[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 3795

Internet Engineering Task Force                               Rute Sofia
Internet Draft                                       Philip J. Nesser II
Expiration Date: February 2004                Nesser & Nesser Consulting
                                                           December 2003


               Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed
                     IETF Application Area Standards
                 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-04.txt


Status of this Memo

This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all
provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.


Abstract

The transition from an all IPv4 network to an all IPv6 network
requires several interim steps, being one of them the evolution of
current IPv4 dependent specifications to a format independent of the
type of IP addressing schema used. Hence, it is hoped that
specifications will be re-designed and re-implemented to become
network address independent, or at least to dually support IPv4 and
IPv6.
To achieve that step, it is necessary to survey and document all IPv4
dependencies experienced by current standards - Full, Draft, and


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


Proposed - and Experimental RFCs. Hence, this document describes
IPv4 addressing dependencies that deployed IETF Application Area
documented Standards may experience.


Contents

1 Introduction                                                       2

2 Document Organization                                              2

3 Full Standards                                                     3

4 Draft Standards                                                    6

5 Proposed Standards                                                11

6 Experimental RFCs                                                 38

7 Summary of Results                                                50

8 Acknowledgements                                                  53

9 Security Considerations                                           53


1 Introduction

The exhaustive documentation of IPv4 addresses usage in currently
deployed IETF documented standards has now been broken into
seven documents conforming to current IETF main areas, i.e.,
Applications, Internet, Operations and Management, Routing, Sub-IP,
and Transport. A general overview of the documentation, as well as
followed methodology and historical perspective can be found in [1].
This document represents one of the seven blocks, and its scope is
limited to surveying possible IPv4 dependencies in IETF Application
Area documented Standards.


2 Document Organization

The remainder sections are organized as follows. Sections 3, 4, 5, and
6 describe, respectively, the raw analysis of Internet Standards [3]:

Nesser II, Sofia        Expires February 2004                   [Page 2]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


Full, Draft and Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs. For
each section, standards are analysed by their RFC sequential order,
i.e., from RFC 1 to RFC 3200. Exceptions to this are some RFCs
above RFC 3200. They have been included, given that they obsoleted
RFCs within the range 1-3200. Also, the comments presented for
each RFC are raw in their nature, i.e., each RFC is simply analysed in
terms of possible IPv4 addressing dependencies. Finally, Section 7
presents a global overview of the data described in the previous
sections, and suggests possible future steps.


3 Full Standards

Internet Full Standards attain the highest level of maturity on the
standards track process. They are commonly referred to as
"Standards", and represent fully technical mature specifications,
widely implemented and used throughout the Internet.


3.1 RFC854: Telnet Protocol Specifications

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


3.2 RFC 855: Telnet Option Specifications

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


3.3 RFC 856: Binary Transmission Telnet Option

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


3.4 RFC 857: Echo Telnet Option

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


3.5 RFC 858: Suppress Go Ahead Telnet Option

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


3.6 RFC 859: Status Telnet Option

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


Nesser II, Sofia        Expires February 2004                   [Page 3]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


3.7 RFC 860: Timing Mark Telnet Option

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


3.8 RFC 861: Extended Options List Telnet Option

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


3.9 RFC 862: Echo Protocol

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


3.10 RFC 863: Discard Protocol

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


3.11 RFC 864: Character Generator Protocol

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


3.12 RFC 865: Quote of the Day Protocol

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


3.13 RFC 866: Active Users Protocol

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


3.14 RFC 867: Daytime Protocol

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


3.15 RFC 868: Time Server Protocol

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.





Nesser II, Sofia       Expires February 2004                    [Page 4]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


3.16 RFC 959: File Transfer Protocol

Section 4.1.2 (TRANSFER PARAMETER COMMANDS) describes
the port command using the following format:


"A port command would be:
PORT h1,h2,h3,h4,p1,p2
where h1 is the high order 8 bits of the internet host address."


This is a clear reference to an IPv4 address. In sections 4.2.1 and
4.2.2, on reply codes, the code:


"227 Entering Passive Mode (h1,h2,h3,h4,p1,p2)"


also needs to be reworked for IPv6 addressing. Also, Section 5.3.2
(FTP COMMAND ARGUMENTS) contains:


"<host-number> ::= <number>,<number>,<number>,<number>
<port-number> ::= <number>,<number>
<number> ::= any decimal integer 1 through 255"


This needs to be solved to transition to IPv6.


3.17 RFC 1350: Trivial File Transfer Protocol

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


3.18 RFC 1870: SMTP Service Extension for Message Size
       Declaration

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


3.19 RFC 1939: Post Office Protocol - Version 3

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


3.20 RFC 2920: SMTP Service Extension for Command Pipelining

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Nesser II, Sofia          Expires February 2004                 [Page 5]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


4 Draft Standards

Draft Standards is the nomenclature given to specifications that are on
the penultimate maturity level of the IETF standards track process.
They are considered to be final specifications, which may only
experience changes to solve specific problems found. A specification
is only considered to be a Draft Standard if there are at least two
known independent and interoperable implementations. Hence, Draft
Standards are usually quite mature and widely used.


4.1 RFC 954: NICNAME/WHOIS

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


4.2 RFC 1184: Telnet Linemode Option

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


4.3 RFC 1288: The Finger User Information Protocol

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


4.4 RFC 1305: Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Specification,
     Implementation

Section 3.2.1 (Common Variables) provides the following variable
definitions:


"Peer Address (peer.peeraddr, pkt.peeraddr), Peer Port
(peer.peerport,pkt.peerport). These are the 32-bit Internet address and
16-bit port number of the peer.
Host Address (peer.hostaddr, pkt.hostaddr), Host Port (peer.hostport,
pkt.hostport). These are the 32-bit Internet address and 16-bit port
number of the host. They are included among the state variables to
support multi-homing."


Section 3.4.3 (Receive Procedure) defines the following procedure:


"The source and destination Internet addresses and ports in the IP and
UDP headers are matched to the correct peer. If there is no match a
new instantiation of the protocol machine is created and the

Nesser II, Sofia          Expires February 2004                 [Page 6]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


association mobilized."


Section 3.6 (Access Control Issues) proposes a simple authentication
scheme in the following way:


"If a more comprehensive trust model is required, the design can be
based on an access-control list with each entry consisting of a 32-bit
Internet address, 32-bit mask and three-bit mode. If the logical AND
of the source address (pkt.peeraddr) and the mask in an entry matches
the corresponding address in the entry and the mode (pkt.mode)
matches the mode in the entry, the access is allowed; otherwise an
ICMP error message is returned to the requestor. Through appropriate
choice of mask, it is possible to restrict requests by mode to
individual addresses, a particular subnet or net addresses, or have no
restriction at all. The access-control list would then serve as a filter
controlling which peers could create associations."


Appendix B Section 3 (B.3 Commands) defines the following
command:


"Set Trap Address/Port (6): The command association identifier,
status and data fields are ignored. The address and port number for
subsequent trap messages are taken from the source address and port
of the control message itself. The initial trap counter for trap response
messages is taken from the sequence field of the command. The
response association identifier, status and data fields are not
significant. Implementations should include sanity timeouts which
prevent trap transmissions if the monitoring program does not renew
this information after a lengthy interval."


The address clearly assumes the IPv4 version. Also, there are
numerous places in sample code and in algorithms that use the above
mentioned variables. It seems that there is no reason to modify the
actual protocol. A small number of text changes and an update to
implementations, so they can understand both IPv4 and IPv6
addresses, will suffice to have a NTP version that works on both
network layer protocols.


4.5 RFC 1575: An Echo Function for CLNP (ISO 8473)

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.



Nesser II, Sofia           Expires February 2004                [Page 7]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


4.6 RFC 1652: SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIME Transport

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


4.7 RFC 1832: eXternal Data Representation Standard

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


4.8 RFC 2045: Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME),
     Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


4.9 RFC 2046: MIME, Part Two: Media Types

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


4.10 RFC 2047: MIME, Part Three: Message Header Extensions
      for Non-ASCII Text

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


4.11 RFC 2049: MIME Part Five: Conformance Criteria and
      Examples

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


4.12 RFC 2279: UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


4.13 RFC 2347: TFTP Option Extension

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.





Nesser II, Sofia       Expires February 2004                    [Page 8]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


4.14 RFC 2348: TFTP Blocksize Option

Section "Blocksize Option Specification" gives the following
example:


"For example:
 +-------+--------+---+--------+---+--------+---+--------+---+
 |   1   | foobar | 0 | octet  | 0 | blksize| 0 |  1428  | 0 |
 +-------+--------+---+--------+---+--------+---+--------+---+
is a Read Request, for the file named "foobar", in octet (binary)
transfer mode, with a block size of 1428 octets (Ethernet MTU, less
the TFTP, UDP and IP header lengths)."


Clearly, the given blocksize example would not work with IPv6
header sizes, but it has no practical implications, since larger
blocksizes are also available.


4.15 RFC 2349: TFTP Timeout Interval and Transfer Size Options

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


4.16 RFC 2355: TN3270 Enhancements

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


4.17 RFC 2396: Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic
       Syntax

Section 3.2.2. (Server-based Naming Authority) states:


"The host is a domain name of a network host, or its IPv4 address as a
set of four decimal digit groups separated by ".". Literal IPv6
addresses are not supported.
...
Note: A suitable representation for including a literal IPv6 address as
the host part of a URL is desired, but has not yet been determined or
implemented in practice."




Nesser II, Sofia          Expires February 2004                 [Page 9]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003

4.18 RFC 2616: Hypertext Transfer Protocol HTTP/1.1

Section 3.2.2 (http URL) states:
"The "http" scheme is used to locate network resources via the HTTP
protocol. This section defines the scheme-specific syntax and
semantics for http URLs.
http_URL = "http:" "//" host [ ":" port ] [ abs_path [ "?" query ]]
If the port is empty or not given, port 80 is assumed. The semantics
are that the identified resource is located at the server listening for
TCP connections on that port of that host, and the Request-URI for
the resource is abs_path (section 5.1.2). The use of IP addresses in
URLs SHOULD be avoided whenever possible (see RFC 1900 [24]).
"

The text is version neutral, but it is unclear whether individual
implementations will support IPv6 addresses. In fact, the use of the
":"separator in IPv6 addresses will cause misinterpretation when
parsing URI's. There are other discussions regarding a server
recognizing its own IP addresses, spoofing DNS/IP address
combinations, as well as issues regarding multiple HTTP servers
running on a single IP interface. Again, the text is version neutral,
but clearly, such statements represent implementation issues.


4.19 RFC 3191: Minimal GSTN address format in Internet Mail

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


4.20 RFC 3192: Minimal FAX address format in Internet Mail

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


4.21 RFC 3282: Content Language Headers

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


4.22 RFC 3461: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Service
       Extension for Delivery Status Notifications

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.23 RFC 3462: The Multipart/Report Content Type for the
       Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Nesser II, Sofia        Expires February 2004                  [Page 10]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


4.24 RFC 3463: Enhanced Mail System Status Codes

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


4.25 RFC 3464: An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status
       Notifications

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5 Proposed Standards

Proposed Standards represent initial level documents in the IETF
standards track. They are stable in terms of design, but do not require
the existence of implementations. In several cases, these
specifications are simply proposed as solid technical ideas, to be
analysed by the Internet community, but are never implemented or
advanced in the IETF standards process.


5.1 RFC 698: Telnet extended ASCII option

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.2 RFC 726: Remote Controlled Transmission and Echoing Telnet
     option

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.3 RFC 727: Telnet logout option

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.4 RFC 735: Revised Telnet byte macro option

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.5 RFC 736: Telnet SUPDUP option

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.




Nesser II, Sofia        Expires February 2004                  [Page 11]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


5.6 RFC 749: Telnet SUPDUP-Output option

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.7 RFC 779: Telnet send-location option

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.8 RFC 885: Telnet end of record option

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.9 RFC 927: TACACS user identification Telnet option

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.10 RFC 933: Output marking Telnet option

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.11 RFC 946: Telnet terminal location number option

Section "TTYLOC Number" states:


"The TTYLOC number is a 64-bit number composed of two (2)
32-bit numbers: The 32-bit official ARPA Internet host address (may
be any one of the addresses for multi-homed hosts) and a 32-bit
number representing the terminal on the specified host. The host
address of [0.0.0.0] is defined to be "unknown", the terminal number
of FFFFFFFF (hex, r or-1 in decimal) is defined to be "unknown" and
the terminal number of FFFFFFFE (hex, or -2 in decimal) is defined
to be "detached" for processes that are not attached to a terminal."


The clear reference to 32-bit numbers, and to the use of literal
addresses in the form [0.0.0.0] is clearly an IPv4-dependency. Thus,
the text above needs to be re-written.


5.12 RFC 977: Network News Transfer Protocol

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


Nesser II, Sofia        Expires February 2004                  [Page 12]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


5.13 RFC 1041: Telnet 3270 regime option

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.14 RFC 1043: Telnet Data Entry Terminal option: DODIIS
      implementation

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.15 RFC 1053: Telnet X.3 PAD option

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.16 RFC 1073: Telnet window size option

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.17 RFC 1079: Telnet terminal speed option

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.18 RFC 1091: Telnet terminal-type option

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.19 RFC 1096: Telnet X display location option

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.20 RFC 1274: The COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.21 RFC 1276: Replication and Distributed Operations extensions
      to provide an Internet Directory using X.500

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.





Nesser II, Sofia        Expires February 2004                  [Page 13]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


5.22 RFC 1314: A File Format for the Exchange of Images in the
      Internet

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.23 RFC 1328: X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.24 RFC 1372: Telnet Remote Flow Control Option

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.25 RFC 1415: FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification

Since this document defines a gateway for interaction between FTAM
and FTP, the only possible IPv4 dependencies are associated with
FTP, which has already been investigated above, in section 3.16.


5.26 RFC 1494: Equivalences between 1988 X.400 and RFC-822
      Message Bodies

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.27 RFC 1496: Rules for downgrading messages from X.400/88 to
      X.400/84 when MIME content-types are present in the
      messages

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.28 RFC 1502: X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.29 RFC 1572: Telnet Environment Option

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.30 RFC 1648: Postmaster Convention for X.400 Operations

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Nesser II, Sofia        Expires February 2004                  [Page 14]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


5.31 RFC 1738: Uniform Resource Locators

Section 3.1. (Common Internet Scheme Syntax) states:


"host
The fully qualified domain name of a network host, or its IP address
as a set of four decimal digit groups separated by ".". Fully qualified
domain names take the form as described in Section 3.5 of RFC 1034
[13] and Section 2.1 of RFC 1123 [5]: a sequence of domain labels
separated by ".", each domain label starting and ending with an
alphanumerical character and possibly also containing "-" characters.
The rightmost domain label will never start with a digit, though,
which syntactically distinguishes all domain names from the IP
addresses."


Clearly, this is only valid when using IPv4 addresses. Later in Section
5. (BNF for specific URL schemes), there is the following text:


"; URL schemeparts for ip based protocols:
ip-schemepart = "//" login [ "/" urlpath ]
login = [ user [ ":" password ] "@" ] hostport
hostport = host [ ":" port ]
host = hostname | hostnumber"


Again, this has also implications in terms of IP-version neutrality.


5.32 RFC 1740: MIME Encapsulation of Macintosh Files -
         MacMIME

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.33 RFC 1767: MIME Encapsulation of EDI Objects

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.34 RFC 1808: Relative Uniform Resource Locators

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.



Nesser II, Sofia         Expires February 2004                 [Page 15]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


5.35 RFC 1835: Architecture of the WHOIS++ service

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.36 RFC 1913: Architecture of the WHOIS++ Index Service

Section 6.5. (Query referral) makes the following statement:

"When referrals are included in the body of a response to a query,
each referral is listed in a separate SERVER-TO-ASK block as shown
below.
# SERVER-TO-ASK
Version-number: // version number of index software, used to insure
compatibility
Body-of-Query: // the original query goes here
Server-Handle: // WHOIS++ handle of the referred server
Host-Name: // DNS name or IP address of the referred server
Port-Number: // Port number to which to connect, if different from
the
// WHOIS++ port number"

The syntax used does not present specific IPv4 dependencies, but
implementations should be modified to check, in incoming packets,
which IP version was used by the original request, so they can
determine whether or not to to return an IPv6 address.


5.37 RFC 1914: How to Interact with a Whois++ Mesh

Section 4 (Caching) states the following:

"A client can cache all information it gets from a server for some
time. For example records, IP-addresses of Whois++ servers, the
Directory of Services server etc.
A client can itself choose for how long it should cache the
information. The IP-address of the Directory of Services server might
not change for a day or two, and neither might any other information."

Also, subsection 4.1. (Caching a Whois++ servers hostname)
contains:


Nesser II, Sofia        Expires February 2004                  [Page 16]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


"An example of cached information that might change is the cached
hostname, IP-address and portnumber which a client gets back in a
servers-to-ask response. That information is cached in the server
since the last poll, which might occurred several weeks ago.
Therefore, when such a connection fails, the client should fall back
to use the serverhandle instead, which means that it contacts the
Directory of Services server and queries for a server with that
serverhandle. By doing this, the client should always get the last
known hostname. An algorithm for this might be:
response := servers-to-ask response from server A
IP-address := find ip-address for response.hostname in DNS
connect to ip-address at port response.portnumber
if connection fails {
connect to Directory of Services server
query for host with serverhandle response.serverhandle
response := response from Directory of Services server
IP-address := find ip-address for response.hostname in DNS
connect to ip-address at port response.portnumber
if connection fails {
exit with error message
}
}
Query this new server"


The paragraph does not contain IPv4 specific syntax. Hence, IPv6
compliance will be implementation dependent.


5.38 RFC 1985: SMTP Service Extension for Remote Message
       Queue Starting

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.39 RFC 2017: Definition of the URL MIME External-Body
       Access-Type

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.



Nesser II, Sofia           Expires February 2004               [Page 17]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


5.40 RFC 2034: SMTP Service Extension for Returning Enhanced
      Error Codes

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.41 RFC 2056: Uniform Resource Locators for Z39.50

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.42 RFC 2077: The Model Primary Content Type for
      Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.43 RFC 2079: Definition of an X.500 Attribute Type and an
      Object Class to Hold Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.44 RFC 2086: IMAP4 ACL extension

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.45 RFC 2087: IMAP4 QUOTA extension

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.46 RFC 2088: IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.47 RFC 2122: VEMMI URL Specification

Section 3 (Description of the VEMMI scheme) states:


"The VEMMI URL scheme is used to designate multimedia
interactive services conforming to the VEMMI standard (ITU/T
T.107 and ETS 300 709).
A VEMMI URL takes the form:
vemmi://<host>:<port>/<vemmiservice>;

Nesser II, Sofia       Expires February 2004                   [Page 18]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


<attribute>=<value>
as specified in Section 3.1. of RFC 1738. If :<port> is omitted, the
port defaults to 575 (client software may choose to ignore the
optional port number in order to increase security). The
<vemmiservice> part is optional and may be omitted."

IPv4 dependencies may relate to the possibility of the <host> portion
to contain an IPv4 address, as defined in RFC 1738 (see section 5.31.
above). Once the problem is solved in the context of RFC 1738, this
issue will be automatically solved.


5.48 RFC 2141: URN Syntax

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.49 RFC 2142: Mailbox Names for Common Services, Roles and
       Functions

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.50 RFC 2156: MIXER (Mime Internet X.400 Enhanced Relay):
       Mapping between X.400 and RFC 822/MIME

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.51 RFC 2157: Mapping between X.400 and RFC-822/MIME
       Message Bodies

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.52 RFC 2158: X.400 Image Body Parts

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.53 RFC 2159: A MIME Body Part for FAX

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.54 RFC 2160: Carrying PostScript in X.400 and MIME

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Nesser II, Sofia         Expires February 2004                 [Page 19]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


5.55 RFC 2163: Using the Internet DNS to Distribute MIXER
           Conformant Global Address Mapping

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.56 RFC 2164: Use of an X.500/LDAP directory to support
           MIXER address mapping

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.57 RFC 2165: Service Location Protocol

Section 7. (Service Type Request Message Format) and Section 9.
(Service Registration Message Format) have an 80-bit field from
addr-spec (see below) which cannot support IPv6 addresses.
Also, Section 20.1. (Previous Responders' Address Specification)
states:


"The previous responders' Address Specification is specified as:
<Previous Responders' Address Specification> ::= <addr-spec>
|<addr-spec>, <Previous Responders' Address Specification> i.e., a
list separated by commas with no intervening white space. The
Address Specification is the address of the Directory Agent or
Service Agent which supplied the previous response. The format for
Address Specifications in Service Location is defined in section 20.4.
The comma delimiter is required between each <addr-spec>. The use
of dotted decimal IP address notation should only be used in
environments which have no Domain Name Service.
Example:
RESOLVO.NEATO.ORG,128.127.203.63"


Later, in Section 20.4. (Address Specification in Service Location)
there is also the following reference to addr-spec:


"The address specification used in Service Location is:
<addr-spec> ::= [<user>:<password>@]<host>[:<port>]
<host> ::= Fully qualified domain name | dotted decimal IP address
notation
When no Domain Name Server is available, SAs and DAs must use
dotted decimal conventions for IP addresses. Otherwise, it is

Nesser II, Sofia         Expires February 2004                 [Page 20]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


preferable to use a fully qualified domain name wherever possible as
renumbering of host addresses will make IP addresses invalid over
time."

The whole Section 21. (Protocol Requirements) defines the
requirements for each of the elements of this protocol. Several IPv4
statements are made, but the syntax used is sufficiently neutral to
apply to the use of IPv6.
Section 22. (Configurable Parameters and Default Values) states:

"There are several configuration parameters for Service Location.
Default values are chosen to allow protocol operation without the
need for selection of these configuration parameters, but other values
may be selected by the site administrator. The configurable
parameters will allow an implementation of Service Location to be
more useful in a variety of scenarios.
Multicast vs. Broadcast
All Service Location entities must use multicast by default. The
ability to use broadcast messages must be configurable for UAs and
SAs. Broadcast messages are to be used in environments where not
all Service Location entities have hardware or software which
supports multicast.
Multicast Radius
Multicast requests should be sent to all subnets in a site. The default
multicast radius for a site is 32. This value must be configurable. The
value for the site's multicast TTL may be obtained from DHCP using
an option which is currently unassigned."
Once again, nothing here precludes IPv6. Section 23.
(Non-configurable Parameters) states:
"IP Port number for unicast requests to Directory Agents:
UDP and TCP Port Number: 427
Multicast Addresses
Service Location General Multicast Address: 224.0.1.22
Directory Agent Discovery Multicast Address: 224.0.1.35
A range of 1024 contiguous multicast addresses for use as Service
Specific Discovery Multicast Addresses will be assigned by IANA."

Clearly, the statements above require specifications related to the use
of IPv6 multicast addresses with equivalent functionality.

Nesser II, Sofia        Expires February 2004                  [Page 21]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


5.58 RFC 2177: IMAP4 IDLE command

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.59 RFC 2183: Communicating Presentation Information in
      Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition Header Field

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.60 RFC 2192: IMAP URL Scheme

The specification has IPv4 dependencies, as RFC 1738, which is
integral to the document, is not IPv6 aware.


5.61 RFC 2193: IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals

Section 6. (Formal Syntax) presents the following statement:

"referral_response_code = "[" "REFERRAL" 1*(SPACE <url>) "]";
See [RFC-1738] for <url> definition"

The above presents dependencies on RFC 1738 URL definitions,
which have already been mentioned in this document, section 5.31.


5.62 RFC 2218: A Common Schema for the Internet White Pages
      Service

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.63 RFC 2221: IMAP4 Login Referrals

Section 4.1. (LOGIN and AUTHENTICATE Referrals) provides the
following example:

"Example: C: A001 LOGIN MIKE PASSWORD
S: A001 NO [REFERRAL IMAP://MIKE@SERVER2/] Specified
user is invalid on this server. Try SERVER2."

Even though the syntax "user@SERVER2" is presented often, there
are no specifications related to the format of "SERVER2". Hence, it
is up to individual implementations to decide acceptable values for
the hostname. This may or not include explicit IPv6 addresses.

Nesser II, Sofia       Expires February 2004                   [Page 22]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


5.64 RFC 2227: Simple Hit-Metering and Usage-Limiting for
       HTTP

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.65 RFC 2231: MIME Parameter Value and Encoded Word
       Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and Continuations

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.66 RFC 2234: Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.67 RFC 2244: Application Configuration Access Protocol

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.68 RFC 2247: Using Domains in LDAP/X.500 Distinguished
       Names

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.69 RFC 2251: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3)

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.70 RFC 2252: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3):
       Attribute Syntax Definitions

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.71 RFC 2253: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3):
       UTF-8 String Representation of Distinguished Names

Section 7.1. (Disclosure) states:


"Distinguished Names typically consist of descriptive information
about the entries they name, which can be people, organizations,
devices or other real-world objects. This frequently includes some of


Nesser II, Sofia        Expires February 2004                  [Page 23]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


the following kinds of information:


- the common name of the object (i.e. a person's full name)
- an email or TCP/IP address
- its physical location (country, locality, city, street address)
- organizational attributes (such as department name or affiliation)"


This section requires the caveat "Without putting any limitations on
the version of the IP address.", to avoid ambiguity in terms of IP
version.


5.72 RFC 2254: The String Representation of LDAP Search Filters

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.73 RFC 2255: The LDAP URL Format

The specification has IPv4 dependencies, as RFC 1738, which is
integral to the document, is not IPv6 aware.


5.74 RFC 2256: A Summary of the X.500(96) User Schema for use
       with LDAPv3

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.75 RFC 2293: Representing Tables and Subtrees in the X.500
       Directory

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.76 RFC 2294: Representing the O/R Address hierarchy in the
       X.500 Directory Information Tree

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.77 RFC 2298: An Extensible Message Format for Message
       Disposition Notifications

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.



Nesser II, Sofia         Expires February 2004                 [Page 24]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


5.78 RFC 2301: File Format for Internet Fax

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.79 RFC 2305: A Simple Mode of Facsimile Using Internet Mail

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.80 RFC 2334: Server Cache Synchronization Protocol

Appendix B, part 2.0.1 (Mandatory Common Part) states:


"Cache Key
This is a database lookup key that uniquely identifies a piece of data
which the originator of a CSA Record wishes to synchronize with its
peers for a given "Protocol ID/Server Group ID" pair. This key will
generally be a small opaque byte string which SCSP will associate
with a given piece of data in a cache. Thus, for example, an originator
might assign a particular 4 byte string to the binding of an IP address
with that of an ATM address. Generally speaking, the originating
server of a CSA record is responsible for generating a Cache Key for
every element of data that the given server originates and which the
server wishes to synchronize with its peers in the SG."


The statement above is simply meant as an example. Hence, any IPv4
possible dependency of this protocol is an implementation issue.


5.81 RFC 2342: IMAP4 Namespace

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.82 RFC 2359: IMAP4 UIDPLUS extension

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.83 RFC 2368: The mailto URL scheme

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.




Nesser II, Sofia        Expires February 2004                  [Page 25]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


5.84 RFC 2369: The Use of URLs as Meta-Syntax for Core Mail
       List Commands and their Transport through Message Header
       Fields

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.85 RFC 2371: Transaction Internet Protocol Version 3.0

In section 7. (TIP Transaction Manager Identification and Connection
Establishment) :


"The <hostport> component comprises:
<host>[:<port>]
where <host> is either a <dns name> or an <ip address>; and <port>
is a decimal number specifying the port at which the transaction
manager (or proxy) is listening for requests to establish TIP
connections. If the port number is omitted, the standard TIP port
number (3372) is used.
A <dns name> is a standard name, acceptable to the domain name
service. It must be sufficiently qualified to be useful to the receiver
of the command.
An <ip address> is an IP address, in the usual form: four decimal
numbers separated by period characters."
This section has to be re-written to become IP-version neutral.
Besides adding a reference to the use of IPv6 addresses, the "host"
field should only be defined as a "dns name". However, if the use of
literal IP addresses is to be included, the format specified in RFC
2372 has to be followed.
Later in section 8. (TIP Uniform Resource Locators):


"A TIP URL takes the form:
tip://<transaction manager address>?<transaction string>
where <transaction manager address> identifies the TIP transaction
manager (as defined in Section 7 above); and <transaction string>
specifies a transaction identifier, which may take one of two forms
(standard or non-standard):
i. "urn:" <NID> ":" <NSS>
A standard transaction identifier, conforming to the proposed Internet
Standard for Uniform Resource Names (URNs), as specified by
RFC2141; where <NID> is the Namespace Identifier, and <NSS> is

Nesser II, Sofia          Expires February 2004                [Page 26]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


the Namespace Specific String. The Namespace ID determines the
syntactic interpretation of the Namespace Specific String. The
Namespace Specific String is a sequence of characters representing a
transaction identifier (as defined by <NID>). The rules for the
contents of these fields are specified by [6] (valid characters,
encoding, etc.).
This format of <transaction string> may be used to express global
transaction identifiers in terms of standard representations. Examples
for <NID> might be <iso> or <xopen>. e.g.
tip://123.123.123.123/?urn:xopen:xid
Note that Namespace Ids require registration. See [7] for details on
how to do this."


There are other references in section 8. to the use of literal IP
addresses in section 8. Therefore, this section needs also to be
re-written, and special care should be taken to avoid the use of IP
(either IPv4 or IPv6) literal addresses. However, if such use is
exemplified, the format specified in RFC 2732 has to be respected.


5.86 RFC 2384: POP URL Scheme

Section 3. (POP Scheme) states:


"A POP URL is of the general form:
pop://<user>;auth=<auth>@<host>:<port>
Where <user>, <host>, and <port> are as defined in RFC 1738, and
some or all of the elements, except "pop://" and <host>, may be
omitted."


RFC 1738 (please refer to section 5.31) has a potential IPv4
limitation. Hence, RFC 2384 will only be IPv6 compliant when RFC
1738 becomes properly updated.


5.87 RFC 2387: The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.88 RFC 2388: Returning Values from Forms: multipart/form-data

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Nesser II, Sofia        Expires February 2004                  [Page 27]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


5.89 RFC 2389: Feature negotiation mechanism for the File
      Transfer Protocol

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.90 RFC 2392: Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource
      Locators (CIDMID-URL)

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.91 RFC 2397: The "data" URL scheme

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.92 RFC 2421: Voice Profile for Internet Mail - version 2

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.93 RFC 2422: Toll Quality Voice - 32 kbit/s ADPCM MIME
      Sub-type Registration

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.94 RFC 2423: VPIM Voice Message MIME Sub-type Registration

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.95 RFC 2424: Content Duration MIME Header Definition

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.96 RFC 2425: A MIME Content-Type for Directory Information

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.97 RFC 2426: vCard MIME Directory Profile

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.




Nesser II, Sofia       Expires February 2004                   [Page 28]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


5.98 RFC 2428: FTP Extensions for IPv6 and NATs

This RFC documents an IPv6 extension and hence, it is not
considered in the context of the current discussion.


5.99 RFC 2445: Internet Calendaring and Scheduling Core Object
       Specification (iCalendar)

Section 4.8.4.7 (Unique Identifier) states:

"Property Name: UID
Purpose: This property defines the persistent, globally unique
identifier for the calendar component.
Value Type: TEXT
Property Parameters: Non-standard property parameters can be
specified on this property.
Conformance: The property MUST be specified in the "VEVENT",
"VTODO", "VJOURNAL" or "VFREEBUSY" calendar components.
Description: The UID itself MUST be a globally unique identifier.
The generator of the identifier MUST guarantee that the identifier is
unique. There are several algorithms that can be used to accomplish
this. The identifier is RECOMMENDED to be the identical syntax to
the [RFC 822] addr-spec. A good method to assure uniqueness is to
put the domain name or a domain literal IP address of the host on
which the identifier was created on the right hand side of the "@",
and on the left hand side, put a combination of the current calendar
date and time of day (i.e., formatted in as a DATE-TIME value) along
with some other currently unique (perhaps sequential) identifier
available on the system (for example, a process id number). Using a
date/time value on the left hand side and a domain name or domain
literal on the right hand side makes it possible to guarantee
uniqueness since no two hosts should be using the same domain name
or IP address at the same time. Though other algorithms will work, it
is RECOMMENDED that the right hand side contain some domain
identifier (either of the host itself or otherwise) such that the
generator of the message identifier can guarantee the uniqueness of
the left hand side within the scope of that domain."

Although the above does not explicitly state the use of IPv4
addresses, it addresses the explicit use of RFC 822 (obsoleted by RFC
2822). To become IPv6 compliant it should follow the guidelines for
RFC 2822 (see section 5.129).

Nesser II, Sofia         Expires February 2004                 [Page 29]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


5.100 RFC 2446: iCalendar Transport-Independent Interoperability
        Protocol (iTIP) Scheduling Events, BusyTime, To-dos and
        Journal Entries

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.101 RFC 2447: iCalendar Message-Based Interoperability
        Protocol (iMIP)

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.102 RFC 2449: POP3 Extension Mechanism

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.103 RFC 2476: Message Submission

This RFC contains several discussions on the usage of IP Address
authorization schemes, but it does not limit those addresses to IPv4.


5.104 RFC 2480: Gateways and MIME Security Multiparts

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.105 RFC 2518: HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.106 RFC 2530: Indicating Supported Media Features Using
        Extensions to DSN and MDN

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.107 RFC 2532: Extended Facsimile Using Internet Mail

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.108 RFC 2533: A Syntax for Describing Media Feature Sets

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


Nesser II, Sofia           Expires February 2004               [Page 30]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


5.109 RFC 2534: Media Features for Display, Print, and Fax

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.110 RFC 2554: SMTP Service Extension for Authentication

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.111 RFC 2557: MIME Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents,
            such as HTML

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.112 RFC 2589: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3):
            Extensions for Dynamic Directory Services

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.113 RFC 2595: Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.114 RFC 2596: Use of Language Codes in LDAP

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.115 RFC 2608: Service Location Protocol, Version 2

Section 8.1. (Service Request) contains the following:




Nesser II, Sofia            Expires February 2004              [Page 31]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003

"
0                   1                   2                   3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|       Service Location header (function = SrvRqst = 1)        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|      length of <PRList>       |        <PRList> String        \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|   length of <service-type>    |     <service-type> String     \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|    length of <scope-list>     |     <scope-list> String       \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|  length of predicate string   |  Service Request <predicate>  \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|  length of <SLP SPI> string   |      <SLP SPI> String         \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
<PRList> is the Previous Responder List. This <string-list> contains
dotted decimal notation IP (v4) addresses, and is iteratively multicast
to obtain all possible results (see Section 6.3). UAs SHOULD
implement this discovery algorithm. SAs MUST use this to discover
all available DAs in their scope, if they are not already configured
with DA addresses by some other means."


And later:


"A SA silently drops all requests which include the SA's address in
the <PRList>. An SA which has multiple network interfaces MUST
check if any of the entries in the <PRList> equal any of its interfaces.
An entry in the PRList which does not conform to an IPv4 dotted
decimal address is ignored: The rest of the <PRList> is processed
normally and an error is not returned."


To become IPv6 compliant, this protocol requires a new version.


5.116 RFC 2609: Service Templates and Service: Schemes

Section 2.1. (Service URL Syntax) defines:


"The ABNF for a service: URL is:
hostnumber = ipv4-number


Nesser II, Sofia        Expires February 2004                  [Page 32]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


ipv4-number = 1*3DIGIT 3("." 1*3DIGIT)"

This document presents many other references to hostnumber, which
requires an update to support IPv6.


5.117 RFC 2640: Internationalization of the File Transfer Protocol

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.118 RFC 2645: ON-DEMAND MAIL RELAY (ODMR) SMTP
         with Dynamic IP Addresses

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.119 RFC 2646: The Text/Plain Format Parameter

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.120 RFC 2651: The Architecture of the Common Indexing
         Protocol (CIP)

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.121 RFC 2652: MIME Object Definitions for the Common
         Indexing Protocol

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.122 RFC 2653: CIP Transport Protocols

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.123 RFC 2732: Format for Literal IPv6 Addresses in URL's

This document defines an IPv6 specific protocol and hence, it is not
discussed in this document.


5.124    RFC 2738: Corrections to "A Syntax for Describing Media
         Feature Sets"

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Nesser II, Sofia           Expires February 2004               [Page 33]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


5.125 RFC 2739: Calendar Attributes for vCard and LDAP

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.126 RFC 2806: URLs for Telephone Calls

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.127 RFC 2821: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol

The specification discusses A records at length, and the MX record
handling with the different combinations of A and AAAA records and
IPv4/IPv6 -only nodes might cause several kinds of failure modes.


5.128 RFC 2822: Internet Message Format

Section 3.4.1 (Addr-spec specification) contains:

"The domain portion identifies the point to which the mail is
delivered. In the dot-atom form, this is interpreted as an Internet
domain name (either a host name or a mail exchanger name) as
described in [STD3, STD13, STD14]. In the domain-literal form, the
domain is interpreted as the literal Internet address of the particular
host. In both cases, how addressing is used and how messages are
transported to a particular host is covered in the mail transport
document [RFC2821]. These mechanisms are outside of the scope of
this document.
The local-part portion is a domain dependent string. In addresses, it is
simply interpreted on the particular host as a name of a particular
mailbox."

Literal IP addresses should be avoided. However, in case they are
used, there should be a reference to the format described in RFC
2732.


5.129 RFC 2846: GSTN Address Element Extensions in E-mail
         Services

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.130 RFC 2849: The LDAP Data Interchange Format (LDIF) -
         Technical Specification

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Nesser II, Sofia        Expires February 2004                  [Page 34]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


5.131 RFC 2852: Deliver By SMTP Service Extension

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.132 RFC 2879: Content Feature Schema for Internet Fax (V2)

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.133 RFC 2891: LDAP Control Extension for Server Side Sorting
        of Search Results

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.134 RFC 2910: Internet Printing Protocol/1.1: Encoding and
        Transport

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.135 RFC 2911: Internet Printing Protocol/1.1: Model and
        Semantics

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.136 RFC 2912: Indicating Media Features for MIME Content

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.137 RFC 2913: MIME Content Types in Media Feature
        Expressions

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.138 RFC 2919: List-Id: A Structured Field and Namespace for
        the Identification of Mailing Lists

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.139 RFC 2938: Identifying Composite Media Features

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


Nesser II, Sofia       Expires February 2004                   [Page 35]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


5.140 RFC 2965: HTTP State Management Mechanism

This document includes several references to host IP addresses, but
however, there is no explicit mention to a particular protocol version.
A caveat similar to "Without putting any limitations on the version of
the IP address." should be added, so that there will remain no doubts
about possible IPv4 dependencies.


5.141 RFC 2971: IMAP4 ID extension

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.142 RFC 2987: Registration of Charset and Languages Media
           Features Tags

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.143 RFC 3009: Registration of parityfec MIME types

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.144 RFC 3017: XML DTD for Roaming Access Phone Book

Section 6.2.1. (DNS Server Address) states:


"The dnsServerAddress element represents the IP address of the
Domain Name Service (DNS) server which should be used when
connected to this POP. The address is represented in the form of a
string in dotted-decimal notation (e.g., 192.168.101.1).
Syntax:
<!¡ Domain Name Server IP address ¡>
<!ELEMENT dnsServerAddress (#PCDATA)>
<!ATTLIST dnsServerAddress
value NOTATION (IPADR) #IMPLIED>"


Additionally, it is stated in Section 6.2.9. (Default Gateway Address):


"The defaulttGatewayAddress element represents the address of the
default gateway which should be used when connected to this POP.


Nesser II, Sofia            Expires February 2004              [Page 36]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


The address is represented in the form of a string in dotted-decimal
notation (e.g., 192.168.101.1).
Syntax:
<!¡ Default Gateway IP address (in dotted decimal notation) ¡>
<!ELEMENT defaultGatewayAddress (#PCDATA)>
<!ATTLIST defaultGatewayAddress
value NOTATION (IPADR) #IMPLIED>"


It should be straightforward to implement elements that are IPv6
aware.


5.145 RFC 3023: XML Media Types

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.146 RFC 3028: Sieve: A Mail Filtering Language

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.147 RFC 3030: SMTP Service Extensions for Transmission of
           Large and Binary MIME Messages

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.148 RFC 3049: TN3270E Service Location and Session
           Balancing

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.149 RFC 3059: Attribute List Extension for the Service Location
           Protocol

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.150 RFC 3080: The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core
           (BEEP)

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


Nesser II, Sofia        Expires February 2004                  [Page 37]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


5.151 RFC 3081: Mapping the BEEP Core onto TCP

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.152 RFC 3111: Service Location Protocol Modifications for IPv6

This is an IPv6 related document and is not discussed in this
document.


5.153 RFC 3302: Tag Image File Format (TIFF) - image/tiff MIME
          Sub-type Registration

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


5.154 RFC 3404: Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
          Part Four: The Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)
          Resolution Application

This specification has no explicit dependency on IPv4. However,
when referring to the URI format specified in RFC 2396 (see section
4.3. flags, first paragraph), a reference to RFC 2732 should be also
added.


5.155 RFC 3501: Internet Message Access Protocol - Version 4rev1

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6 Experimental RFCs

Experimental RFCs belong to the category of "non-standard"
specifications. This group involves specifications considered
"off-track", e.g., specifications that haven't yet reach an adequate
standardization level, or that have been superseded by more recent
specifications.
Experimental RFCs represent specifications that are currently part of
some research effort, and that are often propriety in nature, or used in
limited arenas. They are documented to the Internet community in
order to allow potential interoperability or some other potential useful
scenario. In a few cases, they are presented as alternatives to the
mainstream solution of an acknowledged problem.



Nesser II, Sofia        Expires February 2004                  [Page 38]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


6.1 RFC 887: Resource Location Protocol

Section 3.1 (Request Messages) contains:


"<Who-Anywhere-Provides?> This message parallels the
<Who-Provides?> message with the "third-party" variant described
above. The confirming host is required to return at least its own IP
address (if it provides the named resource) as well as the IP addresses
of any other hosts it believes may provide the named resource. The
confirming host though, may never return an IP address for a resource
which is the same as an IP address listed with the resource name in
the request message. In this case it must treat the resource as if it
was unsupported at that IP address and omit it from any reply list.
<Does-Anyone-Provide?> This message parallels the
<Do-You-Provide?> message again with the "third-party" variant
described above. As before, the confirming host is required to return
its own IP address as well as the IP addresses of any other hosts it
believes may provide the named resource and is prohibited from
returning the same IP address in the reply resource specifier as was
listed in the request resource specifier. As in the <Do-You-Provide?>
case and for the same reason, this message also may not be
broadcast."
Throughout this section, there are several other references to IP
address. To avoid ambiguity, a reference to IPv6 addressing should be
added.
Section 4.1. (Resource Lists) presents the following qualifier format:

"In addition, resource specifiers in all <Who-Anywhere-Provides?>,
<Does-Anyone-Provide?> and <They-Provide> messages also
contain an additional qualifier following the <Protocol-ID>. This
qualifier has the format
+--------+--------+--------+---\\---+
|        |        |                 |
|Protocol|IDLength|   Resource-ID   |
|        |        |                 |
+--------+--------+--------+---\\---+
where
<IPLength> is the number of IP addresses containing in the following
<IP-Address-List> (the <IP-Address-List> field thus occupies the last
4*<IPLength> octets in its resource specifier). In request messages,
this is the maximum number of qualifying addresses which may be
included in the corresponding reply resource specifier. Although not
particularly useful, it may be 0 and in that case provides no space for
qualifying the resource name with IP addresses in the returned
specifier. In reply messages, this is the number of qualifying


Nesser II, Sofia           Expires February 2004               [Page 39]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


addresses known to provide the resource. It may not exceed the
number specified in the corresponding request specifier. This field
may not be 0 in a reply message unless it was supplied as 0 in the
request message and the confirming host would have returned one or
more IP addresses had any space been provided.
<IP-Address-List> is a list of four-octet IP addresses used to qualify
the resource specifier with respect to those particular addresses. In
reply messages, these are the IP addresses of the confirming host
(when appropriate) and the addresses of any other hosts known to
provide that resource (subject to the list length limitations). In
request messages, these are the IP addresses of hosts for which resource
information may not be returned. In such messages, these addresses
should normally be initialized to some "harmless" value (such as the
address of the querying host) unless it is intended to specifically
exclude the supplied addresses from consideration in any reply
messages."
This section requires re-writting considering the 128-bit length of
IPv6 addresses, and will clearly impact on implementations.


6.2 RFC 909: Loader Debugger Protocol (LDP)

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.3 RFC 1143: The Q Method of Implementing TELNET Option
      Negotiation

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.4 RFC 1153: Digest message format (DMF-MAIL)

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.5 RFC 1165: Network Time Protocol (NTP) over the OSI Remote
      Operations Service

The only dependency this protocol presents is included in Appendix
A (ROS Header Format):
"ClockIdentifier ::= CHOICE {
referenceClock[0] PrintableString,
inetaddr[1] OCTET STRING,
psapaddr[2] OCTET STRING
}"

Nesser II, Sofia        Expires February 2004                  [Page 40]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


6.6 RFC 1176: Interactive Mail Access Protocol: Version 2

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.7 RFC 1204: Message Posting Protocol

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.8 RFC 1235: Coherent File Distribution Protocol

Section "Protocol Specification" provides the following example, for
the Initial Handshake:


"The ticket server replies with a "This is Your Ticket" (TIYT) packet
containing the ticket. Figure 2 shows the format of this packet.
"
0                   1                   2                   3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|      'T'      |      'I'      |      'Y'      |      'T'      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                           "ticket"                            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                       BLKSZ (by default 512)                  |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                              FILSZ                            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|           IP address of CFDP server (network order)           |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|   client UDP port# (cfdpcln)  |  server UDP port# (cfdpsrv)   |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
            Fig. 2: "This Is Your Ticket" packet.""



Nesser II, Sofia             Expires February 2004             [Page 41]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003



This protocol assumes IPv4 multicast, but could be converted to IPv6
multicast with a little effort.


6.9 RFC 1279: X.500 and Domains

This protocol specifies a protocol that assumes IPv4 but does not
actually have any limitations which would limit its operation in an
IPv6 environment.


6.10 RFC 1312: Message Send Protocol 2

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.11 RFC 1339: Remote Mail Checking Protocol

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.12 RFC 1440: SIFT/UFT: Sender-Initiated/Unsolicited File
          Transfer

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.13 RFC 1459: Internet Relay Chat Protocol

There are only two specific IPv4 addressing references. The first is
presented in Section 6.2. (Command Response):


"203 RPL_TRACEUNKNOWN
"???? <class> [<client IP address in dot form>]""


The second appears in Section 8.12 (Configuration File):


"In specifying hostnames, both domain names and use of the 'dot'
notation (127.0.0.1) should both be accepted."


After correcting the above, IPv6 support can be straightforward
added.


Nesser II, Sofia          Expires February 2004                [Page 42]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


6.14 RFC 1465: Routing Coordination for X.400 MHS Services
      Within a Multi Protocol / Multi Network Environment Table
      Format V3 for Static Routing

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.15 RFC 1505: Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.16 RFC 1528: Principles of Operation for the TPC.INT
      Subdomain: Remote Printing ¡ Technical Procedures

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.17 RFC 1608: Representing IP Information in the X.500
      Directory

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.18 RFC 1609: Charting Networks in the X.500 Directory

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.19 RFC 1639: FTP Operation Over Big Address Records

This document defines a method for overcoming FTP IPv4
limitations and is therefore both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.


6.20 RFC 1641: Using Unicode with MIME

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.21 RFC 1756: Remote Write Protocol - Version 1.0

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.22 RFC 1801: MHS use of the X.500 Directory to support MHS
      Routing

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Nesser II, Sofia       Expires February 2004                   [Page 43]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


6.23 RFC 1804: Schema Publishing in X.500 Directory

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.24 RFC 1806: Communicating Presentation Information in
        Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition Header

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.25 RFC 1845: SMTP Service Extension for Checkpoint/Restart

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.26 RFC 1846: SMTP 521 Reply Code

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.27 RFC 1873: Message/External-Body Content-ID Access Type

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.28 RFC 1874: SGML Media Types

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.29 RFC 1986: Experiments with a Simple File Transfer Protocol
        for Radio Links using Enhanced Trivial File Transfer Protocol

This protocol is IPv4 dependent, as can be seen from the segment
presented bellow, and taken from Section 2. (PROTOCOL
DESCRIPTION):


 "Table 3: ETFTP Data Encapsulation

 +------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
 |Ethernet(14)|            |            |ETFTP/      |           |
 |SLIP(2)     |IP(20)      |UDP(8)      |NETBLT(24)  |DATA(1448) |
 |AX.25(20)   |            |            |            |           |
 +------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+"


Nesser II, Sofia         Expires February 2004                 [Page 44]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


6.30 RFC 2016: Uniform Resource Agents (URAs)

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.31 RFC 2066: TELNET CHARSET Option

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.32 RFC 2075: IP Echo Host Service

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.33 RFC 2090: TFTP Multicast Option

This protocol is limited to IPv4 multicast. It is expected that a
similar functionality could be implemented on top of IPv6 multicast.


6.34 RFC 2120: Managing the X.500 Root Naming Context

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.35 RFC 2161: A MIME Body Part for ODA

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.36 RFC 2162: MaXIM-11 - Mapping between X.400 / Internet
       mail and Mail-11 mail

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.37 RFC 2169: A Trivial Convention for using HTTP in URN
       Resolution

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.38 RFC 2217: Telnet Com Port Control Option

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.




Nesser II, Sofia        Expires February 2004                  [Page 45]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


6.39 RFC 2295: Transparent Content Negotiation in HTTP

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.40 RFC 2296: HTTP Remote Variant Selection Algorithm
       RVSA/1.0

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.41 RFC 2307: An Approach for Using LDAP as a Network
       Information Service

This protocol assumes IPv4 addressing in its schema, as shown in
Section 3. (Attribute definitions):


"( nisSchema.1.19 NAME 'ipHostNumber'
DESC 'IP address as a dotted decimal, eg. 192.168.1.1,
omitting leading zeros'
EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match
SYNTAX 'IA5String{128}' )
( nisSchema.1.20 NAME 'ipNetworkNumber'
DESC 'IP network as a dotted decimal, eg. 192.168,
omitting leading zeros'
EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match
SYNTAX 'IA5String{128}' SINGLE-VALUE )
( nisSchema.1.21 NAME 'ipNetmaskNumber'
DESC 'IP netmask as a dotted decimal, eg. 255.255.255.0,
omitting leading zeros'
EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match
SYNTAX 'IA5String{128}' SINGLE-VALUE )"


The document does try to provide some IPv6 support as in Section
5.4. (Interpreting Hosts and Networks):


"Hosts with IPv6 addresses MUST be written in their "preferred"
form as defined in section 2.2.1 of [RFC1884], such that all
components of the address are indicated and leading zeros are

Nesser II, Sofia           Expires February 2004               [Page 46]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


omitted. This provides a consistent means of resolving ipHosts by
address."

However, the defined format mentioned above has been replaced,
hence it is no longer valid.


6.42 RFC 2310: The Safe Response Header Field

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.43 RFC 2483: URI Resolution Services Necessary for URN
       Resolution

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.44 RFC 2567: Design Goals for an Internet Printing Protocol

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.45 RFC 2568: Rationale for the Structure of the Model and
       Protocol for the Internet Printing Protocol

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.46 RFC 2569: Mapping between LPD and IPP Protocols

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.47 RFC 2649: An LDAP Control and Schema for Holding
       Operation Signatures

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.48 RFC 2654: A Tagged Index Object for use in the Common
       Indexing Protocol

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.49 RFC 2655: CIP Index Object Format for SOIF Objects

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Nesser II, Sofia        Expires February 2004                  [Page 47]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


6.50 RFC 2656: Registration Procedures for SOIF Template Types

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.51 RFC 2657: LDAPv2 Client vs. the Index Mesh

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.


6.52 RFC 2756: Hyper Text Caching Protocol

This specification claims to be both IPv4 and IPv6 aware, but in
Section 2.8. (An HTCP/0.0 AUTH has the following structure), it
does make the following statement:


"SIGNATURE is a COUNTSTR [3.1] which holds the HMAC-MD5
digest (see [RFC 2104]), with a B value of 64, of the following
elements, each of which is digested in its "on the wire" format,
including transmitted padding if any is covered by a field's associated
LENGTH:
IP SRC ADDR [4 octets]
IP SRC PORT [2 octets]
IP DST ADDR [4 octets]
IP DST PORT [2 octets]
HTCP MAJOR version number [1 octet]
HTCP MINOR version number [1 octet]
SIG-TIME [4 octets]
SIG-EXPIRE [4 octets]
HTCP DATA [variable]
KEY-NAME (the whole COUNTSTR [3.1]) [variable]"


The given SIGNATURE calculation should be expanded to support
IPv6 16 byte addresses.


6.53 RFC 2774: An HTTP Extension Framework

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.




Nesser II, Sofia           Expires February 2004               [Page 48]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


6.54 RFC 2974: Session Announcement Protocol

This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.


6.55 RFC 3018: Unified Memory Space Protocol Specification

In section 3.4 (Address Formats), there are explicit references to IPv4
addressing:

"The following address format numbers are definite for nodes,
immediately connected to the global IPv4 network:
N 4-0-0 (4) N 4-0-1 (4-1) N 4-0-2 (4-2)
The appropriate formats of 128-bit addresses:
Octets:

  +0              +1              +2              +3
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0: |0 1 0 0|0 0|0 0|                   Free                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
4: |                              Free                             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
8: |            Free               |             IP address        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
12:|           IP address          |      Local memory address     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0: |0 1 0 0|0 0|0 1|                   Free                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
4: |                              Free                             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
8: |     Free      |                  IP address                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
12:|   IP address  |             Local memory address              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0: |0 1 0 0|0 0|1 0|                   Free                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
4: |                            Free                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
8: |                         IP address                            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
12:|                      Local memory address                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


Nesser II, Sofia         Expires February 2004                 [Page 49]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


Free
It is not used by the protocol.
IP address
It sets the node address in the global IPv4 network."

This section needs to be re-written, so that the specification becomes
IPv6 compliant.


6.56 RFC 3082: Notification and Subscription for SLP

This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware, and thus, it requires no
changes.


6.57 RFC 3088: OpenLDAP Root Service An experimental LDAP
        referral service

Section 5. (Using the Service) states:

"The service supports LDAPv3 and LDAPv2+ [LDAPv2+] clients
over
TCP/IPv4. Future incarnations of this service may support TCP/IPv6
or other transport/internet protocols."


7 Summary of Results

This survey contemplates 257 RFCs, having 33 (12.84%) been
identified as having some form of IPv4 dependency. Results are
broken down as follows:

Standards: 1 out of 20, or 5%
Draft Standards: 4 out of 25, or 16%
Proposed Standards: 19 out of 155, or 12.26%
Experimental RFCs: 10 out of 57, or 17.54%

Of the 33 identified, the majority simply require minor actions, such
as adding a caveat to IPv6 addressing that would avoid ambiguity, or

Nesser II, Sofia            Expires February 2004              [Page 50]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


re-writing a section to avoid IP-version dependent syntax. The
remaining instances are documented below. The authors have
attempted to organize the results in a format that allows easy
referencing by other protocol designers.


7.1 Full Standards

7.1.1 RFC 959: STD 9 File Transfer Protocol

Problems have already been fixed in [6].


7.2 Draft Standards

7.2.1 RFC 1305: Network Time Protocol (version 3): Specification,
       Implementation and Analysis

As documented in Section 4.4. above, there are too many specific
references to the use of 32-bit IPv4 addresses. An updated
specification to support NTP over IPv6 is needed. However, there has
been some work related with this issue, as an already expired
Internet-Draft (draft-boudreault-ipv6-ntp-refid-00), allegedly
documents. Also, there is at least one IPv6 NTP implementation.


7.2.2 RFC 2396: URI Syntax

URI's allow the literal use of IPv4 addresses but have no specific
recommendations on how to represent literal IPv6 addresses. This
problem has already been addressed in [4].


7.2.3 RFC 2616: Hypertext Transfer Protocol HTTP/1.1

HTTP allows the literal use of IPv4 addresses, but has no specific
recommendations on how to represent literal IPv6 addresses. This
problem has already been addressed in [4].


7.3 Proposed Standards

7.3.1 RFC 946: Telnet Terminal LOC

There is a dependency in the definition of the TTYLOC Number
which would require an updated version of the protocol. However,
since this functionality is of marginal value today, an updated version
might not make sense.

Nesser II, Sofia         Expires February 2004                 [Page 51]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


7.3.2 RFC 1738: URLs

URL's IPv4 dependencies have already been addressed in [4].

Note that these dependencies affect other specifications as well, such
as RFC 2122, RFC 2192, RFC 2193, RFC 2255, RFC 2371 and RFC 2384. All of
these protocols have to revisited, and are not described separately
in this memo.


7.3.3 RFC 2165: Service Location Protocol

The problems of this specification have already been addressed in [5].


7.3.4 RFC 2384: POP3 URL Scheme

POP URL IPv4 dependencies have already been addressed in [4].


7.3.5 RFC 2608: Service Location Protocol v2

The problems of this specification have already been addressed in [5].

7.3.6 RFC 2821: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol

Some textual updates and clarifications to MX processing would likely
be useful.  The operational scenarios and guidelines to avoid
the problems have been described in [7].

7.3.7 RFC 3017: XML DTP For Roaming Access Phone Books

Extensions should be defined to support IPv6 addresses.


7.4 Experimental RFCs

7.4.1 RFC 1235: The Coherent File Distribution Protocol

This protocol relies on IPv4 and therefore, there is no need for a new
standard.


7.4.2 RFC 1459: Internet Relay Chat Protocol

This specification only requires a text update to become IPv6
compliant.


7.4.3 RFC 1986: Simple File Transfer Using Enhanced TFTP

This specification only requires a text update to become IPv6
compliant.


7.4.4 RFC 2090: TFTP Multicast Option

This protocol relies on IPv4 IGMP Multicast.To become IPv6
compliant, a new version should be produced.

Nesser II, Sofia       Expires February 2004                   [Page 52]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


7.4.5 RFC 2307: Using LDAP as a NIS

This document tries to provide IPv6 support but it relies on an
outdated format for IPv6 addresses. Thus, there is the need for an
IPv6 compliant version.


8 Acknowledgements

Phil would like to acknowledge the support of the Internet Society in
the research and production of this document. Additionally, Phil
would like to thanks his partner in all ways, Wendy M. Nesser.


9 Security Considerations

This document provides an exhaustive documentation of current
IETF documented standards IPv4 address dependencies. Such
process does not have security implications in itself.


Normative References

[1] P. Nesser II, Sofia, "Introduction to the Survey of IPv4 Addresses in
    Currently Deployed IETF Standards", Internet Draft (Work in
    Progress), February 2003.

[2] Crawford, C. and C. Huitema, "DNS Extensions to Support IPv6
    Address Aggregation and Renumbering", RFC 2874, July 2000.

[3] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process - version 3", RFC
    2026, October 1996.

[4] Hinden., R., Carpenter, B., L. Masinter, "Format For Literal
    Addresses in URL's", RFC 2732, December 1999.

[5] E. Guttman, "Service Location Protocol Modifications for IPv6",
    RFC 3111, May 2001.

[6] Allman, M., Ostermann, S., Metz C., "FTP Extensions for IPv6
    and NATs", RFC 2428, September 1998.

[7] Hagino, J., M. Nakamura, "SMTP operational experience in mixed
    IPv4/IPv6 environements",  work-in-progress, October 2003.

Authors' Addresses

Rute Sofia
FCCN

Nesser II, Sofia        Expires February 2004                  [Page 53]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


Av. Brasil, 101
1700 Lisboa, Portugal
Email: rsofia@ieee.org
Phone: +351 91 2507372

Philip J. Nesser II, Sofia
Principal
Nesser & Nesser Consulting
13501 100th Ave NE, #5202
Kirkland, WA 98034
Email: phil@nesser.com
Phone: +1 425 481 4303
Fax: +1 425 482 9721

This draft expires in February 2004.


Intellectual Property Statement

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it has made
any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's
procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification can be obtained
from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to
bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or
other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be
required to practice this standard. Please address the information to
the IETF Executive Director.


Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.


Nesser II, Sofia         Expires February 2004                 [Page 54]


Internet Draft  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt   September 2003


This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing
Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined
in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to
translate it into languages other than English. The limited
permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by
the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. This document and
the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and
THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS
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.







Nesser II, Sofia        Expires February 2004                  [Page 55]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/