|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
Standards Track RFC - Internet Standard.
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
This RFC obsoletes RFC 793, the very widely used specification of TCP. RFC 793 was referenced in the previous edition of T.808. Thus, the reference to the obsoleted document is being replaced with a reference to the new document that replaces it.
|
|
4.
|
Current information, if any, about IPR issues:
|
|
|
Information on IPR issues regarding RFCs is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/. Specifically: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=rfc_search&rfc_search=793
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
This RFC was published in August 2022. It obsoletes RFCs 793, 879, 2973, 6093, 6429, 6528 and 6691, and updates RFCs 1011, 1122, 5961.
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
RFC 9293 was published in August 2022. It specifies the USA APRA DoD Standard Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) used in many computer networks including the Internet. It is published by the IETF at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc9293.txt.
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
RFC 9293 is a component of the basic suite of internet protocols and standards and is widely used by the internet community. It obsoletes RFCs 793, 879, 2973, 6093, 6429, 6528 and 6691, and updates RFCs 1011, 1122, 5961.
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
8.1. Normative References/
[1] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791./
[2] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191, DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1191./
[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119./
[4] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474./
[5] Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41, RFC 2914, DOI 10.17487/RFC2914, September 2000, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2914./
[6] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168./
[7] Floyd, S. and M. Allman, "Specifying New Congestion Control Algorithms", BCP 133, RFC 5033, DOI 10.17487/RFC5033, August 2007, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5033./
[8] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion Control", RFC 5681, DOI 10.17487/RFC5681, September 2009, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5681./
[9] Ramaiah, A., Stewart, R., and M. Dalal, "Improving TCP's Robustness to Blind In-Window Attacks", RFC 5961, DOI 10.17487/RFC5961, August 2010, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5961./
[10] Paxson, V., Allman, M., Chu, J., and M. Sargent, "Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer", RFC 6298, DOI 10.17487/RFC6298, June 2011, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6298./
[11] Gont, F., "Deprecation of ICMP Source Quench Messages", RFC 6633, DOI 10.17487/RFC6633, May 2012, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6633./
[12] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174./
[13] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200./
[14] McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed., "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201, DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8201./
[15] Allman, M., "Requirements for Time-Based Loss Detection", BCP 233, RFC 8961, DOI 10.17487/RFC8961, November 2020, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8961./
8.2. Informative References/
[16] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793./
[17] Nagle, J., "Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetworks", RFC 896, DOI 10.17487/RFC0896, January 1984, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc896./
[18] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Official Internet protocols", RFC 1011, DOI 10.17487/RFC1011, May 1987, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1011./
[19] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122./
[20] Almquist, P., "Type of Service in the Internet Protocol Suite", RFC 1349, DOI 10.17487/RFC1349, July 1992, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1349./
[21] Braden, R., "T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions Functional Specification", RFC 1644, DOI 10.17487/RFC1644, July 1994, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1644./
[22] Mathis, M., Mahdavi, J., Floyd, S., and A. Romanow, "TCP Selective Acknowledgment Options", RFC 2018, DOI 10.17487/RFC2018, October 1996, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2018./
[23] Paxson, V., Allman, M., Dawson, S., Fenner, W., Griner, J., Heavens, I., Lahey, K., Semke, J., and B. Volz, "Known TCP Implementation Problems", RFC 2525, DOI 10.17487/RFC2525, March 1999, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2525./
[24] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms", RFC 2675, DOI 10.17487/RFC2675, August 1999, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2675./
[25] Xiao, X., Hannan, A., Paxson, V., and E. Crabbe, "TCP Processing of the IPv4 Precedence Field", RFC 2873, DOI 10.17487/RFC2873, June 2000, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2873./
[26] Floyd, S., Mahdavi, J., Mathis, M., and M. Podolsky, "An Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement (SACK) Option for TCP", RFC 2883, DOI 10.17487/RFC2883, July 2000, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2883./
[27] Lahey, K., "TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery", RFC 2923, DOI 10.17487/RFC2923, September 2000, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2923./
[28] Balakrishnan, H., Padmanabhan, V., Fairhurst, G., and M. Sooriyabandara, "TCP Performance Implications of Network Path Asymmetry", BCP 69, RFC 3449, DOI 10.17487/RFC3449, December 2002, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3449./
[29] Allman, M., "TCP Congestion Control with Appropriate Byte Counting (ABC)", RFC 3465, DOI 10.17487/RFC3465, February 2003, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3465./
[30] Fenner, B., "Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers", RFC 4727, DOI 10.17487/RFC4727, November 2006, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4727./
[31] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821./
[32] Eddy, W., "TCP SYN Flooding Attacks and Common Mitigations", RFC 4987, DOI 10.17487/RFC4987, August 2007, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4987./
[33] Touch, J., "Defending TCP Against Spoofing Attacks", RFC 4953, DOI 10.17487/RFC4953, July 2007, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4953./
[34] Culley, P., Elzur, U., Recio, R., Bailey, S., and J. Carrier, "Marker PDU Aligned Framing for TCP Specification", RFC 5044, DOI 10.17487/RFC5044, October 2007, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5044./
[35] Gont, F., "TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors", RFC 5461, DOI 10.17487/RFC5461, February 2009, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5461./
[36] StJohns, M., Atkinson, R., and G. Thomas, "Common Architecture Label IPv6 Security Option (CALIPSO)", RFC 5570, DOI 10.17487/RFC5570, July 2009, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5570./
[37] Sandlund, K., Pelletier, G., and L-E. Jonsson, "The RObust Header Compression (ROHC) Framework", RFC 5795, DOI 10.17487/RFC5795, March 2010, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5795./
[38] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925, June 2010, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925./
[39] Gont, F. and A. Yourtchenko, "On the Implementation of the TCP Urgent Mechanism", RFC 6093, DOI 10.17487/RFC6093, January 2011, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6093./
[40] Gont, F., "Reducing the TIME-WAIT State Using TCP Timestamps", BCP 159, RFC 6191, DOI 10.17487/RFC6191, April 2011, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6191./
[41] Bashyam, M., Jethanandani, M., and A. Ramaiah, "TCP Sender Clarification for Persist Condition", RFC 6429, DOI 10.17487/RFC6429, December 2011, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6429./
[42] Gont, F. and S. Bellovin, "Defending against Sequence Number Attacks", RFC 6528, DOI 10.17487/RFC6528, February 2012, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6528./
[43] Borman, D., "TCP Options and Maximum Segment Size (MSS)", RFC 6691, DOI 10.17487/RFC6691, July 2012, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6691./
[44] Touch, J., "Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field", RFC 6864, DOI 10.17487/RFC6864, February 2013, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6864./
[45] Touch, J., "Shared Use of Experimental TCP Options", RFC 6994, DOI 10.17487/RFC6994, August 2013, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6994./
[46] McPherson, D., Oran, D., Thaler, D., and E. Osterweil, "Architectural Considerations of IP Anycast", RFC 7094, DOI 10.17487/RFC7094, January 2014, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7094./
[47] Borman, D., Braden, B., Jacobson, V., and R. Scheffenegger, Ed., "TCP Extensions for High Performance", RFC 7323, DOI 10.17487/RFC7323, September 2014, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7323./
[48] Cheng, Y., Chu, J., Radhakrishnan, S., and A. Jain, "TCP Fast Open", RFC 7413, DOI 10.17487/RFC7413, December 2014, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7413./
[49] Duke, M., Braden, R., Eddy, W., Blanton, E., and A. Zimmermann, "A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification Documents", RFC 7414, DOI 10.17487/RFC7414, February 2015, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7414./
[50] Black, D., Ed. and P. Jones, "Differentiated Services (Diffserv) and Real-Time Communication", RFC 7657, DOI 10.17487/RFC7657, November 2015, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7657./
[51] Fairhurst, G. and M. Welzl, "The Benefits of Using Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)", RFC 8087, DOI 10.17487/RFC8087, March 2017, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8087./
[52] Fairhurst, G., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and M. Kuehlewind, Ed., "Services Provided by IETF Transport Protocols and Congestion Control Mechanisms", RFC 8095, DOI 10.17487/RFC8095, March 2017, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8095./
[53] Welzl, M., Tuexen, M., and N. Khademi, "On the Usage of Transport Features Provided by IETF Transport Protocols", RFC 8303, DOI 10.17487/RFC8303, February 2018, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8303./
[54] Black, D., "Relaxing Restrictions on Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Experimentation", RFC 8311, DOI 10.17487/RFC8311, January 2018, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8311./
[55] Chown, T., Loughney, J., and T. Winters, "IPv6 Node Requirements", BCP 220, RFC 8504, DOI 10.17487/RFC8504, January 2019, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8504./
[56] Trammell, B. and M. Kuehlewind, "The Wire Image of a Network Protocol", RFC 8546, DOI 10.17487/RFC8546, April 2019, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8546./
[57] Bittau, A., Giffin, D., Handley, M., Mazieres, D., Slack, Q., and E. Smith, "Cryptographic Protection of TCP Streams (tcpcrypt)", RFC 8548, DOI 10.17487/RFC8548, May 2019, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8548./
[58] Hardie, T., Ed., "Transport Protocol Path Signals", RFC 8558, DOI 10.17487/RFC8558, April 2019, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8558./
[59] Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., Bonaventure, O., and C. Paasch, "TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple Addresses", RFC 8684, DOI 10.17487/RFC8684, March 2020, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8684./
[60] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000, DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000./
[61] Fairhurst, G. and C. Perkins, "Considerations around Transport Header Confidentiality, Network Operations, and the Evolution of Internet Transport Protocols", RFC 9065, DOI 10.17487/RFC9065, July 2021, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9065./
[62] IANA, "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Parameters", https://www.iana.org/assignments/tcp-parameters/./
[63] Gont, F., "Processing of IP Security/Compartment and Precedence Information by TCP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-seccomp-prec-00, 29 March 2012, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft- gont-tcpm-tcp-seccomp-prec-00./
[64] Gont, F. and D. Borman, "On the Validation of TCP Sequence Numbers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-gont- tcpm-tcp-seq-validation-04, 11 March 2019, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gont-tcpm- tcp-seq-validation-04./
[65] Touch, J. and W. M. Eddy, "TCP Extended Data Offset Option", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- tcpm-tcp-edo-12, 15 April 2022, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tcpm- tcp-edo-12./
[66] McQuistin, S., Band, V., Jacob, D., and C. Perkins, "Describing Protocol Data Units with Augmented Packet Header Diagrams", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- mcquistin-augmented-ascii-diagrams-10, 7 March 2022, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mcquistin- augmented-ascii-diagrams-10./
[67] Thomson, M. and T. Pauly, "Long-Term Viability of Protocol Extension Mechanisms", RFC 9170, DOI 10.17487/RFC9170, December 2021, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9170./
[68] Minshall, G., "A Suggested Modification to Nagle's Algorithm", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- minshall-nagle-01, 18 June 1999, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-minshall- nagle-01./
[69] Dalal, Y. and C. Sunshine, "Connection Management in Transport Protocols", Computer Networks, Vol. 2, No. 6, pp. 454-473, DOI 10.1016/0376-5075(78)90053-3, December 1978, https://doi.org/10.1016/0376-5075(78)90053-3./
[70] Faber, T., Touch, J., and W. Yui, "The TIME-WAIT state in TCP and Its Effect on Busy Servers", Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, pp. 1573-1583, DOI 10.1109/INFCOM.1999.752180, March 1999, https://doi.org/10.1109/INFCOM.1999.752180./
[71] Postel, J., "Comments on Action Items from the January Meeting", IEN 177, March 1981, https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien177.txt./
[72] "Segmentation Offloads", The Linux Kernel Documentation, https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/networking/ segmentation-offloads.html./
[73] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 573, RFC 793, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid573./
[74] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 574, RFC 793, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid574./
[75] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 700, RFC 793, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid700./
[76] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 701, RFC 793, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid701./
[77] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 1283, RFC 793, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid1283./
[78] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 1561, RFC 793, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid1561./
[79] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 1562, RFC 793, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid1562./
[80] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 1564, RFC 793, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid1564./
[81] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 1571, RFC 793, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid1571./
[82] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 1572, RFC 793, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid1572./
[83] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 2297, RFC 793, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2297./
[84] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 2298, RFC 793, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2298./
[85] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 2748, RFC 793, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2748./
[86] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 2749, RFC 793, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2749./
[87] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 2934, RFC 793, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2934./
[88] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 3213, RFC 793, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid3213./
[89] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 3300, RFC 793, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid3300./
[90] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 3301, RFC 793, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid3301./
[91] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 6222, RFC 793, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6222./
[92] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 572, RFC 793, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid572./
[93] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 575, RFC 793, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid575./
[94] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 1565, RFC 793, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid1565./
[95] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 1569, RFC 793, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid1569./
[96] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 2296, RFC 793, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2296./
[97] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 3305, RFC 793, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid3305./
[98] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 3602, RFC 793, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid3602./
[99] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 4772, RFC 5961, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4772./
[100] Gont, F., "ICMP Attacks against TCP", RFC 5927, DOI 10.17487/RFC5927, July 2010, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5927.
|
|
9.
|
Qualification of
ISOC/IETF:
|
|
|
9.1-9.6 Decisions of ITU Council to admit ISOC to participate in the work of the Sector (June 1995 and June 1996).
9.7 The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the RFCs when the need arises. Comments on RFCs and corresponding changes are accommodated through the existing standardization process.
9.8 Each revision of a given RFC has a different RFC number, so no confusion is possible. All RFCs always remain available on-line. An index of RFCs and their status may be found in the IETF archives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.
|
|
10.
|
Other (for any supplementary information):
|
|
|
If the Study Group decides to make the reference to the RFC, the reference should always be made by RFC number (and not by other designations such as STD, BCP, etc.). References should not be made to documents referred to as "Internet Drafts" or RFCs categorized as "Historic".
|
|
