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/