[ih] STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)

[John Day]

> On Aug 19, 2022, at 15:19, touch--- via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> 8200 is to 2460 as 9293 is to 793 (speaking in “SAT” analogy terms)

Right, that is why I phrased my question as I did. To compare the number clarifications, changes, updates, whatever you want to call them between the first version of v6 and the current version.

And then trying to minimize the difference of comparison, the number of similar RFCs applying to IPv4 before it was ‘replaced’ by 2460. Clearly, IPv6 isn’t to IPv4 as 793 is to 9293, but I was assuming that modifications, updates, whatever you call them would pretty much stop with the advent of v6.  It was close as I thought one could come to a comparison.

9293 had done that exercise in its intro.

Just thought it would be interesting. The really hard work (folding in the changes for TCP had already been done.

> 
> As 8200 is to 791, there is no equivalent for 793/9273. There’s no “TCP-ng” per se. IPv6 isn’t backward compatible with IPv4, so you could argue that any of the new transport protocols (SCTP, QUIC) is “TCP-ng”, but there’s no version field in the TCP protocol (!) so there’s no opportunity to even officially call something TCP-ng rather than just a new transport.
> 
> Joe
> 
> —
> Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
> www.strayalpha.com
> 
>> On Aug 18, 2022, at 2:22 PM, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Indeed.
>> 
>> Does RFC8200 qualify as an equal amount of improvements from RFC791 ?
>> 
>> ;-) (yes unfair comparison).
>> 
>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 09:07:20AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
>>> I'm thinking this is a big deal, historically:
>>> 
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> Subject: STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
>>> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 06:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
>>> From: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org
>>> To: ietf-announce at ietf.org, rfc-dist at rfc-editor.org
>>> CC: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org, drafts-update-ref at iana.org, tcpm at ietf.org
>>> 
>>> A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
>>> 
>>>       STD 7
>>>       RFC 9293
>>> 
>>>       Title:      Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
>>>       Author:     W. Eddy, Ed.
>>>       Status:     Standards Track
>>>       Stream:     IETF
>>>       Date:       August 2022
>>>       Mailbox:    wes at mti-systems.com
>>>       Pages:      98
>>>       Obsoletes:  RFC 793, RFC 879, RFC 2873, RFC 6093,
>>>                   RFC 6429, RFC 6528, RFC 6691
>>>       Updates:    RFC 1011, RFC 1122, RFC 5961
>>>       See Also:   STD 7
>>> 
>>>       I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-28.txt
>>> 
>>>       URL:        https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9293
>>> 
>>>       DOI:        10.17487/RFC9293
>>> 
>>> This document specifies the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP).  TCP
>>> is an important transport-layer protocol in the Internet protocol
>>> stack, and it has continuously evolved over decades of use and growth
>>> of the Internet.  Over this time, a number of changes have been made
>>> to TCP as it was specified in RFC 793, though these have only been
>>> documented in a piecemeal fashion.  This document collects and brings
>>> those changes together with the protocol specification from RFC 793.
>>> This document obsoletes RFC 793, as well as RFCs 879, 2873, 6093,
>>> 6429, 6528, and 6691 that updated parts of RFC 793.  It updates RFCs
>>> 1011 and 1122, and it should be considered as a replacement for the
>>> portions of those documents dealing with TCP requirements.  It also
>>> updates RFC 5961 by adding a small clarification in reset handling
>>> while in the SYN-RECEIVED state.  The TCP header control bits from
>>> RFC 793 have also been updated based on RFC 3168.
>>> 
>>> This document is a product of the TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group of the IETF.
>>> 
>>> This is now an Internet Standard.
>>> 
>>> STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track
>>> protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions
>>> for improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the Official
>>> Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the
>>> standardization state and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this
>>> memo is unlimited.
>>> 
>>> This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>>> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist
>>> 
>>> For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search
>>> For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk
>>> 
>>> Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
>>> author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org.  Unless
>>> specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
>>> unlimited distribution.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The RFC Editor Team
>>> Association Management Solutions, LLC
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IETF-Announce mailing list
>>> IETF-Announce at ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>>> -- 
>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> 
>> -- 
>> ---
>> tte at cs.fau.de
>> -- 
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history