draft-ietf-2000-issue-01.txt   draft-ietf-2000-issue-02.txt 
Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II
Editor Editor
draft-ietf-2000-issue-01.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting draft-ietf-2000-issue-02.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting
The Internet and the Millenium Problem (Year 2000) The Internet and the Millenium Problem (Year 2000)
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet Draft. Internet Drafts are working This document is an Internet Draft. Internet Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its Areas, documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its Areas,
and its Working Groups. Note that other groups may also distribute and its Working Groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet Drafts. working documents as Internet Drafts.
Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months. Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by months. Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months. Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by months. Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
other documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet other documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet
Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a "working
"working draft" or "work in progress". draft" or "work in progress".
Please check the I-D abstract listing contained in each Internet Please check the I-D abstract listing contained in each Internet
Draft directory to learn the current status of this or any other Draft directory to learn the current status of this or any other
Internet Draft. Internet Draft.
Abstract Abstract
The Year 2000 Working Group(WG) has conducted an investigation into The Year 2000 Working Group(WG) has conducted an investigation into
the millenium problem as it regards Internet related protocols. the millenium problem as it regards Internet related protocols.
This investigation only targeted the protocols as documented in the This investigation only targeted the protocols as documented in the
Request For Comments Series (RFCs). This investigation discovered Request For Comments Series (RFCs). This investigation discovered
little reason for concern with regards to the functionality of the little reason for concern with regards to the functionality of the
protocols. A few minor cases of older implementations still using protocols. A few minor cases of older implementations still using
two digit years (ala RFC 850) were discovered, but almost all two digit years (ala RFC 850) were discovered, but almost all
Internet protocols were given a clean bill of health. Several cases Internet protocols were given a clean bill of health. Several cases
of "period" problems were discussed where a time field would "roll of ''period'' problems were discussed where a time field would ''roll
over" as the size of field was reached. In particular, there are over'' as the size of field was reached. In particular, there are
several protocols, which have 32 bit, signed integer representations several protocols, which have 32 bit, signed integer representations
of the number of seconds since January 1, 1970 which will turn of the number of seconds since January 1, 1970 which will turn
negative at Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 GMT 2038. Areas whose protocols negative at Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 GMT 2038. Areas whose protocols
will be effected by such problems have been notified so that new will be effected by such problems have been notified so that new
revisions will remove this limitation. revisions will remove this limitation.
1.0 Introduction 1.0 Introduction
According to the trade press billions of dollars will be spend the According to the trade press billions of dollars will be spend the
upcoming three years on the year 2000 problem, also called the upcoming three years on the year 2000 problem, also called the
skipping to change at line 75 skipping to change at line 75
that all over the Internet people will redo the same inventory over and that all over the Internet people will redo the same inventory over and
over again the WG is to make an inventory of all important Internet over again the WG is to make an inventory of all important Internet
protocols and their most popular implementations with respect to the protocols and their most popular implementations with respect to the
millenium problem. Only software and protocols directly related to the millenium problem. Only software and protocols directly related to the
Internet will be considered. Internet will be considered.
The editor of this document would like to acknowledge the critical The editor of this document would like to acknowledge the critical
contributions of the follow for direct performance of research and the contributions of the follow for direct performance of research and the
provision of text: Alex Latzko, Robert Elz, Erik Huizer, Gillian provision of text: Alex Latzko, Robert Elz, Erik Huizer, Gillian
Greenwood, Barbara Jennings, R.E. (Robert) Moore, David Mills, Lynn Greenwood, Barbara Jennings, R.E. (Robert) Moore, David Mills, Lynn
Kubinec, Chris Newman, Erik-Jan Bos, Paul Hoffman, and Rick H. Wesson. Kubinec, Michael Patton, Chris Newman, Erik-Jan Bos, Paul Hoffman,
The pace with which this group has operated has only been achievable by and Rick H. Wesson. The pace with which this group has operated has
the intimate familiarity of the contributors with the protocols and only been achievable by the intimate familiarity of the contributors
ready access to the collective knowledge of the IETF. with the protocols and ready access to the collective knowledge of the
IETF.
Disclaimer Disclaimer
This RFC is not complete. It is an effort to analyze the Y2K impact on This RFC is not complete. It is an effort to analyze the Y2K impact on
hundreds of protocols but is likely to have missed some protocols and hundreds of protocols but is likely to have missed some protocols and
misunderstood others. Organizations should not attempt to claim any misunderstood others. Organizations should not attempt to claim any
legitimacy or approval for any particular protocol based on this legitimacy or approval for any particular protocol based on this
document. The efforts have concentrated on the identification of document. The efforts have concentrated on the identification of
potential problems, rather than solutions to any of the problems that potential problems, rather than solutions to any of the problems that
have been identified. Any proposed solutions are only that: proposed. have been identified. Any proposed solutions are only that: proposed.
A formal engineering review should take place before any solution is A formal engineering review should take place before any solution is
adopted. adopted.
<<Editor's Note: A draft of this disclaimer has been forwarded to the
ISOC lawyers for review and (most likely) rewrite.>>
Methodology Methodology
The first task was dividing the types of RFC's into logical groups The first task was dividing the types of RFC's into logical groups
rather than the strict numeric publishing order. Fifteen specific rather than the strict numeric publishing order. Fifteen specific
areas were identified. They are: "Autoconfiguration" , "Directory areas were identified. They are: "Autoconfiguration" , "Directory
Services", "Disk Sharing", "Games and Chat" ,"Information Services & Services", "Disk Sharing", "Games and Chat" ,"Information Services &
File Transfer", "Network & Transport Layer", "Electronic Mail", "NTP", File Transfer", "Network & Transport Layer", "Electronic Mail", "NTP",
Name Serving", "Network Management", "News", "Real Time Services", Name Serving", "Network Management", "News", "Real Time Services",
"Routing", "Security", and "Virtual Terminal". In addition to these "Routing", "Security", and "Virtual Terminal". In addition to these
categories many hundreds of RFC's were immediately eliminated because categories many hundreds of RFC's were immediately eliminated because
skipping to change at line 152 skipping to change at line 150
2.0 Autoconfiguration 2.0 Autoconfiguration
Summary Summary
The RFC's which were categorized into this group were primarily the The RFC's which were categorized into this group were primarily the
BOOT Protocol (BOOTP) and the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol BOOT Protocol (BOOTP) and the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP) for both IP version four and six. (DHCP) for both IP version four and six.
Examination of the BOOTP protocols and most popular implementations Examination of the BOOTP protocols and most popular implementations
show no year 2000 problems. All times are references as 32 bit show no year 2000 problems. All times are references as 32 bit
integers in seconds of UTC time. integers in seconds of UTC time. An investigation of all DHCP and the
IPv6 autoconfiguration mechanisms produced no year 2000 problems. All
<< EDITOR'S NOTE: We still need DHCP investigation.>> references to time, in particular lease lengths, are 32 bit integers in
seconds, allowing lease times of well over 100 years.
Specifics Specifics
The following RFCs were examined for possible millenium problems: 906,
951, 1048, 1084, 1395, 1497, 1531, 1532, 1533, 1534, 1541, 1542, 1970, &
1971. RFC 951's only reference to time or dates is a two byte filed in
the packet which is number of second since the hosts was booted. RFC's
1048, 1084, 1395, 1497, 1531, & 1532 have either no references to dates
and time, or they are the same as the RFCs which obsoleted them discuessed
in the next paragraph.
RFC 1533 enumerates all the known DHCP field types and a number of these have
to do with time. Section 3.4 defines a "Time Offset" field which specifies
the offset of the clients subnet in seconds from UTC. This 4 byte field
has no millenium issues. Section 9.2 defines the IP Address Lease Time field
which is used by clients to request a specific lease time. This four byte
field is an unsigned integer containing a number of seconds. Section 9.9
defines a Renewal Time Value field, Section 9.10 defines a Rebinding Time Value,
both of which are similarly 32 bit fields which have no millenium issues.
RFC 1534 has no references to times or dates.
RFC 1541 has two mentions of times/dates. The first is the "secs" field which,
similarly to RFC 951, is a 16 bit field for the number of seconds since the host
has booted. There is also a discussion in section 3.3 about "Interpretation and
Representation of Time Values" which while clearly states that there is no
millenium or period problems.
RFC 1542 also references the "secs" field mentioned previously.
"Router Advertisment Message Format" the following fields are defined: Router
Lifetime, Reachable Time, & Retrans Timer. In section 4.6.2 "Prefix Information"
the following are defined: Valid Lifetime, & Prefered Lifetime. In section
6.2.1 "Router Configuration Variables the following are defined: MaxRtrAdvInterval,
MinRtrAdvInterval, AdvReachableTime, AdvRetransTimer, AdvDefaultLifetime,
AdvValidLifetime, & AdvPreferredLifetime. All of these fields specify counters
of some sort which have no millenium or periodicity problems.
RFC 1971 has some discussion of preferred lifetimes, depreciated lifetimes and
valide lifetimes of leases, but only discusses them in an expository way.
3.0 Directory Services 3.0 Directory Services
Summary Summary
The RFC's which were categorized into this group were primarily X.500 The RFC's which were categorized into this group were primarily X.500
related RFC's, Whois, Rwhois, Whois++, and the Lightweight Directory related RFC's, Whois, Rwhois, Whois++, and the Lightweight Directory
Access Protocol (LDAP). Access Protocol (LDAP).
Upon review of the Directory Services related RFC's, no serious year Upon review of the Directory Services related RFC's, no serious year
2000 problems were discovered. Some minor issues were noted and 2000 problems were discovered. Some minor issues were noted and
skipping to change at line 204 skipping to change at line 241
4.0 Disk Sharing 4.0 Disk Sharing
Summary Summary
The RFC's which were categorized into this group were those related to The RFC's which were categorized into this group were those related to
the Network File System (NFS). Other popular disk sharing protocols the Network File System (NFS). Other popular disk sharing protocols
like SMB and AFS were referred to their respective trustee's for like SMB and AFS were referred to their respective trustee's for
review. review.
Specifics After careful review, NFS has no year 2000 problems.
The reference to time in this protocol is to set the length of Specifics
time to wait for the first try of a request; timeout. Timeout time
in the NFS protocol is calculated rather than preserved. As such,
is not affected by the date.
SUN Microsystems states that there is known problem associated with The reference to time in this protocol are the times of file data
this protocol and the millennium change. modification, file access, and file metadata change (mtime, atime, and
time, respectively). These times are kept as 32 bit unsigned
quantities in seconds since 1970-01-01, and so the NFS protocol will
not experience an Epoch event until the year 2106.
5.0 Games and Chat 5.0 Games and Chat
Summary Summary
The RFC's which were categorized into this group were related to the The RFC's which were categorized into this group were related to the
Internet Relay Chat Protocol (IRC). Internet Relay Chat Protocol (IRC). No millenium problems exist in the
IRC protocol.
Specifics Specifics
<<EDITOR'S NOTE: We still need someone to go over IRC>> There is only a single instance of time or date related information in the
IRC protocol as specified by RFC 1459. Section 4.3.4 defines a TIME message
type which queries a server for its local time. No mention is made of the
format of the repy or how it is parsed, the assumption being specific
implementations will handle the reply and parse it appropriately.
6.0 Information Services & File Transfer 6.0 Information Services & File Transfer
Summary Summary
The RFC's which were categorized into this group were divided among The RFC's which were categorized into this group were divided among
World Wide Web (WWW) protocols and File Transfer Protocols (FTP). WWW World Wide Web (WWW) protocols and File Transfer Protocols (FTP). WWW
protocols include the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), a variety of protocols include the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), a variety of
Uniform Resource formats (URL, URAs, etc.) and the HyperText Markup Uniform Resource formats (URL, URAs, etc.) and the HyperText Markup
Language(HTML). FTP protocols include the well known FTP protocol, the Language(HTML). FTP protocols include the well known FTP protocol, the
skipping to change at line 435 skipping to change at line 477
will "roll over" at Thu Feb 07 00:54:54 2036 GMT. Since NTP is the will "roll over" at Thu Feb 07 00:54:54 2036 GMT. Since NTP is the
current defacto standard for network time this does not seem to be an current defacto standard for network time this does not seem to be an
issue. issue.
Specifics Specifics
There is no reference anywhere in the NTP specification or There is no reference anywhere in the NTP specification or
implementation to any reference epoch other than 1 January 1900. In implementation to any reference epoch other than 1 January 1900. In
short, NTP doesn't know anything about the millennium. short, NTP doesn't know anything about the millennium.
>From the Time Protocol RFC (868): From the Time Protocol RFC (868):
S: Send the time as a 32 bit binary number. S: Send the time as a 32 bit binary number.
... ...
The time is the number of seconds since 00:00 (midnight) 1 January The time is the number of seconds since 00:00 (midnight) 1 January
1900 GMT, such that the time 1 is 12:00:01 am on 1 January 1900 1900 GMT, such that the time 1 is 12:00:01 am on 1 January 1900
GMT; this base will serve until the year 2036. GMT; this base will serve until the year 2036.
10.0 Name Services 10.0 Name Services
 End of changes. 13 change blocks. 
25 lines changed or deleted 67 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/