[rfc-dist] RFC 8558 on Transport Protocol Path Signals

rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Wed, 10 April 2019 03:57 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-dist-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-dist-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-dist-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB05D1205CD for <ietfarch-rfc-dist-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 20:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e8_kdHnw5CB3 for <ietfarch-rfc-dist-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 20:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D488120642 for <rfc-dist-archive-yuw6Xa6hiena@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 20:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29883B80E8C; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 20:57:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 0B896B80E88; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 20:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:ams_util_lib.php
From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Message-Id: <20190410035711.0B896B80E88@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 20:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rfc-dist] =?utf-8?q?RFC_8558_on_Transport_Protocol_Path_Signals?=
X-BeenThere: rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Announcements <rfc-dist.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-dist>, <mailto:rfc-dist-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-dist/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-dist-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist>, <mailto:rfc-dist-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: drafts-update-ref@iana.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: rfc-dist-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-dist" <rfc-dist-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        
        RFC 8558

        Title:      Transport Protocol Path Signals 
        Author:     T. Hardie, Ed.
        Status:     Informational
        Stream:     IAB
        Date:       April 2019
        Mailbox:    ted.ietf@gmail.com
        Pages:      10
        Characters: 22477
        Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None

        I-D Tag:    draft-iab-path-signals-03.txt

        URL:        https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8558

        DOI:        10.17487/RFC8558

This document discusses the nature of signals seen by on-path
elements examining transport protocols, contrasting implicit and
explicit signals.  For example, TCP's state machine uses a series of
well-known messages that are exchanged in the clear.  Because these
are visible to network elements on the path between the two nodes
setting up the transport connection, they are often used as signals
by those network elements.  In transports that do not exchange these
messages in the clear, on-path network elements lack those signals.
Often, the removal of those signals is intended by those moving the
messages to confidential channels.  Where the endpoints desire that
network elements along the path receive these signals, this document
recommends explicit signals be used.

This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board.


INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community.
It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
  https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist

For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search
For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org.  Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.


The RFC Editor Team
Association Management Solutions, LLC


_______________________________________________
rfc-dist mailing list
rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist
http://www.rfc-editor.org