--- 1/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt 2006-02-05 02:07:32.000000000 +0100 +++ 2/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-02.txt 2006-02-05 02:07:32.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,674 +1,168 @@ Internet Engineering Task Force Rute Sofia Internet Draft Philip J. Nesser II -Expiration Date: August 2003 Nesser & Nesser Consulting - February 2003 +Expiration Date: February 2004 Nesser & Nesser Consulting + September 2003 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Application Area Standards - draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt + draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-02.txt Status of this Memo - This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with - all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. +This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all +provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. + Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. + Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." + The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. - To view the list Internet-Draft Shadow Directories, see + +The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Abstract The transition from an all IPv4 network to an all IPv6 network requires several interim steps, being one of them the evolution of - current IPv4 dependent protocols to protocols that are independent - of the type of IP addresses used. Hence, it is hoped that protocols - will be redesigned and re-implemented to become network address - independent, or at least to dually support IPv4 and IPv6. +current IPv4 dependent specifications to a format independent of the +type of IP addressing schema used. Hence, it is hoped that +specifications will be re-designed and re-implemented to become +network address independent, or at least to dually support IPv4 and +IPv6. To achieve that step, it is necessary to survey and document all IPv4 dependencies experienced by current standards - Full, Draft, and + Proposed - and Experimental RFCs. Hence, this document describes IPv4 addressing dependencies that deployed IETF Application Area documented Standards may experience. Contents -1 Introduction 15 +1 Introduction 2 -2 Document Organization 15 +2 Document Organization 2 -3 Full Standards 15 - 3.1 RFC821, RFC1869: SMTP Service Extensions . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 3.1.1 RFC 821 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 3.1.2 RFC 1869 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 3.2 RFC 822: Standard for the format of ARPA Internet - text messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 3.3 RFC854, RFC855: Telnet Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 3.3.1 RFC 854 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 3.3.2 RFC 855 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 3.4 RFC 856: Binary Transmission Telnet Option . . . . . . . . . 17 - 3.5 RFC 857: Echo Telnet Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 3.6 RFC 858: Suppress Go Ahead Telnet Option . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 3.7 RFC 859: Status Telnet Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 3.8 RFC 860: Timing Mark Telnet Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 3.9 RFC 861: Extended Options List Telnet Option . . . . . . . . 18 - 3.10 RFC 862: Echo Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 3.11 RFC 863: Discard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 3.12 RFC 864: Character Generator Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 3.13 RFC 865: Quote of the Day Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 3.14 RFC 866: Active Users Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 3.15 RFC 867: Daytime Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 3.16 RFC 868: Time Server Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 3.17 RFC 959: File Transfer Protocol (FTP) . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 3.18 RFC 974: Mail Routing and the Domain System . . . . . . . . 19 - 3.19 RFC 1350: Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP) . . . . . . 19 - 3.20 RFC 1939: Post Office Protocol - Version 3 (POP3) . . . . . 19 - 3.21 RFC 2920: SMTP Service Extension for Command - Pipelining (SMTP-pipe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 +3 Full Standards 3 -4 Draft Standards 19 - 4.1 RFC 954: NICNAME/WHOIS (NICNAME) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - 4.2 RFC 1184: Telnet Linemode Option (TOPT-LINE) . . . . . . . . 20 - 4.3 RFC 1288: The Finger User Information Protocol - (FINGER) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - 4.4 RFC 1305: Network Time Protocol (Version 3) - Specification, Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - 4.5 RFC 1575: An Echo Function for CLNP (ISO 8473) - (ISO-TS-ECH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - 4.6 RFC 1652: SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIME - Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - 4.7 RFC 1777: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol - (LDAP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - 4.8 RFC 1778: The String Representation of Standard - Attribute Syntaxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - 4.9 RFC 1832: eXternal Data Representation Standard - (XDR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - 4.10 RFC 2045: Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions - (MIME), Part One: Format of Internet Message - Bodies (MIME) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - 4.11 RFC 2046 MIME, Part Two: Media Types (MIME- - MEDIA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - 4.12 RFC 2047: MIME, Part Three: Message Header - Extensions for Non-ASCII Text (MIME-MSG) . . . . . . . 22 - 4.13 RFC 2049: MIME Part Five: Conformance Criteria - and Examples (MIME-CONF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - 4.14 RFC 2279: UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO - 10646 (UTF-8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 - 4.15 RFC 2347: TFTP Option Extension (TFTP-Ext) . . . . . . . . 23 - 4.16 RFC 2348: TFTP Blocksize Option (TFTP-Blk) . . . . . . . . 23 - 4.17 RFC 2349: TFTP Timeout Interval and Transfer Size - Options (TFTP-Opt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 - 4.18 RFC 2355: TN3270 Enhancements (TN3270E) . . . . . . . . . . 23 - 4.19 RFC 2396: Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): - Generic Syntax (URI-GEN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 - 4.20 RFC 2616: Hypertext Transfer Protocol ¡ HTTP/1.1 - (HTTP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 +4 Draft Standards 6 -5 Proposed Standards 24 - 5.1 RFC 698: Telnet extended ASCII option (TOPT-EXT) . . . . . 25 - 5.2 RFC 726: Remote Controlled Transmission and - Echoing Telnet option (TOPT-REM) . . . . . . . . . . . 25 - 5.3 RFC 727: Telnet logout option (TOPT-LOGO) . . . . . . . . . 25 - 5.4 RFC 735: Revised Telnet byte macro option (TOPT- - BYTE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 - 5.5 RFC 736: Telnet SUPDUP option (TOPT-SUP) . . . . . . . . . . 25 - 5.6 RFC 749: Telnet SUPDUP-Output option (TOPT- - SUPO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 - 5.7 RFC 779: Telnet send-location option (TOPT-SNDL) . . . . . . 25 - 5.8 RFC 885: Telnet end of record option (TOPT-EOR) . . . . . . 25 - 5.9 RFC 927: TACACS user identification Telnet option - (TOPT-TACAC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 - 5.10 RFC 933: Output marking Telnet option (TOPT-OM) . . . . . . 26 - 5.11 RFC 946: Telnet terminal location number option - (TOPT-TLN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 - 5.12 RFC 977: Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) 26 - 5.13 RFC 1041: Telnet 3270 regime option (TOPT-3270) . . . . . . 26 - 5.14 RFC 1043: Telnet Data Entry Terminal option: - DODIIS implementation (TOPT-DATA) . . . . . . . . . . 26 - 5.15 RFC 1053: Telnet X.3 PAD option (TOPT-X.3) . . . . . . . . 26 - 5.16 RFC 1073: Telnet window size option (TOPT-NAWS) . . . . . . 27 - 5.17 RFC 1079: Telnet terminal speed option (TOPT-TS) . . . . . 27 - 5.18 RFC 1091: Telnet terminal-type option (TOPT-TERM) . . . . . 27 - 5.19 RFC 1096: Telnet X display location option (TOPT- - XDL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 - 5.20 RFC 1274: The COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema . . . . . . 27 - 5.21 RFC 1276: Replication and Distributed Operationsi extensions - to provide an Internet Directory using X.500 . . . . . 27 - 5.22 RFC 1314: A File Format for the Exchange of - Images in the Internet (NETFAX) . . . . . . . . . . . 27 - 5.23 RFC 1328: X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading . . . . . . . . . 27 - 5.24 RFC 1372: Telnet Remote Flow Control Option - (TOPT-RFC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 - 5.25 RFC 1415: FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification - (FTP-FTAM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 - 5.26 RFC 1494: Equivalences between 1988 X.400 and - RFC-822 Message Bodies (Equiv) . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 - 5.27 RFC 1496: Rules for downgrading messages from - X.400/88 to X.400/84 when MIME content-types are - present in the messages (HARPOON) . . . . . . . . . . 28 - 5.28 RFC 1502: X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets . . . . . . 28 - 5.29 RFC 1572: Telnet Environment Option (TOPT- - ENVIR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 - 5.30 RFC 1648: Postmaster Convention for X.400 - Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 - 5.31 RFC 1738: Uniform Resource Locators (URL) (URL) 28 - 5.32 RFC 1740: MIME Encapsulation of Macintosh Files - - MacMIME (MacMIME) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 - 5.33 RFC 1767: MIME Encapsulation of EDI Objects - (MIME-EDI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 - 5.34 RFC 1781: Using the OSI Directory to Achieve User - Friendly Naming (OSI-Dir) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 - 5.35 RFC 1798: Connection-less Lightweight X.500 - Directory Access Protocol (CLDAP) . . . . . . . . . . 29 - 5.36 RFC 1808: Relative Uniform Resource Locators (URL) 30 - 5.37 RFC 1835: Architecture of the WHOIS++ service - (WHOIS++) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 - 5.38 RFC 1891: SMTP Service Extension for Delivery - Status Notifications (SMTP-DSN) . . . . . . . . . . . 30 - 5.39 RFC 1892: The Multipart/Report Content Type - for the Reporting of Mail System Administrative - Messages (MIME-RPT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 - 5.40 RFC 1893: Enhanced Mail System Status Codes - (EMS-CODE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 - 5.41 RFC 1894: An Extensible Message Format for - Delivery Status Notifications (DSN) . . . . . . . . . 30 - 5.42 RFC 1913: Architecture of the Whois++ Index - Service,WHOIS++A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 - 5.43 RFC 1914: How to Interact with a Whois++ Mesh - (WHOIS++) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 - 5.44 RFC 1985: SMTP Service Extension for Remote - Message Queue Starting (SMTP-ETRN) . . . . . . . . . 32 - 5.45 RFC 2017: Definition of the URL MIME External- - Body Access-Type (URL-ACC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 - 5.46 RFC 2034: SMTP Service Extension for Returning - Enhanced Error Codes (SMTP-ENH) . . . . . . . . . . . 33 - 5.47 RFC 2056: Uniform Resource Locators for Z39.50 - (URLZ39.50) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 - 5.48 RFC 2060: Internet Message Access Protocol - - Version 4rev1 (IMAPV4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 - 5.49 RFC 2077: The Model Primary Content Type - for Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME- - MODEL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 - 5.50 RFC 2079: Definition of an X.500 Attribute Type - and an Object Class to Hold Uniform Resource - Identifiers (URIs) (URI-ATT) . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 - 5.51 RFC 2086: IMAP4 ACL extension (IMAP4-ACL) . . . . . . . . 33 - 5.52 RFC 2087: IMAP4 QUOTA extension (IMAP4-QUO) . . . . . . . 33 - 5.53 RFC 2088: IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals - (IMAP4-LIT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 - 5.54 RFC 2122: VEMMI URL Specification (VEMMI- - URL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 - 5.55 RFC 2141: URN Syntax (URN-SYNTAX) . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 - 5.56 RFC 2142 "Mailbox Names for Common Services, - Roles and Functions" (MAIL-SERV) . . . . . . . . . . 34 - 5.57 RFC 2156: MIXER (Mime Internet X.400 - Enhanced Relay): Mapping between X.400 and - RFC 822/MIME (MIXER) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 - 5.58 RFC 2157: Mapping between X.400 and RFC- - 822/MIME Message Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 - 5.59 RFC 2158: X.400 Image Body Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 - 5.60 RFC 2159: A MIME Body Part for FAX . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 - 5.61 RFC 2160: Carrying PostScript in X.400 and MIME 35 - 5.62 RFC 2163: Using the Internet DNS to Distribute - MIXER Conformant Global Address Mapping - (MCGAM) (DNS-MCGAM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 - 5.63 RFC 2164: Use of an X.500/LDAP directory to - support MIXER address mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 - 5.64 RFC 2165: Service Location Protocol (SLP) . . . . . . . . 35 - 5.65 RFC 2177: IMAP4 IDLE command (IMAP4-IDLE) 37 - 5.66 RFC 2183: Communicating Presentation - Information in Internet Messages: The Content- - Disposition Header Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 - 5.67 RFC 2192: IMAP URL Scheme (IMAP-URL) . . . . . . . . . . . 37 - 5.68 RFC 2193: IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals (IMAP4MAIL) . . . . . . . 37 - 5.69 RFC 2218: A Common Schema for the Internet - White Pages Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 - 5.70 RFC 2221: IMAP4 Login Referrals (IMAP4LOGIN) . . . . . . . 38 - 5.71 RFC 2227: Simple Hit-Metering and Usage- - Limiting for HTTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 - 5.72 RFC 2231: MIME Parameter Value and Encoded - Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and - Continuations (MIME-EXT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 - 5.73 RFC 2234: Augmented BNF for Syntax - Specifications: ABNF (ABNF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 - 5.74 RFC 2244: Application Configuration Access - Protocol (ACAP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 - 5.75 RFC 2254 The String Representation of LDAP - Search Filters (STR-LDAP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 - 5.76 RFC 2255: The LDAP URL Format (LDAP-URL) . . . . . . . . . 39 - 5.77 RFC 2247 Using Domains in LDAP/X.500 - Distinguished Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 - 5.78 RFC 2251 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol - (v3) (LDAPV3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 - 5.79 RFC 2252: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol - (v3): Attribute Syntax Definitions (LDAP3-ATD) . . . . 39 - 5.80 RFC 2253: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol - (v3): UTF-8 String Representation of Distinguished - Names (LDAP3-UTF8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 - 5.81 RFC 2256: A Summary of the X.500(96) User - Schema for use with LDAPv3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 - 5.82 RFC 2293: Representing Tables and Subtrees in the - X.500 Directory (SUBTABLE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 - 5.83 RFC 2294: Representing the O/R Address hierarchy - in the X.500 Directory Information Tree (OR-ADD) . . . 40 - 5.84 RFC 2298: An Extensible Message Format for - Message Disposition Notifications (EMF-MDN) . . . . . 40 - 5.85 RFC 2301: File Format for Internet Fax (FFIF) . . . . . . . 40 - 5.86 RFC 2302: Tag Image File Format (TIFF) - - image/tiff MIME Sub-type Registration (TIFF) . . . . . 40 - 5.87 RFC 2303: Minimal PSTN address format in Internet - Mail (MIN-PSTN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 - 5.88 RFC 2304: Minimal FAX address format in Internet - Mail (MINFAX-IM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 - 5.89 RFC 2305: A Simple Mode of Facsimile Using - Internet Mail (SMFAX-IM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 - 5.90 RFC 2334: Server Cache Synchronization Protocol - (SCSP) (SCSP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 - 5.91 RFC 2342: IMAP4 Namespace (IMAP4NAME) . . . . . . . . . . . 41 - 5.92 RFC 2359: IMAP4 UIDPLUS extension - (IMAP4UIDPL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 - 5.93 RFC 2368: The mailto URL scheme (URLMAILTO) 41 - 5.94 RFC 2369: The Use of URLs as Meta-Syntax - for Core Mail List Commands and their Transport - through Message Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 - 5.95 RFC 2384: POP URL Scheme (POP-URL) . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 - 5.96 RFC 2387: The MIME Multipart/Related Content- - type (MIME-RELAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 - 5.97 RFC 2388: Returning Values from Forms: - multipart/form-data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 - 5.98 RFC 2389: Feature negotiation mechanism for the - File Transfer Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 - 5.99 RFC 2392: Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform - Resource Locators (CIDMID-URL) . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 - 5.100 RFC 2397: The "data" URL scheme (DATA-URL) . . . . . . . . 42 - 5.101 RFC 2421: Voice Profile for Internet Mail - version - 2 (MIME-VP2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 - 5.102 RFC 2422: Toll Quality Voice - 32 kbit/s ADPCM - MIME Sub-type Registration (MIME-ADPCM) . . . . . . . 43 - 5.103 RFC 2423 VPIM Voice Message MIME Sub-type - Registration (MIME-VPIM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 - 5.104 RFC 2424: Content Duration MIME Header - Definition (CONT-DUR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 - 5.105 RFC 2425: A MIME Content-Type for Directory - Information (TXT-DIR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 - 5.106 RFC 2426: vCard MIME Directory Profile (MIME- - VCARD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 - 5.107 RFC 2428: FTP Extensions for IPv6 and NATs . . . . . . . . 43 - 5.108 RFC 2445: Internet Calendaring and Scheduling - Core Object Specification (iCalendar) (ICALENDAR) . . 43 - 5.109 RFC 2446: iCalendar Transport-Independent - Interoperability Protocol (iTIP) Scheduling Events, - BusyTime, To-dos and Journal Entries (ITIP) . . . . . 44 - 5.110 RFC 2447: iCalendar Message-Based - Interoperability Protocol (iMIP) (IMIP) . . . . . . . 45 - 5.111 RFC 2449: POP3 Extension Mechanism (POP3-EXT) . . . . . . 45 - 5.112 RFC 2476: Message Submission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 - 5.113 RFC 2480: Gateways and MIME Security Multiparts . . . . . 45 - 5.114 RFC 2518: HTTP Extensions for Distributed - Authoring ¡ WEBDAV (WEBDAV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 - 5.115 RFC 2530: Indicating Supported Media Features - Using Extensions to DSN and MDN . . . . . . . . . . . 45 - 5.116 RFC 2532: Extended Facsimile Using Internet Mail . . . . . 45 - 5.117 RFC 2533: A Syntax for Describing Media Feature - Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 - 5.118 RFC 2534: Media Features for Display, Print, and Fax . . . 46 - 5.119 RFC 2554: SMTP Service Extension for - Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 - 5.120 RFC 2557: MIME Encapsulation of Aggregate - Documents, such as HTML (MHTML) (MHTML) . . . . . . . 46 - 5.121 RFC 2589: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol - (v3): Extensions for Dynamic Directory Services - (LDAPv3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 - 5.122 RFC 2595: Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP . . . . . . . 46 - 5.123 RFC 2596 Use of Language Codes in LDAP . . . . . . . . . . 46 - 5.124 RFC 2608: Service Location Protocol, Version 2 (SLP) . . . 47 - 5.125 RFC 2609: Service Templates and Service: Schemes . . . . . 48 - 5.126 RFC 2640: Internationalization of the File Transfer - Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 - 5.127 RFC 2645: ON-DEMAND MAIL RELAY (ODMR) - SMTP with Dynamic IP Addresses (ODMR-SMTP) . . . . . . 48 - 5.128 RFC 2646: The Text/Plain Format Parameter . . . . . . . . 48 - 5.129 RFC 2651: The Architecture of the Common - Indexing Protocol (CIP) (CIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 - 5.130 RFC 2652: MIME Object Definitions for the - Common Indexing Protocol (CIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 - 5.131 RFC 2653: CIP Transport Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 - 5.132 RFC 2732: Format for Literal IPv6 Addresses in URL's . . . 49 - 5.133 RFC 2738: Corrections to "A Syntax for Describing - Media Feature Sets" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 - 5.134 RFC 2739: Calendar Attributes for vCard and LDAP 49 - 5.135 RFC 2806: URLs for Telephone Calls . . . . . . . . . . . 49 - 5.136 RFC 2846: GSTN Address Element Extensions in - E-mail Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 - 5.137 RFC 2849: The LDAP Data Interchange Format - (LDIF) - Technical Specification (LDIF) . . . . . . . 49 - 5.138 RFC 2852: Deliver By SMTP Service Extension . . . . . . . 49 - 5.139 RFC 2879: Content Feature Schema for Internet Fax - (V2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 - 5.140 RFC 2891: LDAP Control Extension for Server Side - Sorting of Search Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 - 5.141 RFC 2910: Internet Printing Protocol/1.1: Encoding - and Transport (IPP-E-T) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 - 5.142 RFC 2911: Internet Printing Protocol/1.1: Model - and Semantics (IPP-M-S) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 - 5.143 RFC 2912: Indicating Media Features for MIME - Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 - 5.144 RFC 2913: MIME Content Types in Media Feature - Expressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 - 5.145 RFC 2919: List-Id: A Structured Field and - Namespace for the Identification of Mailing Lists . . 50 - 5.146 RFC 2938: Identifying Composite Media Features . . . . . . 50 - 5.147 RFC 2965: HTTP State Management Mechanism . . . . . . . . 50 - 5.148 RFC 2971: IMAP4 ID extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 - 5.149 RFC 2987: Registration of Charset and Languages - Media Features Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 - 5.150 RFC 3009: Registration of parityfec MIME types . . . . . . 51 - 5.151 RFC 3017: XML DTD for Roaming Access Phone - Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 - 5.152 RFC 3023: XML Media Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 - 5.153 RFC 3028: Sieve: A Mail Filtering Language . . . . . . . . 52 - 5.154 RFC 3030: SMTP Service Extensions for - Transmission of Large and Binary MIME Messages . . . . 52 - 5.155 RFC 3049: TN3270E Service Location and Session - Balancing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 - 5.156 RFC 3059: Attribute List Extension for the Service - Location Protocol (SLPv2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 - 5.157 RFC 3080: The Blocks Extensible Exchange - Protocol Core (BEEP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 - 5.158 RFC 3081: Mapping the BEEP Core onto TCP . . . . . . . . . 52 - 5.159 RFC 3111: Service Location Protocol Modifications - for IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 +5 Proposed Standards 10 -6 Experimental RFCs 53 - 6.1 RFC 909: Loader Debugger Protocol (LDP) . . . . . . . . . . 53 - 6.2 RFC 1143: The Q Method of Implementing - TELNET Option Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 - 6.3 RFC 1153: Digest message format (DMF-MAIL) . . . . . . . . . 53 - 6.4 RFC 1159: Message Send Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 - 6.5 RFC 1165: Network Time Protocol (NTP) over the - OSI Remote Operations Service (NTP-OSI) . . . . . . . 53 - 6.6 RFC 1176: Interactive Mail Access Protocol: - Version 2 (IMAP2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 - 6.7 RFC 1204: Message Posting Protocol (MPP) (MPP) . . . . . . . 54 - 6.8 RFC 1235: Coherent File Distribution Protocol (CFDP) . . . . 54 - 6.9 RFC 1279: X.500 and Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 - 6.10 RFC 1312: Message Send Protocol 2 (MSP2) . . . . . . . . . 55 - 6.11 RFC 1339: Remote Mail Checking Protocol (RMCP) . . . . . . 55 - 6.12 RFC 1440: SIFT/UFT: Sender-Initiated/Unsolicited - File Transfer (SIFT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 - 6.13 RFC 1459: Internet Relay Chat Protocol (IRCP) . . . . . . . 55 - 6.14 RFC 1465: Routing Coordination for X.400 MHS - Services Within a Multi Protocol / Multi Network - Environment Table Format V3 for Static Routing . . . . 56 - 6.15 RFC 1505: Encoding Header Field for Internet - Messages (EHF-MAIL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 - 6.16 RFC 1528: Principles of Operation for the TPC.INT - Subdomain: Remote Printing ¡ Technical Procedures - (REM-PRINT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 - 6.17 RFC 1608: Representing IP Information in the X.500 - Directory (X500-DIR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 - 6.18 RFC 1609: Charting Networks in the X.500 - Directory (X500-CHART) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 - 6.19 RFC 1639: FTP Operation Over Big Address - Records (FOOBAR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 - 6.20 RFC 1641 Using Unicode with MIME (MIME-UNI) . . . . . . . . 56 - 6.21 RFC 1756: Remote Write Protocol - Version 1.0 (RWP) . . . . 56 - 6.22 RFC 1801: MHS use of the X.500 Directory to - support MHS Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 - 6.23 RFC 1804: Schema Publishing in X.500 Directory . . . . . . 57 - 6.24 RFC 1806: Communicating Presentation - Information in Internet Messages: The Content- - Disposition Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 - 6.25 RFC 1845: SMTP Service Extension for - Checkpoint/Restart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 - 6.26 RFC 1846: SMTP 521 Reply Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 - 6.27 RFC 1873: Message/External-Body Content-ID - Access Type (CONT-MT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 - 6.28 RFC 1874: SGML Media Types (SGML-MT) . . . . . . . . . . . 57 - 6.29 RFC 1986: Experiments with a Simple File Transfer - Protocol for Radio Links using Enhanced Trivial File - Transfer Protocol (ETFTP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 - 6.30 RFC 2016: Uniform Resource Agents (URAs) (URAS) 58 - 6.31 RFC 2066: TELNET CHARSET Option (TOPT- - CHARS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 - 6.32 RFC 2075: IP Echo Host Service (IP-Echo) . . . . . . . . . 58 - 6.33 RFC 2090: TFTP Multicast Option (TFTP-MULTI) . . . . . . . 58 - 6.34 RFC 2120: Managing the X.500 Root Naming - Context (X.500-NAME) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 - 6.35 RFC 2161: A MIME Body Part for ODA (MIME- - ODA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 - 6.36 RFC 2162: MaXIM-11 - Mapping between X.400 / - Internet mail and Mail-11 mail (MAP-MAIL) . . . . . . 59 - 6.37 RFC 2168: Resolution of Uniform Resource - Identifiers using the Domain Name System . . . . . . . 59 - 6.38 RFC 2169: A Trivial Convention for using HTTP in - URN Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 - 6.39 RFC 2217: Telnet Com Port Control Option (TOPT- - COMPO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 - 6.40 RFC 2295: Transparent Content Negotiation in - HTTP (TCN-HTTP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 - 6.41 RFC 2296: HTTP Remote Variant Selection - Algorithm ¡ RVSA/1.0 (HTTP-RVSA) . . . . . . . . . . . 59 - 6.42 RFC 2307: An Approach for Using LDAP as a - Network Information Service (LDAP-NIS) . . . . . . . . 59 - 6.43 RFC 2310: The Safe Response Header Field . . . . . . . . . 60 - 6.44 RFC 2483: URI Resolution Services Necessary for - URN Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 - 6.45 RFC 2567: Design Goals for an Internet Printing - Protocol (IPP-DG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 - 6.46 RFC 2568: Rationale for the Structure of the Model - and Protocol for the Internet Printing Protocol (IPP- - RAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 - 6.47 RFC 2569: Mapping between LPD and IPP Protocols . . . . . . 61 - 6.48 RFC 2649: An LDAP Control and Schema for - Holding Operation Signatures . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 - 6.49 RFC 2654: A Tagged Index Object for use in the - Common Indexing Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 - 6.50 RFC 2655: CIP Index Object Format for SOIF Objects 61 - 6.51 RFC 2656: Registration Procedures for SOIF - Template Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 - 6.52 RFC 2657: LDAPv2 Client vs. the Index Mesh . . . . . . . . 61 - 6.53 RFC 2756: Hyper Text Caching Protocol - (HTCP/0.0) (HTCP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 - 6.54 RFC 2774: An HTTP Extension Framework . . . . . . . . . . . 62 - 6.55 RFC 2974: Session Announcement Protocol (SAP) . . . . . . . 62 - 6.56 RFC 3018: Unified Memory Space Protocol - Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 - 6.57 RFC 3082: Notification and Subscription for SLP . . . . . . 62 - 6.58 RFC 3088: OpenLDAP Root Service An - experimental LDAP referral service . . . . . . . . . . 63 +6 Experimental RFCs 38 -7 Summary of Results 63 - 7.1 Full Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 - 7.1.1 RFC 959: STD 9 File Transfer Protocol . . . . . 63 - 7.1.2 RFC 821: STD 10 Simple Mail Transfer - Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 - 7.1.3 RFC 822: STD 11 Standard for the format of - ARPA Internet Text Messages . . . . . . . . . . 64 - 7.1.4 RFC 1305: STD 12 Network Time Protocol . . . . . 64 - 7.2 Draft Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 - 7.2.1 RFC 1305: Network Time Protocol (NTP) . . . . . 64 - 7.2.2 RFC 2396: Uniform Resource Identifiers - (URI) Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 - 7.2.3 RFC 2616: HTTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 - 7.3 Proposed Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 - 7.3.1 RFC 946: Telnet Terminal LOC . . . . . . . . . . 64 - 7.3.2 RFC 1738: Uniform Resource Locators (URL) . . . 65 - 7.3.3 RFC 2384: POP3 URL Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . 65 - 7.3.4 RFC 2608:SLP v2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 - 7.3.5 RFC 3017: XML DTP For Roaming Access - Phone Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 - 7.4 Experimental RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 - 7.4.1 RFC 1235:The Coherent File Distribution - Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 - 7.4.2 RFC 1459: IRC Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 - 7.4.3 RFC 1986: Simple File Transfer Using - Enhanced TFTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 - 7.4.4 RFC 2090: TFTP Multicast Option . . . . . . . . 65 - 7.4.5 RFC 2307: Using LDAP as a NIS (RFC 2307) . . . 66 +7 Summary of Results 50 -8 Acknowledgements 66 +8 Acknowledgements 52 -9 Security Considerations 66 +9 Security Considerations 52 1 Introduction The exhaustive documentation of IPv4 addresses usage in currently - deployed IETF documented standards has now been broken - into seven documents conforming to current IETF main areas - - Applications, Internet, Operations and Management, Routing, Sub- - IP, and Transport. A general overview of the documentation, as well - as followed methodology and historical perspective can be found in - [1]. - This document represents one of the seven blocks, and its scope - is limited to the use of IPv4 addresses in IETF Application Area - documented Standards. +deployed IETF documented standards has now been broken into +seven documents conforming to current IETF main areas, i.e., +Applications, Internet, Operations and Management, Routing, Sub-IP, +and Transport. A general overview of the documentation, as well as +followed methodology and historical perspective can be found in [1]. +This document represents one of the seven blocks, and its scope is +limited to surveying possible IPv4 dependencies in IETF Application +Area documented Standards. 2 Document Organization The remainder sections are organized as follows. Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 describe, respectively, the raw analysis of Internet Standards [3]: + Full, Draft and Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs. For each section, standards are analysed by their RFC sequential order, - i.e., from RFC 1 to RFC 3247. Also, the comments presented for - each RFC are raw in their nature, i.e., each RFC is simply analysed - in terms of possible IPv4 addressing dependencies. Finally, Section - 7 presents a global overview of the data described in the previous +i.e., from RFC 1 to RFC 3200. Also, the comments presented for +each RFC are raw in their nature, i.e., each RFC is simply analysed in +terms of possible IPv4 addressing dependencies. Finally, Section 7 +presents a global overview of the data described in the previous sections, and suggests possible future steps. 3 Full Standards - Internet Full Standards attain the highest level of maturity on - the standards track process. They are commonly referred to as +Internet Full Standards attain the highest level of maturity on the +standards track process. They are commonly referred to as "Standards", and represent fully technical mature specifications, widely implemented and used throughout the Internet. -3.1 RFC821, RFC1869: SMTP Service Extensions - -3.1.1 RFC 821 - - Section 4.1.2 "Command Syntax" contains the following clear IPv4 - reference: - - " ::= "." "." "." " - - Also, the following paragraph needs to be re-written, to eliminate - the explicit reference to a 32-bit ARPA Internet Address in four - 8-bit fields: - - "Sometimes a host is not known to the translation function and - communication is blocked. To bypass this barrier two numeric forms - are also allowed for host 'names'. One form is a decimal integer - prefixed by a pound sign, "#", which indicates the number is the - address of the host. Another form is four small decimal integers - separated by dots and enclosed by brackets, e.g., "[123.255.37.2]". - -3.1.2 RFC 1869 - - There are no IPv4 dependencies in RFC 1869. - -3.2 RFC 822: Standard for the format of ARPA Internet - text messages - - There are some IPv4 dependencies in RFC 822, which needs to be - re-written. Section 6.2.3. (Domain Terms) contains the following - text: - - "A domain-ref must be THE official name of a registry, network, - or host. It is a symbolic reference, within a name sub-domain. At - times, it is necessary to bypass standard mechanisms for resolving - such references, using more primitive information, such as a network - host address rather than its associated host name. - To permit such references, this standard provides the domain-literal - construct. Its contents must conform with the needs of the sub- - domain in which it is interpreted. - Domain-literals which refer to domains within the ARPA Internet - specify 32-bit Internet addresses, in four 8-bit fields noted in - decimal, as described in Request for Comments #820,"Assigned Numbers." - For example: - [10.0.3.19] - Note: THE USE OF DOMAIN-LITERALS IS STRONGLY - DISCOURAGED. - It is permitted only as a means of bypassing temporary system - limitations, - such as name tables which are not complete." - -3.3 RFC854, RFC855: Telnet Protocol - -3.3.1 RFC 854 +3.1 RFC854: Telnet Protocol Specification - There are no IPv4 dependencies in RFC 854. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -3.3.2 RFC 855 +3.2 RFC 855: Telnet Option Specifications - There are no IPv4 dependencies in RFC 855. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -3.4 RFC 856: Binary Transmission Telnet Option +3.3 RFC 856: Binary Transmission Telnet Option - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -3.5 RFC 857: Echo Telnet Option +3.4 RFC 857: Echo Telnet Option - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -3.6 RFC 858: Suppress Go Ahead Telnet Option +3.5 RFC 858: Suppress Go Ahead Telnet Option - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -3.7 RFC 859: Status Telnet Option +3.6 RFC 859: Status Telnet Option - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -3.8 RFC 860: Timing Mark Telnet Option +3.7 RFC 860: Timing Mark Telnet Option - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -3.9 RFC 861: Extended Options List Telnet Option +3.8 RFC 861: Extended Options List Telnet Option - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -3.10 RFC 862: Echo Protocol +3.9 RFC 862: Echo Protocol - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -3.11 RFC 863: Discard Protocol +3.10 RFC 863: Discard Protocol - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -3.12 RFC 864: Character Generator Protocol +3.11 RFC 864: Character Generator Protocol - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -3.13 RFC 865: Quote of the Day Protocol +3.12 RFC 865: Quote of the Day Protocol - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -3.14 RFC 866: Active Users Protocol +3.13 RFC 866: Active Users Protocol - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -3.15 RFC 867: Daytime Protocol +3.14 RFC 867: Daytime Protocol - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -3.16 RFC 868: Time Server Protocol +3.15 RFC 868: Time Server Protocol - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -3.17 RFC 959: File Transfer Protocol (FTP) +3.16 RFC 959: File Transfer Protocol Section 4.1.2 (TRANSFER PARAMETER COMMANDS) describes the port command using the following format: "A port command would be: PORT h1,h2,h3,h4,p1,p2 where h1 is the high order 8 bits of the internet host address." This is a clear reference to an IPv4 address. In sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2, on reply codes, the code: @@ -677,488 +171,426 @@ also needs to be reworked for IPv6 addressing. Also, Section 5.3.2 (FTP COMMAND ARGUMENTS) contains: " ::= ,,, ::= , ::= any decimal integer 1 through 255" This needs to be solved to transition to IPv6. -3.18 RFC 974: Mail Routing and the Domain System +3.17 RFC 1350: Trivial File Transfer Protocol - Section Examples uses the well established A records, whose clear - IPv4 dependency has already been investigated in [2]. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -3.19 RFC 1350: Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP) +3.18 RFC 1870: SMTP Service Extension for Message Size + Declaration - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -3.20 RFC 1939: Post Office Protocol - Version 3 (POP3) +3.19 RFC 1939: Post Office Protocol - Version 3 - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -3.21 RFC 2920: SMTP Service Extension for Command - Pipelining (SMTP-pipe) +3.20 RFC 2920: SMTP Service Extension for Command Pipelining - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 4 Draft Standards - Draft Standards is the nomenclature given to specifications that are - on the penultimate maturity level of the IETF standards track process. +Draft Standards is the nomenclature given to specifications that are on +the penultimate maturity level of the IETF standards track process. They are considered to be final specifications, which may only experience changes to solve specific problems found. A specification is only considered to be a Draft Standard if there are at least two known independent and interoperable implementations. Hence, Draft Standards are usually quite mature and widely used. -4.1 RFC 954: NICNAME/WHOIS (NICNAME) +4.1 RFC 954: NICNAME/WHOIS - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -4.2 RFC 1184: Telnet Linemode Option (TOPT-LINE) +4.2 RFC 1184: Telnet Linemode Option - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 4.3 RFC 1288: The Finger User Information Protocol - (FINGER) - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -4.4 RFC 1305: Network Time Protocol (Version 3) - Specification, Implementation +4.4 RFC 1305: Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Specification, + Implementation and Analysis Section 3.2.1 (Common Variables) provides the following variable definitions: "Peer Address (peer.peeraddr, pkt.peeraddr), Peer Port - (peer.peerport,pkt.peerport). These are the 32-bit Internet address - and 16-bit port number of the peer. +(peer.peerport,pkt.peerport). These are the 32-bit Internet address and +16-bit port number of the peer. Host Address (peer.hostaddr, pkt.hostaddr), Host Port (peer.hostport, pkt.hostport). These are the 32-bit Internet address and 16-bit port number of the host. They are included among the state variables to support multi-homing." Section 3.4.3 (Receive Procedure) defines the following procedure: - "The source and destination Internet addresses and ports in the IP - and UDP headers are matched to the correct peer. If there is no - match a new instantiation of the protocol machine is created and the +"The source and destination Internet addresses and ports in the IP and +UDP headers are matched to the correct peer. If there is no match a +new instantiation of the protocol machine is created and the + association mobilized." + Section 3.6 (Access Control Issues) proposes a simple authentication scheme in the following way: - "If a more comprehensive trust model is required, the design can - be based on an access-control list with each entry consisting of - a 32-bit Internet address, 32-bit mask and three-bit mode. If the - logical AND of the source address (pkt.peeraddr) and the mask in an - entry matches the corresponding address in the entry and the mode - (pkt.mode) matches the mode in the entry, the access is allowed; - otherwise an ICMP error message is returned to the requestor. Through - appropriate choice of mask, it is possible to restrict requests - by mode to individual addresses, a particular subnet or net addresses, - or have no restriction at all. The access-control list would then - serve as a filter controlling which peers could create associations." +"If a more comprehensive trust model is required, the design can be +based on an access-control list with each entry consisting of a 32-bit +Internet address, 32-bit mask and three-bit mode. If the logical AND +of the source address (pkt.peeraddr) and the mask in an entry matches +the corresponding address in the entry and the mode (pkt.mode) +matches the mode in the entry, the access is allowed; otherwise an +ICMP error message is returned to the requestor. Through appropriate +choice of mask, it is possible to restrict requests by mode to +individual addresses, a particular subnet or net addresses, or have no +restriction at all. The access-control list would then serve as a filter +controlling which peers could create associations." Appendix B Section 3 (B.3 Commands) defines the following command: "Set Trap Address/Port (6): The command association identifier, status and data fields are ignored. The address and port number for - subsequent trap messages are taken from the source address and - port of the control message itself. The initial trap counter for trap +subsequent trap messages are taken from the source address and port +of the control message itself. The initial trap counter for trap response messages is taken from the sequence field of the command. The response association identifier, status and data fields are not significant. Implementations should include sanity timeouts which prevent trap transmissions if the monitoring program does not renew this information after a lengthy interval." - The address clearly assumes an IPv4 address. Also, there are +The address clearly assumes the IPv4 version. Also, there are numerous places in sample code and in algorithms that use the above mentioned variables. It seems that there is no reason to modify the - actual protocol. A small number of text changes and an update - to implementations, so they can understand both IPv4 and IPv6 +actual protocol. A small number of text changes and an update to +implementations, so they can understand both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, will suffice to have a NTP version that works on both network layer protocols. 4.5 RFC 1575: An Echo Function for CLNP (ISO 8473) - (ISO-TS-ECH) - - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. - -4.6 RFC 1652: SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIME - Transport - - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. -4.7 RFC 1777: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol - (LDAP) - - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -4.8 RFC 1778: The String Representation of Standard - Attribute Syntaxes +4.6 RFC 1652: SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIME Transport - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -4.9 RFC 1832: eXternal Data Representation Standard - (XDR) +4.7 RFC 1832: eXternal Data Representation Standard - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -4.10 RFC 2045: Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions - (MIME), Part One: Format of Internet Message - Bodies (MIME) +4.8 RFC 2045: Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions, Part One: + Format of Internet Message Bodies - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -4.11 RFC 2046 MIME, Part Two: Media Types (MIME- - MEDIA) +4.9 RFC 2046 MIME, Part Two: Media Types - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -4.12 RFC 2047: MIME, Part Three: Message Header - Extensions for Non-ASCII Text (MIME-MSG) +4.10 RFC 2047: MIME, Part Three: Message Header Extensions + for Non-ASCII Text - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -4.13 RFC 2049: MIME Part Five: Conformance Criteria - and Examples (MIME-CONF) +4.11 RFC 2049: MIME Part Five: Conformance Criteria and + Examples - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -4.14 RFC 2279: UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO - 10646 (UTF-8) +4.12 RFC 2279: UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646 - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -4.15 RFC 2347: TFTP Option Extension (TFTP-Ext) +4.13 RFC 2347: TFTP Option Extension - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -4.16 RFC 2348: TFTP Blocksize Option (TFTP-Blk) +4.14 RFC 2348: TFTP Blocksize Option Section "Blocksize Option Specification" gives the following example: "For example: - +---+--¡+-+--¡+-+--¡+-+--¡+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + +-------+--------+---+--------+---+--------+---+--------+---+ | 1 | foobar | 0 | octet | 0 | blksize| 0 | 1428 | 0 | - +---+--¡+-+--¡+-+--¡+-+--¡+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + +-------+--------+---+--------+---+--------+---+--------+---+ is a Read Request, for the file named "foobar", in octet (binary) transfer mode, with a block size of 1428 octets (Ethernet MTU, less the TFTP, UDP and IP header lengths)." Clearly, the given blocksize example would not work with IPv6 header sizes, but it has no practical implications, since larger blocksizes are also available. -4.17 RFC 2349: TFTP Timeout Interval and Transfer - Size Options (TFTP-Opt) +4.15 RFC 2349: TFTP Timeout Interval and Transfer Size Options - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -4.18 RFC 2355: TN3270 Enhancements (TN3270E) +4.16 RFC 2355: TN3270 Enhancements - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -4.19 RFC 2396: Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): - Generic Syntax (URI-GEN) +4.17 RFC 2396: Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic + Syntax Section 3.2.2. (Server-based Naming Authority) states: - "The host is a domain name of a network host, or its IPv4 address - as a set of four decimal digit groups separated by ".". Literal IPv6 +"The host is a domain name of a network host, or its IPv4 address as a +set of four decimal digit groups separated by ".". Literal IPv6 addresses are not supported. ... - Note: A suitable representation for including a literal IPv6 address - as the host part of a URL is desired, but has not yet been determined - or implemented in practice." +Note: A suitable representation for including a literal IPv6 address as +the host part of a URL is desired, but has not yet been determined or +implemented in practice." -4.20 RFC 2616: Hypertext Transfer Protocol ¡ HTTP/1.1 - (HTTP) +4.18 RFC 2616: Hypertext Transfer Protocol HTTP/1.1 Section 3.2.2 (http URL) states: - "The "http" scheme is used to locate network resources via the - HTTP protocol. This section defines the scheme-specific syntax and +"The "http" scheme is used to locate network resources via the HTTP +protocol. This section defines the scheme-specific syntax and semantics for http URLs. http_URL = "http:" "//" host [ ":" port ] [ abs_path [ "?" query ]] If the port is empty or not given, port 80 is assumed. The semantics - are that the identified resource is located at the server listening - for TCP connections on that port of that host, and the Request-URI for - the resource is abs_path (section 5.1.2). The use of IP addresses - in URLs SHOULD be avoided whenever possible (see RFC 1900 - [24]). " +are that the identified resource is located at the server listening for +TCP connections on that port of that host, and the Request-URI for +the resource is abs_path (section 5.1.2). The use of IP addresses in +URLs SHOULD be avoided whenever possible (see RFC 1900 [24]). +" The text is version neutral, but it is unclear whether individual - implementations will support IPv6 addresses. In fact, the use - of the ":"separator in IPv6 addresses will cause misinterpretation - when parsing URI's. There are other discussions regarding a - server recognizing its own IP addresses, spoofing DNS/IP address +implementations will support IPv6 addresses. In fact, the use of the +":"separator in IPv6 addresses will cause misinterpretation when +parsing URI's. There are other discussions regarding a server +recognizing its own IP addresses, spoofing DNS/IP address combinations, as well as issues regarding multiple HTTP servers running on a single IP interface. Again, the text is version neutral, but clearly, such statements represent implementation issues. +4.19 RFC 3191: Minimal GSTN address format in Internet Mail + +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +4.20 3192:Minimal FAX address format in Internet Mail + +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + 5 Proposed Standards Proposed Standards represent initial level documents in the IETF - standards track. They are stable in terms of design, but do not - require the existence of implementations. In several cases, these +standards track. They are stable in terms of design, but do not require +the existence of implementations. In several cases, these specifications are simply proposed as solid technical ideas, to be analysed by the Internet community, but are never implemented or - advanced in the IETF standards' process. +advanced in the IETF standards process. -5.1 RFC 698: Telnet extended ASCII option (TOPT-EXT) +5.1 RFC 698: Telnet extended ASCII option - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.2 RFC 726: Remote Controlled Transmission and - Echoing Telnet option (TOPT-REM) +5.2 RFC 726: Remote Controlled Transmission and Echoing Telnet + option - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.3 RFC 727: Telnet logout option (TOPT-LOGO) +5.3 RFC 727: Telnet logout option - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.4 RFC 735: Revised Telnet byte macro option (TOPT- - BYTE) +5.4 RFC 735: Revised Telnet byte macro option - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.5 RFC 736: Telnet SUPDUP option (TOPT-SUP) +5.5 RFC 736: Telnet SUPDUP option - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.6 RFC 749: Telnet SUPDUP-Output option (TOPT- - SUPO) +5.6 RFC 749: Telnet SUPDUP-Output option - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.7 RFC 779: Telnet send-location option (TOPT-SNDL) +5.7 RFC 779: Telnet send-location option - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.8 RFC 885: Telnet end of record option (TOPT-EOR) +5.8 RFC 885: Telnet end of record option - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.9 RFC 927: TACACS user identification Telnet option - (TOPT-TACAC) - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.10 RFC 933: Output marking Telnet option (TOPT-OM) +5.10 RFC 933: Output marking Telnet option - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.11 RFC 946: Telnet terminal location number option - (TOPT-TLN) Section "TTYLOC Number" states: "The TTYLOC number is a 64-bit number composed of two (2) 32-bit numbers: The 32-bit official ARPA Internet host address (may be any one of the addresses for multi-homed hosts) and a 32-bit number representing the terminal on the specified host. The host address of [0.0.0.0] is defined to be "unknown", the terminal number - of FFFFFFFF (hex, r or-1 in decimal) is defined to be "unknown" - and the terminal number of FFFFFFFE (hex, or -2 in decimal) is - defined to be "detached" for processes that are not attached to a - terminal." +of FFFFFFFF (hex, r or-1 in decimal) is defined to be "unknown" and +the terminal number of FFFFFFFE (hex, or -2 in decimal) is defined +to be "detached" for processes that are not attached to a terminal." - Although there is a dependency here, it is unlikely to be of any major - significance. +The clear reference to 32-bit numbers, and to the use of literal +addresses in the form [0.0.0.0] is clearly an IPv4-dependency. Thus, +the text above needs to be re-written. -5.12 RFC 977: Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) +5.12 RFC 977: Network News Transfer Protocol - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.13 RFC 1041: Telnet 3270 regime option (TOPT-3270) +5.13 RFC 1041: Telnet 3270 regime option - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.14 RFC 1043: Telnet Data Entry Terminal option: - DODIIS implementation (TOPT-DATA) +5.14 RFC 1043: Telnet Data Entry Terminal option: DODIIS + implementation - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.15 RFC 1053: Telnet X.3 PAD option (TOPT-X.3) +5.15 RFC 1053: Telnet X.3 PAD option - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.16 RFC 1073: Telnet window size option (TOPT- - NAWS) +5.16 RFC 1073: Telnet window size option - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.17 RFC 1079: Telnet terminal speed option (TOPT-TS) +5.17 RFC 1079: Telnet terminal speed option - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.18 RFC 1091: Telnet terminal-type option (TOPT- - TERM) +5.18 RFC 1091: Telnet terminal-type option - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.19 RFC 1096: Telnet X display location option (TOPT- - XDL) +5.19 RFC 1096: Telnet X display location option - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.20 RFC 1274: The COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.21 RFC 1276: Replication and Distributed Operations - extensions to provide an Internet Directory using - X.500 +5.21 RFC 1276: Replication and Distributed Operations extensions + to provide an Internet Directory using X.500 - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.22 RFC 1314: A File Format for the Exchange of - Images in the Internet (NETFAX) +5.22 RFC 1314: A File Format for the Exchange of Images in the + Internet - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.23 RFC 1328: X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.24 RFC 1372: Telnet Remote Flow Control Option - (TOPT-RFC) - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.25 RFC 1415: FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification - (FTP-FTAM) Since this document defines a gateway for interaction between FTAM and FTP, the only possible IPv4 dependencies are associated with - FTP, which has already been investigated above, in section 3.2. +FTP, which has already been investigated above, in section 3.16. -5.26 RFC 1494: Equivalences between 1988 X.400 and - RFC-822 Message Bodies (Equiv) +5.26 RFC 1485: A String Representation of Distinguished Names + version 5 - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.27 RFC 1496: Rules for downgrading messages from - X.400/88 to X.400/84 when MIME content-types are - present in the messages (HARPOON) +5.27 RFC 1494: Equivalences between 1988 X.400 and RFC-822 + Message Bodies - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.28 RFC 1502: X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets +5.28 RFC 1496: Rules for downgrading messages from X.400/88 to + X.400/84 when MIME content-types are present in the + messages - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.29 RFC 1572: Telnet Environment Option (TOPT- - ENVIR) +5.29 RFC 1502: X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.30 RFC 1648: Postmaster Convention for X.400 - Operations +5.30 RFC 1572: Telnet Environment Option - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.31 RFC 1738: Uniform Resource Locators (URL) - (URL) +5.31 RFC 1648: Postmaster Convention for X.400 Operations + +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.32 RFC 1738: Uniform Resource Locators (URL) Section 3.1. (Common Internet Scheme Syntax) states: "host The fully qualified domain name of a network host, or its IP address as a set of four decimal digit groups separated by ".". Fully qualified - domain names take the form as described in Section 3.5 of RFC - 1034 [13] and Section 2.1 of RFC 1123 [5]: a sequence of domain - labels separated by ".", each domain label starting and ending - with an alphanumerical character and possibly also containing "-" - characters. The rightmost domain label will never start with a digit, - though, which syntactically distinguishes all domain names from the - IP addresses." +domain names take the form as described in Section 3.5 of RFC 1034 +[13] and Section 2.1 of RFC 1123 [5]: a sequence of domain labels +separated by ".", each domain label starting and ending with an +alphanumerical character and possibly also containing "-" characters. +The rightmost domain label will never start with a digit, though, +which syntactically distinguishes all domain names from the IP +addresses." - Clearly, this is only valid when using IPv4 addresses. Later in - Section 5. (BNF for specific URL schemes), there is the following - text: +Clearly, this is only valid when using IPv4 addresses. Later in Section +5. (BNF for specific URL schemes), there is the following text: "; URL schemeparts for ip based protocols: ip-schemepart = "//" login [ "/" urlpath ] login = [ user [ ":" password ] "@" ] hostport hostport = host [ ":" port ] host = hostname | hostnumber" - Again, this has also implications in terms of network neutrality. - -5.32 RFC 1740: MIME Encapsulation of Macintosh Files - - MacMIME (MacMIME) - - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. - -5.33 RFC 1767: MIME Encapsulation of EDI Objects - (MIME-EDI) - - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. - -5.34 RFC 1781: Using the OSI Directory to Achieve User - Friendly Naming (OSI-Dir) - - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. - -5.35 RFC 1798: Connection-less Lightweight X.500 - Directory Access Protocol (CLDAP) - - Section 5.2. (Client Implementations) presents the following - observation, which needs to be re-written: - - "For simple lookup applications, use of a retry algorithm with - multiple servers similar to that commonly used in DNS stub resolver - implementations is recommended. The location of a CLDAP server - or servers may be better specified using IP addresses (simple or - broadcast) rather than names that must first be looked up in another - directory such as DNS." - -5.36 RFC 1808: Relative Uniform Resource Locators - (URL) - - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. - -5.37 RFC 1835: Architecture of the WHOIS++ service - (WHOIS++) - - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +Again, this has also implications in terms of IP-version neutrality. -5.38 RFC 1891: SMTP Service Extension for Delivery - Status Notifications (SMTP-DSN) +5.33 RFC 1740: MIME Encapsulation of Macintosh Files - + MacMIME - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.39 RFC 1892: The Multipart/Report Content Type - for the Reporting of Mail System Administrative - Messages (MIME-RPT) +5.34 RFC 1767: MIME Encapsulation of EDI Objects - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.40 RFC 1893: Enhanced Mail System Status Codes - (EMS-CODE) +5.35 RFC 1808: Relative Uniform Resource Locators - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.41 RFC 1894: An Extensible Message Format for - Delivery Status Notifications (DSN) +5.36 RFC 1835: Architecture of the WHOIS++ service - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.42 RFC 1913: Architecture of the Whois++ Index - Service,WHOIS++A +5.37 RFC 1913: Architecture of the Whois++ Index Service Section 6.5. (Query referral) makes the following statement: "When referrals are included in the body of a response to a query, each referral is listed in a separate SERVER-TO-ASK block as shown below. # SERVER-TO-ASK Version-number: // version number of index software, used to insure compatibility Body-of-Query: // the original query goes here @@ -1157,51 +589,50 @@ "When referrals are included in the body of a response to a query, each referral is listed in a separate SERVER-TO-ASK block as shown below. # SERVER-TO-ASK Version-number: // version number of index software, used to insure compatibility Body-of-Query: // the original query goes here Server-Handle: // WHOIS++ handle of the referred server Host-Name: // DNS name or IP address of the referred server + Port-Number: // Port number to which to connect, if different from the // WHOIS++ port number" The syntax used does not present specific IPv4 dependencies, but implementations should be modified to check, in incoming packets, which IP version was used by the original request, so they can determine whether or not to to return an IPv6 address. -5.43 RFC 1914: How to Interact with a Whois++ Mesh - (WHOIS++) +5.38 RFC 1914: How to Interact with a Whois++ Mesh Section 4 (Caching) states the following: "A client can cache all information it gets from a server for some time. For example records, IP-addresses of Whois++ servers, the Directory of Services server etc. A client can itself choose for how long it should cache the - information. The IP-address of the Directory of Services server - might not change for a day or two, and neither might any other - information." +information. The IP-address of the Directory of Services server might +not change for a day or two, and neither might any other information." Also, subsection 4.1. (Caching a Whois++ servers hostname) contains: "An example of cached information that might change is the cached - hostname, IP-address and portnumber which a client gets back - in a servers-to-ask response. That information is cached in the - server since the last poll, which might occurred several weeks ago. - Therefore, when such a connection fails, the client should fall back - to use the serverhandle instead, which means that it contacts the +hostname, IP-address and portnumber which a client gets back in a +servers-to-ask response. That information is cached in the server +since the last poll, which might occurred several weeks ago. +Therefore, when such a connection fails, the client should fall back to +use the serverhandle instead, which means that it contacts the Directory of Services server and queries for a server with that serverhandle. By doing this, the client should always get the last known hostname. An algorithm for this might be: response := servers-to-ask response from server A IP-address := find ip-address for response.hostname in DNS connect to ip-address at port response.portnumber if connection fails { connect to Directory of Services server query for host with serverhandle response.serverhandle response := response from Directory of Services server @@ -1209,593 +640,591 @@ connect to ip-address at port response.portnumber if connection fails { exit with error message } } Query this new server" The paragraph does not contain IPv4 specific syntax. Hence, IPv6 compliance will be implementation dependent. -5.44 RFC 1985: SMTP Service Extension for Remote - Message Queue Starting (SMTP-ETRN) - - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. - -5.45 RFC 2017: Definition of the URL MIME External- - Body Access-Type (URL-ACC) +5.39 RFC 1985: SMTP Service Extension for Remote Message + Queue Starting - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.46 RFC 2034: SMTP Service Extension for Returning - Enhanced Error Codes (SMTP-ENH) +5.40 RFC 2017: Definition of the URL MIME External-Body + Access-Type - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.47 RFC 2056: Uniform Resource Locators for Z39.50 - (URLZ39.50) +5.41 RFC 2034: SMTP Service Extension for Returning Enhanced + Error Codes - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.48 RFC 2060: Internet Message Access Protocol - - Version 4rev1 (IMAPV4) +5.42 RFC 2056: Uniform Resource Locators for Z39.50 - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.49 RFC 2077: The Model Primary Content Type - for Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME- - MODEL) +5.43 RFC 2077: The Model Primary Content Type for + Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.50 RFC 2079: Definition of an X.500 Attribute Type - and an Object Class to Hold Uniform Resource - Identifiers (URIs) (URI-ATT) +5.44 RFC 2079: Definition of an X.500 Attribute Type and an + Object Class to Hold Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.51 RFC 2086: IMAP4 ACL extension (IMAP4-ACL) +5.45 RFC 2086: IMAP4 ACL extension - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.52 RFC 2087: IMAP4 QUOTA extension (IMAP4- - QUO) +5.46 RFC 2087: IMAP4 QUOTA extension - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.53 RFC 2088: IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals - (IMAP4-LIT) +5.47 RFC 2088: IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.54 RFC 2122: VEMMI URL Specification (VEMMI- - URL) +5.48 RFC 2122: VEMMI URL Specification Section 3 (Description of the VEMMI scheme) states: "The VEMMI URL scheme is used to designate multimedia interactive services conforming to the VEMMI standard (ITU/T T.107 and ETS 300 709). A VEMMI URL takes the form: vemmi://:/; = - as specified in Section 3.1. of RFC 1738. If : is omitted, - the port defaults to 575 (client software may choose to ignore - the optional port number in order to increase security). The +as specified in Section 3.1. of RFC 1738. If : is omitted, the +port defaults to 575 (client software may choose to ignore the +optional port number in order to increase security). The part is optional and may be omitted." IPv4 dependencies may relate to the possibility of the portion to contain an IPv4 address, as defined in RFC 1738 (see section 5.31. above). Once the problem is solved in the context of RFC 1738, this issue will be automatically solved. -5.55 RFC 2141: URN Syntax (URN-SYNTAX) +5.49 RFC 2141: URN Syntax - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.56 RFC 2142 "Mailbox Names for Common Services, - Roles and Functions" (MAIL-SERV) +5.50 RFC 2142: Mailbox Names for Common Services, Roles and + Functions - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.57 RFC 2156: MIXER (Mime Internet X.400 - Enhanced Relay): Mapping between X.400 and - RFC 822/MIME (MIXER) +5.51 RFC 2156: MIXER (Mime Internet X.400 Enhanced Relay): + Mapping between X.400 and RFC 822/MIME - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.58 RFC 2157: Mapping between X.400 and RFC- - 822/MIME Message Bodies +5.52 RFC 2157: Mapping between X.400 and RFC-822/MIME + Message Bodies - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.59 RFC 2158: X.400 Image Body Parts +5.53 RFC 2158: X.400 Image Body Parts - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.60 RFC 2159: A MIME Body Part for FAX +5.54 RFC 2159: A MIME Body Part for FAX - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.61 RFC 2160: Carrying PostScript in X.400 and MIME +5.55 RFC 2160: Carrying PostScript in X.400 and MIME - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.62 RFC 2163: Using the Internet DNS to Distribute - MIXER Conformant Global Address Mapping - (MCGAM) (DNS-MCGAM) +5.56 RFC 2163: Using the Internet DNS to Distribute MIXER + Conformant Global Address Mapping - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.63 RFC 2164: Use of an X.500/LDAP directory to - support MIXER address mapping +5.57 RFC 2164: Use of an X.500/LDAP Directory to Support + MIXER Address Mapping - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.64 RFC 2165: Service Location Protocol (SLP) +5.58 RFC 2165: Service Location Protocol Section 7. (Service Type Request Message Format) and Section 9. - (Service Registration Message Format) have an 80 bit field from - addr-spec (see below) which cannot not support IPv6 addresses. +(Service Registration Message Format) have an 80-bit field from +addr-spec (see below) which cannot support IPv6 addresses. Also, Section 20.1. (Previous Responders' Address Specification) states: "The previous responders' Address Specification is specified as: ::= - |, - i.e., a list separated - by commas with no intervening white space. The Address - Specification is the address of the Directory Agent or Service Agent - which supplied the previous response. The format for Address - Specifications in Service Location is defined in section 20.4. The - comma delimiter is required between each . The use +|, i.e., a +list separated by commas with no intervening white space. The +Address Specification is the address of the Directory Agent or +Service Agent which supplied the previous response. The format for +Address Specifications in Service Location is defined in section 20.4. +The comma delimiter is required between each . The use of dotted decimal IP address notation should only be used in environments which have no Domain Name Service. Example: RESOLVO.NEATO.ORG,128.127.203.63" Later, in Section 20.4. (Address Specification in Service Location) there is also the following reference to addr-spec: "The address specification used in Service Location is: ::= [:@][:] ::= Fully qualified domain name | dotted decimal IP address notation - When no Domain Name Server is available, SAs and DAs must - use dotted decimal conventions for IP addresses. Otherwise, it is +When no Domain Name Server is available, SAs and DAs must use +dotted decimal conventions for IP addresses. Otherwise, it is preferable to use a fully qualified domain name wherever possible as renumbering of host addresses will make IP addresses invalid over time." The whole Section 21. (Protocol Requirements) defines the requirements for each of the elements of this protocol. Several IPv4 statements are made, but the syntax used is sufficiently neutral to apply to the use of IPv6. Section 22. (Configurable Parameters and Default Values) states: "There are several configuration parameters for Service Location. Default values are chosen to allow protocol operation without the - need for selection of these configuration parameters, but other - values may be selected by the site administrator. The configurable +need for selection of these configuration parameters, but other values +may be selected by the site administrator. The configurable parameters will allow an implementation of Service Location to be more useful in a variety of scenarios. Multicast vs. Broadcast + All Service Location entities must use multicast by default. The ability to use broadcast messages must be configurable for UAs and - SAs. Broadcast messages are to be used in environments where - not all Service Location entities have hardware or software which +SAs. Broadcast messages are to be used in environments where not +all Service Location entities have hardware or software which supports multicast. Multicast Radius - Multicast requests should be sent to all subnets in a site. The - default multicast radius for a site is 32. This value must be - configurable. The value for the site's multicast TTL may be obtained - DHCP using an option which is currently unassigned." - Once again, nothing here precludes IPv6. Section 23. (Non- - configurable Parameters) states: +Multicast requests should be sent to all subnets in a site. The default +multicast radius for a site is 32. This value must be configurable. The +value for the site's multicast TTL may be obtained from DHCP using +an option which is currently unassigned." +Once again, nothing here precludes IPv6. Section 23. +(Non-configurable Parameters) states: "IP Port number for unicast requests to Directory Agents: UDP and TCP Port Number: 427 Multicast Addresses Service Location General Multicast Address: 224.0.1.22 Directory Agent Discovery Multicast Address: 224.0.1.35 A range of 1024 contiguous multicast addresses for use as Service Specific Discovery Multicast Addresses will be assigned by IANA." - Clearly, the statements above require specifications related to the - use of IPv6 multicast addresses with equivalent functionality. +Clearly, the statements above require specifications related to the use +of IPv6 multicast addresses with equivalent functionality. -5.65 RFC 2177: IMAP4 IDLE command (IMAP4-IDLE) +5.59 RFC 2177: IMAP4 IDLE command - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.66 RFC 2183: Communicating Presentation - Information in Internet Messages: The Content- - Disposition Header Field +5.60 RFC 2183: Communicating Presentation Information in + Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition Header Field - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.67 RFC 2192: IMAP URL Scheme (IMAP-URL) +5.61 RFC 2192: IMAP URL Scheme - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.68 RFC 2193: IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals - (IMAP4MAIL) +5.62 RFC 2193: IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals Section 6. (Formal Syntax) presents the following statement: "referral_response_code = "[" "REFERRAL" 1*(SPACE ) "]"; See [RFC-1738] for definition" The above presents dependencies on RFC 1738 URL definitions, which have already been mentioned in this document, section 5.31. -5.69 RFC 2218: A Common Schema for the Internet - White Pages Service +5.63 RFC 2218: A Common Schema for the Internet White Pages + Service - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.70 RFC 2221: IMAP4 Login Referrals - (IMAP4LOGIN) +5.64 RFC 2221: IMAP4 Login Referrals Section 4.1. (LOGIN and AUTHENTICATE Referrals) provides the following example: "Example: C: A001 LOGIN MIKE PASSWORD S: A001 NO [REFERRAL IMAP://MIKE@SERVER2/] Specified user is invalid on this server. Try SERVER2." Even though the syntax "user@SERVER2" is presented often, there are no specifications related to the format of "SERVER2". Hence, it is up to individual implementations to decide acceptable values for the hostname. This may or not include explicit IPv6 addresses. -5.71 RFC 2227: Simple Hit-Metering and Usage- - Limiting for HTTP - - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. - -5.72 RFC 2231: MIME Parameter Value and Encoded - Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and - Continuations (MIME-EXT) - - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. - -5.73 RFC 2234: Augmented BNF for Syntax - Specifications: ABNF (ABNF) +5.65 RFC 2227: Simple Hit-Metering and Usage-Limiting for + HTTP - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.74 RFC 2244: Application Configuration Access - Protocol (ACAP) +5.66 RFC 2231: MIME Parameter Value and Encoded Word + Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and Continuations - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.75 RFC 2254 The String Representation of LDAP - Search Filters (STR-LDAP) +5.67 RFC 2234: Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.76 RFC 2255: The LDAP URL Format (LDAP-URL) +5.68 RFC 2244: Application Configuration Access Protocol - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.77 RFC 2247 Using Domains in LDAP/X.500 - Distinguished Names +5.69 RFC 2247: Using Domains in LDAP/X.500 Distinguished + Names - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.78 RFC 2251: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3) - (LDAPV3) +5.70 RFC 2251: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3) - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.79 RFC 2252: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): - Attribute Syntax Definitions (LDAP3-ATD) +5.71 RFC 2252: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): + Attribute Syntax Definitions - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.80 RFC 2253: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): - UTF-8 String Representation of Distinguished - Names (LDAP3-UTF8) +5.72 RFC 2253: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): + UTF-8 String Representation of Distinguished Names Section 7.1. (Disclosure) states: "Distinguished Names typically consist of descriptive information about the entries they name, which can be people, organizations, - devices or other real-world objects. This frequently includes some - of the following kinds of information: +devices or other real-world objects. This frequently includes some of +the following kinds of information: - the common name of the object (i.e. a person's full name) - an email or TCP/IP address - its physical location (country, locality, city, street address) - organizational attributes (such as department name or affiliation)" - If the caveat "Without putting any limitations on the version of the - IP address.", then are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. - -5.81 RFC 2256: A Summary of the X.500(96) User - Schema for use with LDAPv3 - - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +This section requires the caveat "Without putting any limitations on +the version of the IP address.", to avoid ambiguity in terms of IP +version. -5.82 RFC 2293: Representing Tables and Subtrees in the - X.500 Directory (SUBTABLE) +5.73 RFC 2254: The String Representation of LDAP Search Filters - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.83 RFC 2294: Representing the O/R Address hierarchy - in the X.500 Directory Information Tree (OR-ADD) +5.74 RFC 2255: The LDAP URL Format - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.84 RFC 2298: An Extensible Message Format for - Message Disposition Notifications (EMF-MDN) +5.75 RFC 2256: A Summary of the X.500(96) User Schema for use + with LDAPv3 - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.85 RFC 2301: File Format for Internet Fax (FFIF) +5.76 RFC 2293: Representing Tables and Subtrees in the X.500 + Directory - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.86 RFC 2302: Tag Image File Format (TIFF) - - image/tiff MIME Sub-type Registration (TIFF) +5.77 RFC 2294: Representing the O/R Address hierarchy in the + X.500 Directory Information Tree - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.87 RFC 2303: Minimal PSTN address format in - Internet Mail (MIN-PSTN) +5.78 RFC 2298: An Extensible Message Format for Message + Disposition Notifications - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.88 RFC 2304: Minimal FAX address format in Internet - Mail (MINFAX-IM) +5.79 RFC 2301: File Format for Internet Fax - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.89 RFC 2305: A Simple Mode of Facsimile Using - Internet Mail (SMFAX-IM) +5.80 RFC 2305: A Simple Mode of Facsimile Using Internet Mail - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.90 RFC 2334: Server Cache Synchronization Protocol - (SCSP) (SCSP) +5.81 RFC 2334: Server Cache Synchronization Protocol Appendix B, part 2.0.1 (Mandatory Common Part) states: "Cache Key - This is a database lookup key that uniquely identifies a piece of - data which the originator of a CSA Record wishes to synchronize - with its peers for a given "Protocol ID/Server Group ID" pair. This - key will generally be a small opaque byte string which SCSP will - associate with a given piece of data in a cache. Thus, for example, - an originator might assign a particular 4 byte string to the binding - of an IP address with that of an ATM address. Generally speaking, the - originating server of a CSA record is responsible for generating a - Cache Key for every element of data that the given server originates - and which the server wishes to synchronize with its peers in the SG." +This is a database lookup key that uniquely identifies a piece of data +which the originator of a CSA Record wishes to synchronize with its +peers for a given "Protocol ID/Server Group ID" pair. This key will - The statemente above is simply meant as an example. Hence, any - IPv4 possible dependency of this protocol is an implementation issue. +generally be a small opaque byte string which SCSP will associate +with a given piece of data in a cache. Thus, for example, an originator +might assign a particular 4 byte string to the binding of an IP address +with that of an ATM address. Generally speaking, the originating +server of a CSA record is responsible for generating a Cache Key for +every element of data that the given server originates and which the +server wishes to synchronize with its peers in the SG." -5.91 RFC 2342: IMAP4 Namespace (IMAP4NAME) +The statement above is simply meant as an example. Hence, any IPv4 +possible dependency of this protocol is an implementation issue. - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +5.82 RFC 2342: IMAP4 Namespace -5.92 RFC 2359: IMAP4 UIDPLUS extension - (IMAP4UIDPL) +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +5.83 RFC 2359: IMAP4 UIDPLUS extension -5.93 RFC 2368: The mailto URL scheme (URLMAILTO) +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +5.84 RFC 2368: The mailto URL scheme -5.94 RFC 2369: The Use of URLs as Meta-Syntax for - Core Mail List Commands and their Transport - through Message Header Fields +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +5.85 RFC 2369: The Use of URLs as Meta-Syntax for Core Mail + List Commands and their Transport through Message Header + Fields -5.95 RFC 2384: POP URL Scheme (POP-URL) +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.86 2371: Transaction Internet Protocol Version 3.0 + +In section 7. (TIP Transaction Manager Identification and Connection +Establishment) : + +"The component comprises: +[:] +where is either a or an ; and +is a decimal number specifying the port at which the transaction +manager (or proxy) is listening for requests to establish TIP +connections. If the port number is omitted, the standard TIP port +number (3372) is used. + +A is a standard name, acceptable to the domain name +service. It must be sufficiently qualified to be useful to the receiver +of the command. +An is an IP address, in the usual form: four decimal +numbers separated by period characters." +This section has to be re-written to become IP-version neutral. +Besides adding a reference to the use of IPv6 addresses, the "host" +field should only be defined as a "dns name". However, if the use of +literal IP addresses is to be included, the format specified in RFC +2372 has to be followed. +Later in section 8. (TIP Uniform Resource Locators): + +"A TIP URL takes the form: +tip://? +where identifies the TIP transaction +manager (as defined in Section 7 above); and +specifies a transaction identifier, which may take one of two forms +(standard or non-standard): +i. "urn:" ":" +A standard transaction identifier, conforming to the proposed Internet +Standard for Uniform Resource Names (URNs), as specified by +RFC2141; where is the Namespace Identifier, and is +the Namespace Specific String. The Namespace ID determines the +syntactic interpretation of the Namespace Specific String. The +Namespace Specific String is a sequence of characters representing a +transaction identifier (as defined by ). The rules for the +contents of these fields are specified by [6] (valid characters, +encoding, etc.). +This format of may be used to express global +transaction identifiers in terms of standard representations. Examples +for might be or . e.g. +tip://123.123.123.123/?urn:xopen:xid +Note that Namespace Ids require registration. See [7] for details on +how to do this." + +There are other references in section 8. to the use of literal IP +addresses in section 8. Therefore, this section needs also to be +re-written, and special care should be taken to avoid the use of IP +(either IPv4 or IPv6) literal addresses. However, if such use is +exemplified, the format specified in RFC 2732 has to be respected. + +5.87 RFC 2384: POP URL Scheme Section 3. (POP Scheme) states: "A POP URL is of the general form: pop://;auth=@: Where , , and are as defined in RFC 1738, and some or all of the elements, except "pop://" and , may be omitted." - RFC 1738 (please refer to section 5.31) has a potential IPv4 limitation.Hence, RFC2384 will only be IPv6 compliant when RFC 1738 becomes properly updated. -5.96 RFC 2387: The MIME Multipart/Related Content- - type (MIME-RELAT) +5.88 RFC 2387: The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.97 RFC 2388: Returning Values from Forms: - multipart/form-data +5.89 RFC 2388: Returning Values from Forms: multipart/form-data - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.98 RFC 2389: Feature negotiation mechanism for the - File Transfer Protocol +5.90 RFC 2389: Feature Negotiation Mechanism for the File + Transfer Protocol - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.99 RFC 2392: Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform - Resource Locators (CIDMID-URL) +5.91 RFC 2392: Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource + Locators - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.100 RFC 2397: The "data" URL scheme (DATA-URL) +5.92 RFC 2397: The "data" URL scheme - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.101 RFC 2421: Voice Profile for Internet Mail - version - 2 (MIME-VP2) +5.93 RFC 2421: Voice Profile for Internet Mail - version 2 - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.102 RFC 2422: Toll Quality Voice - 32 kbit/s ADPCM - MIME Sub-type Registration (MIME-ADPCM) +5.94 RFC 2422: Toll Quality Voice - 32 kbit/s ADPCM MIME + Sub-type Registration - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.103 RFC 2423 VPIM Voice Message MIME Sub-type - Registration (MIME-VPIM) +5.95 RFC 2423 VPIM Voice Message MIME Sub-type Registration - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.104 RFC 2424: Content Duration MIME Header - Definition (CONT-DUR) +5.96 RFC 2424: Content Duration MIME Header Definition - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.105 RFC 2425: A MIME Content-Type for Directory - Information (TXT-DIR) +5.97 RFC 2425: A MIME Content-Type for Directory Information - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.106 RFC 2426: vCard MIME Directory Profile - (MIME-VCARD) +5.98 RFC 2426: vCard MIME Directory Profile - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.107 RFC 2428: FTP Extensions for IPv6 and NATs +5.99 RFC 2428: FTP Extensions for IPv6 and NATs This RFC documents an IPv6 extension and hence, it is not considered in the context of the current discussion. -5.108 RFC 2445: Internet Calendaring and - Scheduling Core Object Specification (iCalendar) - (ICALENDAR) +5.100 RFC 2445: Internet Calendaring and Scheduling Core Object + Specification (iCalendar) Section 4.8.4.7 (Unique Identifier) states: "Property Name: UID Purpose: This property defines the persistent, globally unique identifier for the calendar component. Value Type: TEXT Property Parameters: Non-standard property parameters can be specified on this property. - Conformance: The property MUST be specified in the - "VEVENT", "VTODO", "VJOURNAL" or "VFREEBUSY" - calendar components. +Conformance: The property MUST be specified in the "VEVENT", +"VTODO", "VJOURNAL" or "VFREEBUSY" calendar components. + Description: The UID itself MUST be a globally unique identifier. The generator of the identifier MUST guarantee that the identifier is unique. There are several algorithms that can be used to accomplish - this. The identifier is RECOMMENDED to be the identical syntax - to the [RFC 822] addr-spec. A good method to assure uniqueness - is to put the domain name or a domain literal IP address of the host - on which the identifier was created on the right hand side of the - "@", and on the left hand side, put a combination of the current - calendar date and time of day (i.e., formatted in as a DATE-TIME - value) along with some other currently unique (perhaps sequential) - identifier available on the system (for example, a process id number). - Using a date/time value on the left hand side and a domain name or - domain literal on the right hand side makes it possible to guarantee - uniqueness since no two hosts should be using the same domain - name or IP address at the same time. Though other algorithms will - work, it is RECOMMENDED that the right hand side contain some - domain identifier (either of the host itself or otherwise) such that - the generator of the message identifier can guarantee the uniqueness - of the left hand side within the scope of that domain." +this. The identifier is RECOMMENDED to be the identical syntax to +the [RFC 822] addr-spec. A good method to assure uniqueness is to +put the domain name or a domain literal IP address of the host on +which the identifier was created on the right hand side of the "@", +and on the left hand side, put a combination of the current calendar +date and time of day (i.e., formatted in as a DATE-TIME value) along +with some other currently unique (perhaps sequential) identifier +available on the system (for example, a process id number). Using a +date/time value on the left hand side and a domain name or domain +literal on the right hand side makes it possible to guarantee +uniqueness since no two hosts should be using the same domain name +or IP address at the same time. Though other algorithms will work, it +is RECOMMENDED that the right hand side contain some domain +identifier (either of the host itself or otherwise) such that the +generator of the message identifier can guarantee the uniqueness of +the left hand side within the scope of that domain." Although the above does not explicitly state the use of IPv4 - addresses, it addresses the explicit use of RFC 822, which is IPv4 - dependent, as already described in section 3.4. To be IPv6 compliant - it should instead explicitly disallow the use of IPv4 addresses. +addresses, it addresses the explicit use of RFC 822 (obsoleted by RFC +2822). To become IPv6 compliant it should follow the guidelines for +RFC 2822 (see section 5.129). -5.109 RFC 2446: iCalendar Transport-Independent - Interoperability Protocol (iTIP) Scheduling Events, - BusyTime, To-dos and Journal Entries (ITIP) +5.101 RFC 2446: iCalendar Transport-Independent Interoperability + Protocol (iTIP) Scheduling Events, BusyTime, To-dos and + Journal Entries - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.110 RFC 2447: iCalendar Message-Based - Interoperability Protocol (iMIP) (IMIP) +5.102 RFC 2447: iCalendar Message-Based Interoperability + Protocol (iMIP) - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.111 RFC 2449: POP3 Extension Mechanism (POP3- - EXT) +5.103 RFC 2449: POP3 Extension Mechanism - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.112 RFC 2476: Message Submission +5.104 RFC 2476: Message Submission This RFC contains several discussions on the usage of IP Address authorization schemes, but it does not limit those addresses to IPv4. -5.113 RFC 2480: Gateways and MIME Security - Multiparts +5.105 RFC 2480: Gateways and MIME Security Multiparts - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.114 RFC 2518: HTTP Extensions for Distributed - Authoring ¡ WEBDAV (WEBDAV) +5.106 RFC 2518: HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.115 RFC 2530: Indicating Supported Media Features - Using Extensions to DSN and MDN +5.107 RFC 2530: Indicating Supported Media Features Using + Extensions to DSN and MDN - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.116 RFC 2532: Extended Facsimile Using Internet - Mail +5.108 RFC 2532: Extended Facsimile Using Internet Mail - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.117 RFC 2533: A Syntax for Describing Media Feature - Sets +5.109 RFC 2533: A Syntax for Describing Media Feature Sets - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.118 RFC 2534: Media Features for Display, Print, and - Fax +5.110 RFC 2534: Media Features for Display, Print, and Fax - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.119 RFC 2554: SMTP Service Extension for - Authentication +5.111 RFC 2554: SMTP Service Extension for Authentication - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.120 RFC 2557: MIME Encapsulation of Aggregate - Documents, such as HTML (MHTML) (MHTML) +5.112 RFC 2557: MIME Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents, + such as HTML - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.121 RFC 2589: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol - (v3): Extensions for Dynamic Directory Services - (LDAPv3) +5.113 RFC 2589: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): + Extensions for Dynamic Directory Services - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.122 RFC 2595: Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and - ACAP +5.114 RFC 2595: Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.123 RFC 2596 Use of Language Codes in LDAP +5.115 RFC 2596 Use of Language Codes in LDAP - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.124 RFC 2608: Service Location Protocol, Version 2 - (SLP) +5.116 RFC 2608: Service Location Protocol, Version 2 Section 8.1. (Service Request) contains the following: - "0 1 2 3 +" +0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Service Location header (function = SrvRqst = 1) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | length of | String \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | length of | String \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | length of | String \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ @@ -1796,514 +1225,580 @@ | length of | String \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | length of | String \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | length of | String \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | length of predicate string | Service Request \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | length of string | String \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - is the Previous Responder List. This contains - dotted decimal notation IP (v4) addresses, and is iteratively - multicast to obtain all possible results (see Section 6.3). UAs SHOULD +dotted decimal notation IP (v4) addresses, and is iteratively multicast +to obtain all possible results (see Section 6.3). UAs SHOULD + implement this discovery algorithm. SAs MUST use this to discover all available DAs in their scope, if they are not already configured with DA addresses by some other means." + And later: "A SA silently drops all requests which include the SA's address in the . An SA which has multiple network interfaces MUST - check if any of the entries in the equal any of its - interfaces. An entry in the PRList which does not conform to an - IPv4 dotted decimal address is ignored: The rest of the - is processed normally and an error is not returned." +check if any of the entries in the equal any of its interfaces. +An entry in the PRList which does not conform to an IPv4 dotted +decimal address is ignored: The rest of the is processed +normally and an error is not returned." To become IPv6 compliant, this protocol requires a new version. -5.125 RFC 2609: Service Templates and Service: - Schemes +5.117 RFC 2609: Service Templates and Service: Schemes Section 2.1. (Service URL Syntax) defines: + "The ABNF for a service: URL is: hostnumber = ipv4-number ipv4-number = 1*3DIGIT 3("." 1*3DIGIT)" + This document presents many other references to hostnumber, which requires an update to support IPv6. -5.126 RFC 2640: Internationalization of the File - Transfer Protocol +5.118 RFC 2640: Internationalization of the File Transfer Protocol - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.127 RFC 2645: ON-DEMAND MAIL RELAY - (ODMR) SMTP with Dynamic IP Addresses - (ODMR-SMTP) +5.119 RFC 2645: ON-DEMAND MAIL RELAY (ODMR) SMTP + with Dynamic IP Addresses - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.128 RFC 2646: The Text/Plain Format Parameter +5.120 RFC 2646: The Text/Plain Format Parameter - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.129 RFC 2651: The Architecture of the Common - Indexing Protocol (CIP) (CIP) +5.121 RFC 2651: The Architecture of the Common Indexing + Protocol (CIP) - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.130 RFC 2652: MIME Object Definitions for the - Common Indexing Protocol (CIP) +5.122 RFC 2652: MIME Object Definitions for the Common + Indexing Protocol (CIP) - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.131 RFC 2653: CIP Transport Protocols +5.123 RFC 2653: CIP Transport Protocols - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.132 RFC 2732: Format for Literal IPv6 Addresses in - URL's +5.124 RFC 2732: Format for Literal IPv6 Addresses in URL's This document defines an IPv6 specific protocol and hence, it is not discussed in this document. -5.133 RFC 2738: Corrections to "A Syntax for - Describing Media Feature Sets" +5.125 RFC 2738: Corrections to "A Syntax for Describing Media + Feature Sets" - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.134 RFC 2739: Calendar Attributes for vCard and - LDAP +5.126 RFC 2739: Calendar Attributes for vCard and LDAP - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.135 RFC 2806: URLs for Telephone Calls +5.127 RFC 2806: URLs for Telephone Calls - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.136 RFC 2846: GSTN Address Element Extensions in - E-mail Services +5.128 RFC 2821: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.137 RFC 2849: The LDAP Data Interchange Format - (LDIF) - Technical Specification (LDIF) +5.129 RFC 2822: Internet Message Format - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +Section 3.4.1 (Addr-spec specification) contains: -5.138 RFC 2852: Deliver By SMTP Service Extension +"The domain portion identifies the point to which the mail is +delivered. In the dot-atom form, this is interpreted as an Internet +domain name (either a host name or a mail exchanger name) as +described in [STD3, STD13, STD14]. In the domain-literal form, the +domain is interpreted as the literal Internet address of the particular +host. In both cases, how addressing is used and how messages are +transported to a particular host is covered in the mail transport +document [RFC2821]. These mechanisms are outside of the scope of +this document. +The local-part portion is a domain dependent string. In addresses, it is +simply interpreted on the particular host as a name of a particular +mailbox." - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +Literal IP addresses should be avoided. However, in case they are +used, there should be a reference to the format described in RFC +2732. -5.139 RFC 2879: Content Feature Schema for Internet - Fax (V2) +5.130 RFC 2846: GSTN Address Element Extensions in E-mail + Services - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.140 RFC 2891: LDAP Control Extension for Server - Side Sorting of Search Results +5.131 RFC 2849: The LDAP Data Interchange Format (LDIF) - + Technical Specification - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.141 RFC 2910: Internet Printing Protocol/1.1: - Encoding and Transport (IPP-E-T) +5.132 RFC 2852: Deliver By SMTP Service Extension - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.142 RFC 2911: Internet Printing Protocol/1.1: Model - and Semantics (IPP-M-S) +5.133 RFC 2879: Content Feature Schema for Internet Fax (V2) - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.143 RFC 2912: Indicating Media Features for MIME - Content +5.134 RFC 2891: LDAP Control Extension for Server Side Sorting + of Search Results - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.144 RFC 2913: MIME Content Types in Media Feature +5.135 RFC 2910: Internet Printing Protocol/1.1: Encoding and + Transport + +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.136 RFC 2911: Internet Printing Protocol/1.1: Model and + Semantics + +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.137 RFC 2912: Indicating Media Features for MIME Content + +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.138 RFC 2913: MIME Content Types in Media Feature Expressions - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.145 RFC 2919: List-Id: A Structured Field and - Namespace for the Identification of Mailing Lists +5.139 RFC 2919: List-Id: A Structured Field and Namespace for + the Identification of Mailing Lists - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.146 RFC 2938: Identifying Composite Media Features +5.140 RFC 2938: Identifying Composite Media Features - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.147 RFC 2965: HTTP State Management Mechanism +5.141 RFC 2965: HTTP State Management Mechanism - This document includes several references to host IP addresses. - However, there is no explicit mention to a particular protocol - version. A caveat similar to "Without putting any limitations on - the version of the IP address." should be added, so that there will - remain no doubts about possible IPv4 dependencies. +This document includes several references to host IP addresses, but +however, there is no explicit mention to a particular protocol version. +A caveat similar to "Without putting any limitations on the version of +the IP address." should be added, so that there will remain no doubts +about possible IPv4 dependencies. -5.148 RFC 2971: IMAP4 ID extension +5.142 RFC 2971: IMAP4 ID extension - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.149 RFC 2987: Registration of Charset and Languages - Media Features Tags +5.143 RFC 2987: Registration of Charset and Languages Media + Features Tags - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.150 RFC 3009: Registration of parityfec MIME types +5.144 RFC 3009: Registration of parityfec MIME types - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.151 RFC 3017: XML DTD for Roaming Access Phone - Book +5.145 RFC 3017: XML DTD for Roaming Access Phone Book - Section 6.21. (DNS Server Address) states: +Section 6.2.1. (DNS Server Address) states: "The dnsServerAddress element represents the IP address of the Domain Name Service (DNS) server which should be used when connected to this POP. The address is represented in the form of a string in dotted-decimal notation (e.g., 192.168.101.1). Syntax: - + " - Additionally, it is stated in Section 6.2.9. (Default Gateway - Address): +Additionally, it is stated in Section 6.2.9. (Default Gateway Address): + "The defaulttGatewayAddress element represents the address of the default gateway which should be used when connected to this POP. The address is represented in the form of a string in dotted-decimal notation (e.g., 192.168.101.1). Syntax: - + " It should be straightforward to implement elements that are IPv6 aware. -5.152 RFC 3023: XML Media Types +5.146 RFC 3023: XML Media Types - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.153 RFC 3028: Sieve: A Mail Filtering Language +5.147 RFC 3028: Sieve: A Mail Filtering Language - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.154 RFC 3030: SMTP Service Extensions for - Transmission of Large and Binary MIME Messages +5.148 RFC 3030: SMTP Service Extensions for Transmission of + Large and Binary MIME Messages - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.155 RFC 3049: TN3270E Service Location and Session +5.149 RFC 3049: TN3270E Service Location and Session Balancing - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.156 RFC 3059: Attribute List Extension for the Service - Location Protocol (SLPv2) +5.150 RFC 3059: Attribute List Extension for the Service Location + Protocol - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.157 RFC 3080: The Blocks Extensible Exchange - Protocol Core (BEEP) +5.151 RFC 3080: The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.158 RFC 3081: Mapping the BEEP Core onto TCP +5.152 RFC 3081: Mapping the BEEP Core onto TCP - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -5.159 RFC 3111: Service Location Protocol - Modifications for IPv6 +5.153 RFC 3111: Service Location Protocol Modifications for IPv6 This is an IPv6 related document and is not discussed in this document. +5.154 RFC 3191: Minimal GSTN address format in Internet Mail + +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.155 RFC 3192: Minimal FAX address format in Internet Mail + +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + 6 Experimental RFCs Experimental RFCs belong to the category of "non-standard" - specifications. This group involves specifications considered "off- - track", e.g., specifications that haven't yet reach an adequate +specifications. This group involves specifications considered +"off-track", e.g., specifications that haven't yet reach an adequate standardization level, or that have been superseded by more recent specifications. Experimental RFCs represent specifications that are currently part of - some research effort, and that are often propriety in nature, or used - in limited arenas. They are documented to the Internet community - in order to allow potential interoperability or some other potential - useful scenario. In a few cases, they are presented as alternatives to - the mainstream solution of an acknowledged problem. +some research effort, and that are often propriety in nature, or used in +limited arenas. They are documented to the Internet community in +order to allow potential interoperability or some other potential useful +scenario. In a few cases, they are presented as alternatives to the +mainstream solution of an acknowledged problem. -6.1 RFC 909: Loader Debugger Protocol (LDP) +6.1 RFC 887: Resource Location Protocol - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +Section 3.1 (Request Messages) contains: -6.2 RFC 1143: The Q Method of Implementing TELNET - Option Negotiation +" This message parallels the + message with the "third-party" variant described +above. The confirming host is required to return at least its own IP +address (if it provides the named resource) as well as the IP addresses +of any other hosts it believes may provide the named resource. The +confirming host though, may never return an IP address for a resource +which is the same as an IP address listed with the resource name in +the request message. In this case it must treat the resource as if it +was unsupported at that IP address and omit it from any reply list. + This message parallels the + message again with the "third-party" variant +described above. As before, the confirming host is required to return +its own IP address as well as the IP addresses of any other hosts it +believes may provide the named resource and is prohibited from +returning the same IP address in the reply resource specifier as was +listed in the request resource specifier. As in the +case and for the same reason, this message also may not be +broadcast." +Throughout this section, there are several other references to IP +address. To avoid ambiguity, a reference to IPv6 addressing should be +added. - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +Section 4.1. (Resource Lists) presents the following qualifier format: -6.3 RFC 1153: Digest message format (DMF-MAIL) +"In addition, resource specifiers in all , + and messages also +contain an additional qualifier following the . This +qualifier has the format ++--------+--------+--------+---\\---+ +| | | | +|Protocol|IDLength| Resource-ID | +| | | | ++--------+--------+--------+---\\---+ +where + is the number of IP addresses containing in the following + (the field thus occupies the last +4* octets in its resource specifier). In request messages, +this is the maximum number of qualifying addresses which may be +included in the corresponding reply resource specifier. Although not +particularly useful, it may be 0 and in that case provides no space for +qualifying the resource name with IP addresses in the returned +specifier. In reply messages, this is the number of qualifying +addresses known to provide the resource. It may not exceed the +number specified in the corresponding request specifier. This field +may not be 0 in a reply message unless it was supplied as 0 in the +request message and the confirming host would have returned one or +more IP addresses had any space been provided. + is a list of four-octet IP addresses used to qualify +the resource specifier with respect to those particular addresses. In +reply messages, these are the IP addresses of the confirming host +(when appropriate) and the addresses of any other hosts known to +provide that resource (subject to the list length limitations). In +request messages, these are the IP addresses of hosts for which resource +information may not be returned. In such messages, these addresses +should normally be initialized to some "harmless" value (such as the +address of the querying host) unless it is intended to specifically +exclude the supplied addresses from consideration in any reply +messages." +This section requires re-writting considering the 128-bit length of +IPv6 addresses, and will clearly impact on implementations. - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +6.2 RFC 909: Loader Debugger Protocol -6.4 RFC 1159: Message Send Protocol +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +6.3 RFC 1143: The Q Method of Implementing TELNET Option + Negotiation -6.5 RFC 1165: Network Time Protocol (NTP) over the - OSI Remote Operations Service (NTP-OSI) +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +6.4 RFC 1153: Digest Message Format + +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +6.5 RFC 1165: Network Time Protocol (NTP) over the OSI Remote + Operations Service The only dependency this protocol presents is included in Appendix A (ROS Header Format): - "ClockIdentifier ::= CHOICE { referenceClock[0] PrintableString, inetaddr[1] OCTET STRING, psapaddr[2] OCTET STRING }" -6.6 RFC 1176: Interactive Mail Access Protocol: Version - 2 (IMAP2) +6.6 RFC 1176: Interactive Mail Access Protocol: Version 2 - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.7 RFC 1204: Message Posting Protocol (MPP) (MPP) +6.7 RFC 1204: Message Posting Protocol - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 6.8 RFC 1235: Coherent File Distribution Protocol - (CFDP) - Section "Protocol Specification" provides the following example, - for the Initial Handshake: +Section "Protocol Specification" provides the following example, for +the Initial Handshake: "The ticket server replies with a "This is Your Ticket" (TIYT) packet containing the ticket. Figure 2 shows the format of this packet. + +" 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 'T' | 'I' | 'Y' | 'T' | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | "ticket" | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | BLKSZ (by default 512) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | FILSZ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IP address of CFDP server (network order) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | client UDP port# (cfdpcln) | server UDP port# (cfdpsrv) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - -Fig. 2: "This Is Your Ticket" packet." + Fig. 2: "This Is Your Ticket" packet."" This protocol assumes IPv4 multicast, but could be converted to IPv6 multicast with a little effort. 6.9 RFC 1279: X.500 and Domains This protocol specifies a protocol that assumes IPv4 but does not actually have any limitations which would limit its operation in an IPv6 environment. -6.10 RFC 1312: Message Send Protocol 2 (MSP2) +6.10 RFC 1312: Message Send Protocol 2 - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.11 RFC 1339: Remote Mail Checking Protocol (RMCP) +6.11 RFC 1339: Remote Mail Checking Protocol - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.12 RFC 1440: SIFT/UFT: Sender-Initiated/Unsolicited - File Transfer (SIFT) +6.12 RFC 1440: SIFT/UFT: Sender-Initiated/Unsolicited File + Transfer - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.13 RFC 1459: Internet Relay Chat Protocol (IRCP) +6.13 RFC 1459: Internet Relay Chat Protocol There are only two specific IPv4 addressing references. The first is presented in Section 6.2. (Command Response): "203 RPL_TRACEUNKNOWN "???? []"" The second appears in Section 8.12 (Configuration File): "In specifying hostnames, both domain names and use of the 'dot' notation (127.0.0.1) should both be accepted." After correcting the above, IPv6 support can be straightforward added. -6.14 RFC 1465: Routing Coordination for X.400 MHS - Services Within a Multi Protocol / Multi Network - Environment Table Format V3 for Static Routing +6.14 RFC 1465: Routing Coordination for X.400 MHS Services + Within a Multi Protocol / Multi Network Environment Table + Format V3 for Static Routing - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.15 RFC 1505: Encoding Header Field for Internet - Messages (EHF-MAIL) +6.15 RFC 1505: Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.16 RFC 1528: Principles of Operation for the - TPC.INT Subdomain: Remote Printing ¡ Technical - Procedures (REM-PRINT) +6.16 RFC 1528: Principles of Operation for the TPC.INT + Subdomain: Remote Printing Technical Procedures - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.17 RFC 1608: Representing IP Information in the - X.500 Directory (X500-DIR) +6.17 RFC 1608: Representing IP Information in the X.500 + Directory - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.18 RFC 1609: Charting Networks in the X.500 - Directory (X500-CHART) +6.18 RFC 1609: Charting Networks in the X.500 Directory - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.19 RFC 1639: FTP Operation Over Big Address - Records (FOOBAR) +6.19 RFC 1639: FTP Operation Over Big Address Records This document defines a method for overcoming FTP IPv4 limitations and is therefore both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. -6.20 RFC 1641 Using Unicode with MIME (MIME-UNI) +6.20 RFC 1641 Using Unicode with MIME - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 6.21 RFC 1756: Remote Write Protocol - Version 1.0 - (RWP) - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.22 RFC 1801: MHS use of the X.500 Directory to - support MHS Routing +6.22 RFC 1801: MHS use of the X.500 Directory to support MHS + Routing - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 6.23 RFC 1804: Schema Publishing in X.500 Directory - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.24 RFC 1806: Communicating Presentation - Information in Internet Messages: The Content- - Disposition Header +6.24 RFC 1806: Communicating Presentation Information in + Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition Header - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.25 RFC 1845: SMTP Service Extension for - Checkpoint/Restart +6.25 RFC 1845: SMTP Service Extension for Checkpoint/Restart - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 6.26 RFC 1846: SMTP 521 Reply Code - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.27 RFC 1873: Message/External-Body Content-ID - Access Type (CONT-MT) +6.27 RFC 1873: Message/External-Body Content-ID Access Type - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.28 RFC 1874: SGML Media Types (SGML-MT) +6.28 RFC 1874: SGML Media Types - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.29 RFC 1986: Experiments with a Simple File Transfer - Protocol for Radio Links using Enhanced Trivial File - Transfer Protocol (ETFTP) +6.29 RFC 1986: Experiments with a Simple File Transfer Protocol + for Radio Links using Enhanced Trivial File Transfer Protocol This protocol is IPv4 dependent, as can be seen from the segment presented bellow, and taken from Section 2. (PROTOCOL DESCRIPTION): "Table 3: ETFTP Data Encapsulation - +------------+------------+------------+------------+---¡--------+ + ++------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+ |Ethernet(14)| | |ETFTP/ | | |SLIP(2) |IP(20) |UDP(8) |NETBLT(24) |DATA(1448) | |AX.25(20) | | | | | - +------------+------------+------------+------------+---¡--------+ - " ++------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+" 6.30 RFC 2016: Uniform Resource Agents (URAs) - (URAS) - - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. - -6.31 RFC 2066: TELNET CHARSET Option (TOPT- - CHARS) - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.32 RFC 2075: IP Echo Host Service (IP-Echo) +6.31 RFC 2066: TELNET CHARSET Option - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.33 RFC 2090: TFTP Multicast Option (TFTP-MULTI) +6.32 RFC 2075: IP Echo Host Service - This protocol is limited to IPv4 multicast. It is expected that a - similar functionality could be implemented on top of IPv6 multicast. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.34 RFC 2120: Managing the X.500 Root Naming - Context (X.500-NAME) +6.33 RFC 2090: TFTP Multicast Option - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +This protocol is limited to IPv4 multicast. It is expected that a similar +functionality could be implemented on top of IPv6 multicast. -6.35 RFC 2161: A MIME Body Part for ODA (MIME- - ODA) +6.34 RFC 2120: Managing the X.500 Root Naming Context - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.36 RFC 2162: MaXIM-11 - Mapping between X.400 / - Internet mail and Mail-11 mail (MAP-MAIL) +6.35 RFC 2161: A MIME Body Part for ODA - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.37 RFC 2168: Resolution of Uniform Resource - Identifiers using the Domain Name System +6.36 RFC 2162: MaXIM-11 - Mapping between X.400 / Internet + mail and Mail-11 mail - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.38 RFC 2169: A Trivial Convention for using HTTP in - URN Resolution +6.37 RFC 2169: A Trivial Convention for using HTTP in URN + Resolution - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.39 RFC 2217: Telnet Com Port Control Option (TOPT- - COMPO) +6.38 RFC 2217: Telnet Com Port Control Option - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.40 RFC 2295: Transparent Content Negotiation in - HTTP (TCN-HTTP) +6.39 RFC 2295: Transparent Content Negotiation in HTTP - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.41 RFC 2296: HTTP Remote Variant Selection - Algorithm ¡ RVSA/1.0 (HTTP-RVSA) +6.40 RFC 2296: HTTP Remote Variant Selection Algorithm + RVSA/1.0 - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.42 RFC 2307: An Approach for Using LDAP as a - Network Information Service (LDAP-NIS) +6.41 RFC 2307: An Approach for Using LDAP as a Network + Information Service This protocol assumes IPv4 addressing in its schema, as shown in Section 3. (Attribute definitions): "( nisSchema.1.19 NAME 'ipHostNumber' DESC 'IP address as a dotted decimal, eg. 192.168.1.1, omitting leading zeros' + EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match SYNTAX 'IA5String{128}' ) ( nisSchema.1.20 NAME 'ipNetworkNumber' DESC 'IP network as a dotted decimal, eg. 192.168, omitting leading zeros' EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match SYNTAX 'IA5String{128}' SINGLE-VALUE ) ( nisSchema.1.21 NAME 'ipNetmaskNumber' DESC 'IP netmask as a dotted decimal, eg. 255.255.255.0, omitting leading zeros' @@ -2315,341 +1810,355 @@ "Hosts with IPv6 addresses MUST be written in their "preferred" form as defined in section 2.2.1 of [RFC1884], such that all components of the address are indicated and leading zeros are omitted. This provides a consistent means of resolving ipHosts by address." However, the defined format mentioned above has been replaced, hence it is no longer valid. -6.43 RFC 2310: The Safe Response Header Field +6.42 RFC 2310: The Safe Response Header Field - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.44 RFC 2483: URI Resolution Services Necessary for - URN Resolution +6.43 RFC 2483: URI Resolution Services Necessary for URN + Resolution - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.45 RFC 2567: Design Goals for an Internet Printing - Protocol (IPP-DG) +6.44 RFC 2567: Design Goals for an Internet Printing Protocol - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.46 RFC 2568: Rationale for the Structure of the Model - and Protocol for the Internet Printing Protocol (IPP- - RAT) +6.45 RFC 2568: Rationale for the Structure of the Model and + Protocol for the Internet Printing Protocol - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.47 RFC 2569: Mapping between LPD and IPP - Protocols +6.46 RFC 2569: Mapping between LPD and IPP Protocols - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.48 RFC 2649: An LDAP Control and Schema for - Holding Operation Signatures +6.47 RFC 2649: An LDAP Control and Schema for Holding + Operation Signatures - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.49 RFC 2654: A Tagged Index Object for use in the - Common Indexing Protocol +6.48 RFC 2654: A Tagged Index Object for use in the Common + Indexing Protocol - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.50 RFC 2655: CIP Index Object Format for SOIF - Objects +6.49 RFC 2655: CIP Index Object Format for SOIF Objects - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.51 RFC 2656: Registration Procedures for SOIF - Template Types +6.50 RFC 2656: Registration Procedures for SOIF Template Types - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.52 RFC 2657: LDAPv2 Client vs. the Index Mesh +6.51 RFC 2657: LDAPv2 Client vs. the Index Mesh - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.53 RFC 2756: Hyper Text Caching Protocol - (HTCP/0.0) (HTCP) +6.52 RFC 2756: Hyper Text Caching Protocol - This protocol claims to be both IPv4 and IPv6 aware, but in Section - 2.8. (An HTCP/0.0 AUTH has the following structure), it does make - the following statement: +This specification claims to be both IPv4 and IPv6 aware, but in +Section 2.8. (An HTCP/0.0 AUTH has the following structure), it +does make the following statement: "SIGNATURE is a COUNTSTR [3.1] which holds the HMAC-MD5 - digest (see - [RFC 2104]), with a B value of 64, of the following elements, each - of which is digested in its "on the wire" format, including - transmitted padding if any is covered by a field's associated LENGTH: +digest (see [RFC 2104]), with a B value of 64, of the following +elements, each of which is digested in its "on the wire" format, + +including transmitted padding if any is covered by a field's associated +LENGTH: IP SRC ADDR [4 octets] IP SRC PORT [2 octets] IP DST ADDR [4 octets] IP DST PORT [2 octets] HTCP MAJOR version number [1 octet] HTCP MINOR version number [1 octet] SIG-TIME [4 octets] SIG-EXPIRE [4 octets] HTCP DATA [variable] KEY-NAME (the whole COUNTSTR [3.1]) [variable]" The given SIGNATURE calculation should be expanded to support IPv6 16 byte addresses. -6.54 RFC 2774: An HTTP Extension Framework +6.53 RFC 2774: An HTTP Extension Framework - There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. +There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. -6.55 RFC 2974: Session Announcement Protocol (SAP) +6.54 RFC 2974: Session Announcement Protocol This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. -6.56 RFC 3018: Unified Memory Space Protocol - Specification +6.55 RFC 3018: Unified Memory Space Protocol Specification - This protocol seems to support IPv6 but, however, the specification - has definitions for IPv4 addresses. +In section 3.4 (Address Formats), there are explicit references to IPv4 +addressing: -6.57 RFC 3082: Notification and Subscription for SLP +"The following address format numbers are definite for nodes, +immediately connected to the global IPv4 network: +N 4-0-0 (4) N 4-0-1 (4-1) N 4-0-2 (4-2) +The appropriate formats of 128-bit addresses: +Octets: + + +0 +1 +2 +3 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +0: |0 1 0 0|0 0|0 0| Free | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +4: | Free | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +8: | Free | IP address | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +12:| IP address | Local memory address | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +0: |0 1 0 0|0 0|0 1| Free | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +4: | Free | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +8: | Free | IP address | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +12:| IP address | Local memory address | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +0: |0 1 0 0|0 0|1 0| Free | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +4: | Free | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +8: | IP address | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +12:| Local memory address | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +Free +It is not used by the protocol. +IP address +It sets the node address in the global IPv4 network." + +This section needs to be re-written, so that the specification becomes +IPv6 compliant. + +6.56 RFC 3082: Notification and Subscription for SLP This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware, and thus, it requires no changes. -6.58 RFC 3088: OpenLDAP Root Service An - experimental LDAP referral service +6.57 RFC 3088: OpenLDAP Root Service An experimental LDAP + referral service Section 5. (Using the Service) states: + "The service supports LDAPv3 and LDAPv2+ [LDAPv2+] clients over TCP/IPv4. Future incarnations of this service may support TCP/IPv6 or other transport/internet protocols." 7 Summary of Results - From the initial survey of 262 RFCs, 17 were identified as having - some form of IPv4 dependency. Results are broken down as follows: - Standards: 4 of 24, or 16.67% - Draft Standards: 3 of 20, or 15.00% - Proposed Standards: 5 of 160, or 3.13% - Experimental RFCs: 5 of 58, or 8.62% - Of the 17 identified, several require no action, either because they - document outdated and unused protocols, or because they document - protocols that are still being updated by the appropriate working - groups. Additionally, there are many instances of standards that - should be updated, but do not cause any operational impact if - they are not. The remaining instances are documented below. - The author has attempted to organize the results in a format - that allows easy reference to other protocol designers. The - following recommendations uses the documented terms "MUST", - "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", - "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and - "OPTIONAL" described in RFC 2119. They should only be - interpreted in the context of RFC 2119 when they appear in all - caps. That is, the word "should" in the previous SHOULD NOT be - interpreted as in RFC 2119. The assignment of these terms has been - based entirely on the authors perceived needs for updates and should - not be taken as an official statement. +This survey contemplates 244 RFCs, having 31 (12.7%) been +identified as having some form of IPv4 dependency. Results are +broken down as follows: + +Standards: 1 out of 20, or 5% +Draft Standards: 4 out of 20, or 20% +Proposed Standards: 18 out of 155, or 11.61% +Experimental RFCs: 8 out of 49, or 16.32% + +Of the 31 identified, the majority simply require minor actions, such +as adding a caveat to IPv6 addressing that would avoid ambiguity, or +re-writing a section to avoid IP-version dependent syntax. The +remaining instances are documented below. +The authors have attempted to organize the results in a format that +allows easy reference to other protocol designers. 7.1 Full Standards 7.1.1 RFC 959: STD 9 File Transfer Protocol Problems have already been fixed in [6]. -7.1.2 RFC 821: STD 10 Simple Mail Transfer Protocol - - The use of literal IP addresses as part of email addresses, - i.e., phil@10.10.10.10, is depreciated and therefore additional - specifications for using literal IPv6 addresses SHOULD NOT be - defined. - -7.1.3 RFC 822: STD 11 Standard for the format of ARPA - Internet Text Messages - - See section 3.2. - -7.1.4 RFC 1305: STD 12 Network Time Protocol - - As documented in Section 3.19. above, there are too many - specific references to the use of 32-bit IPv4 addresses. An updated - specification to support NTP over IPv6 packets MUST be created. - 7.2 Draft Standards -7.2.1 RFC 1305: Network Time Protocol (NTP) +7.2.1 RFC 1305: Network Time Protocol (version 3): Specification, + Implementation and Analysis - See Section 7.1.4. +As documented in Section 4.4. above, there are too many specific +references to the use of 32-bit IPv4 addresses. An updated -7.2.2 RFC 2396: Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Syntax +specification to support NTP over IPv6 packets is needed. However, +there has been some work related with this issue, as an already +expired Internet-Draft (draft-boudreault-ipv6-ntp-refid-00), allegedly +documents. Also, there is at least one IPv6 NTP implementation. + +7.2.2 RFC 2396: URI Syntax URI's allow the literal use of IPv4 addresses but have no specific recommendations on how to represent literal IPv6 addresses. This problem has already been addressed in [4]. -7.2.3 RFC 2616: HTTP +7.2.3 RFC 2616: Hypertext Transfer Protocol HTTP/1.1 HTTP allows the literal use of IPv4 addresses, but has no specific recommendations on how to represent literal IPv6 addresses. This problem has already been addressed in [4]. 7.3 Proposed Standards 7.3.1 RFC 946: Telnet Terminal LOC There is a dependency in the definition of the TTYLOC Number which would require an updated version of the protocol. However, - since this functionality is of marginal value today, a newer version - MAY be created. +since this functionality is of marginal value today, an updated version +might not make sense. -7.3.2 RFC 1738: Uniform Resource Locators (URL) +7.3.2 RFC 1738: URLs URL's IPv4 dependencies have already been addressed in [4]. -7.3.3 RFC 2384: POP3 URL Scheme +7.3.3 RFC 2165: Service Location Protocol + +The problems of this specification have already been addressed in [5]. + +7.3.4 RFC 2384: POP URL Scheme POP URL IPv4 dependencies have already been addressed in [4]. -7.3.4 RFC 2608:SLP v2 +7.3.5 RFC 2608: Service Location Protocol version 2 - The problems of this specification have already been addressed in - [5]. +The problems of this specification have already been addressed in [5]. -7.3.5 RFC 3017: XML DTP For Roaming Access Phone Books +7.3.6 RFC 3017: XML DTP For Roaming Access Phone Books - Extensions SHOULD be defined to support IPv6 addresses. +Extensions should be defined to support IPv6 addresses. 7.4 Experimental RFCs 7.4.1 RFC 1235:The Coherent File Distribution Protocol - This protocol relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard SHOULD - NOT be produced. +This protocol relies on IPv4 and therefore, there is no need for a new +standard. -7.4.2 RFC 1459: IRC Protocol +7.4.2 RFC 1459: Internet Relay Chat Protocol - This protocol relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard SHOULD - be produced. +This specification only requires a text update, to become IPv6 +compliant. 7.4.3 RFC 1986: Simple File Transfer Using Enhanced TFTP - This protocol relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard MAY be - produced. +This specification only requires a text update, to become IPv6 +compliant. 7.4.4 RFC 2090: TFTP Multicast Option - This protocol relies on IPv4 IGMP Multicast and a new protocol - standard MAY be produced. +This protocol relies on IPv4 IGMP Multicast.To become IPv6 +compliant, a new version should be produced. -7.4.5 RFC 2307: Using LDAP as a NIS (RFC 2307) +7.4.5 RFC 2307: Using LDAP as a NIS This document tries to provide IPv6 support but it relies on an - outdated format for IPv6 addresses. A new specification MAY be - produced. +outdated format for IPv6 addresses. Thus, there is the need for an +IPv6 compliant version. 8 Acknowledgements - The author would like to acknowledge the support of the - Internet Society in the research and production of this document. - Additionally, the author would like to thanks his partner in all ways, - Wendy M. Nesser. +Phil would like to acknowledge the support of the Internet Society in +the research and production of this document. Additionally, Phil +would like to thanks his partner in all ways, Wendy M. Nesser. 9 Security Considerations This document provides an exhaustive documentation of current IETF documented standards IPv4 address dependencies. Such process does not have security implications in itself. -References +Informative References -[1] P. Nesser II, "Introduction to the Survey of IPv4 Addresses in +[1] P. Nesser II, Sofia, "Introduction to the Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards", Internet Draft (Work in Progress), February 2003. [2] Crawford, C. and C. Huitema, "DNS Extensions to Support IPv6 Address Aggregation and Renumbering", RFC 2874, July 2000. [3] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process - version 3", RFC 2026, October 1996. [4] Hinden., R., Carpenter, B., L. Masinter, "Format For Literal Addresses in URL's", RFC 2732, December 1999. [5] E. Guttman, "Service Location Protocol Modifications for IPv6", RFC 3111, May 2001. [6] Allman, M., Ostermann, S., Metz C., "FTP Extensions for IPv6 and NATs", RFC 2428, September 1998. Authors' Addresses -Editor: Rute Sofia +Rute Sofia FCCN Av. Brasil, 101 -1700 Lisboa -Portugal -Email: rsofia@fccn.pt -Phone: +351 91 2507273 +1700 Lisboa, Portugal +Email: rsofia@ieee.org +Phone: +351 91 2507372 -Philip J. Nesser II +Philip J. Nesser II, Sofia Principal Nesser & Nesser Consulting 13501 100th Ave NE, #5202 Kirkland, WA 98034 Email: phil@nesser.com Phone: +1 425 481 4303 Fax: +1 425 482 9721 -This draft expires in August 2003. + +This draft expires in February 2004. Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it - has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the - IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and +intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to +the implementation or use of the technology described in this +document or the extent to which any license under such rights might +or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made +any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's +procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to - obtain a general license or permission for the use of such - proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can - be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive - Director. +obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary +rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained +from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to +bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, +or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be +required to practice this standard. Please address the information to +the IETF Executive Director. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published - and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any - kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are +and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, +provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other - Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of - developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for - copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be - followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than - English. - The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be - revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. - This document and the information contained herein is provided on - an - "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE - INTERNET ENGINEERING - TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR - IMPLIED, INCLUDING - BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF - THE INFORMATION - HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY - IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF - MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR - PURPOSE. +Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing +Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined +in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to +translate it into languages other than English. The limited +permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by +the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. This document and +the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and +THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS +ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE +ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS +FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.