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 中文翻译

URL : https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6247
标题 : RFC 6247
翻译类型 : 自动生成

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

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

将未部署的TCP扩展RFC 1072、RFC 1106、RFC 1110、RFC 1145、RFC 1146、RFC 1379、RFC 1644和RFC 1693移动到历史状态

Abstract

摘要

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.

本文档将几个从未广泛使用的TCP扩展重新分类为历史状态。受影响的RFC为RFC 1072、RFC 1106、RFC 1110、RFC 1145、RFC 1146、RFC 1379、RFC 1644和RFC 1693。

Status of This Memo

关于下段备忘

This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

本文件不是互联网标准跟踪规范；它是为了提供信息而发布的。

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.

本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。并非IESG批准的所有文件都适用于任何级别的互联网标准；见RFC 5741第2节。

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.

有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6247.

版权公告

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

本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从该文档中提取的代码组件必须

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.

包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，且不提供简化BSD许可证中所述的担保。

1. Introduction

1. 介绍

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.

TCP有着悠久的历史，一些提议的TCP扩展从未广泛部署。TCP“路线图”文档[RFC4614]的第5节已经将许多TCP扩展分类为历史，并描述了这样做的原因，但它没有指示RFC编辑器和IANA更改RFC数据库和相关IANA注册表中这些RFC的状态。本文件的唯一目的就是这样做。请参考[RFC4614]第5节了解理由。

2. RFC Editor Considerations

2. RFC编辑器注意事项

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

根据本文档，RFC编辑器已将以下RFC的状态更改为历史[RFC2026]：

o [RFC1072] on "TCP Extensions for Long-Delay Paths"

o [RFC1072]关于“长延迟路径的TCP扩展”

o [RFC1106] and [RFC1110] related to the "TCP Big Window and Nak Options"

o [RFC1106]和[RFC1110]与“TCP大窗口和Nak选项”相关

o [RFC1145] and [RFC1146] related to the "TCP Alternate Checksum Options"

o [RFC1145]和[RFC1146]与“TCP备用校验和选项”相关

o [RFC1379] and [RFC1644] on "T/TCP -- Extensions for Transactions Functional Specification"

o [RFC1379]和[RFC1644]关于“T/TCP——事务功能规范的扩展”

o [RFC1693] on "An Extension to TCP : Partial Order Service"

o [RFC1693]关于“TCP扩展：部分订购服务”

3. IANA Considerations

3. IANA考虑

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.

IANA已将[RFC1072]、[RFC1146]、[RFC1644]和[RFC1693]中记录的TCP选项6、7、9、10、11、12、13、14和15标记为“TCP选项种类号”注册表[TCPOPTREG]中的“过时”，并参考了该RFC。

4. Security Considerations

4. 安全考虑

As mentioned in [RFC4614], the TCP Extensions for Transactions (T/TCP) [RFC1379][RFC1644] are reported to have security issues [DEVIVO].

如[RFC4614]所述，据报告，事务的TCP扩展（T/TCP）[RFC1379][RFC1644]存在安全问题[DEVIVO]。

5. Acknowledgments

5. 致谢

Lars Eggert is partly funded by [TRILOGY], a research project supported by the European Commission under its Seventh Framework Program.

拉尔斯·艾格特（Lars Eggert）的部分资金来自于[三部曲]，这是一个由欧盟委员会第七框架计划支持的研究项目。

6. References

6. 工具书类

6.1. Normative References

6.1. 规范性引用文件

[RFC1072] Jacobson, V. and R. Braden, "TCP extensions for long-delay paths", RFC 1072, October 1988.

[RFC1072]Jacobson，V.和R.Braden，“长延迟路径的TCP扩展”，RFC 1072，1988年10月。

[RFC1106] Fox, R., "TCP big window and NAK options", RFC 1106, June 1989.

[RFC1106]Fox，R.，“TCP大窗口和NAK选项”，RFC1106，1989年6月。

[RFC1110] McKenzie, A., "Problem with the TCP big window option", RFC 1110, August 1989.

[RFC1110]McKenzie，A.，“TCP大窗口选项的问题”，RFC11101989年8月。

[RFC1145] Zweig, J. and C. Partridge, "TCP alternate checksum options", RFC 1145, February 1990.

[RFC1145]Zweig，J.和C.Partridge，“TCP备用校验和选项”，RFC 11451990年2月。

[RFC1146] Zweig, J. and C. Partridge, "TCP alternate checksum options", RFC 1146, March 1990.

[RFC1146]Zweig，J.和C.Partridge，“TCP备用校验和选项”，RFC 11461990年3月。

[RFC1379] Braden, B., "Extending TCP for Transactions -- Concepts", RFC 1379, November 1992.

[RFC1379]Braden，B.，“为事务扩展TCP——概念”，RFC1379，1992年11月。

[RFC1644] Braden, B., "T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions Functional Specification", RFC 1644, July 1994.

[RFC1644]Braden，B，“T/TCP——事务功能规范的TCP扩展”，RFC16441994年7月。

[RFC1693] Connolly, T., Amer, P., and P. Conrad, "An Extension to TCP : Partial Order Service", RFC 1693, November 1994.

[RFC1693]Connolly，T.，Amer，P.，和P.Conrad，“TCP的扩展：部分订单服务”，RFC 1693，1994年11月。

[RFC4614] Duke, M., Braden, R., Eddy, W., and E. Blanton, "A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification Documents", RFC 4614, September 2006.

[RFC4614]Duke，M.，Braden，R.，Eddy，W.，和E.Blanton，“传输控制协议（TCP）规范文件路线图”，RFC 46142006年9月。

6.2. Informative References

6.2. 资料性引用

[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.

[DEVIVO]de Vivo，M.，de Vivo，G.，Koeneke，R.，和G.Isern，“与TCP/IP和T/TCP相关的互联网漏洞”，ACM SIGCOMM计算机通信评论（CCR），第29卷，第1期，1999年1月。

[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

[RFC2026]Bradner，S.，“互联网标准过程——第3版”，BCP 9，RFC 2026，1996年10月。

[TCPOPTREG] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "TCP Option Kind Numbers", <http://www.iana.org>.

[TCPOPTREG]互联网分配号码管理局（IANA），“TCP选项种类号码”<http://www.iana.org>.

[TRILOGY] "Trilogy Project", <http://www.trilogy-project.org/>.

[三部曲]“三部曲项目”<http://www.trilogy-project.org/>.

Author's Address

作者地址

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

芬兰诺基亚集团00045诺基亚研究中心邮政信箱407

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

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