1752 (The Recommendation for the IP Next Generation Protocol) + RFC 1755 (ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM) + RFC 1763 (The PPP Banyan Vines Control Protocol (BVCP)) + RFC 1764 (The PPP XNS IDP Control Protocol (XNSCP)) + RFC 1767 (MIME Encapsulation of EDI Objects) + RFC 1793 (Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits) + RFC 1808 (Relative Uniform Resource Locators) + RFC 1812 (Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers) + RFC 1828 (IP Authentication using Keyed MD5) + RFC 1829 (The ESP DES-CBC Transform) + RFC 1831 (RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version + 2) + RFC 1833 (Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2) + RFC 1835 (Architecture of the WHOIS++ Service) + RFC 1847 (Security Multiparts for MIME: Multipart/Signed and + Multipart/Encrypted) + RFC 1848 (MIME Object Security Services) + RFC 1913 (Architecture of the Whois++ Index Service) + RFC 1914 (How to Interact with a Whois++ Mesh) + RFC 1928 (SOCKS Protocol Version 5) + RFC 1929 (Username/Password Authentication for SOCKS V5) + RFC 1961 (GSS-API Authentication Method for SOCKS Version 5) + RFC 1962 (The PPP Compression Control Protocol (CCP)) + RFC 1964 (The Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API Mechanism) + RFC 1968 (The PPP Encryption Control Protocol (ECP)) + RFC 1973 (PPP in Frame Relay) + RFC 1982 (Serial Number Arithmetic) + RFC 1985 (SMTP Service Extension for Remote Message Queue Starting) + RFC 1995 (Incremental Zone Transfer in DNS) + RFC 1996 (A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone Changes (DNS + NOTIFY)) + RFC 1997 (BGP Communities Attribute) + + + + +Lear & Alvestrand Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 4450 Cruft Removal March 2006 + + +Authors' Addresses + + Eliot Lear + Cisco Systems GmbH + Glatt-com + Glattzentrum, ZH CH-8301 + Switzerland + + Phone: +41 1 878 7525 + EMail: lear@cisco.com + + + Harald Tveit Alvestrand + Cisco Systems + Weidemanns vei 27 + 7043 Trondheim + Norway + + EMail: harald@alvestrand.no + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Lear & Alvestrand Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 4450 Cruft Removal March 2006 + + +Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). + + This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions + contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors + retain all their rights. + + This document and the information contained herein are provided on an + "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS + OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET + ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. + +Intellectual Property + + The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any + Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to + pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in + this document or the extent to which any license under such rights + might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has + made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information + on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be + found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. + + Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any + assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an + attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of + such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this + specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at + http://www.ietf.org/ipr. + + The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any + copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary + rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement + this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at + ietf-ipr@ietf.org. + +Acknowledgement + + Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF + Administrative Support Activity (IASA). + + + + + + + +Lear & Alvestrand Informational [Page 11] + |