Moving Outdated TCP Extensions and TCP-related Documents to Historic and Informational Status

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. In addition, a letter code after an RFC number indicates from what category in the RFC series a particular RFC is changed to Historic or Informational status (see BCP 9 for explanation of these categories): S - Standards Track (Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, or Internet Standard) E - Experimental I - Informational H - Historic B - Best Current Practice U - Unknown (not formally defined) For the content of the documents itself, the reader is referred either to the corresponding RFC or, for a brief description, to the TCP Roadmap document .

The RFC Editor is requested to change the status of the following RFCs to Historic : RFC 675 U: "Specification of Internet Transmission Control Program" : this document is replaced by final TCP specification . RFC 721 U: "Out-of-Band Control Signals in a Host-to-Host Protocol" : this proposal is not incorporated into the final TCP specification . RFC 761 U: "DoD standard Transmission Control Protocol" : this document is replaced by final TCP specification . RFC 813 U: "Window and Acknowledgement Strategy in TCP" : this document is incorporated into RFC 1122 . RFC 816 U: "Fault Isolation and Recovery" : this document is incorporated into RFC 1122 and RFC 5461 . RFC 879 U: "The TCP Maximum Segment Size and Related Topics" : this document is incorporated into RFC 1122 and RFC 6691 . RFC 896 U: "Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetworks" : this document is incorporated into RFC 1122 and RFC 6633 . RFC 1078 U: "TCP Port Service Multiplexer (TCPMUX)" : this proposal SHOULD not longer recommended for use for the following reason: RFC 1078 destroys the semantics of TCP connection establishment. RFC 1078 requires all new connections to be received on a single port, which limits the number of connections between two machines and raises security concerns. There exist no known client side deployment of RFC 1078. RFC 6013 E: "TCP Cookie Transactions (TCPCT)" : although RFC 6013 was published in 2011, RFC 6013 SHOULD not longer recommended for use for the following reason: There exist no known wide deployment and use of RFC 6013. RFC 6013 uses experimental TCP option codepoints, which prohibits a large-scale deployment. RFC 7413 and are alternatives to RFC 6013, which have relatively more "rough consensus and running code" behind them.

The RFC Editor is requested to change the status of the following RFCs to Informational : RFC 700 U: "A Protocol Experiment" : this document presents a field report about the deployment of a very early version of TCP. RFC 794 U: "PRE-EMPTION" : this document clarifies that operating systems need to manage their limited resources, which may include TCP connection state. RFC 814 U: "Name, Addresses, Ports, and Routes" : this document gives suggestions and guidance for designing tables and algorithms to keep track of various identifiers within a TCP/IP implementation. RFC 817 U: "Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol Implementation" : this document contains general implementation suggestions. RFC 872 U: "TCP-on-a-LAN" : this document concludes that the sometimes expressed fear that using TCP on a local net is a bad idea is unfounded. RFC 889 U: "Internet Delay Experiments" : this document is a status report about experiments concerning the TCP retransmission timeout calculation. RFC 964 U: "Some Problems with the Specification of the Military Standard Transmission Control Protocol" : this document points out several specification bugs in the US Military's MIL-STD-1778 document, which was intended as a successor to RFC 793 . RFC 1071 U: "Computing the Internet Checksum" : this document lists a number of implementation techniques for efficiently computing the Internet checksum.