draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis-02.txt   draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis-03.txt 
TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions M. Duke TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions M. Duke
(TCPM) WG F5 (TCPM) WG F5
Internet-Draft R. Braden Internet-Draft R. Braden
Obsoletes: 4614 (if approved) ISI Obsoletes: 4614 (if approved) ISI
Intended status: Informational W. Eddy Intended status: Informational W. Eddy
Expires: June 6, 2014 MTI Systems Expires: June 14, 2014 MTI Systems
E. Blanton E. Blanton
A. Zimmermann A. Zimmermann
NetApp, Inc. NetApp, Inc.
December 3, 2013 December 11, 2013
A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification
Documents Documents
draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis-02 draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis-03
Abstract Abstract
This document contains a "roadmap" to the Requests for Comments (RFC) This document contains a "roadmap" to the Requests for Comments (RFC)
documents relating to the Internet's Transmission Control Protocol documents relating to the Internet's Transmission Control Protocol
(TCP). This roadmap provides a brief summary of the documents (TCP). This roadmap provides a brief summary of the documents
defining TCP and various TCP extensions that have accumulated in the defining TCP and various TCP extensions that have accumulated in the
RFC series. This serves as a guide and quick reference for both TCP RFC series. This serves as a guide and quick reference for both TCP
implementers and other parties who desire information contained in implementers and other parties who desire information contained in
the TCP-related RFCs. the TCP-related RFCs.
skipping to change at page 1, line 44 skipping to change at page 1, line 44
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 6, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 14, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Core Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Core Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Recommended Enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Strong Encouraged Enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Fundamental Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1. Fundamental Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Congestion Control Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2. Congestion Control Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Loss Recovery Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.3. Loss Recovery Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4. Detection and Prevention of Spurious Retransmissions . . . 12 3.4. Detection and Prevention of Spurious Retransmissions . . . 12
3.5. TCP Timeouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.5. Path MTU Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.6. Path MTU Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.6. Header Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.7. Header Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.7. Defending Spoofing and Flooding Attacks . . . . . . . . . 15
3.8. Defending Spoofing and Flooding Attacks . . . . . . . . . 15 4. Experimental Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. Experimental Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1. Architectural Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.1. Architectural Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2. Congestion Control Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.2. Fundamental Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3. Loss Recovery Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.3. Congestion Control Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.4. Detection and Prevention of Spurious Retransmissions . . . 20 4.4. Loss Recovery Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.5. Multipath TCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.5. Detection and Prevention of Spurious Retransmissions . . . 20
5. TCP Parameters at IANA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.6. TCP Timeouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6. Historic and Undeployed Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.7. Multipath TCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. Support Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5. TCP Parameters at IANA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.1. Foundational Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6. Historic and Undeployed Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.2. Architectural Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 7. Support Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.3. Difficult Network Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 7.1. Foundational Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.4. Guidance for Developing, Analyzing, and Evaluating TCP . . 31 7.2. Architectural Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.5. Implementation Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7.3. Difficult Network Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.6. Tools and Tutorials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7.4. Guidance for Developing, Analyzing, and Evaluating TCP . . 32
7.5. Implementation Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7.6. Tools and Tutorials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.7. Management Information Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 7.7. Management Information Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.8. Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 7.8. Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
8. Undocumented TCP Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 8. Undocumented TCP Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
A correct and efficient implementation of the Transmission Control A correct and efficient implementation of the Transmission Control
Protocol (TCP) is a critical part of the software of most Internet Protocol (TCP) is a critical part of the software of most Internet
hosts. As TCP has evolved over the years, many distinct documents hosts. As TCP has evolved over the years, many distinct documents
have become part of the accepted standard for TCP. At the same time, have become part of the accepted standard for TCP. At the same time,
a large number of experimental modifications to TCP have also been a large number of experimental modifications to TCP have also been
published in the RFC series, along with informational notes, case published in the RFC series, along with informational notes, case
studies, and other advice. studies, and other advice.
skipping to change at page 8, line 33 skipping to change at page 8, line 33
upgrades the requirement of supporting the algorithm from a SHOULD upgrades the requirement of supporting the algorithm from a SHOULD
to a MUST." [RFC6298]. RFC 6298 updates RFC 2988 by changing the to a MUST." [RFC6298]. RFC 6298 updates RFC 2988 by changing the
initial RTO from 3s to 1s initial RTO from 3s to 1s
RFC 6691 I: "TCP Options and Maximum Segment Size (MSS)" (July 2012) RFC 6691 I: "TCP Options and Maximum Segment Size (MSS)" (July 2012)
This document [RFC6691] clarifies what value to use with the TCP This document [RFC6691] clarifies what value to use with the TCP
Maximum Segment Size (MSS) option when IP and TCP options are in Maximum Segment Size (MSS) option when IP and TCP options are in
use. use.
3. Recommended Enhancements 3. Strong Encouraged Enhancements
This section describes recommended TCP modifications that improve This section describes recommended TCP modifications that improve
performance and security. Section 3.1 represents fundamental changes performance and security. Section 3.1 represents fundamental changes
to the protocol. Section 3.2 and Section 3.3 list improvements over to the protocol. Section 3.2 and Section 3.3 list improvements over
the congestion control and loss recovery mechanisms as specified in the congestion control and loss recovery mechanisms as specified in
RFC 5681 (see Section 2). Section 3.4 describes algorithms that RFC 5681 (see Section 2). Section 3.4 describes algorithms that
allow a TCP sender to detect whether it has entered loss recovery allow a TCP sender to detect whether it has entered loss recovery
spuriously. Section 3.5 lists documents that revolve around the spuriously. Section 3.5 comprises Path MTU Discovery mechanisms.
various TCP timers. Section 3.6 comprises Path MTU Discovery Schemes for TCP/IP header compression are listed in Section 3.6.
mechanisms. Schemes for TCP/IP header compression are listed in Finally, Section 3.7 deals with the problem of preventing preventing
Section 3.7. Finally, Section 3.8 deals with the problem of acceptance of forged segments and flooding attacks.
preventing preventing acceptance of forged segments and flooding
attacks.
3.1. Fundamental Changes 3.1. Fundamental Changes
RFC 1323 allows better utilization of high bandwidth-delay product RFCs 2675 and XXXX represent fundamental changes to TCP by redefining
paths by providing some needed mechanisms for high-rate transfers. how parts of the basic TCP header and options are interpreted. RFC
XXXX defines the Window Scale Option, which re-interprets the
RFC 2675 describes changes to TCP's semantic for using IPv6 advertised receive window. RFC 2675 specifies that MSS option and
jumbograms. urgent pointer fields with a value of 65,535 are to be treated
specially.
RFC 1323 S: "TCP Extensions for High Performance" (May 1992)
This document [RFC1323] defines TCP extensions for window scaling,
timestamps, and protection against wrapped sequence numbers, for
efficient and safe operation over paths with large bandwidth-delay
products. These extensions are commonly found in currently used
systems; however, they may require manual tuning and
configuration. One issue in this specification that is still
under discussion concerns a modification to the algorithm for
estimating the mean RTT when timestamps are used. RFC 1072 and
RFC 1185 are the conceptual precursors of RFC 1323.
RFC 2675 S: "IPv6 Jumbograms" (August 1999) (Errata) RFC 2675 S: "IPv6 Jumbograms" (August 1999) (Errata)
IPv6 supports longer datagrams than were allowed in IPv4. These IPv6 supports longer datagrams than were allowed in IPv4. These
are known as jumbograms, and use with TCP has necessitated changes are known as jumbograms, and use with TCP has necessitated changes
to the handling of TCP's MSS and Urgent fields (both 16 bits). to the handling of TCP's MSS and Urgent fields (both 16 bits).
This document [RFC2675] explains those changes. Although it This document [RFC2675] explains those changes. Although it
describes changes to basic header semantics, these changes should describes changes to basic header semantics, these changes should
only affect the use of very large segments, such as IPv6 only affect the use of very large segments, such as IPv6
jumbograms, which are currently rarely used in the general jumbograms, which are currently rarely used in the general
skipping to change at page 9, line 42 skipping to change at page 9, line 29
interoperability with other TCP implementations when IPv4 or non- interoperability with other TCP implementations when IPv4 or non-
jumbogram IPv6 is used. This document states that jumbograms are jumbogram IPv6 is used. This document states that jumbograms are
to only be used when it can be guaranteed that all receiving to only be used when it can be guaranteed that all receiving
nodes, including each router in the end-to-end path, will support nodes, including each router in the end-to-end path, will support
jumbograms. If even a single node that does not support jumbograms. If even a single node that does not support
jumbograms is attached to a local network, then no host on that jumbograms is attached to a local network, then no host on that
network may use jumbograms. This explains why jumbogram use has network may use jumbograms. This explains why jumbogram use has
been rare, and why this document is considered a performance been rare, and why this document is considered a performance
optimization and not part of TCP over IPv6's basic functionality. optimization and not part of TCP over IPv6's basic functionality.
RFC XXXX S: "TCP Extensions for High Performance" (XXX 2014)
This document [I-D.ietf-tcpm-1323bis] defines TCP extensions for
window scaling, timestamps, and protection against wrapped
sequence numbers, for efficient and safe operation over paths with
large bandwidth-delay products. These extensions are commonly
found in currently used systems. The predecessor of this
document, RFC 1323, was published in 1992, and is deployed in most
TCP implementations. This document includes fixes and
clarifications based on the gained deployment experience. One
specific issued addressed in this specification is a
recommendation how to modify the algorithm for estimating the mean
RTT when timestamps are used. RFC 1072, RFC 1185, and RFC RFC
1323 are the conceptual precursors of RFC XXXX.
3.2. Congestion Control Extensions 3.2. Congestion Control Extensions
Two of the most important aspects of TCP are its congestion control Two of the most important aspects of TCP are its congestion control
and loss recovery features. TCP treats lost packets as indicating and loss recovery features. TCP treats lost packets as indicating
congestion-related loss, and cannot distinguish between congestion- congestion-related loss, and cannot distinguish between congestion-
related loss and loss due to transmission errors. Even when ECN is related loss and loss due to transmission errors. Even when ECN is
in use, there is a rather intimate coupling between congestion in use, there is a rather intimate coupling between congestion
control and loss recovery mechanisms. There are several extensions control and loss recovery mechanisms. There are several extensions
to both features, and more often than not, a particular extension to both features, and more often than not, a particular extension
applies to both. In this two sub-sections, we group enhancements to applies to both. In this two sub-sections, we group enhancements to
skipping to change at page 10, line 15 skipping to change at page 10, line 18
RFC 3168 S: "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) RFC 3168 S: "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
to IP" (September 2001) to IP" (September 2001)
This document [RFC3168] defines a means for end hosts to detect This document [RFC3168] defines a means for end hosts to detect
congestion before congested routers are forced to discard packets. congestion before congested routers are forced to discard packets.
Although congestion notification takes place at the IP level, ECN Although congestion notification takes place at the IP level, ECN
requires support at the transport level (e.g., in TCP) to echo the requires support at the transport level (e.g., in TCP) to echo the
bits and adapt the sending rate. This document updates RFC 793 bits and adapt the sending rate. This document updates RFC 793
(see Section 2) to define two previously unused flag bits in the (see Section 2) to define two previously unused flag bits in the
TCP header for ECN support. RFC 3540 (see Section 4.2) provides a TCP header for ECN support. RFC 3540 (see Section 4.3) provides a
supplementary (experimental) means for more secure use of ECN, and supplementary (experimental) means for more secure use of ECN, and
RFC 2884 (see Section 7.8) provides some sample results from using RFC 2884 (see Section 7.8) provides some sample results from using
ECN. ECN.
RFC 3390 S: "Increasing TCP's Initial Window" (October 2002) RFC 3390 S: "Increasing TCP's Initial Window" (October 2002)
This document [RFC3390] specifies an increase in the permitted This document [RFC3390] specifies an increase in the permitted
initial window for TCP from one segment to three or four segments initial window for TCP from one segment to three or four segments
during the slow start phase, depending on the segment size. during the slow start phase, depending on the segment size.
skipping to change at page 12, line 35 skipping to change at page 12, line 42
3.4. Detection and Prevention of Spurious Retransmissions 3.4. Detection and Prevention of Spurious Retransmissions
Spurious retransmission timeouts are harmful to TCP performance and Spurious retransmission timeouts are harmful to TCP performance and
multiple algorithms have been defined for detecting when spurious multiple algorithms have been defined for detecting when spurious
retransmissions have occurred, and then responding differently in retransmissions have occurred, and then responding differently in
order to recover performance. The IETF defined multiple algorithms order to recover performance. The IETF defined multiple algorithms
because there are tradeoffs in whether or not certain TCP options because there are tradeoffs in whether or not certain TCP options
need to be implemented, and concerns about IPR status. The Standards need to be implemented, and concerns about IPR status. The Standards
Track documents in this section are closely related to the Track documents in this section are closely related to the
Experimental documents in Section 4.4 also addressing this topic. Experimental documents in Section 4.5 also addressing this topic.
RFC 2883 S: "An Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement (SACK) RFC 2883 S: "An Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement (SACK)
Option for TCP" (July 2000) Option for TCP" (July 2000)
This document [RFC2883] extends RFC 2018 (see Section 3.3). It This document [RFC2883] extends RFC 2018 (see Section 3.3). It
enables use of the SACK option to acknowledge duplicate packets. enables use of the SACK option to acknowledge duplicate packets.
With this extension, called DSACK, the sender is able to infer the With this extension, called DSACK, the sender is able to infer the
order of packets received at the receiver, and therefore to infer order of packets received at the receiver, and therefore to infer
when it has unnecessarily retransmitted a packet. A TCP sender when it has unnecessarily retransmitted a packet. A TCP sender
could then use this information to detect spurious retransmissions could then use this information to detect spurious retransmissions
(see [RFC3708]. (see [RFC3708].
RFC 4015 S: "The Eifel Response Algorithm for TCP" (February 2005) RFC 4015 S: "The Eifel Response Algorithm for TCP" (February 2005)
This document [RFC4015] describes the response portion of the This document [RFC4015] describes the response portion of the
Eifel algorithm, which can be used in conjunction with one of Eifel algorithm, which can be used in conjunction with one of
several methods of detecting when loss recovery has been several methods of detecting when loss recovery has been
spuriously entered, such as the Eifel detection algorithm in RFC spuriously entered, such as the Eifel detection algorithm in RFC
3522 (see Section 4.4), the algorithm in RFC 3708 (see 3522 (see Section 4.5), the algorithm in RFC 3708 (see
Section 4.4), or F-RTO in RFC 5682 (see Section 3.4). Section 4.5), or F-RTO in RFC 5682 (see Section 3.4).
Abstract: "Based on an appropriate detection algorithm, the Eifel Abstract: "Based on an appropriate detection algorithm, the Eifel
response algorithm provides a way for a TCP sender to respond to a response algorithm provides a way for a TCP sender to respond to a
detected spurious timeout. It adapts the retransmission timer to detected spurious timeout. It adapts the retransmission timer to
avoid further spurious timeouts, and can avoid - depending on the avoid further spurious timeouts, and can avoid - depending on the
detection algorithm - the often unnecessary go-back-N retransmits detection algorithm - the often unnecessary go-back-N retransmits
that would otherwise be sent. In addition, the Eifel response that would otherwise be sent. In addition, the Eifel response
algorithm restores the congestion control state in such a way that algorithm restores the congestion control state in such a way that
packet bursts are avoided." packet bursts are avoided."
RFC 5682 S: "Forward RTO-Recovery (F-RTO): An Algorithm for Detecting RFC 5682 S: "Forward RTO-Recovery (F-RTO): An Algorithm for Detecting
Spurious Retransmission Timeouts with TCP" (September 2009) Spurious Retransmission Timeouts with TCP" (September 2009)
The F-RTO detection algorithm [RFC5682], originally described in The F-RTO detection algorithm [RFC5682], originally described in
RFC 4138, provides an option for inferring spurious retransmission RFC 4138, provides an option for inferring spurious retransmission
timeouts. Unlike some similar detection methods (e.g. RFC 3522 timeouts. Unlike some similar detection methods (e.g. RFC 3522
in Section 4.4 and RFC 3708 in Section 4.4), F-RTO does not rely in Section 4.5 and RFC 3708 in Section 4.5), F-RTO does not rely
on the use of any TCP options. The basic idea is to send on the use of any TCP options. The basic idea is to send
previously unsent data after the first retransmission after a RTO. previously unsent data after the first retransmission after a RTO.
If the ACKs advance the window, the RTO may be declared spurious. If the ACKs advance the window, the RTO may be declared spurious.
3.5. TCP Timeouts 3.5. Path MTU Discovery
RFC 5482 S: "TCP User Timeout Option" (June 2009)
As a local per-connection parameter the TCP user timeout controls
how long transmitted data may remain unacknowledged before a
connection is forcefully closed. This document [RFC5482]
specifies the TCP User Timeout Option that allows one end of a TCP
connection to advertise its current user timeout value. This
information provides advice to the other end of the TCP connection
to adapt its user timeout accordingly.
3.6. Path MTU Discovery
The MTUs supported by different links and tunnels within the Internet The MTUs supported by different links and tunnels within the Internet
can vary widely. Fragmentation of packets larger than the supported can vary widely. Fragmentation of packets larger than the supported
MTU on a hop is undesirable. As TCP is the segmentation layer for MTU on a hop is undesirable. As TCP is the segmentation layer for
dividing an application's bytestream into IP packet payloads, TCP dividing an application's bytestream into IP packet payloads, TCP
implementations generally include Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD) implementations generally include Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD)
mechanisms in order to maximize the size of segments they send, mechanisms in order to maximize the size of segments they send,
without causing fragmentation within the network. Some algorithms without causing fragmentation within the network. Some algorithms
may utilize signaling from routers on the path that the MTU has been may utilize signaling from routers on the path that the MTU has been
exceeded. exceeded.
skipping to change at page 14, line 10 skipping to change at page 14, line 4
mechanisms in order to maximize the size of segments they send, mechanisms in order to maximize the size of segments they send,
without causing fragmentation within the network. Some algorithms without causing fragmentation within the network. Some algorithms
may utilize signaling from routers on the path that the MTU has been may utilize signaling from routers on the path that the MTU has been
exceeded. exceeded.
RFC 1191 S: "Path MTU Discovery" (November 1990) RFC 1191 S: "Path MTU Discovery" (November 1990)
Abstract: "This memo describes a technique for dynamically Abstract: "This memo describes a technique for dynamically
discovering the MTU of an arbitrary Internet path. It specifies a discovering the MTU of an arbitrary Internet path. It specifies a
small change to the way routers generate one type of ICMP message. small change to the way routers generate one type of ICMP message.
For a path that passes through a router that has not been so For a path that passes through a router that has not been so
changed, this technique might not discover the correct path MTU, changed, this technique might not discover the correct path MTU,
but it will always choose a path MTU as accurate as, and in many but it will always choose a path MTU as accurate as, and in many
cases more accurate than, the path MTU that would be chosen by cases more accurate than, the path MTU that would be chosen by
current practice." [RFC1191] current practice." [RFC1191]
RFC 1981 S: "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6" (August 1996) RFC 1981 S: "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6" (August 1996)
Abstract: "This document describes Path MTU Discovery for IP Abstract: "This document describes Path MTU Discovery for IP
version 6. It is largely derived from RFC 1191 (see Section 3.6), version 6. It is largely derived from RFC 1191 (see Section 3.5),
which describes Path MTU Discovery for IP version 4." [RFC1981] which describes Path MTU Discovery for IP version 4." [RFC1981]
RFC 4821 S: "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery" (March 2007) RFC 4821 S: "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery" (March 2007)
Abstract: "This document describes a robust method for Path MTU Abstract: "This document describes a robust method for Path MTU
Discovery (PMTUD) that relies on TCP or some other Packetization Discovery (PMTUD) that relies on TCP or some other Packetization
Layer to probe an Internet path with progressively larger packets. Layer to probe an Internet path with progressively larger packets.
This method is described as an extension to RFC 1191 (see This method is described as an extension to RFC 1191 (see
Section 3.6) and RFC 1981 (see Section 3.6), which specify ICMP- Section 3.5) and RFC 1981 (see Section 3.5), which specify ICMP-
based Path MTU Discovery for IP versions 4 and 6, respectively." based Path MTU Discovery for IP versions 4 and 6, respectively."
[RFC4821] [RFC4821]
3.7. Header Compression 3.6. Header Compression
Especially in streaming applications, the overhead of TCP/IP headers Especially in streaming applications, the overhead of TCP/IP headers
could correspond to more then 50% of the total amount of data sent. could correspond to more then 50% of the total amount of data sent.
Such large overheads may be tolerable in wired LANs where capacity is Such large overheads may be tolerable in wired LANs where capacity is
often not an issue, but are excessive for WANs and wireless systems often not an issue, but are excessive for WANs and wireless systems
where bandwidth is scarce. Header compression schemes for TCP/IP where bandwidth is scarce. Header compression schemes for TCP/IP
like "RObust Header Compression (ROHC) can significantly compress like "RObust Header Compression (ROHC) can significantly compress
this overhead. It performs well over links with significant error this overhead. It performs well over links with significant error
rates and long round-trip times. rates and long round-trip times.
skipping to change at page 15, line 17 skipping to change at page 15, line 10
From abstract: "This document specifies a RObust Header From abstract: "This document specifies a RObust Header
Compression (ROHC) profile for compression of TCP/IP packets. The Compression (ROHC) profile for compression of TCP/IP packets. The
profile, called ROHC-TCP, provides efficient and robust profile, called ROHC-TCP, provides efficient and robust
compression of TCP headers, including frequently used TCP options compression of TCP headers, including frequently used TCP options
such as selective acknowledgments (SACKs) and Timestamps." such as selective acknowledgments (SACKs) and Timestamps."
[RFC6846] RFC 6846 is the successor of RFC 4996. It fixes a [RFC6846] RFC 6846 is the successor of RFC 4996. It fixes a
technical issue with the SACK compression and clarifies other technical issue with the SACK compression and clarifies other
compression methods used. compression methods used.
3.8. Defending Spoofing and Flooding Attacks 3.7. Defending Spoofing and Flooding Attacks
By default, TCP lacks any cryptographic structures to differentiate By default, TCP lacks any cryptographic structures to differentiate
legitimate segments from those spoofed from malicious hosts. legitimate segments from those spoofed from malicious hosts.
Spoofing valid segments requires correctly guessing a number of Spoofing valid segments requires correctly guessing a number of
fields. The documents in this sub-section describe ways to make that fields. The documents in this sub-section describe ways to make that
guessing harder, or to prevent it from being able to affect a guessing harder, or to prevent it from being able to affect a
connection negatively. connection negatively.
RFC 4953 I: "Defending TCP Against Spoofing Attacks" (July 2007) RFC 4953 I: "Defending TCP Against Spoofing Attacks" (July 2007)
skipping to change at page 16, line 15 skipping to change at page 16, line 6
RFC 5925 S: "The TCP Authentication Option" (May 2010) RFC 5925 S: "The TCP Authentication Option" (May 2010)
This document [RFC5925] describes the TCP Authentication Option This document [RFC5925] describes the TCP Authentication Option
(TCP-AO), which is used to authenticate TCP segments. TCP-AO (TCP-AO), which is used to authenticate TCP segments. TCP-AO
obsoletes the TCP MD5 Signature option of RFC 2385. It supports obsoletes the TCP MD5 Signature option of RFC 2385. It supports
the use of stronger hash functions, protects against replays for the use of stronger hash functions, protects against replays for
long-lived TCP connections (as used, e.g., in BGP and LDP), long-lived TCP connections (as used, e.g., in BGP and LDP),
coordinates key exchanges between endpoints, and provides a more coordinates key exchanges between endpoints, and provides a more
explicit recommendation for external key management. explicit recommendation for external key management.
Cryptographic algorithms for TCP-AO are defined in [RFC5926] (see Cryptographic algorithms for TCP-AO are defined in [RFC5926] (see
Section 3.8). Section 3.7).
RFC 5926 S: "Cryptographic Algorithms for the TCP Authentication RFC 5926 S: "Cryptographic Algorithms for the TCP Authentication
Option (TCP-AO)" (May 2010) Option (TCP-AO)" (May 2010)
This document [RFC5926] specifies the algorithms and attributes This document [RFC5926] specifies the algorithms and attributes
that can be used in TCP Authentication Option's (TCP-AO) [RFC5925] that can be used in TCP Authentication Option's (TCP-AO) [RFC5925]
(see Section 3.8) current manual keying mechanism and provides the (see Section 3.7) current manual keying mechanism and provides the
interface for future message authentication codes (MACs). interface for future message authentication codes (MACs).
RFC 5927 I: "ICMP attacks against TCP" (July 2010) RFC 5927 I: "ICMP attacks against TCP" (July 2010)
Abstract: "This document discusses the use of the Internet Control Abstract: "This document discusses the use of the Internet Control
Message Protocol (ICMP) to perform a variety of attacks against Message Protocol (ICMP) to perform a variety of attacks against
the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). Additionally, this the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). Additionally, this
document describes a number of widely implemented modifications to document describes a number of widely implemented modifications to
TCP's handling of ICMP error messages that help to mitigate these TCP's handling of ICMP error messages that help to mitigate these
issues." [RFC5927] issues." [RFC5927]
skipping to change at page 18, line 11 skipping to change at page 18, line 5
proposal to RFC 2140 (see Section 4.1). The idea behind the proposal to RFC 2140 (see Section 4.1). The idea behind the
Congestion Manager, moving congestion control outside of Congestion Manager, moving congestion control outside of
individual TCP connections, represents a modification to the core individual TCP connections, represents a modification to the core
of TCP, which supports sharing information among TCP connections. of TCP, which supports sharing information among TCP connections.
Although a Proposed Standard, some pieces of the Congestion Although a Proposed Standard, some pieces of the Congestion
Manager support architecture have not been specified yet, and it Manager support architecture have not been specified yet, and it
has not achieved use or implementation beyond experimental stacks, has not achieved use or implementation beyond experimental stacks,
so it is not listed among the standard TCP enhancements in this so it is not listed among the standard TCP enhancements in this
roadmap. roadmap.
4.2. Congestion Control Extensions 4.2. Fundamental Changes
Like the standard documents listed in Section 3.1 there newly exist
also experimental RFCs that represent fundamental changes to TCP.
One example is TCP Fast Open that deviates from the standard TCP
semantics of [RFC0793].
RFC XXX E: "TCP Fast Open" (XXX 2014)
This document [I-D.ietf-tcpm-fastopen] describes TCP Fast Open
that allows data to be carried in the SYN and SYN-ACK packets and
consumed by the receiver during the initial connection handshake.
It saves up to one RTT compared to the standard TCP, which
requires a three-way handshake to complete before data can be
exchanged.
4.3. Congestion Control Extensions
TCP congestion control has been an extremely active research area for TCP congestion control has been an extremely active research area for
many years (see RFC 5783, Section 7.6), as it determines the many years (see RFC 5783, Section 7.6), as it determines the
performance of many applications that use TCP. A number of performance of many applications that use TCP. A number of
experimental RFCs address issues with flow start-up, overshoot, and experimental RFCs address issues with flow start-up, overshoot, and
steady-state behavior in the basic RFC 5681 (see Section 2) steady-state behavior in the basic RFC 5681 (see Section 2)
algorithms. In this sub-sections, enhancements to TCP's congestion algorithms. In this sub-sections, enhancements to TCP's congestion
control are listed. The next sub-section focus on TCP's loss control are listed. The next sub-section focus on TCP's loss
recovery. recovery.
skipping to change at page 19, line 40 skipping to change at page 20, line 5
Congestion Control Protocol's (DCCP's) [RFC4340] Congestion Congestion Control Protocol's (DCCP's) [RFC4340] Congestion
Control Identifier (CCID) 2 [RFC4341]. Control Identifier (CCID) 2 [RFC4341].
RFC 6928 E: "Increasing TCP's Initial Window" (April 2013) RFC 6928 E: "Increasing TCP's Initial Window" (April 2013)
This document [RFC6928] proposes to increase the TCP initial This document [RFC6928] proposes to increase the TCP initial
window from between 2 and 4 segments, as specified in RFC 3390 window from between 2 and 4 segments, as specified in RFC 3390
(see Section 3.2), to 10 segments with a fallback to the existing (see Section 3.2), to 10 segments with a fallback to the existing
recommendation when performance issues are detected. recommendation when performance issues are detected.
4.3. Loss Recovery Extensions 4.4. Loss Recovery Extensions
RFC 5827 E: "Early Retransmit for TCP and SCTP" (April 2010) RFC 5827 E: "Early Retransmit for TCP and SCTP" (April 2010)
This document [RFC5827] proposes the "Early Retransmit" mechanism This document [RFC5827] proposes the "Early Retransmit" mechanism
for TCP (and SCTP) that can be used to recover lost segments when for TCP (and SCTP) that can be used to recover lost segments when
a connection's congestion window is small. In certain special a connection's congestion window is small. In certain special
circumstances, Early Retransmit reduces the number of duplicate circumstances, Early Retransmit reduces the number of duplicate
acknowledgments required to trigger fast retransmit to recover acknowledgments required to trigger fast retransmit to recover
segment losses without waiting for a lengthy retransmission segment losses without waiting for a lengthy retransmission
timeout. timeout.
skipping to change at page 20, line 21 skipping to change at page 20, line 33
strategy of TCP's retransmission timer that enables a more prompt strategy of TCP's retransmission timer that enables a more prompt
detection of whether or not the connectivity has been restored. detection of whether or not the connectivity has been restored.
RFC 6937 E: "Proportional Rate Reduction for TCP" (May 2013) RFC 6937 E: "Proportional Rate Reduction for TCP" (May 2013)
This document [RFC6937] describes an experimental Proportional This document [RFC6937] describes an experimental Proportional
Rate Reduction (PRR) algorithm as an alternative to the widely Rate Reduction (PRR) algorithm as an alternative to the widely
deployed Fast Recovery algorithm, to improve the accuracy of the deployed Fast Recovery algorithm, to improve the accuracy of the
amount of data sent by TCP during loss recovery. amount of data sent by TCP during loss recovery.
4.4. Detection and Prevention of Spurious Retransmissions 4.5. Detection and Prevention of Spurious Retransmissions
In addition to the Standards Track extensions to deal with spurious In addition to the Standards Track extensions to deal with spurious
retransmissions in Section 3.4, Experimental proposals have also been retransmissions in Section 3.4, Experimental proposals have also been
documented. documented.
RFC 3522 E: "The Eifel Detection Algorithm for TCP" (April 2003) RFC 3522 E: "The Eifel Detection Algorithm for TCP" (April 2003)
The Eifel detection algorithm [RFC3522] allows a TCP sender to The Eifel detection algorithm [RFC3522] allows a TCP sender to
detect a posteriori whether it has entered loss recovery detect a posteriori whether it has entered loss recovery
unnecessarily by using the TCP timestamp option to solve the ACK unnecessarily by using the TCP timestamp option to solve the ACK
skipping to change at page 21, line 9 skipping to change at page 21, line 21
Events" (August 2008) Events" (August 2008)
In the presence of non-congestion events, such as reordering an In the presence of non-congestion events, such as reordering an
out-of-order segment does not necessarily indicates a lost segment out-of-order segment does not necessarily indicates a lost segment
and congestion. This document [RFC4653] proposes to increase the and congestion. This document [RFC4653] proposes to increase the
threshold used to trigger a fast retransmission from the fixed threshold used to trigger a fast retransmission from the fixed
value of three duplicate ACKs to about one congestion window of value of three duplicate ACKs to about one congestion window of
data in order to disambiguate true segment loss from segment data in order to disambiguate true segment loss from segment
reordering. reordering.
4.5. Multipath TCP 4.6. TCP Timeouts
Besides the well known retransmission timeout the TCP standard
[RFC0793] defines two more timeouts: the user timeout and the time-
wait timeout. This section lists documents that deals with TCP's
various timouts.
RFC 5482 S: "TCP User Timeout Option" (June 2009)
As a local per-connection parameter the TCP user timeout controls
how long transmitted data may remain unacknowledged before a
connection is forcefully closed. This document [RFC5482]
specifies the TCP User Timeout Option that allows one end of a TCP
connection to advertise its current user timeout value. This
information provides advice to the other end of the TCP connection
to adapt its user timeout accordingly.
4.7. Multipath TCP
MultiPath TCP (MPTCP) is an ongoing effort within the IETF that MultiPath TCP (MPTCP) is an ongoing effort within the IETF that
allows a TCP connection to simultaneously use multiple IP-addresses/ allows a TCP connection to simultaneously use multiple IP-addresses/
interfaces to spread their data across several subflows, while interfaces to spread their data across several subflows, while
presenting a regular TCP interface to applications. Benefits of this presenting a regular TCP interface to applications. Benefits of this
include better resource utilization, better throughput and smoother include better resource utilization, better throughput and smoother
reaction to failures. The documents listed in this section specify reaction to failures. The documents listed in this section specify
the Multipath TCP scheme, while the documents in Sections 7.2, 7.4, the Multipath TCP scheme, while the documents in Sections 7.2, 7.4,
and 7.5 provide some additional background information. and 7.5 provide some additional background information.
skipping to change at page 28, line 29 skipping to change at page 29, line 19
alternate semantics for the ECN field, and specifies requirements alternate semantics for the ECN field, and specifies requirements
for a safe co-existence with routers that do not understand the for a safe co-existence with routers that do not understand the
defined alternate semantics. defined alternate semantics.
RFC 6182 I: "Architectural Guidelines for Multipath TCP Development" RFC 6182 I: "Architectural Guidelines for Multipath TCP Development"
(March 2011) (March 2011)
Abstract: "This document outlines architectural guidelines for the Abstract: "This document outlines architectural guidelines for the
development of a Multipath Transport Protocol, with references to development of a Multipath Transport Protocol, with references to
how these architectural components come together in the how these architectural components come together in the
development of a Multipath TCP (MPTCP) (see Section 4.5). This development of a Multipath TCP (MPTCP) (see Section 4.7). This
document lists certain high-level design decisions that provide document lists certain high-level design decisions that provide
foundations for the design of the MPTCP protocol, based upon these foundations for the design of the MPTCP protocol, based upon these
architectural requirements" [RFC6182] architectural requirements" [RFC6182]
7.3. Difficult Network Environments 7.3. Difficult Network Environments
As the internetworking field has explored wireless, satellite, As the internetworking field has explored wireless, satellite,
cellular telephone, and other kinds of link-layer technologies, a cellular telephone, and other kinds of link-layer technologies, a
large body of work has built up on enhancing TCP performance for such large body of work has built up on enhancing TCP performance for such
links. The RFCs listed in this section describe some of these more links. The RFCs listed in this section describe some of these more
skipping to change at page 32, line 4 skipping to change at page 32, line 44
This RFC [RFC6077] summarizes the main open problems in the domain This RFC [RFC6077] summarizes the main open problems in the domain
of Internet congestion control. As a good starting point for of Internet congestion control. As a good starting point for
newcomers, the document describes several new challenges that are newcomers, the document describes several new challenges that are
becoming important as the network grows, as well as some issues becoming important as the network grows, as well as some issues
that have been known for many years. that have been known for many years.
RFC 6181 I: "Threat Analysis for TCP Extensions for Multipath RFC 6181 I: "Threat Analysis for TCP Extensions for Multipath
Operation with Multiple Addresses" (March 2011) Operation with Multiple Addresses" (March 2011)
This document [RFC6181] describes a threat analysis for Multipath This document [RFC6181] describes a threat analysis for Multipath
TCP (MPTCP) (see Section 4.5). The document discusses several TCP (MPTCP) (see Section 4.7). The document discusses several
types of attacks and provides recommendations for MPTCP designers types of attacks and provides recommendations for MPTCP designers
how to create an MPTCP specification that is as secure as the how to create an MPTCP specification that is as secure as the
current (single-path) TCP. current (single-path) TCP.
RFC 6349 I: "Framework for TCP Throughput Testing" (August 2011) RFC 6349 I: "Framework for TCP Throughput Testing" (August 2011)
From abstract: "This document describes a practical methodology From abstract: "This document describes a practical methodology
for measuring end-to-end TCP throughput in a managed IP network. for measuring end-to-end TCP throughput in a managed IP network.
The goal is to provide a better indication in regard to user The goal is to provide a better indication in regard to user
experience. In this framework, TCP and IP parameters are experience. In this framework, TCP and IP parameters are
specified to optimize TCP throughput." [RFC6349] specified to optimize TCP throughput." [RFC6349]
7.5. Implementation Advice 7.5. Implementation Advice
RFC 794 U: "PRE-EMPTION" (September 1981) RFC 794 U: "PRE-EMPTION" (September 1981)
This document [RFC0794] discusses on a high-level the realization This document [RFC0794] discusses on a high-level the realization
of pre-emption in TCP. of pre-emption in TCP.
skipping to change at page 34, line 9 skipping to change at page 34, line 44
This document [RFC6056] describes a number of simple and efficient This document [RFC6056] describes a number of simple and efficient
methods for the selection of the client port number. It reduces methods for the selection of the client port number. It reduces
the possibility of an attacker guessing the correct five-tuple the possibility of an attacker guessing the correct five-tuple
(Protocol, Source/Destination Address, Source/Destination Port). (Protocol, Source/Destination Address, Source/Destination Port).
RFC 6191 B: "Reducing the TIME-WAIT State Using TCP timestamps" RFC 6191 B: "Reducing the TIME-WAIT State Using TCP timestamps"
(April 2011) (April 2011)
This document [RFC6191] describes the usage of the TCP Timestamps This document [RFC6191] describes the usage of the TCP Timestamps
option (RFC 1323, see Section 3.1) to perform heuristics to option (RFC XXXX, see Section 3.1) to perform heuristics to
determine whether or not to allow the creation of a new determine whether or not to allow the creation of a new
incarnation of a connection that is in the TIME-WAIT state. incarnation of a connection that is in the TIME-WAIT state.
RFC 6429 I: "TCP Sender Clarification for Persist Condition" RFC 6429 I: "TCP Sender Clarification for Persist Condition"
(December 2011) (December 2011)
This document [RFC6429] clarifies the actions that a TCP can be This document [RFC6429] clarifies the actions that a TCP can be
taken on connections that are experiencing the Zero Window Probe taken on connections that are experiencing the Zero Window Probe
(ZWP) condition. (ZWP) condition.
RFC 6897 I: "Multipath TCP (MPTCP) Application Interface RFC 6897 I: "Multipath TCP (MPTCP) Application Interface
Considerations" (March 2013) Considerations" (March 2013)
This document [RFC6897] characterizes the impact that Multipath This document [RFC6897] characterizes the impact that Multipath
TCP (MPTCP) (see Section 4.5) may have on applications. It TCP (MPTCP) (see Section 4.7) may have on applications. It
further discusses compatibility issues of MPTCP in combination further discusses compatibility issues of MPTCP in combination
with non-MPTCP-aware applications. Finally, it describes a basic with non-MPTCP-aware applications. Finally, it describes a basic
API that is a simple extension of TCP's interface for MPTCP-aware API that is a simple extension of TCP's interface for MPTCP-aware
applications. applications.
7.6. Tools and Tutorials 7.6. Tools and Tutorials
RFC 1180 I: "TCP/IP Tutorial" (January 1991) (Errata) RFC 1180 I: "TCP/IP Tutorial" (January 1991) (Errata)
This document [RFC1180] is an extremely brief overview of the This document [RFC1180] is an extremely brief overview of the
skipping to change at page 38, line 49 skipping to change at page 39, line 37
presence of any reordering with extent greater than the duplicate presence of any reordering with extent greater than the duplicate
ACK threshold. FACK is implemented in Linux and turned on per ACK threshold. FACK is implemented in Linux and turned on per
default. default.
Highspeed Congestion Control Highspeed Congestion Control
In the last decade significant research effort has been put into In the last decade significant research effort has been put into
experimental TCP congestion control modifications for obtaining experimental TCP congestion control modifications for obtaining
high throughput with reduced startup and recovery times. Only few high throughput with reduced startup and recovery times. Only few
RFCs have been published on some of these modifications, including RFCs have been published on some of these modifications, including
HighSpeed TCP [RFC3649] (see Section 4.2), Limited Slow-Start HighSpeed TCP [RFC3649] (see Section 4.3), Limited Slow-Start
[RFC3742] (see Section 4.2), and Quick-Start [RFC4782] (see [RFC3742] (see Section 4.3), and Quick-Start [RFC4782] (see
Section 4.2), but high-rate congestion control mechanisms are Section 4.3), but high-rate congestion control mechanisms are
still considered an open issue in congestion control research. still considered an open issue in congestion control research.
Some other schemes have been published as Internet-Drafts, e.g. Some other schemes have been published as Internet-Drafts, e.g.
CUBIC [I-D.rhee-tcpm-cubic] (the standard TCP congestion control CUBIC [I-D.rhee-tcpm-cubic] (the standard TCP congestion control
algorithm in Linux), Compound TCP [I-D.sridharan-tcpm-ctcp], and algorithm in Linux), Compound TCP [I-D.sridharan-tcpm-ctcp], and
H-TCP [I-D.leith-tcp-htcp] or have been discussed a little by the H-TCP [I-D.leith-tcp-htcp] or have been discussed a little by the
IETF, but much of the work in this area has not been adopted IETF, but much of the work in this area has not been adopted
within the IETF yet, so the majority of this work is outside the within the IETF yet, so the majority of this work is outside the
RFC series and may be discussed in other products of the IRTF RFC series and may be discussed in other products of the IRTF
Internet Congestion Control Research Group (ICCRG). Internet Congestion Control Research Group (ICCRG).
skipping to change at page 39, line 39 skipping to change at page 40, line 30
Minor Extensions (TCPM) working group. We thank Mark Allman, Yuchung Minor Extensions (TCPM) working group. We thank Mark Allman, Yuchung
Cheng, Ted Faber, Fairhurst, Sally Floyd, Janardhan Iyengar, Reiner Cheng, Ted Faber, Fairhurst, Sally Floyd, Janardhan Iyengar, Reiner
Ludwig, Pekka Savola, and Joe Touch for their contributions, in Ludwig, Pekka Savola, and Joe Touch for their contributions, in
particular. Keith McCloghrie provided some useful notes and particular. Keith McCloghrie provided some useful notes and
clarification on the various MIB-related RFCs. clarification on the various MIB-related RFCs.
12. References 12. References
12.1. Normative References 12.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-tcpm-1323bis]
Borman, D., Braden, R., Jacobson, V., and R.
Scheffenegger, "TCP Extensions for High Performance",
draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis-17 (work in progress),
November 2013.
[I-D.ietf-tcpm-fastopen]
Cheng, Y., Chu, J., Radhakrishnan, S., and A. Jain, "TCP
Fast Open", draft-ietf-tcpm-fastopen-05 (work in
progress), October 2013.
[RFC0675] Cerf, V., Dalal, Y., and C. Sunshine, "Specification of [RFC0675] Cerf, V., Dalal, Y., and C. Sunshine, "Specification of
Internet Transmission Control Program", RFC 675, Internet Transmission Control Program", RFC 675,
December 1974. December 1974.
[RFC0700] Mader, E., Plummer, W., and R. Tomlinson, "Protocol [RFC0700] Mader, E., Plummer, W., and R. Tomlinson, "Protocol
experiment", RFC 700, August 1974. experiment", RFC 700, August 1974.
[RFC0721] Garlick, L., "Out-of-Band Control Signals in a Host-to- [RFC0721] Garlick, L., "Out-of-Band Control Signals in a Host-to-
Host Protocol", RFC 721, September 1976. Host Protocol", RFC 721, September 1976.
skipping to change at page 41, line 31 skipping to change at page 42, line 31
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191, [RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
November 1990. November 1990.
[RFC1213] McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information Base [RFC1213] McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information Base
for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets:MIB-II", for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets:MIB-II",
STD 17, RFC 1213, March 1991. STD 17, RFC 1213, March 1991.
[RFC1263] O'Malley, S. and L. Peterson, "TCP Extensions Considered [RFC1263] O'Malley, S. and L. Peterson, "TCP Extensions Considered
Harmful", RFC 1263, October 1991. Harmful", RFC 1263, October 1991.
[RFC1323] Jacobson, V., Braden, B., and D. Borman, "TCP Extensions
for High Performance", RFC 1323, May 1992.
[RFC1337] Braden, B., "TIME-WAIT Assassination Hazards in TCP", [RFC1337] Braden, B., "TIME-WAIT Assassination Hazards in TCP",
RFC 1337, May 1992. RFC 1337, May 1992.
[RFC1379] Braden, B., "Extending TCP for Transactions -- Concepts", [RFC1379] Braden, B., "Extending TCP for Transactions -- Concepts",
RFC 1379, November 1992. RFC 1379, November 1992.
[RFC1470] Enger, R. and J. Reynolds, "FYI on a Network Management [RFC1470] Enger, R. and J. Reynolds, "FYI on a Network Management
Tool Catalog: Tools for Monitoring and Debugging TCP/IP Tool Catalog: Tools for Monitoring and Debugging TCP/IP
Internets and Interconnected Devices", RFC 1470, Internets and Interconnected Devices", RFC 1470,
June 1993. June 1993.
 End of changes. 37 change blocks. 
94 lines changed or deleted 127 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/