RFC 2626






Network Working Group                                     P. Nesser II
Request for Comments: 2626                  Nesser & Nesser Consulting
Category: Informational                                      June 1999


          The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)


Status of this Memo

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

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   The Year 2000 Working Group (WG) has conducted an investigation into
   the millennium problem as it regards Internet related protocols.
   This investigation only targeted the protocols as documented in the
   Request For Comments Series (RFCs).  This investigation discovered
   little reason for concern with regards to the functionality of the
   protocols.  A few minor cases of older implementations still using
   two digit years (ala RFC 850) were discovered, but almost all
   Internet protocols were given a clean bill of health.  Several cases
   of "period" problems were discovered, where a time field would "roll
   over" as the size of field was reached.  In particular, there are
   several protocols, which have 32 bit, signed integer representations
   of the number of seconds since January 1, 1970 which will turn
   negative at Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 GMT 2038.  Areas whose protocols will
   be effected by such problems have been notified so that new revisions
   will remove this limitation.

1. Introduction

   According to the trade press billions of dollars will be spend the
   upcoming years on the year 2000 problem, also called the millennium
   problem (though the third millennium will really start in 2001). This
   problem consists of the fact that many software packages and some
   protocols use a two-digit field for the year in a date field. Most of
   the problems seem to be in administrative and financial programs, or
   in the hardcoded microcomputers found in electronic equipment.  A lot
   of organizations are now starting to make an inventory of which
   software and tools they use will suffer from the millennium problem.




Nesser                       Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


   With the increasing popularity of the Internet, more and more
   organizations use the Internet as a serious business tool.  This
   means that most organizations will want to analyze the millennium
   problems due to the use of Internet protocols and popular Internet
   software. In the trade press the first articles suggest that the
   Internet will collapse at midnight the 31st of December 1999.

   To counter these suggestions, and to avoid having countless companies
   redo the same investigation, this effort was undertaken by the IETF.
   The Year 2000 WG has made an inventory of all-important Internet
   protocols that have been documented in the Request for Comments (RFC)
   series.  Only protocols directly related to the Internet will be
   considered.

   This document is divided into a number of sections.  Section 1 is the
   Introduction which you are now reading.  Section 2 is a disclaimer
   about the completeness of this effort.  Section 3 describes areas in
   which millenium problems have been found, while Section 4 describes a
   few other "period" problems.  Section 5 describes potential fixes to
   problems that have been identified. Section 6 describes the
   methodology used in the investigation. Sections 7 through 22 are
   devoted to the 15 different groupings of protocols and RFCs.  Section
   23 discusses security considerations, Section 24 is devoted to
   references, and Section 25 is the author contact information.
   Appendix A is the list of RFCs examined broken down by category.
   Appendix B is a PERL program used to make a first cut identification
   of problems, and Appendix C is the output of that PERL program.

   The editor of this document would like to acknowledge the critical
   contributions of the follow for direct performance of research and
   the provision of text: Alex Latzko, Robert Elz, Erik Huizer, Gillian
   Greenwood, Barbara Jennings, R.E. (Robert) Moore, David Mills, Lynn
   Kubinec, Michael Patton, Chris Newman, Erik-Jan Bos, Paul Hoffman,
   and Rick H. Wesson.  The pace with which this group has operated has
   only been achievable by the intimate familiarity of the contributors
   with the protocols and ready access to the collective knowledge of
   the IETF.

2. Disclaimer

   This RFC is not complete.  It is an effort to analyze the Y2K impact
   on hundreds of protocols but is likely to have missed some protocols
   and misunderstood others.  Organizations should not attempt to claim
   any legitimacy or approval for any particular protocol based on this
   document.  The efforts have concentrated on the identification of
   potential problems, rather than solutions to any of the problems that
   have been identified. Any proposed solutions are only that: proposed.
   A formal engineering review should take place before any solution is



Nesser                       Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


   adopted.

   It should also be noted that the research was performd on RFCs 1
   through 2128.  At that time the IESG was charted with not allowing
   any new RFCs to be published that had any Year 2000 issues.   Since
   that cutoff time there has been work to correct issues discovered by
   this Working Group.  In particular, RWhois as documented by RFC 1714
   has been updated to fix the problems found.  RFC 2167 now documents a
   fixed version of the RWhois protocol.  The work of this group was to
   look backwards, and hence new RFC's which supplant the old are
   expected to make the information in this RFC obsolete.  The work of
   this group will truly be complete when this document is completely
   obsolete.

   A number of people have suggested looking into other "special" dates.
   For example, the first leap year, the first "double digit" day
   (January 10, 2000), January 1, 2001, etc.  There is not one place
   where days have been used in the protocols defined by the RFC series
   so there is little reason to believe that any of these special dates
   will have any impact.

3. Summary of Year 2000 Problems

   Here is a brief description of all the Millennium issues discovered
   in the course of this research.  Note that many of the RFCs are
   unclear on the issue.  They mandate the use of UTCTime but do not
   specify whether the two-digit or four-digit year representation
   should be used.

3.1 "Directory Services"

       rfc1274.txt - References UTC date/time
       rfc1276.txt - References UTC date/time for version control.
       rfc1488.txt - References UTC Time as printable strings.
       rfc1608.txt - Refers to uTCTimeSyntax
       rfc1609.txt - Refers to uTCTimeSyntax
       rfc1778.txt - Refers to uTCTimeSyntax

3.2  "Information Services and File Transfer"

   HTTP 1.1, as defined in RFC 2068, requires all newly generated date
   stamps to conform to RFC 1123 date formats which are Year 2000
   compliant, but it also requires acceptance of the older non-compliant
   RFC850 formats.  Some specific recommendations have been passed to
   the HTTP WG.






Nesser                       Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


   HTML 2.0, as defined in RFC 1866, could allow a very subtle Year 2000
   problem, but once again this recommendation has been passed on the
   HTML WG.

   RFC 1778 on String Representations of Standard Attribute Syntax's
   define UTC Time in Section 2.21 and uses that definition in Section
   2.25 on User Certificates.  Since UTC Time is being used, there is a
   potential millennium issue.

   RFC 1440 on SIFT/UFT: Sender-Initiated/Unsolicited File Transfer
   defines an optional DATE command in Section 5 of the form mm/dd/yy
   which is subject to millennium issues.

3.3 "Electronic Mail"

   After reviewing all mail-related RFCs, it was discovered that while
   some obsolete standards required two-digit years, all currently used
   standards require four-digit years and are thus not prone to typical
   Year 2000 problems.

   RFCs 821 and 822, the main basis for SMTP mail exchange and message
   format, originally required two-digit years. However, both of these
   RFCs were later modified by RFC 1123 in 1989, which strongly
   recommended 4-digit years.

3.4 "Name Serving"

   While not a protocol issue, there is a common habit of writing serial
   numbers for DNS zone files in the form YYXXXXXX.  The only real
   requirement on the serial numbers is that they be increasing (see RFC
   1982 for a complete description) and a change from 99XXXXXX to
   00XXXXXX cause a failure.  See the section on "Name Serving" for a
   complete description of the issues.

3.5  "Network Management"

   Version 2 of SNMP's MIB definition language (SMIv2) specifies the use
   of UCTTimes for time stamping MIB modules.  Even though these time
   stamps do not flow in any network protocols, there could be as issue
   with management applications, depending on implementations.

3.6  "Network News"

   There does exist a problem in both NNTP, RFC 977, and the Usenet News
   Message Format, RFC 10336.  They both specify two-digit year format.
   A working group has been formed to update the network news protocols
   in general, and addressing this problem is on their list of work
   items.



Nesser                       Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


3.7  "Real-Time Services"

   A Year 2000 problem does occur in the Simple Network Paging Protocol,
   versions 2 & 3. Both define a HOLDuntil option which uses a
   YYMMDDHHMMSS+/-GMT field. Version 3 also defines a MSTAtus command,
   which is required to store,dates and times as YYMMDDHHMMSS+/-GMT.

   There is a small Year 2000 issue in RFC 1786 on the Representation of
   IP Routing Policies in the ripe-81++ Routing Registry.  In Appendices
   C the "changed" object parameter defines a format of 
   YYMMDD, and similarly in Appendix D "withdrawn" object identifier has
   he format of YYMMDD.  Since these are only identifiers there should
   be little operational impact.  Some application software may need to
   be modified.

3.8 "Security"

   RFC 1507 on Distributed Authentication Security Services (DASS) use
   UTCTime.  Because of the imprecision of the UTC time definition there
   could be problems with this protocol.

   RFCs 1421-1424 specifies that PEM uses UTC time formats which could
   have a Millennium issue.

4. Summary of Other "Periodicity" Problems

   By far, the largest area of "period" problems occurs in the year
   2038.  Many protocols use a 32-bit field to record the number of
   seconds since January 1, 1970.

4.1  "Name Serivces"

   DNS Security uses 32-bit timestamps which will roll over in 2038.
   This issue has been refered to the appropriate Working Group so that
   the details of rollover can be established.

4.2  "Routing"

   IDPR suffers from the classic Year 2038 problem, by having a
   timestamp counter which rolls over at that time.

5. Suggested Solutions

   The real solution to the problem is to use 4 digit year fields for
   applications and hardware systems.  For counters that key off of a
   certain time (January 1, 1970 for example) need to either: define a
   wrapping solution, or to define a larger number space (greater than
   32-bits), or to make more efficient use of the 32-bit space. However,



Nesser                       Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


   it will be impossible to completely replace currently deployed
   systems, so solutions for handling problems are in order.

5.1 Fixed Solution

   A number of organizations and groups have suggested a fixed solution
   to the problem of two digit years.  Given a two-digit year YY, if YY
   is greater than or equal to 50, the year shall be interpreted as
   19YY; and where YY is less than 50, the year shall be intrepreted as
   20YY.

   While a simple and straightforward solution, it only pushes the
   problem off 40 to 50 years, until the artificially generated Year
   2050 problem needs to be addressed.  However, it is easy to implement
   and deploy, so it might be the most commonly adopted solution.

5.2 Sliding Window

   Another solution is the "sliding window" approach.  In this approach,
   some value N is selected, and any two digit year that is less than or
   equal to the current two digit year plus N is considered the future,
   while any other two digit year is considered in the past.

   For example, choosing N equal to 10,  If the current year is 2012,
   and I get a two digit year that is any of 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
   19, 20, 21 or 22, assume it is 20YY (i.e. the future), otherwise
   consider it to be in the past(1923-1999, 2000-2011).

   This solution has two advantages.  First, no new fixed year problems
   are introduced.  Second, different applications and protocols could
   choose different values of N.  The drawback is that this solution is
   harder to implement, and to work well the value of N will need to be
   constant across different implementations.

6. Methodology

   The first task was dividing the types of RFC's into logical groups
   rather than the strict numeric publishing order.  Sixteen specific
   areas were identified.  They are: "Autoconfiguration" , "Directory
   Services", "Disk Sharing", "Games and Chat" ,"Information Services &
   File Transfer", "Network & Transport Layer", "Electronic Mail",
   "NTP", Name Serving", "Network Management", "News", "Real Time
   Services", "Routing", "Security", "Virtual Terminal", and "Other".
   In addition to these categories, many hundreds of RFC's were
   immediately eliminated based on content.  That is not to say that all
   Informational RFC's were not considered, many did contain some
   technical content or overview whichdemanded scrutiny.




Nesser                       Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


   Each area was assigned to a team for investigation.  Although each
   team used whatever additional investigation techniques which seemed
   appropriate (including completely reading each RFC, and in some cases
   the source code for the reference implementation) at minimum each
   team used an automatic scanning system to search for the following
   items (case insensitively) in each RFC:

        - date
        - GMT
        - UTCTime
        - year
        - yy (that is not part of yyyy)
        - two-digit, 2-digit, 2digit
        - century
        - 1900 & 2000

   Note that all of these strings except "UTCTime" may occur in
   conjunction with a date format that accommodates the Year 2000
   crossing, as well as with one that does not.  So "hits" on these
   string do not necessarily indicate Year 2000 problems: they simply
   identify elements that need to be examined.

   After the documents were scanned, therefore, each "hit" was examined
   individually.  Those that cause no Year 2000 problems (e.g., those
   that encode the year as a two-byte integer, or as a four-character
   display string) are not discussed here.  Those that do cause Year
   2000 problems are identified in this document, and the nature and
   impact of the problems they cause are described.

7. Autoconfiguration

7.1 Summary

   The RFC's which were categorized into this group were primarily the
   BOOT Protocol (BOOTP) and the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
   (DHCP) for both IP version four and six.

   Examination of the BOOTP protocols and most popular implementations
   show no year 2000 problems.  All times are references as 32 bit
   integers in seconds of UTC time.  An investigation of all DHCP and
   the IPv6 Autoconfiguration mechanisms produced no year 2000 problems.
   All references to time, in particular lease lengths, are 32 bit
   integers in seconds, allowing lease times of well over 100 years.








Nesser                       Informational                      [Page 7]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


7.2 Specifics

   The following RFCs were examined for possible millennium problems:
   906, 951, 1048, 1084, 1395, 1497, 1531, 1532, 1533, 1534, 1541, 1542,
   1970, & 1971.  RFC 951's only reference to time or dates is a two-
   byte field in the packet, which is number of second since the hosts,
   was booted.  RFC's 1048, 1084, 1395, 1497, 1531, & 1532 have either
   no references to dates and time, or they are the same as the RFCs,
   which obsoleted them, discussed in the next paragraph.

   RFC 1533 enumerates all the known DHCP field types and a number of
   these have to do with time.  Section 3.4 defines a "Time Offset"
   field which specifies the offset of the clients subnet in seconds
   from UTC.  This 4 byte field has no millennium issues.  Section 9.2
   defines the IP Address Lease Time field which is used by clients to
   request a specific lease time.  This four byte field is an unsigned
   integer containing a number of seconds.  Section 9.9 defines a
   Renewal Time Value field, Section 9.10 defines a Rebinding Time
   Value, both of which are similarly 32 bit fields, which have no
   millennium issues.

   RFC 1534 has no references to times or dates.

   RFC 1541 has two mentions of times/dates.  The first is the "secs"
   field which, similarly to RFC 951, is a 16-bit field for the number
   of seconds since the host has booted.  There is also a discussion in
   section 3.3 about "Interpretation and Representation of Time Values"
   which while clearly states that there is no millennium or period
   problems.

   RFC 1542 also references the "secs" field mentioned previously.

   RFC 1970 mentions a number of variables, which are time related.  In
   section 4.2 "Router Advertisement Message Format" the following
   fields are defined: Router Lifetime, Reachable Time, & Retrans Timer.
   In section 4.6.2 "Prefix Information" the following are defined:
   Valid Lifetime, & Preferred Lifetime.  In section 6.2.1 "Router
   Configuration Variables the following are defined: MaxRtrAdvInterval,
   MinRtrAdvInterval, AdvReachableTime, AdvRetransTimer,
   AdvDefaultLifetime, AdvValidLifetime, & AdvPreferredLifetime.  All of
   these fields specify counters of some sort which have no millennium
   or periodicity problems.

   RFC 1971 has some discussion of preferred lifetimes, depreciated
   lifetimes and valid lifetimes of leases, but only discusses them in
   an expository way.





Nesser                       Informational                      [Page 8]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


8. Directory Services

8.1 Summary

   The RFC's which were categorized into this group were primarily X.500
   related RFC's, Whois, Rwhois, Whois++, and the Lightweight Directory
   Access Protocol (LDAP).

   Upon review of the Directory Services related RFC's, no serious year
   2000 problems were discovered.  Some minor issues were noted and
   explained below in the specific portion of this section.

8.2 Specifics

   RFCs that mentioned UTC Time or made reference to uTCTimeSyntax could
   fail to be Y2K compliant. These should be updated to specify the four
   year version of uTCTimeSyntax rather than giving the option of using
   a two-year date representation. The following RFCs fall into this
   category:

       rfc1274.txt - References UTC date/time
       rfc1276.txt - References UTC date/time for version control.
       rfc1488.txt - References UTC Time as printable strings.
       rfc1608.txt - Refers to uTCTimeSyntax
       rfc1609.txt - Refers to uTCTimeSyntax
       rfc1778.txt - Refers to uTCTimeSyntax

   Two RFC's have unusual date specifications and specify their own date
   format. Both of these support Y2K compliant dates.

   RFC1714 (RWhois) specifies date formats that are not Y2K compliant,
   but it also supports dates that are. Implementers of the RWhois
   protocol should only use the %MY4 format

   RFC1834 (Whois++) requires the use of dates, but it didn't specify
   the format, syntax, or representation of the date string to be used.

9. Disk Sharing

9.1 Summary

   The RFC's which were categorized into this group were those related
   to the Network File System (NFS).  Other popular disk sharing
   protocols like SMB and AFS were referred to their respective
   trustee's for review.

   After careful review, NFS has no year 2000 problems.




Nesser                       Informational                      [Page 9]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


9.2 Specifics

   The references to time in this protocol are the times of file data
   modification, file access, and file metadata change (mtime, atime,
   and time, respectively).  These times are kept as 32 bit unsigned
   quantities in seconds since 1970-01-01, and so the NFS protocol will
   not experience an Epoch event until the year 2106.

10. Games and Chat

10.1 Summary

   The RFC's which were categorized into this group were related to the
   Internet Relay Chat Protocol (IRC).  No millennium problems exist in
   the IRC protocol.

10.2 Specifics

   There is only a single instance of time or date related information
   in the IRC protocol as specified by RFC 1459.  Section 4.3.4 defines
   a TIME message type which queries a server for its local time.  No
   mention is made of the format of the reply or how it is parsed, the
   assumption being specific implementations will handle the reply and
   parse it appropriately.

11. Information Services & File Transfer

11.1 Summary

   The RFC's which were categorized into this group were divided among
   World Wide Web (WWW) protocols and File Transfer Protocols (FTP).
   WWW protocols include the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), a
   variety of Uniform Resource formats (URL, URAs, etc.) and the
   HyperText Markup Language(HTML).  FTP protocols include the well
   known FTP protocol, the Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP) and a
   variety of extensions to these protocols.  Other information services
   includes the Finger Protocol and the LPD protocol.

   HTTP 1.1, as defined in RFC 2068, requires all newly generated date
   stamps to conform to RFC 1123 date formats which are Year 2000
   compliant, but it also requires acceptance of the older non-compliant
   RFC850 formats.  Some specific recommendations are listed below and
   have been passed to the HTTP WG.

   HTML 2.0, as defined in RFC 1866, could allow a very subtle Year 2000
   problem, but once again this recommendation has been passed on the
   HTML WG.




Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 10]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


   RFC 1778 on String Representations of Standard Attribute Syntax's
   define UTC Time in Section 2.21 and uses that definition in Section
   2.25 on User Certificates.  Since UTC Time is being used, there is a
   potential millennium issue.

   RFC 1440 on SIFT/UFT: Sender-Initiated/Unsolicited File Transfer
   defines an optional DATE command in Section 5 of the form mm/dd/yy
   which is subject to millennium issues.

11.2 Specifics

   The main IETF standards-track document on the HTTP protocol is
   RFC2068 on HTTP 1.1.  It notes that historically three different date
   formats have been used, and that one of them uses a two-digit year
   field.  In section 3.3.1 it requires HTTP 1.1 implementations to
   generate this RFC1123 format:

        Sun, 06 Nov 1994 08:49:37 GMT  ; RFC 822, updated by RFC 1123

   instead of this RFC850 format:

        Sunday, 06-Nov-94 08:49:37 GMT ; RFC 850, obsoleted by RFC 1036

   Unfortunately, many existing servers, serving on the order of one
   fifth of the current HTTP traffic, send dates in the ambiguous RFC850
   format.

   Section 19.3 of the RFC2068 says this:

     o  HTTP/1.1 clients and caches should assume that an RFC-850 date
        which appears to be more than 50 years in the future is in fact
        in the past (this helps solve the "year 2000" problem).

   This avoids a "stale cache" problem, which would cause the user to
   see out-of-date data.

   RFC 1986 documents experiments with a simple file transfer program
   over radio links using Enhanced Trivial FTP (ETFTP).  There are a
   number of timers defined which are all in seconds and have no year
   2000 issues.

   In RFC 1866, on HTML 2.0,the  tag allows the embedding of
   recommended values for some HTTP headers, including Expires.  E.g.

       

   Servers should rewrite these dates into RFC1123 format if necessary.



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 11]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


   RFC 1807 defines a format for bibliographic records and it specifies
   a DATE format, which requires 4 digit year fields.

   RFC 1788 defines ICMP Domain Name messages.  Section 3 defines a
   Domain Name Reply Packet, which contains a signed 32-bit integer.
   This timer is not Year 2000 reliant and is certainly large enough for
   it purposes.

   RFC 1784 on TFTP Timeout Intervals and Transfer Size Options uses a
   field for the number of seconds for the timeout.  It is an ASCII
   value from 1 to 255 octets in length.  There is no Y2K issue.

   RFC 1778 on String Representations of Standard Attribute Syntax's
   define UTC Time in Section 2.21 and uses that definition in Section
   2.25 on User Certificates.  Since UTC Time is being used, there is a
   potential millennium issue.

   RFC 1777 on LDAP defines a timelimit in Section 4.3 which is
   expressed in seconds, but does not define any limits.

   RFC 1440 on SIFT/UFT: Sender-Initiated/Unsolicited File Transfer
   defines an optional DATE command in Section 5 of the form mm/dd/yy,
   which is subject to millennium issues.

   RFC 1068 on the Background File Transfer Protocol (BFTP) defines two
   commands in Sections B.2.12 and B.2.13, the Submit and Time commands.
   >From the example usage's given in Appendix C it is clear that this
   protocol will function correctly though the year 9999.

   RFC 1037 on NFILE (a file access protocol) discusses the a Date
   representation in Section 7.1 as the number of seconds since January
   1, 1900, but does not limit the field size.  There should be no Y2K
   issues.

   RFC 998 on NETBLT defines a Death time in Section 8, which is the
   sender's death time in seconds.

   RFC 978 on the Voice File Interchange Protocol defines the Total Time
   of a message to be a 32-bit number of deci-seconds.  This limits the
   size of a message but has no millennium issues.

   RFC 969 was obsoleted by RFC 998.

   RFC 916 defines the Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol (RATP).
   Three timers are discussed in an expository manner in Section 5.4 and
   its subsections.  There are no relevant issues.





Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 12]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


   RFCs 2122, 2056, 2055, 2054, 2044, 2016, 1960, 1959, 1874, 1865, 1862,
   1843, 1842, 1823, 1815, 1808, 1798, 1785, 1783, 1782, 1779, 1766,
   1738, 1737, 1736, 1729, 1728, 1727, 1639, 1633, 1630, 1625, 1554,
   1545, 1530, 1529, 1528, 1489, 1486, 1436, 1415, 1413, 1350, 1345,
   1312, 1302, 1288, 1278, 1241, 1235, 1196, 1194, 1179, 1123, 1003, 971,
   965, 959, 949, 913, 887, 866, 865, 864, 863, 862, 797, 795, 783, 775,
   765, 751, 743, 742, 740, 737, 725, 722, 707, 691, 683, 662, 640, 624,
   614, 607, 599, 412, 411, 410, 407, and 406 were found to have no
   references to dates or times, and hence no millennium issues.

   RFCs 712, 697, 633, 630, 622, 610, 593, 592, 589, 573, 571, 570, 553,
   551, 549, 543, 535, 532, 525, 520, 514, 506, 505, 504, 501, 499, 493,
   490, 487, 486, 485, 480, 479, 478, 477, 472, 468, 467, 463, 454, 451,
   448, 446, 438, 437, 436, 430, 429, 418, 414, and 409 were not
   available for review.

   RFCS below 400 were considered too obsolete to even consider.

12. Network & Transport Layer

12.1 Summary

   The RFC's which were categorized into this group were the Internet
   Protocol (IP) versions four and six, the Transmission Control
   Protocol (TCP), the User Datagram Protocol (UDP), the Point-to-Point
   Protocol (PPP) and its extensions, Internet Control Message Protocol
   (ICMP), the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) and Remote Procedure
   Call (RPC) protocol.  A variety of less known protocols were also
   examined.

   After careful review of the nearly 400 RFC's in this catagory, no
   millennium or year 2000 problems were found.

12.2 Specifics

   RFC 2125 on the PPP Bandwidth Allocation Protocol (BAP) in section
   5.3 discusses the use if mandatory timers, but gives no mention as to
   how they are implemented.

   RFC 2114 on a Data Link Switching Client Access Protocol defines a
   retry timer of five seconds in Section 3.4.1.

   RFC 2097 on the PPP NetBIOS Frame Control Protocol discuesses several
   timer and timeouts in Section 2.1, none of which suffers from a year
   2000 problem.

   RFC 2075 on the IP Echo Host Service discusses timestamps and has no
   millennium issues.



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 13]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


   RFC 2005 on the Applicability for Mobile IP discusses using
   timestamps as a security measure to avoid replay attacks (Section
   3.), but does not quantify them.  There are no expected issues.

   RFC 2002 on IP Mobility Support uses a 16-bit field for the lifetime
   of a connection and notes the 18.2 hour limitation that this imposes.
   Section 5.6.1 on replay protection requires the use of 64-bit time
   fields, of a similar format to NTP packets.

   RFC 1981 on Path MTU Discovery for IPv6 discusses timestamps and
   their potential use to purge stale information in section 5.3.  There
   is no millennium issues in this use.

   RFC 1963 on the PPP Serial Data Transport Protocol defines a flow
   expiration time in section 4.9 which has no year 2000 issues.

   RFC 1833 on Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2 defines a
   variable in Section 2.2.1 called RPCBPROC_GETTIME which returns the
   local time in seconds since 1/1/1970.  Since this value is not fields
   width dependent, it may or may not wrap around the 32-bit value
   depending on the operating system parameters.

   RFC 1762 on the PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol discusses a
   number of timers in Section 5 (General Considerations).  None of
   these timers experience any millennium issues.

   RFC 1761 on Snoop Version 2 Packet Capture File Format discusses two
   32-bit timestamp values on Section 4 on Packet Record Formats.  The
   first of these may wrap in the year 2038, but should not effect
   anything of any import.

   RFC 1755 on ATM Signalling Support for IP Over ATM discusses timing
   issues in Section 3.4 on VC Teardown.  These limited timers have no
   year 2000 issues.

   RFC 1692 on the Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux) defines a TTL
   in Section 2.3 and a timer in Section 3.3.  Neither of these suffer
   from any millennium or year 2000 issues.

   RFC 1661 on PPP defines three timers in Section 4.6, none of which
   have any year 2000 issues.

   RFC 1644 on T/TCP (TCP Extensions for Transactions) mentions RFC 1323
   and the extended timers recommended in it.

   RFC 1575 defines an echo function for CNLP discusses in the narrative
   the use of the Lifetime Field in Section 5.3.  There is nothing to
   suggest that there is any year 2000 issues.



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 14]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


   RFC 1329 on Dual MAC FDDI Networks discusses ARP cache administration
   in Section 9.3 and 9.4 and various timers to expire entries.

   RFC 1256 on ICMP Router Discovery Messages talks about lifetime
   fields in Section 2 and defines three router configuration variables
   in Section 4.1.  None of these have any millennium issues.

   RFC 792 on ICMP discusses Timestamps and Timestamp Reply messages
   which define a 32-bit timestamp which contains the number of
   milliseconds since midnight UT.

   RFC 791 on the Internet Protocol defines a packet type 68 which is an
   Internet Timestamp, which defines a 32-bit field which contains the
   number of milliseconds since midnght UT.

   RFC 781 was defines the same option which is codified in RFC 791 as a
   packet type 68.

   RFC's 2126, 2118, 2113, 2107, 2106, 2105, 2098, 2067, 2043, 2023,
   2019, 2018, 2009, 2004, 2003, 2001, 1994, 1993, 1990, 1989, 1979,
   1978, 1977, 1976, 1975, 1974, 1973, 1972, 1967, 1962, 1954, 1946,
   1937, 1936, 1934, 1933, 1932, 1931, 1926, 1924, 1919, 1918, 1917,
   1916, 1915, 1897, 1888, 1887, 1885, 1884, 1883, 1881, 1878, 1877,
   1868, 1860, 1859, 1853, 1841, 1832, 1831, 1809, 1795, 1791, 1770,
   1764, 1763, 1756, 1754, 1752, 1744, 1735, 1726, 1719, 1717, 1710,
   1707, 1705, 1698, 1693, 1688, 1687, 1686, 1683, 1682, 1681, 1680,
   1679, 1678, 1677, 1676, 1674, 1673, 1672, 1671, 1670, 1669, 1667,
   1663, 1662, 1638, 1634, 1631, 1629, 1624, 1622, 1621, 1620, 1619,
   1618, 1613, 1605, 1604, 1598, 1590, 1577, 1570, 1561, 1560, 1553,
   1552, 1551, 1549, 1548, 1547, 1538, 1526, 1518, 1498, 1490, 1483,
   1475, 1466, 1454, 1435, 1434, 1433, 1393, 1390, 1385, 1379, 1378,
   1377, 1376, 1375, 1374, 1365, 1363, 1362, 1356, 1347, 1337, 1335,
   1334, 1333, 1332, 1331, 1326, 1323, 1314, 1307, 1306, 1294, 1293,
   1277, 1263, 1240, 1237, 1236, 1234, 1226, 1223, 1220, 1219, 1210,
   1209, 1201, 1191, 1188, 1185, 1172, 1171, 1166, 1162, 1151, 1146,
   1145, 1144, 1141, 1139, 1134, 1132, 1122, 1110, 1106, 1103, 1088,
   1086, 1085, 1078, 1072, 1071, 1070, 1069, 1063, 1062, 1057, 1055,
   1051, 1050, 1046, 1045, 1044, 1042, 1030, 1029, 1027, 1025, 1016,
   1008, 1007, 1006, 1002, 1001, 994, 986, 983, 982, 970, 964, 963, 962,
   955, 948, 942, 941, 940, 936, 935, 932, 926, 925, 924, 922, 919, 917,
   914, 905, 903, 896, 895, 894, 893, 892, 891, 889, 879, 877, 874, 872,
   871, 848, 829, 826, 824, 815, 814, 813, 801, 793, 789, 787, 777, 768,
   761, 760, 759, 730, 704, 696, 695, 692, 690, 689, 687, 685, 680, 675,
   674, 660, 632, 626, 613, 611 were reviewed but were found to have no
   millennium references.






Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 15]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


   RFC's 594, 591, 576, 550, 548, 528, 521, 489, 488, 473, 460, 459, 450,
   449, 445, 442, 434, 426, 417, 398, 395, 394, 359, 357, 348, 347, 346,
   343, 312, 301, 300, 271, 241, 210, 203, 202, 197, 190, 178, 176, 175,
   166, 165, 161, 151, 150, 146, 145, 143, 142, 128, 127, 123, 122, 93,
   91, 80, 79, 70, 67, 65, 62, 60, 59, 56, 55, 54, 53, 41, 38, 33, 23,
   22, 20, 19, 17, 12 were deemed too old to be considered for millennium
   investigation.

13. Electronic Mail

13.1 Summary

   The RFC's which were categorized into this group were the Simple Mail
   Transfer Protocol (SMTP), Internet Mail Access Protocol (IMAP), Post
   Office Protocol (POP), Multipurpose Internet Mail Exchange (MIME),
   and X.400 to SMTP interaction.

   After reviewing all mail-related RFCs, it was discovered that while
   some obsolete standards required two-digit years, all currently used
   standards require four-digit years and are thus not prone to typical
   Year 2000 problems.

13.2 Specifics

   RFCs 821 and 822, the main basis for SMTP mail exchange and message
   format, originally required two-digit years. However, both of these
   RFCs were later modified by RFC 1123 in 1989, which strongly
   recommended 4-digit years.  Although there might be a few very old
   SMTP systems using two-digit years, it is believed that almost all
   mail sent over the Internet today uses four-digit years. Mail that
   contains two-digit years in its SMTP headers will not "fail", but
   might be mis-sorted in message stores and mail user agents. This
   problem is avoided entirely by taking the RFC 1123 change as a
   requirement, rather than merely as a recommendation.

   IMAP versions 1, 2, and 3 used two-digit years, but IMAP version 4
   (defined in RFCs 1730 and 1732 in 1994) requires four-digit years.
   There are still a few IMAP 2 servers and clients in use on the
   Internet today, but IMAP version 4 has already taken over almost all
   of the IMAP market. Mail stored on an IMAP server or client with
   two-digit years will not "fail", but could possibly be mis-sorted or
   prematurely expired.

   RFC 1153 describes a format for digests of mailing lists, and uses
   two-digit dates. This format is not widely used. The use of two-digit
   dates could possibly cause missorting of stored messages.





Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 16]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


   RFC 1327, which describes mapping between X.400 mail and SMTP mail,
   uses the UTCTime format.

   RFC 1422 describes the structure of certificates that were used in
   PEM (and are expected to be used in many other mail and non-mail
   services). Those certificates use dates in UTCTime format. Poorly
   written software might prematurely expire or validate a certificate
   based on comparisons of the date with the current date, although no
   current software is known to do this.

   14. Network Time Protocols

14.1 Summary

   The RFC's which were categorized into this group were the Network
   Time Protocol (NTP), and the Time Protocol.

   NTP has been certified year 2000 compliant, while the Time Protocol
   will "roll over" at Thu Feb 07 00:54:54 2036 GMT.  Since NTP is the
   current defacto standard for network time this does not seem to be an
   issue.

14.2 Specifics

   There is no reference anywhere in the NTP specification or
   implementation to any reference epoch other than 1 January 1900. In
   short, NTP doesn't know anything about the millennium.

   >From the Time Protocol RFC (868):

       S: Send the time as a 32 bit binary number.

       ...

       The time is the number of seconds since 00:00 (midnight) 1 January
       1900 GMT, such that the time 1 is 12:00:01 am on 1 January 1900
       GMT; this base will serve until the year 2036.

15. Name Services

15.1 Summary

   The RFC's which were categorized into this group were the Domain Name
   System (DNS), it's advanced add on features (Incremental Zone
   Transfer, etc.).

   There have been no year 2000 relayed problems found with the DNS
   protocols, or common implementations of them.



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 17]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


15.2 Specifics

   One is a common practice of writing serial numbers in zone files as
   if they represent a date, and using only two digits of the year.
   That practice cannot survive into the year 2000.  This is not a
   protocol problem, the serial number is simply an integer, and any
   value is OK, provided it always increases (see rfc1982 for a
   definition of what that means).  In any case, a change from 97abcd
   (or similar) to 00abcd would be a decrease and so is not permitted.
   Zone file maintainers have two choices, one easy (though irrational)
   one would be to continue from 99 to 100 and so on.  The other, is
   simply to switch, at any time between now and when the serial number
   first needs updating after the year 2000, to use 4 digits to
   represent the year instead of 2.  As long as there are no more than 6
   digits in the "abcd" part, and this is done sometime before the year
   2100, this is always an increase, and therefore always safe.  Should
   any zone files be of the form yyabcdefg (with 7 digits after a 2-
   digit year) then the procedures of section 7 of rfc2182 should be
   adopted to convert the serial number to some other value.

   The other item of note is related to timestamps in DNS security.
   Those are represented as 32 bit counts of seconds, based in 1970, and
   hence have no year 2000 problems.  however, they do obviously have a
   natural end of life, and sometime before that time is reached, the
   definitions of those fields need to be corrected, perhaps to allow
   them to represent the number of seconds elapsed since the base,
   modulo 2^32, which is likely to be adequate for the purposes of DNS
   security (signatures and keys are unlikely to need to be valid for
   more than 70 years).  In any case, more work is needed in this area
   in the not too far distant future.

16 Network Management

16.1 Summary

   The RFC's which were categorized into this group were the Simple
   Network Management Protocol (SNMP), a large number of Management
   Information Bases (MIBs) and the Common Management Information
   Protocol over TCP/IP (CMOT).

   Although a few discrepancies have been found and outlined below, none
   of them should have an impact on interoperability.

16.2 Specifics

   16.2.1 Use of GeneralizedTime in CMOT as defined in RFCs 1095 and
   1189.




Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 18]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


   The standards for CMOT specify an unusual use for the GeneralizedTime
   type.  (GeneralizedTime has a four-digit representation of the year.)

   If the system generating the PDU does not have the current time, yet
   does have the time since last boot, then GeneralizedTime can be used
   to encode this information.  The time since last boot will be added
   to the base time "0001 Jan 1 00:00:00.00" using the Gregorian
   calendar algorithm.

   This is really a "Year 0" problem rather than a Year 2000 problem,
   and in any case, CMOT is not currently deployed.

16.2.2 UTCTime in SNMP Definitions

   UTCTime is an ASN.1 type that includes a two-digit representation of
   the year.  There are several options for UTCTime in ASN.1, that vary
   in precision and in local versus GMT, but these options all have
   two-digit years.  The standards for SNMP definitions specify one
   particular format:

          YYMMDDHHMMZ

   The first usage of UTCTime in the standards for SNMP definitions goes
   all the way back to RFC 1303.  It has persisted unchanged up through
   the current specifications in RFC 1902.  The role of UTCTime in SNMP
   definitions is to record the history of an SNMP MIB module in the
   module itself, via two ASN.1 macros:

       o   LAST-UPDATED
       o   REVISION

   Management applications that store and use MIB modules need to be
   smart about interpreting these UTCTimes, by prepending a "19" or a
   "20" as appropriate.

16.2.3  Objects in the Printer MIB (RFC 1559)

   There are two objects in the Printer MIB that allow use of a date as
   an object value with no explicit guidance for formatting the value.
   The objects are prtInterpreterLangVersion and prtInterpreterVersion.
   Both are defined with a syntax of OCTET STRING.  The descriptions for
   the objects allow the object value to contain a date, version code or
   other product specific information to identify the interpreter or
   language.  The descriptions do not include an explicit statement
   recommending use of a four-digit year when a date is used as the
   object value.





Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 19]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


16.2.4  Dates in Mobile Network Tracing Records (RFC 2041)

   The RFC specifies trace headers and footers with date fields that are
   character arrays of size 32.  While 32 characters certainly provide
   enough room for a four-digit year, there's no explicit statement that
   these years must be represented with four digits.

17 Network News

17.1 Summary

   The RFC's which were categorized into this group were related to the
   Network News Protocol (NNTP).

   There does exist a problem in both NNTP, RFC 977, and the Usenet News
   Message Format, RFC 10336.  They both specify two-digit year format.
   A working group has been formed to update the network news protocols
   in general, and addressing this problem is on their list of work
   items.

17.2 Specifics

   The NNTP transfer protocols defined in RFC 977.  Sections 3.7.1, the
   definition of the NEWGROUPS command, and 3.8.1, the NEWNEWS command,
   that dates must be specified in YYMMDD format.

   The format for USENET news messages is defined in RFC 1036.  The Date
   line is defined in section 2.1.2 and it is specified in RFC-822
   format.  It specifically disallows the standard UNIX ctime(3) format,
   which would allow for four digit years.  Section 2.2.4 on Expires
   also mandates the same two-digit year format.

18. Real Time Services

18.1 Summary

   The RFC's which were categorized into this group were related to IP
   Multicast, RTP, and Internet Stream Protocol.  A Year 2000 problem
   does occur in the Simple Network Paging Protocol, versions 2 & 3.
   Both define a HOLDuntil option which uses a YYMMDDHHMMSS+/-GMT field.
   Version 3 also defines a MSTAtus command, which is required to store,
   dates and times as YYMMDDHHMMSS+/-GMT.

18.2 Specifics

   RFC 2102 discusses Multicast support for NIMROD and has no mention of
   dates or time.  RFC 2090 on TFTP Multicast options is also free from
   any date/time references.



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 20]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


   RFC 2038 on RTP MPEG formats has three references to time: a
   Presentation Time Stamp (PTS), a Decoding Time Stamp (DTS), and a
   System Clock (SC) reference time.  Each RTP packet contains a
   timestamp derived from the sender 90 kHz clock reference.  Each of
   the header fields are defined in section 2.1, 3, and 3.3 are 32 bit
   fields.  No mention is made of a "zero" start time, so it is presumed
   that this format will be valid until at least 2038.

   Similarly RFC 2035 on the RTP JPEG format defines the same timestamp
   in section 3.  RFC 2032 on RTP H.261 video streams uses a calculated
   time based on the original frame so once again there is no millennium
   issue.  RFC 2029 on the RTP format for Sun's CellB video encoding
   mentions the RTP timestamp in section 2.1.

   RFC 2022 defines support for multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based ATM
   networks.  Section 5.  defines a timeout value for connections
   between one and twenty minutes.  Section 5.1.1 discusses several
   timers that are bound between five and ten seconds, while 5.1.3
   requires an inactivity timer, which should also run between one and
   twenty minutes.  Sections 5.1.5, 5.1.5.1, 5.1.5.2, 5.2.2, 5.4, 5.4.1,
   5.4.2, 5.4.3, 6.1.3 and Appendix E all defines numerous timers, none
   of which have any millennium issues.

   RFC 1890 on RTP profiles for audio and video conferences discusses a
   sampling frequency which has no issues.  RFC 1889 on RTP discusses
   time formats in section 4, as the same 64 bit unsigned integer format
   that NTP uses.  There is a "period" problem, which will occur in the
   year 2106.  Section 5.1 is a more formalized discussion of the
   timestamp properties, while Section 6.3.1 discusses a variety of
   different timers all using the 64 bit field format, or a compressed
   32-bit version of the inner octet of bytes.  Section 8.2 discusses
   loop detection and how the various timers are used to determine if
   looping occurs.

   RFC 1861 on Version 3 of the Simple Network Paging Protocol does have
   a Year 2000 problem.  The protocol defines a HOLDuntil command in
   section 4.5.6 and a MSTAtus command in section 4.6.10, both of which
   require dates/times to be stored as YYMMDDHHMMSS+/-GMT.  Clearly this
   format will be invalid after the end of 1999.

   RFC 1821 has no date/time references.  RFC 1819 on Version 2 of the
   Internet Stream Protocol defines a HELLO message format in section
   6.1.2, which does contain a timer which is updated every millisecond.
   No year 2000 problems exist with this protocol.

   RFC 1645 on Version 2 of the Simple Network Paging Protocol contains
   the same HOLDuntil field problem as version 3.  The definition is
   contained section 4.4.6.



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 21]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


   RFC 1458 on the Requirements of Multicast Protocols discusses a
   retransmission timer in section 4.23. and a general discussion of
   timer expiration in section 5, neither of which have any millennium
   concerns.  RFC 1301 on the Multicast Transport Protocol defines a
   heartbeat interval of time in section 2.1, as well as retention and
   windows.  Formal definitions for each are contained in sections
   2.2.7, 2.2.8 and 2.2.9.  The heartbeat is a 32 bit unsigned field,
   while the Window and Retention are both 16 bit unsigned fields.
   Section 3.4.2 gives examples values for these fields, which indicate
   no millennium issues.

   RFC 1193 on Client Requirements for Real Time Services talks about
   time in section 4.4, but there are no Year 2000 issues.  RFC 1190
   have been obsoleted by RFC 1819, but the hello timer issues are
   similar.

   RFCs 1789, 1768, 1703, 1614, 1569, 1568, 1546, 1469, 1453, 1313,
   1257, 1197, 1112, 1054, 988, 966, 947, 809, 804, 803, 798, 769, 741,
   511, 508, 420, 408 and 251 contain no date or time references.

19. Routing

19.1 Summary

   The RFC's which were categorized into this group were Routing
   Information Protocol (RIP), the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)
   protocol, Classless InterDomain Routing (CIDR),the Border Gateway
   Protocol (BGP), and the InterDomain Routing Protocol (IDRP).

   After careful examination both BGP and RIP have been found Year 2000
   compliant.

   There is a small Year 2000 issue in RFC 1786 on the Representation of
   IP Routing Policies in the ripe-81++ Routing Registry.  In Appendices
   C the "changed" object parameter defines a format of 
   YYMMDD, and similarly in Appendix D "withdrawn" object identifier has
   he format of YYMMDD.  Since these are only identifiers there should
   be little operational impact.  Some application software may need to
   be modified.

   IDPR suffers from the classic Year 2038 problem, by having a
   timestamp counter which rolls over at that time.

19.2 Specifics

   RFC 2091 on Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits defines
   three required and one optional timers in section 6.  The Database
   Timer (6.1), the Hold down Timer (6.2), the Retransmission Time (6.3)



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 22]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


   and the Over-Subscription Timer (6.4) are all counters, which have no
   millennium, issues.  RFC 2081 on the applicability of RIPng discusses
   deletion of routes for a variety of issues, one of which is the
   garbage- collection timer exceeds 120 seconds.  There are no Year
   2000 issues.  RFC 2080 on RIPng for IPv6, discusses various times in
   section 2.6, none of which have any millennium problems.

   RFC 1987 on Ipsilon's General Switch Management protocol there is a
   Duration field defined in section 4, which has no relevant problems.
   Section 8.2 defines the procedure for dealing with timers.  RFC 1953
   on Ipsilon's Flow Management Specification for IPv4 defines the same
   procedure in section 3.2, as well as a lifetime field in the Redirect
   Message (Section 4.1).  There are no millennium issues in either
   case.

   There is a small Year 2000 issue in RFC 1786 on the Representation of
   IP Routing Policies in the ripe-81++ Routing Registry.  In Appendices
   C the "changed" object parameter defines a format of 
   YYMMDD, and similarly in Appendix D "withdrawn" object identifier has
   he format of YYMMDD.  Since these are only identifiers there should
   be little operational impact.  Some application software may need to
   be modified.

   RFC 1771 defines the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP).  BGP does not
   have knowledge of absolute time, only relative time.  There are five
   timers defined: Hold Timer, ConnectRetry Timer, KeepAlive Timer,
   MinRoueAdvertisementInterval and MinASOriginationInterval.  There are
   no known issues regarding BGP and the millennium.

   In RFC 1584, which defines Multicast Extensions to OSPF, three timers
   are defined in section 8.2: IGMPPollingInterval, IGMPTimeout, and
   IGMP polling timer.  Section 8.4 defines an age parameter for the
   local groups database and section 9.3 outlines how to implement that
   age parameter.  It is not expected that any connections lifetime will
   be long enough to cause any issues with these timers.

   RFC 1583, OSPF, there are two types of timers defined in section 4.4,
   single-shot timers and interval timers.  There are a number of timers
   defined in Section 9 including: HelloInterval, RouterDeadInterval,
   InfTransDelay, Hello Timer, Wait Timer and RxmtInterval.  Section 10
   also defines the Inactivity Timer.  No millennium problem exists for
   any of these timers.

   RFC 1582 is an earlier version of RFC 2091.  Section 7 documents the
   same timers as noted above, with the same lack of a millennium issue.

   RFC 1504 on Appletalk Update-Based Routing Protocol defines a 10-
   second period in Section 3, and hence has no relevant issues.



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 23]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


   RFC 1479 which specifies IDPR Version 1, defines a timestamp field in
   section 1.5.1, which is a 32 bit unsigned integer number of seconds
   since January 1, 1970.  The authors recognize the problem of
   timestamp exhaustion in 2038, but feel that the protocol will not be
   in use for that period.  Sections 1.7, 2.1, and 4.3.1 also discuss
   the timestamp field.  RFC 1478 on the IDPR Architecture, also
   discusses the same timestamp field in section 3.3.4.  RFC 1477 again
   refers to the IDPR timestamp in section 4.2.  Thus IDPR has no Year
   2000 issue, but does have a period problem in the year 2038.

   RFC 1075 on Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol devotes
   section 7 to time values.  None of the timers have any millennium
   issues.  RFC 1074, on the NFSNET backbone SPF IGP defines several
   hardcoded timers values in section 5.

   RFC 1058 on RIP discusses the 30-second timers in section 3.3.  There
   is no millennium issues related to RIP.

   RFC 995 on the Requirements for Internet Gateways has extensive
   discussions of timers in section 7.1 and throughout A.1 and A.2.
   None of these timers suffer from the millennium problem.

   RFC 911 on EGP on Berkeley Unix recommend timer values of 30 and 120
   seconds.

   RFC 904 which defines the Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP).  There are
   a number of timers discussed in sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.4.  None of
   these timers suffer from any relevant problems.

   RFCs 2103, 2092, 2073, 2072, 2042, 2008, 1998, 1997, 1992, 1966, 1955,
   1940, 1930, 1925, 1923, 1863, 1817, 1812, 1793, 1787, 1774, 1773,
   1772, 1765, 1753, 1745, 1723, 1722, 1721, 1716, 1702, 1701, 1668,
   1656, 1655, 1654, 1587, 1586, 1585, 1581, 1520, 1519, 1517, 1482,
   1476, 1439, 1403, 1397, 1388, 1387, 1383, 1380, 1371, 1370, 1364,
   1338, 1322, 1268, 1267, 1266, 1265, 1264, 1254, 1246, 1245, 1222,
   1195, 1164, 1163, 1142, 1136, 1133, 1126, 1125, 1124,1104, 1102, 1092,
   1009, 985, 981, 975, 950, 898, 890, 888, 875, and 823 contain no date
   or time references.

20. Security

20.1 Summary

   The RFC's which were categorized into this group were kerberos
   authentication protocol, Remote Authentication Dial In User Service
   (RADIUS), One Time Password System (OTP), Privacy Enhanced Mail
   (PEM), security extensions to a variety of protocols including (but
   not limited to) RIPv2, HTTP, MIME, PPP, IP, Telnet and FTP.



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 24]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


   Encryption and authentication algorithms are also examined.

   RFC 1507 on Distributed Authentication Security Services (DASS)
   discusses time and secure time in an expository manner in Sections
   1.2.2, 1.4.4 and 2.1.  Section 3.6 defines absolute time as an UTC
   time with a precision of 1 second, and Section 4.1 discusses ANS.1
   encoding of time values.  Because of the imprecision of the UTC time
   definition there could be problems with this protocol.

   RFCs 1421-1424 specifies that PEM uses UTC time formats which could
   have a Millennium issue since the year specification only provides
   the last two digits of the year.

20.2 Specifics

   RFC 2082 on RIP-2 MD5 Authentication requires storage of security
   keys for a specified lifetime in sections 4.1 and 4.2.  There are no
   millennium issues in this protocol.

   RFC 2078 on the GSSAPI Version 2 defines numerous calls that use
   timers for inputs and outputs.  Sections 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.1.5,
   2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.5 and 2.2.6 all use the lifetime_rec field, which
   is defined as an integer counter in seconds.  There should be no
   relevant problems with this protocol.

   RFC 2069 on Digest Authentication for HTTP, defines a 'date' and a
   1123 formats which is not subject to millennium issues.  Section 3.2
   discusses dates and times in the context of thwarting replay attacks,
   but have no relevant issues.

   RFC 2065 on DNS Security extensions first discusses time in section
   2.3.3.  The SIG RDATA format is defined in Section 4.1 discusses
   "time signed" field and defines it to be a 32 bit unsigned integer
   number of seconds since January 1, 1970.  There will be a period
   problem in 2038 because of rollover.  Section 4.5 on the file
   representations of SIG RRs specifies the time field is expressed as
   YYYYMMDDHHMMSS which is clearly Year 2000 compliant.

   RFC 2059 on RADIUS account formats defines a "time" attribute, which
   is optional which is a 32 bit unsigned integer number of seconds
   since January 1, 1970.  Likewise RFC 2058 on RADIUS also defines this
   optional attribute in the same way.  There will be a potential period
   problem that occurs on 2038.

   RFC 2035 on the Simple Public Key GSSAPI Mechanism talks about secure
   timestamps in the background and overview sections only in an
   expository manner.




Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 25]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


   RFC 1969 on the PPP DES Encryption Protocol uses time as an example
   in Section 4 when discussing how to encrypt the first packet of a
   stream.  It is suggested that the first 32 bits be used for the
   number of seconds since January 1, 1970.  There could thus be a
   potential operations problem in 2038.

   RFC 1898 on the CyberCash Credit Card Protocol provides an example
   message in Section 2.7 which uses a date field of the form
   YYYYMMDDHHMM that is clearly Y2K compliant.

   RFC 1510, which defines Kerberos Version 5, makes extensive use of
   times in the security model.  There are discussions in the
   Introduction, as well as Sections 1.2, and 3.1.3.  Kerberos uses
   ASN.1 definitions to abstract values, and hence defines a base
   definition for KerberosTime which is a generalized time format in
   Section 5.2.  >From the text: "Example: The only valid format for UTC
   time 6 minutes, 27 seconds after 9 p.m. on 6 November 1985 is
   19851106210627Z."  A side note is that the MIT reference
   implementation of the Kerberos, by default set the expiration of
   tickets to December 31, 1999.  This is not protocol related but could
   have some operational impacts.

   RFC 1509 on GSSAPI C-bindings makes a single reference that all
   counters are in seconds and assigned as 32 bit unsigned integers.
   Hence GSSAPI mechanisms may have problems in 2038.

   RFC 1507 on Distributed Authentication Security Services (DASS)
   discusses time and secure time in an expository manner in Sections
   1.2.2, 1.4.4 and 2.1.  Section 3.6 defines absolute time as an UTC
   time with a precision of 1 second, and Section 4.1 discusses ANS.1
   encoding of time values.  Because of the imprecision of the UTC time
   definition there could be problems with this protocol.

   RFC 1424 on PEM Part IV defines a self-signed certificate request in
   Section 3.1.  The validity period start and end times are both
   suggested to be January 1, 1970.  RFC 1422 on PEM Part II defines the
   validity period for a certificate in Section 3.3.6.  It is
   recommended that UTC Time formats are used, and notes the lack of a
   century so that comparisons between different centuries must be done
   with care.  No suggestions on how to do this are included.  Sections
   3.5.2 also discusses validity period in PEM CRLs.  RFC 1421 on PEM
   Part I discusses validity periods in an expository way.  PEM as a
   whole could have problems after December 31, 1999 based on its use of
   UTC Time.

   RFCs 1113, 1114, and RFC 1115 specify the original version of PEM and
   have been obsoleted by RFC 1421, 1422, 1423, & 1424.




Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 26]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


   RFCs 2104, 2085, 2084, 2057, 2040, 2015, 1984, 1968, 1964, 1961, 1949,
   1948, 1938, 1929, 1928, 1858, 1852, 1851, 1829, 1828, 1827, 1826,
   1825, 1824, 1760, 1751, 1750, 1704, 1675, 1579, 1535, 1511, 1492,
   1457, 1455, 1423, 1416, 1412, 1411, 1409, 1408, 1321, 1320, 1319,
   1281, 1244, 1186, 1170, 1156, 1108, 1004, 972, 931, 927, 912, and 644
   contain no date or time references.

21. Virtual Terminal

21.1 Summary

   The RFC's which were categorized into this group were Telnet and its
   many extensions, as well as the Secure SHell (SSH) protocol.  The X
   window system was not considered since it is not an IETF protocol.
   Official acknowledgement by the trustee's of the X window system was
   given that they will examine the protocol.

   Unencrypted Telnet and TN3270 have both been found to be Year 2000
   Compliant.  The SSH protocols are also Year 2000 compliant.

   21.2 Specifics

   RFC 1013 on the X Windows version 11 alpha protocol defines are 32
   bit unsigned integer timestamp in Section 4.

   RFCs 2066, 1647, 1576, 1572, 1571, 1372, 1282, 1258, 1221, 1205, 1184,
   1143, 1116, 1097, 1096, 1091, 1080, 1079, 1073, 1053, 1043, 1041,
   1005, 946, 933, 930, 929, 907, 885, 884, 878, 861, 860, 859, 858, 857,
   856, 855, 854, 851, 818, 802, 782, 779, 764, 749, 748, 747, 746, 736,
   735, 734, 732, 731, 729, 728, 727, 726, 721, 719, 718, 701, 698, 658,
   657, 656, 655, 654, 653, 652, 651, 647, 636, 431, 399, 393, 386, 365,
   352, 340, 339, 328, 311, 297, 231, and 215 contain no date or time
   references.


   RFCs 703, 702, 688, 679, 669, 659, 600, 596, 595, 587, 563, 562, 560,
   559, 513, 495, 470, 466, 461, 447, 435, 377, 364, 318, 296, 216, 206,
   205, 177, 158, 139, 137, 110, 97 were unavailable.

22.  Other

22.1 Summary

   This grouping was a hodge-podge of informational RFCs, April Fool's
   Jokes, IANA lists, and experimental RFCs.  None were found to have
   any millennium issues.





Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 27]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


22.2 Specifics

   RFCs 2123, 2036, 2014, 2000, 1999, 1958, 1935, 1900, 1879, 1855, 1822,
   1814, 1810, 1799, 1776, 1718, 1715, 1700, 1699, 1640, 1627, 1610,
   1607, 1601, 1600, 1599, 1594, 1580, 1578, 1574, 1550, 1540, 1539,
   1527, 1499, 1463, 1462, 1438, 1410, 1402, 1401, 1391, 1367, 1366,
   1360, 1359, 1358, 1349, 1340, 1336, 1325, 1324, 1300, 1291, 1287,
   1261, 1250, 1249, 1206, 1200, 1199, 1177, 1175, 1174, 1152, 1149,
   1140, 1135, 1127, 1118, 1111, 1100, 1099, 1077, 1060, 1039, 1020,
   1019, 999, 997, 992, 990, 980, 960, 945, 944, 943, 939, 909, 902, 900,
   899, 873, 869, 846, 845, 844, 843, 842, 840, 839, 838, 837, 836, 835,
   834, 833, 832, 831, 820, 817, 800, 776, 774, 770, 766, 762, 758, 755,
   750, 745, 717, 637, 603, 602, 590, 581, 578, 529, 527, 526, 523, 519,
   518, 496, 491, 432, 404, 403, 401, 372, 363, 356, 345, 330, 329, 327,
   317, 316, 313, 295, 282, 263, 242, 239, 234, 232, 225, 223, 213, 209,
   204, 198, 195, 173, 170, 169, 167, 154, 149, 148, 147, 140, 138, 132,
   131, 130, 129, 126, 121, 112, 109, 107, 100, 95, 90, 68, 64, 57, 52,
   51, 46, 43, 37, 27, 25, 21, 15, 10, and 9 were examined and none were
   found to have any date or time references, let alone millennium or Year
   2000 issues.

23. Security Considerations

   Although this document does consider the implications of various
   security protocols, there is no need for additional security
   considerations.  The effect of a potential year 2000 problem may
   cause some security problems, but those problems are more of specific
   applications rather than protocol deficiencies introduced in this
   document.

24. References

   Because of the exhaustive nature of this investigation, the reader is
   referred to the list of published RFC's available from the IETF
   Secretariat or the RFC Editor, rather than republishing them here.

25. Editors' Address

   Philip J. Nesser II
   Nesser & Nesser Consulting
   13501 100th Ave N.E.
   Suite 5202
   Kirkland, WA 98052

   Phone: 425-481-4303
   EMail: pjnesser@nesser.com
          pjnesser@martigny.ai.mit.edu




Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 28]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


Appendix A:  List of RFC's for each Area

   The following list contains the RFC's grouped by area that were
   searched for year 2000 problems.

   Each line contains three fields are separated by '::'.  The first
   filed is the RFC number, the second field is the type of RFC (S =
   Standard, DS = Draft Standard, PS = Proposed Standard, E =
   Experimental, H = Historical, I = Informational, BC = Best Current
   Practice, '' = No Type), and the third field is the Title.

A.1 Autoconfiguration

1971:: PS::  IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
1970:: PS::  Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)
1542:: PS::  Clarifications and Extensions for the Bootstrap Protocol
1541:: PS::  Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
1534:: PS::  Interoperation Between DHCP and BOOTP
1533:: PS::  DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor Extensions
1532:: PS::  Clarifications and Extensions for the Bootstrap Protocol
1531:: PS::  Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
1497:: DS::  BOOTP Vendor Information Extensions
1395:: DS::  BOOTP Vendor Information Extensions
1084:: DS::  BOOTP vendor information extensions
1048:: DS::  BOOTP vendor information extensions
951::  DS::  Bootstrap Protocol
906::    ::  Bootstrap loading using TFTP

A.2 Directory Services

2120:: E ::  Managing the X.500 Root Naming Context
2079:: PS::  Definition of X.500 Attribute Types and an Object Class
             to Hold Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)
1943::  I::  Building an X.500 Directory Service in the US
1914:: PS::  How to interact with a Whois++ mesh
1913:: PS::  Architecture of the Whois++ Index Service
1838::  E::  Use of the X.500 Directory to support mapping between
             X.400 and RFC 822 Addresses
1837::  E::  Representing Tables and Subtrees in the X.500 Directory
1836::  E::  Representing the O/R Address hierarchy in the X.500
             Directory Information Tree
1835:: PS::  Architecture of the WHOIS++ service
1834::  I::  Whois and Network Information Lookup Service Whois++
1781:: PS::  Using the OSI Directory to Achieve User Friendly Naming
1714::  I::  Referral Whois Protocol (RWhois)
1684::  I::  Introduction to White Pages services based on X.500
1637::  E::  DNS NSAP Resource Records
1632::  I::  A Revised Catalog of Available X.500 Implementations



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 29]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


1617::  I::  Naming and Structuring Guidelines for X.500 Directory Pilots
1609::  E::  Charting Networks in the X.500 Directory
1608::  E::  Representing IP Information in the X.500 Directory
1588::  I::  WHITE PAGES MEETING REPORT
1562::  I::  Naming Guidelines for the AARNet X.500 Directory Service
1491::  I::  A Survey of Advanced Usages of X.500
1488:: PS::  The X.500 String Representation of Standard Attribute
             Syntaxes
1487:: PS::  X.500 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
1485:: PS::  A String Representation of Distinguished Names
1484::  E::  Using the OSI Directory to achieve User Friendly Naming
1430::  I::  A Strategic Plan for Deploying an Internet X.500
             Directory Service
1400::  I::  Transition and Modernization of the Internet Registration
             Service
1384::  I::  Naming Guidelines for Directory Pilots
1355::  I::  Privacy and Accuracy Issues in Network Information
             Center Databases
1330::  I::  Recommendations for the Phase I Deployment of OSI
             Directory Services (X.500) and OSI Message Handling
             Services (X.400) within the ESnet Community
1309::  I::  Technical Overview of Directory Services Using the
             X.500 Protocol
1308::  I::  Executive Introduction to Directory Services Using the
             X.500 Protocol
1292::  I::  A Catalog of Available X.500 Implementations
1279::   ::  X.500 and Domains
1276:: PS::  Replication and Distributed Operations extensions to
             provide an Internet Directory using X.500
1275::  I::  Replication Requirements to provide an Internet Directory
             using X.500
1274:: PS::  The COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema
1255::  I::  A Naming Scheme for c=US
1218::   ::  A Naming Scheme for c=US
1202::  I::  Directory Assistance Service
1107::   ::  Plan for Internet directory services
 954:: DS::  NICNAME/WHOIS
 953::  H::  Hostname Server
 812::   ::  NICNAME/WHOIS
 756::   ::  NIC name server - a datagram-based information utility
 752::   ::  Universal host table
============ ==========================================================
Disk Sharing
1813::  I::  NFS Version 3 Protocol Specification
1094::  H::  NFS: Network File System Protocol specification
============ ==========================================================
Games and Chat
1459::  E::  Internet Relay Chat Protocol



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 30]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


======================================================================
Information Services & File Transfer
2122:: PS::  VEMMI URL Specification
2070:: PS::  Internationalization of the Hypertext Markup Language
2068:: PS::  Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1
2056:: PS::  Uniform Resource Locators for Z39.50
2055::  I::  WebNFS Server Specification
2054::  I::  WebNFS Client Specification
2044::  I::  UTF-8, a transformation format of Unicode and ISO 10646
2016::  E::  Uniform Resource Agents (URAs)
1986::  E::  Experiments with a Simple File Transfer Protocol for
             Radio Links using Enhanced Trivial File Transfer
             Protocol (ETFTP)
1980::  I::  A Proposed Extension to HTML: Client-Side Image Maps
1960:: PS::  A String Representation of LDAP Search Filters
1959:: PS::  An LDAP URL Format
1945::  I::  Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0
1942::  E::  HTML Tables
1874::  E::  SGML Media Types
1867::  E::  Form-based File Upload in HTML
1866:: PS::  Hypertext Markup Language - 2.0
1865::  I::  EDI Meets the Internet: Frequently Asked Questions
             about Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) on the Internet
1862::  I::  Report of the IAB Workshop on Internet Information
              Infrastructure, October 12-14, 1994
1843::  I::  HZ - A Data Format for Exchanging Files of Arbitrarily
             Mixed Chinese and ASCII characters
1842::  I::  ASCII Printable Characters-Based Chinese Character
             Encoding for Internet Messages
1823::  I::  The LDAP Application Program Interface
1815::  I::  Character Sets ISO-10646 and ISO-10646-J-1
1808:: PS::  Relative Uniform Resource Locators
1807::  I::  A Format for Bibliographic Records
1798:: PS::  Connection-less Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
1788::  E::  ICMP Domain Name Messages
1785::  I::  TFTP Option Negotiation Analysis
1784:: PS::  TFTP Timeout Interval and Transfer Size Options
1783:: PS::  TFTP Blocksize Option
1782:: PS::  TFTP Option Extension
1779:: DS::  A String Representation of Distinguished Names
1778:: DS::  The String Representation of Standard Attribute Syntaxes
1777:: DS::  Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
1766:: PS::  Tags for the Identification of Languages
1738:: PS::  Uniform Resource Locators (URL)
1737::  I::  Functional Requirements for Uniform Resource Names
1736::  I::  Functional Requirements for Internet Resource Locators
1729::  I::  Using the Z39.50 Information Retrieval Protocol in the
             Internet Environment



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 31]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


1728::  I::  Resource Transponders
1727::  I::  A Vision of an Integrated Internet Information Service
1639::  E::  FTP Operation Over Big Address Records (FOOBAR)
1633::  I::  Integrated Services in the Internet Architecture
1630::  I::  Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW
1625::  I::  WAIS over Z39.50-1988
1558::  I::  A String Representation of LDAP Search Filters
1554::  I::  ISO-2022-JP-2: Multilingual Extension of ISO-2022-JP
1545::  E::  FTP Operation Over Big Address Records (FOOBAR)
1530::  I::  Principles of Operation for the TPC.INT Subdomain:
             General Principles and Policy
1529::  I::  Principles of Operation for the TPC.INT Subdomain:
             Remote Printing -- Administrative Policies
1528::  E::  Principles of Operation for the TPC.INT Subdomain:
             Remote Printing -- Technical Procedures
1489::  I::  Registration of a Cyrillic Character Set
1486::  E::  An Experiment in Remote Printing
1440::  E::  SIFT/UFT: Sender-Initiated/Unsolicited File Transfer
1436::  I::  The Internet Gopher Protocol (a distributed document
             search and retrieval protocol)
1415:: PS::  FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification
1413:: PS::  Identification Protocol
1350::  S::  THE TFTP PROTOCOL (REVISION 2)
1345::  I::  Character Mnemonics & Character Sets
1312::  E::  Message Send Protocol
1302::  I::  Building a Network Information Services Infrastructure
1288:: DS::  The Finger User Information Protocol
1278::  I::  A String Encoding of Presentation Address
1241::  E::  A Scheme for an Internet Encapsulation Protocol: Version 1
1235::  E::  The Coherent File Distribution Protocol
1196:: DS::  The Finger User Information Protocol
1194:: DS::  The Finger User Information Protocol
1179::  I::  Line Printer Daemon Protocol
1123::  S::  Requirements for Internet hosts - application and support
1068::   ::  Background File Transfer Program BFTP
1037::  H::  NFILE - a file access protocol
1003::   ::  Issues in defining an equations representation standard
 998::  E::  NETBLT: A bulk data transfer protocol
 978::   ::  Voice File Interchange Protocol VFIP
 971::   ::  Survey of data representation standards
 969::   ::  NETBLT: A bulk data transfer protocol
 965::   ::  Format for a graphical communication protocol
 959::  S::  File Transfer Protocol
 949::   ::  FTP unique-named store command
 916::  H::  Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol RATP
 913::  H::  Simple File Transfer Protocol
 887::  E::  Resource Location Protocol
 866::  S::  Active users



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 32]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


 865::  S::  Quote of the Day Protocol
 864::  S::  Character Generator Protocol
 863::  S::  Discard Protocol
 862::  S::  Echo Protocol
 797::   ::  Format for Bitmap files
 795::   ::  Service mappings
 783:: DS::  TFTP Protocol revision 2
 775::   ::  Directory oriented FTP commands
 765::   ::  File Transfer Protocol specification
 751::   ::  Survey of FTP mail and MLFL
 743::   ::  FTP extension: XRSQ/XRCP
 742:: PS::  NAME/FINGER Protocol
 740::  H::  NETRJS Protocol
 737::   ::  FTP extension: XSEN
 725::   ::  RJE protocol for a resource sharing network
 722::   ::  Thoughts on interactions in distributed services
 712::   ::  Distributed Capability Computing System DCCS
 707::   ::  High-level framework for network-based resource sharing
 697::   ::  CWD command of FTP
 691::   ::  One more try on the FTP
 683::   ::  FTPSRV - Tenex extension for paged files
 662::   ::  Performance improvement in ARPANET file transfers
             from Multics
 640::   ::  Revised FTP reply codes
 633::   ::  IMP/TIP preventive maintenance schedule
 630::   ::  FTP error code usage for more reliable mail service
 624::   ::  Comments on the File Transfer Protocol
 622::   ::  Scheduling IMP/TIP down time
 614::   ::  Response to RFC 607: "Comments on the File Transfer
              Protocol"
 610::   ::  Further datalanguage design concepts
 607::   ::  Comments on the File Transfer Protocol
 599::   ::  Update on NETRJS
 593::   ::  Telnet and FTP implementation schedule change
 592::   ::  Some thoughts on system design to facilitate resource
             sharing
 589::   ::  CCN NETRJS server messages to remote user
 573::   ::  Data and file transfer: Some measurement results
 571::   ::  Tenex FTP problem
 570::   ::  Experimental input mapping between NVT ASCII and UCSB
             On Line System
 553::   ::  Draft design for a text/graphics protocol
 551::   ::  [Letter from Feinroth re: NYU, ANL, and LBL entering
             the net, and FTP protocol]
 549::   ::  Minutes of Network Graphics Group meeting, 15-17
              July 1973
 543::   ::  Network journal submission and delivery
 542::   ::  File Transfer Protocol



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 33]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


 535::   ::  Comments on File Access Protocol
 532::   ::  UCSD-CC Server-FTP facility
 525::   ::  MIT-MATHLAB meets UCSB-OLS -an example of resource sharing
 520::   ::  Memo to FTP group: Proposal for File Access Protocol
 514::   ::  Network make-work
 506::   ::  FTP command naming problem
 505::   ::  Two solutions to a file transfer access problem
 504::   ::  Distributed resources workshop announcement
 501::   ::  Un-muddling "free file transfer"
 499::   ::  Harvard's network RJE
 493::   ::  E.W., Jr Graphics Protocol
 490::   ::  Surrogate RJS for UCLA-CCN
 487::   ::  Free file transfer
 486::   ::  Data transfer revisited
 485::   ::  MIX and MIXAL at UCSB
 480::   ::  Host-dependent FTP parameters
 479::   ::  Use of FTP by the NIC Journal
 478::   ::  FTP server-server interaction - II
 477::   ::  Remote Job Service at UCSB
 472::   ::  Illinois' reply to Maxwell's request for graphics
             information NIC 14925
 468::   ::  FTP data compression
 467::   ::  Proposed change to Host-Host Protocol:Resynchronization
             of connection status
 463::   ::  FTP comments and response to RFC 430
 454::   ::  File Transfer Protocol - meeting announcement and a new
             proposed document
 451::   ::  Tentative proposal for a Unified User Level Protocol
 448::   ::  Print files in FTP
 446::   ::  Proposal to consider a network program resource notebook
 438::   ::  FTP server-server interaction
 437::   ::  Data Reconfiguration Service at UCSB
 436::   ::  Announcement of RJS at UCSB
 430::   ::  Comments on File Transfer Protocol
 429::   ::  Character generator process
 418::   ::  Server file transfer under TSS/360 at NASA Ames
 414::   ::  File Transfer Protocol FTP status and further comments
 412::   ::  User FTP documentation
 411::   ::  New MULTICS network software features
 410::   ::  Removal of the 30-second delay when hosts come up
 409::   ::  Tenex interface to UCSB's Simple-Minded File System
 407::  H::  Remote Job Entry Protocol
 406::   ::  Scheduled IMP software releases
 396::   ::  Network Graphics Working Group meeting - second iteration
 387::   ::  Some experiences in implementing Network Graphics
             Protocol Level 0
 385::   ::  Comments on the File Transfer Protocol
 382::   ::  Mathematical software on the ARPA Network



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 34]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


 374::   ::  IMP system announcement
 373::   ::  Arbitrary character sets
 368::   ::  Comments on "Proposed Remote Job Entry Protocol"
 367::   ::  Network host status
 366::   ::  Network host status
 361::   ::  Deamon processes on host 106
 360::   ::  Proposed Remote Job Entry Protocol
 354::   ::  File Transfer Protocol
 351::   ::  Graphics information form for the ARPANET graphics
             resources notebook
 342::   ::  Network host status
 338::   ::  EBCDIC/ASCII mapping for network RJE
 336::   ::  Level 0 Graphic Input Protocol
 335::   ::  New interface - IMP/360
 332::   ::  Network host status
 325::   ::  Network Remote Job Entry program - NETRJS
 324::   ::  RJE Protocol meeting
 314::   ::  Network Graphics Working Group meeting
 310::   ::  Another look at Data and File Transfer Protocols
 309::   ::  Data and File Transfer workshop announcement
 307::   ::  Using network Remote Job Entry
 306::   ::  Network host status
 299::   ::  Information management system
 298::   ::  Network host status
 294::   ::  On the use of "set data type" transaction in
             File Transfer Protocol
 293::   ::  Network host status
 292::   ::  E.W., Jr Graphics Protocol: Level 0 only
 288::   ::  Network host status
 287::   ::  Status of network hosts
 286::   ::  Network library information system
 285::   ::  Network graphics
 283::   ::  NETRJT: Remote Job Service Protocol for TIPS
 281::   ::  Suggested addition to File Transfer Protocol
 268::   ::  Graphics facilities information
 267::   ::  Network host status
 266::   ::  Network host status
 265::   ::  File Transfer Protocol
 264::   ::  Data Transfer Protocol
 255::   ::  Status of network hosts
 252::   ::  Network host status
 250::   ::  Some thoughts on file transfer
 238::   ::  Comments on DTP and FTP proposals
 217::   ::  Specifications changes for OLS, RJE/RJOR, and SMFS
 199::   ::  Suggestions for a network data-tablet graphics protocol
 192::   ::  Some factors which a Network Graphics Protocol must
             consider
 191::   ::  Graphics implementation and conceptualization at



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 35]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


             Augmentation Research Center
 189::   ::  Interim NETRJS specifications
 184::   ::  Proposed graphic display modes
 183::   ::  EBCDIC codes and their mapping to ASCII
 181::   ::  Modifications to RFC 177
 174::   ::  UCLA - computer science graphics overview
 172::   ::  File Transfer Protocol
 163::   ::  Data transfer protocols
 141::   ::  Comments on RFC 114: A File Transfer Protocol
 134::   ::  Network Graphics meeting
 133::   ::  File transfer and recovery
 125::   ::  Response to RFC 86: Proposal for network standard format
             for a graphics data stream
 114::   ::  File Transfer Protocol
 105::   ::  Network specifications for Remote Job Entry and Remote
             Job Output Retrieval at UCSB
  98::   ::  Logger Protocol proposal
  94::   ::  Some thoughts on network graphics
  88::   ::  NETRJS: A third level protocol for Remote JobEntry
  86::   ::  Proposal for a network standard format for a data stream
             to control graphics display
  83::   ::  Language-machine for data reconfiguration
 ========== ============================================================
Internet & Network Layer
2126:: PS::  ISO Transport Service on top of TCP (ITOT)
2125:: PS::  The PPP Bandwidth Allocation Protocol (BAP) The PPP
             Bandwidth Allocation Control Protocol (BACP)
2118::  I::  Microsoft Point-To-Point Compression (MPPC) Protocol
2114::  I::  Data Link Switching Client Access Protocol
2113:: PS::  IP Router Alert Option
2107::  I::  Ascend Tunnel Management Protocol - ATMP
2106::  I::  Data Link Switching Remote Access Protocol
2105::  I::  Cisco Systems' Tag Switching Architecture Overview
2098::  I::  Toshiba's Router Architecture Extensions for ATM:Overview
2097:: PS::  The PPP NetBIOS Frames Control Protocol (NBFCP)
2075::  I::  IP Echo Host Service
2067:: DS::  IP over HIPPI
2043:: PS::  The PPP SNA Control Protocol (SNACP)
2023:: PS::  IP Version 6 over PPP
2019:: PS::  Transmission of IPv6 Packets Over FDDI
2018:: PS::  TCP Selective Acknowledgment Options
2009::  E::  GPS-Based Addressing and Routing
2005:: PS::  Applicability Statement for IP Mobility Support
2004:: PS::  Minimal Encapsulation within IP
2003:: PS::  IP Encapsulation within IP
2002:: PS::  IP Mobility Support
2001:: PS::  TCP Slow Start, Congestion Avoidance, Fast Retransmit,
             and Fast Recovery Algorithms



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 36]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


1994:: DS::  PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol (CHAP)
1993::  I::  PPP Gandalf FZA Compression Protocol
1990:: DS::  The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP)
1989:: DS::  PPP Link Quality Monitoring
1981:: PS::  Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6
1979::  I::  PPP Deflate Protocol
1978::  I::  PPP Predictor Compression Protocol
1977::  I::  PPP BSD Compression Protocol
1976::  I::  PPP for Data Compression in Data Circuit-Terminating
             Equipment (DCE)
1975::  I::  PPP Magnalink Variable Resource Compression
1974::  I::  PPP Stac LZS Compression Protocol
1973:: PS::  PPP in Frame Relay
1972:: PS::  A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over
             Ethernet Networks
1967::  I::  PPP LZS-DCP Compression Protocol (LZS-DCP)
1963::  I::  PPP Serial Data Transport Protocol (SDTP)
1962:: PS::  The PPP Compression Control Protocol (CCP)
1954::  I::  Transmission of Flow Labelled IPv4 on ATM Data Links
             Ipsilon Version 1.0
1946::  I::  Native ATM Support for ST2+
1937::  I::  Local/Remote Forwarding Decision in Switched Data
             Link Subnetworks
1936::  I::  Implementing the Internet Checksum in Hardware
1934::  I::  Ascend's Multilink Protocol Plus (MP+)
1933:: PS::  Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers
1932::  I::  IP over ATM: A Framework Document
1931::  I::  Dynamic RARP Extensions and Administrative Support for
             Automatic Network Address Allocation
1926::  I::  An Experimental Encapsulation of IP Datagrams on
             Top of ATM
1924::  I::  A Compact Representation of IPv6 Addresses
1919::  I::  Classical versus Transparent IP Proxies
1918:: BC::  Address Allocation for Private Internets
1917:: BC::  An Appeal to the Internet Community to Return Unused
             IP Networks (Prefixes) to the IANA
1916::  I::  Enterprise Renumbering
1915:: BC::  Variance for The PPP Connection Control Protocol and
             The PPP Encryption Control Protocol
1897::  E::  IPv6 Testing Address Allocation
1888::  E::  OSI NSAPs and IPv6
1887::  I::  An Architecture for IPv6 Unicast Address Allocation
1885:: PS::  Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
             Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
1884:: PS::  IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture
1883:: PS::  Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification
1881::  I::  IPv6 Address Allocation Management
1878::  I::  Variable Length Subnet Table For IPv4



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 37]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


1877::  I::  PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol Extensions for
             Name Server Addresses
1868::  E::  ARP Extension - UNARP
1860::  I::  Variable Length Subnet Table For IPv4
1859::  I::  ISO Transport Class 2 Non-use of Explicit Flow Control
             over TCP RFC1006 extension
1853::  I::  IP in IP Tunneling
1841::  I::  PPP Network Control Protocol for LAN Extension
1833:: PS::  Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2
1832:: PS::  XDR
1831:: PS::  RPC
1809::  I::  Using the Flow Label Field in IPv6
1795::  I::  Data Link Switching
1791::  E::  TCP And UDP Over IPX Networks With Fixed Path MTU
1770::  I::  IPv4 Option for Sender Directed Multi-Destination Delivery
1764:: PS::  The PPP XNS IDP Control Protocol (XNSCP)
1763:: PS::  The PPP Banyan Vines Control Protocol (BVCP)
1762:: DS::  The PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol (DNCP)
1761::  I::  Snoop Version 2 Packet Capture File Format
1756::  E::  REMOTE WRITE PROTOCOL - VERSION 1.0
1755:: PS::  ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM
1754::  I::  IP over ATM Working Group's Recommendations for the
             ATM Forum's Multiprotocol BOF Version 1
1752:: PS::  The Recommendation for the IP Next Generation Protocol
1744::  I::  Observations on the Management of the Internet Address
             Space
1735::  E::  NBMA Address Resolution Protocol (NARP)
1726::  I::  Technical Criteria for Choosing IP
1719::  I::  A Direction for IPng
1717:: PS::  The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP)
1710::  I::  Simple Internet Protocol Plus White Paper
1707::  I::  CATNIP
1705::  I::  Six Virtual Inches to the Left
1698::  I::  Octet Sequences for Upper-Layer OSI to Support Basic
             Communications Applications
1693::  E::  An Extension to TCP
1692:: PS::  Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux)
1688::  I::  IPng Mobility Considerations
1687::  I::  A Large Corporate User's View of IPng
1686::  I::  IPng Requirements
1683::  I::  Multiprotocol Interoperability In IPng
1682::  I::  IPng BSD Host Implementation Analysis
1681::  I::  On Many Addresses per Host
1680::  I::  IPng Support for ATM Services
1679::  I::  HPN Working Group Input to the IPng Requirements
             Solicitation
1678::  I::  IPng Requirements of Large Corporate Networks
1677::  I::  Tactical Radio Frequency Communication Requirements



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 38]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


             for IPng
1676::  I::  INFN Requirements for an IPng
1674::  I::  A Cellular Industry View of IPng
1673::  I::  Electric Power Research Institute Comments on IPng
1672::  I::  Accounting Requirements for IPng
1671::  I::  IPng White Paper on Transition and Other Considerations
1670::  I::  Input to IPng Engineering Considerations
1669::  I::  Market Viability as a IPng Criteria
1667::  I::  Modeling and Simulation Requirements for IPng
1663:: PS::  PPP Reliable Transmission
1662::  S::  PPP in HDLC-like Framing
1661::  S::  The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)
1644::  E::  T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions Functional
             Specification
1638:: PS::  PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP)
1634::  I::  Novell IPX Over Various WAN Media (IPXWAN)
1631::  I::  The IP Network Address Translator (Nat)
1629:: DS::  Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation in the Internet
1626:: PS::  Default IP MTU for use over ATM AAL5
1624::  I::  Computation of the Internet Checksum via Incremental
             Update
1622::  I::  Pip Header Processing
1621::  I::  Pip Near-term Architecture
1620::  I::  Internet Architecture Extensions for Shared Media
1619:: PS::  PPP over SONET/SDH
1618:: PS::  PPP over ISDN
1613::  I::  cisco Systems X.25 over TCP (XOT)
1605::  I::  SONET to Sonnet Translation
1604:: PS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for Frame Relay Service
1598:: PS::  PPP in X.25
1590::  I::  Media Type Registration Procedure
1577:: PS::  Classical IP and ARP over ATM
1575:: DS::  An Echo Function for CLNP (ISO 8473)
1570:: PS::  PPP LCP Extensions
1561::  E::  Use of ISO CLNP in TUBA Environments
1560::  I::  The MultiProtocol Internet
1553:: PS::  Compressing IPX Headers Over WAN Media (CIPX)
1552:: PS::  The PPP Internetwork Packet Exchange Control
             Protocol (IPXCP)
1551::  I::  Novell IPX Over Various WAN Media (IPXWAN)
1549:: DS::  PPP in HDLC Framing
1548:: DS::  The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)
1547::  I::  Requirements for an Internet Standard
             Point-to-Point Protocol
1538::  I::  Advanced SNA/IP
1526::  I::  Assignment of System Identifiers for TUBA/CLNP Hosts
1518:: PS::  An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR
1498::  I::  On the Naming and Binding of Network Destinations



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 39]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


1490:: DS::  Multiprotocol Interconnect over Frame Relay
1483:: PS::  Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Adaptation Layer 5
1475::  E::  TP/IX
1466::  I::  Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space
1454::  I::  Comparison of Proposals for Next Version of IP
1435::  I::  IESG Advice from Experience with Path MTU Discovery
1434::  I::  Data Link Switching
1433::  E::  Directed ARP
1393::  E::  Traceroute Using an IP Option
1390::  S::  Transmission of IP and ARP over FDDI Networks
1385::  I::  EIP
1379::  I::  Extending TCP for Transactions -- Concepts
1378:: PS::  The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)
1377:: PS::  The PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol (OSINLCP)
1376:: PS::  The PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol (DNCP)
1375::  I::  Suggestion for New Classes of IP Addresses
1374:: PS::  IP and ARP on HIPPI
1365::  I::  An IP Address Extension Proposal
1363::  E::  A Proposed Flow Specification
1362::  I::  Novell IPX Over Various WAN Media (IPXWAN)
1356:: PS::  Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 and ISDN in the
             Packet Mode
1347::  I::  TCP and UDP with Bigger Addresses (TUBA), A Simple
             Proposal for Internet Addressing and Routing
1337::  I::  TIME-WAIT Assassination Hazards in TCP
1335::   ::  A Two-Tier Address Structure for the Internet
1334:: PS::  PPP Authentication Protocols
1333:: PS::  PPP Link Quality Monitoring
1332:: PS::  The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol (IPCP)
1331:: PS::  The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) for the Transmission
             of Multi-protocol Datagrams over Point-to-Point Links
1329::  I::  Thoughts on Address Resolution for Dual MAC FDDI Networks
1326::  I::  Mutual Encapsulation Considered Dangerous
1323:: PS::  TCP Extensions for High Performance
1314:: PS::  A File Format for the Exchange of Images in the Internet
1307::  E::  Dynamically Switched Link Control Protocol
1306::  I::  Experiences Supporting By-Request Circuit-Switched T3
             Networks
1294:: PS::  Multiprotocol Interconnect over Frame Relay
1293:: PS::  Inverse Address Resolution Protocol
1277:: PS::  Encoding Network Addresses to Support Operation Over
             Non-OSI Lower Layers
1263::  I::  TCP Extensions Considered Harmful
1256:: PS::  ICMP Router Discovery Messages
1240:: PS::  OSI Connectionless Transport Services on top of UDP
1237:: PS::  Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation in the Internet
1236::   ::  IP to X.121 Address Mapping for DDN
1234:: PS::  Tunneling IPX Traffic through IP Networks



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 40]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


1226::  E::  Internet Protocol Encapsulation of AX.25 Frames
1223::   ::  OSI CLNS and LLC1 Protocols on Network Systems HYPERchannel
1220:: PS::  Point-to-Point Protocol Extensions for Bridging
1219::   ::  On the Assignment of Subnet Numbers
1210::   ::  Network and Infrastructure User Requirements for
             Transatlantic Research Collaboration - Brussels,
             July 16-18, and Washington July 24-25, 1990
1209:: DS::  The Transmission of IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service
1201::  H::  Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Networks
1191:: DS::  Path MTU Discovery
1188:: DS::  A Proposed Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams
             over FDDI Networks
1185::  E::  TCP Extension for High-Speed Paths
1172:: PS::  The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Initial Configuration
             Options
1171:: DS::  The Point-to-Point Protocol for the Transmission of
             Multi-Protocol Datagrams Over Point-to-Point Links
1166::   ::  Internet Numbers
1162::   ::  Connectionless Network Protocol (ISO 8473) and End
             System to Intermediate System (ISO 9542) Management
             Information Base
1151::  E::  Version 2 of the Reliable Data Protocol (RDP)
1146::  E::  TCP Alternate Checksum Options
1145::  E::  TCP Alternate Checksum Options
1144:: PS::  Compressing TCP/IP headers for low-speed serial links
1141::   ::  Incremental Updating of the Internet Checksum
1139:: PS::  Echo function for ISO 8473
1134:: PS::  Point-to-Point Protocol
1132::  S::  Standard for the transmission of 802.2 packets over
             IPX networks
1122::  S::  Requirements for Internet hosts - communication layers
1110::   ::  Problem with the TCP big window option
1106::   ::  TCP big window and NAK options
1103:: PS::  Proposed standard for the transmission of IP datagrams
             over FDDI Networks
1088::  S::  Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams over
             NetBIOS networks
1086::   ::  ISO-TP0 bridge between TCP and X.25
1085::   ::  ISO presentation services on top of TCP/IP based internets
1078::   ::  TCP port service Multiplexer TCPMUX
1072::  E::  TCP extensions for long-delay paths
1071::   ::  Computing the Internet checksum
1070::   ::  Use of the Internet as a subnetwork for experimentation
             with the OSI network layer
1069::   ::  Guidelines for the use of Internet-IP addressesin the
             ISO Connectionless-Mode Network Protocol
1063::   ::  IP MTU Discovery options
1062::   ::  Internet numbers



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 41]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


1057::  I::  RPC
1055::  S::  Nonstandard for transmission of IP datagrams over serial
             lines
1051::  S::  Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams and ARP
             packets over ARCNET networks
1050::  H::  RPC
1046::   ::  Queuing algorithm to provide type-of-service for IP links
1045::  E::  VMTP
1044::  S::  Internet Protocol on Network System's HYPERchannel
1042::  S::  Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams over
             IEEE 802 networks
1030::   ::  On testing the NETBLT Protocol over divers networks
1029::   ::  More fault tolerant approach to address resolution for
             a Multi-LAN system of Ethernets
1027::   ::  Using ARP to implement transparent subnet gateways
1025::   ::  TCP and IP bake off
1016::   ::  Something a host could do with source quench
1008::   ::  Implementation guide for the ISO Transport Protocol
1007::   ::  Military supplement to the ISO Transport Protocol
1006::  S::  ISO transport services on top of the TCP
1002::  S::  Protocol standard for a NetBIOS service on a TCP/UDP
             transport
1001::  S::  Protocol standard for a NetBIOS service on a TCP/UDP
             transport
 994::   ::  Final text of DIS 8473,Protocol for Providing the
             Connectionless-mode Network Service
 986::   ::  Guidelines for the use of Internet-IP addressesin the
             ISO Connectionless-Mode Network Protocol [Working draft]
 983::   ::  ISO transport arrives on top of the TCP
 982::   ::  Guidelines for the specification of the structure of the
             Domain Specific Part DSP of the ISO standard NSAP address
 970::   ::  On packet switches with infinite storage
 964::   ::  Some problems with the specification of the Military
             Standard Transmission Control Protocol
 963::   ::  Some problems with the specification of the Military
             Standard Internet Protocol
 962::   ::  TCP-4 prime
 955::   ::  Towards a transport service for transaction processing
             applications
 948::   ::  Two methods for the transmission of IP datagrams over
             IEEE 802.3 networks
 942::   ::  Transport protocols for Department of Defense data
             networks
 941::   ::  Addendum to the networkservice definition covering
             network layer addressing
 940::   ::  Toward an Internet standard scheme for subnetting
 936::   ::  Another Internet subnet addressing scheme
 935::   ::  Reliable link layer protocols



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 42]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


 932::   ::  Subnetwork addressing scheme
 926::   ::  Protocol for providing the connectionless mode network
             services
 925::   ::  Multi-LAN address resolution
 924::   ::  Official ARPA-Internet protocols for connecting
             personal computers to the Internet
 922::  S::  Broadcasting Internet datagrams in the presence of subnets
 919::  S::  Broadcasting Internet datagrams
 917::   ::  Internet subnets
 914::  H::  Thinwire protocol for connecting personal computers to
             the Internet
 905::   ::  ISO Transport Protocol specification ISO DP 8073
 903::  S::  Reverse Address Resolution Protocol
 896::   ::  Congestion control in IP/TCP internetworks
 895::  S::  Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams over
             experimental Ethernet networks
 894::  S::  Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams over
             Ethernet networks
 893::   ::  Trailer encapsulations
 892::   ::  ISO Transport Protocol specification [Draft]
 891::  S::  DCN local-network protocols
 889::   ::  Internet delay experiments
 879::   ::  TCP maximum segment size and related topics
 877::  S::  Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams over
             public data networks
 874::   ::  Critique of X.25
 872::   ::  TCP-on-a-LAN
 871::   ::  Perspective on the ARPANET reference model
 848::   ::  Who provides the "little" TCP services?
 829::   ::  Packet satellite technology reference sources
 826::  S::  Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol
 824::   ::  CRONUS Virtual Local Network
 815::   ::  IP datagram reassembly algorithms
 814::   ::  Name, addresses, ports, and routes
 813::   ::  Window and acknowlegement strategy in TCP
 801::   ::  NCP/TCP transition plan
 793::  S::  Transmission Control Protocol
 792::  S::  Internet Control Message Protocol
 791::  S::  Internet Protocol
 789::   ::  Vulnerabilities of network control protocols
 787::   ::  Connectionless data transmission survey/tutorial
 781::   ::  Specification of the Internet Protocol IP timestamp option
 777::   ::  Internet Control Message Protocol
 768::  S::  User Datagram Protocol
 761::   ::  DOD Standard Transmission Control Protocol
 760::   ::  DoD standard Internet Protocol
 759::  H::  Internet Message Protocol
 730::   ::  Extensible field addressing



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 43]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


 704::   ::  IMP/Host and Host/IMP Protocol change
 696::   ::  Comments on the IMP/Host and Host/IMP Protocol changes
 695::   ::  Official change in Host-Host Protocol
 692::   ::  Comments on IMP/Host Protocol changes RFCs 687 and 690
 690::   ::  Comments on the proposed Host/IMP Protocol changes
 689::   ::  Tenex NCP finite state machine for connections
 687::   ::  IMP/Host and Host/IMP Protocol changes
 685::   ::  Response time in cross network debugging
 680::   ::  Message Transmission Protocol
 675::   ::  Specification of Internet Transmission Control Program
 674::   ::  Procedure call documents - version 2
 660::   ::  Some changes to the IMP and the IMP/Host interface
 632::   ::  Throughput degradations for single packet messages
 626::   ::  On a possible lockup condition in IMP subnet due to
             message sequencing
 613::   ::  Network connectivity
 611::   ::  Two changes to the IMP/Host Protocol to improve
             user/network communications
 594::   ::  Speedup of Host-IMP interface
 591::   ::  Addition to the Very Distant Host specifications
 576::   ::  Proposal for modifying linking
 550::   ::  NIC NCP experiment
 548::   ::  Hosts using the IMP Going Down message
 528::   ::  Software checksumming in the IMP and network reliability
 521::   ::  Restricted use of IMP DDT
 489::   ::  Comment on resynchronization of connection status proposal
 488::   ::  NLS classes at network sites
 476::   ::  IMP/TIP memory retrofit schedule rev. 2
 473::   ::  MIX and MIXAL?
 460::   ::  NCP survey
 459::   ::  Network questionnaires
 450::   ::  MULTICS sampling timeout change
 449::   ::  Current flow-control scheme for IMPSYS
 445::   ::  IMP/TIP preventive maintenance schedule
 442::   ::  Current flow-control scheme for IMPSYS
 434::   ::  IMP/TIP memory retrofit schedule
 426::   ::  Reconnection Protocol
 417::   ::  Link usage violation
 398::   ::  ICP sockets
 395::   ::  Switch settings on IMPs and TIPs
 394::   ::  Two proposed changes to the IMP-Host Protocol
 359::   ::  Status of the release of the new IMP System
 357::   ::  Echoing strategy for satellite links
 348::   ::  Discard process
 347::   ::  Echo process
 346::   ::  Satellite considerations
 343::   ::  IMP System change notification
 312::   ::  Proposed change in IMP-to-Host Protocol



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 44]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


 301::   ::  BBN IMP #5 and NCC schedule March 4, 1971
 300::   ::  ARPA Network mailing lists
 271::   ::  IMP System change notifications
 241::   ::  Connecting computers to MLC ports
 210::   ::  Improvement of flow control
 203::   ::  Achieving reliable communication
 202::   ::  Possible deadlock in ICP
 197::   ::  Initial Connection Protocol - Reviewed
 190::   ::  DEC PDP-10-IMLAC communications system
 178::   ::  Network graphic attention handling
 176::   ::  Comments on "Byte size for connections"
 175::   ::  Comments on "Socket conventions reconsidered"
 166::   ::  Data Reconfiguration Service
 165::   ::  Proffered official Initial Connection Protocol
 161::   ::  Solution to the race condition in the ICP
 151::   ::  Comments on a proffered official ICP
 150::   ::  Use of IPC facilities
 146::   ::  Views on issues relevant to data sharing on computer
             networks
 145::   ::  Initial Connection Protocol control commands
 143::   ::  Regarding proffered official ICP
 142::   ::  Time-out mechanism in the Host-Host Protocol
 128::   ::  Bytes
 127::   ::  Comments on RFC 123
 123::   ::  Proffered official ICP
 122::   ::  Network specifications for UCSB's Simple-Minded File
             System
  93::   ::  Initial Connection Protocol
  91::   ::  Proposed User-User Protocol
  80::   ::  Protocols and data formats
  79::   ::  Logger Protocol error
  70::   ::  Note on padding
  67::   ::  Proposed change to Host/IMP spec to eliminate marking
  65::   ::  Comments on Host/Host Protocol document #1
  62::   ::  Systems for interprocess communication in a resource
             sharing computer network
  60::   ::  Simplified NCP Protocol
  59::   ::  Flow control - fixed versus demand allocation
  56::   ::  Third level protocol
  55::   ::  Prototypical implementation of the NCP
  54::   ::  Official protocol proffering
  53::   ::  Official protocol mechanism
  41::   ::  IMP-IMP teletype communication
  38::   ::  Comments on network protocol from NWG/RFC #36
  33::   ::  New Host-Host Protocol
  23::   ::  Transmission of multiple control messages
  22::   ::  Host-host control message formats
  20::   ::  ASCII format for network interchange



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 45]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


  19::   ::  Two protocol suggestions to reduce congestion at
             swap bound nodes
  17::   ::  Some questions re
  12::   ::  IMP-Host interface flow diagrams
=====================================================================
Mail
2112:: PS::  The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type
2111:: PS::  Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource Locators
2110:: PS::  MIME E-mail Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents, such
             as HTML (MHTML)
2109:: PS::  HTTP State Management Mechanism
2095:: PS::  IMAP/POP AUTHorize Extension for Simple Challenge/Response
2088:: PS::  IMAP4 non-synchroniziong literals
2087:: PS::  IMAP4 QUOTA extension
2086:: PS::  IMAP4 ACL extension
2077:: PS::  The Model Primary Content Type for Multipurpose
             Internet Mail Extensions
2076::  I::  Common Internet Message Headers
2062::  I::  Internet Message Access Protocol - Obsolete Syntax
2061::  I::  IMAP4 COMPATIBILITY WITH IMAP2BIS
2060:: PS::  INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION 4rev1
2049:: DS::  Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Five
2048:: BC::  Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four
2047:: DS::  MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part Three
2046:: DS::  Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two
2045:: DS::  Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One
2034:: PS::  SMTP Service Extension for Returning Enhanced Error Codes
2033::  I::  Local Mail Transfer Protocol
2017:: PS::  Definition of the URL MIME External-Body Access-Type
1991::  I::  PGP Message Exchange Formats
1985:: PS::  SMTP Service Extension for Remote Message Queue Starting
1957::  I::  Some Observations on Implementations of the Post Office
             Protocol (POP3)
1947::  I::  Greek Character Encoding for Electronic Mail Messages
1939::  S::  Post Office Protocol - Version 3
1927::  I::  Suggested Additional MIME Types for Associating Documents
1922::  I::  Chinese Character Encoding for Internet Messages
1911::  E::  Voice Profile for Internet Mail
1896::  I::  The text/enriched MIME Content-type
1895::  I::  The Application/CALS-1840 Content-type
1894:: PS::  An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status
             Notifications
1893:: PS::  Enhanced Mail System Status Codes
1892:: PS::  The Multipart/Report Content Type for the Reporting
             of Mail System Administrative Messages
1891:: PS::  SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifications
1873::  E::  Message/External-Body Content-ID Access Type
1872::  E::  The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 46]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


1870::  S::  SMTP Service Extension for Message Size Declaration
1869::  S::  SMTP Service Extensions
1864:: DS::  The Content-MD5 Header Field
1854:: PS::  SMTP Service Extension for Command Pipelining
1848:: PS::  MIME Object Security Services
1847:: PS::  Security Multiparts for MIME
1846::  E::  SMTP 521 reply code
1845::  E::  SMTP Service Extension for Checkpoint/Restart
1844::  I::  Multimedia E-mail (MIME) User Agent checklist
1830::  E::  SMTP Service Extensions for Transmission of Large
             and Binary MIME Messages
1820::  I::  Multimedia E-mail (MIME) User Agent Checklist
1806::  E::  Communicating Presentation Information in Internet
             Messages
1804::  E::  Schema Publishing in X.500 Directory
1803::  I::  Recommendations for an X.500 Production Directory Service
1801::  E::  MHS use of the X.500 Directory to support MHS Routing
1767:: PS::  MIME Encapsulation of EDI Objects
1741::  I::  MIME Content Type for BinHex Encoded Files
1740:: PS::  MIME Encapsulation of Macintosh files - MacMIME
1734:: PS::  POP3 AUTHentication command
1733::  I::  DISTRIBUTED ELECTRONIC MAIL MODELS IN IMAP4
1732::  I::  IMAP4 COMPATIBILITY WITH IMAP2 AND IMAP2BIS
1731:: PS::  IMAP4 Authentication mechanisms
1730:: PS::  INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION 4
1725:: DS::  Post Office Protocol - Version 3
1711::  I::  Classifications in E-mail Routing
1685::  I::  Writing X.400 O/R Names
1653:: DS::  SMTP Service Extension for Message Size Declaration
1652:: DS::  SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport
1651:: DS::  SMTP Service Extensions
1649::  I::  Operational Requirements for X.400 Management Domains
             in the GO-MHS Community
1648:: PS::  Postmaster Convention for X.400 Operations
1642::  E::  UTF-7 - A Mail-Safe Transformation Format of Unicode
1641::  E::  Using Unicode with MIME
1616::  I::  X.400(1988) for the Academic and Research Community
             in Europe
1615::  I::  Migrating from X.400(84) to X.400(88)
1563::  I::  The text/enriched MIME Content-type
1557::  I::  Korean Character Encoding for Internet Messages
1556::  I::  Handling of Bi-directional Texts in MIME
1555::  I::  Hebrew Character Encoding for Internet Messages
1544:: PS::  The Content-MD5 Header Field
1524::  I::  A User Agent Configuration Mechanism For Multimedia
             Mail Format Information
1523::  I::  The text/enriched MIME Content-type
1522:: DS::  MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part Two



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 47]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


1521:: DS::  MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part One
1506::  I::  A tutorial on gatewaying between X.400 and Internet mail
1505::  E::  Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages
1502:: PS::  X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets
1496:: PS::  Rules for downgrading messages from X.400/88 to X.400/84
             when MIME content-types are present in the messages
1495:: PS::  Mapping between X.400 and RFC-822 Message Bodies
1494:: PS::  Equivalences between 1988 X.400 and RFC-822 Message Bodies
1468::  I::  Japanese Character Encoding for Internet Messages
1465::  E::  Routing coordination for X.400 MHS services within a
             multi protocol / multi network environment Table Format
             V3 for static routing
1460:: DS::  Post Office Protocol - Version 3
1456::  I::  Conventions for Encoding the Vietnamese Language VISCII
1437::  I::  The Extension of MIME Content-Types to a New Medium
1429::  I::  Listserv Distribute Protocol
1428::  I::  Transition of Internet Mail from Just-Send-8 to
             8Bit-SMTP/MIME
1427:: PS::  SMTP Service Extension for Message Size Declaration
1426:: PS::  SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport
1425:: PS::  SMTP Service Extensions
1405::  E::  Mapping between X.400(1984/1988) and Mail-11 (DECnet mail)
1357::  I::  A Format for E-mailing Bibliographic Records
1344::  I::  Implications of MIME for Internet Mail Gateways
1343::  I::  A User Agent Configuration Mechanism For Multimedia
             Mail Format Information
1342:: PS::  Representation of Non-ASCII Text in Internet Message
             Headers
1341:: PS::  MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions)
1339::  E::  Remote Mail Checking Protocol
1328:: PS::  X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading
1327:: PS::  Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 and RFC 822
1225:: DS::  Post Office Protocol - Version 3
1211::   ::  Problems with the Maintenance of Large Mailing Lists
1204::  E::  Message Posting Protocol (MPP)
1203::  H::  Interactive Mail Access Protocol - Version 3
1176::  E::  Interactive Mail Access Protocol - Version 2
1168::   ::  Intermail and Commercial Mail Relay Services
1159::  E::  Message Send Protocol
1154::  E::  Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages
1153::  E::  Digest Message Format
1148::  E::  Mapping between X.400 (1988) / ISO 10021 and RFC 822
1138::  I::  Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 and RFC 822
1137::  E::  Mapping between full RFC 822 and RFC 822 with restricted
             encoding
1090::   ::  SMTP on X.25
1082::  H::  Post Office Protocol - version 3
1081:: PS::  Post Office Protocol - version 3



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 48]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


1064::  H::  Interactive Mail Access Protocol
1056::  I::  PCMAIL
1049::  S::  Content-type header field for Internet messages
1047::   ::  Duplicate messages and SMTP
1026:: PS::  Addendum to RFC 987
 993::   ::  PCMAIL
 987:: PS::  Mapping between X.400 and RFC 822
 984::   ::  PCMAIL
 976::   ::  UUCP mail interchange format standard
 974::  S::  Mail routing and the domain system
 937::  H::  Post Office Protocol - version 2
 934::   ::  Proposed standard for message encapsulation
 918::   ::  Post Office Protocol
 915::   ::  Network mail path service
 910::   ::  Multimedia mail meeting notes
 886::   ::  Proposed standard for message header munging
 876::   ::  Survey of SMTP implementations
 841::   ::  Specification for message format for Computer Based
             Message Systems
 822::  S::  Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text messages
 821::  S::  Simple Mail Transfer Protocol
 808::   ::  Summary of computer mail services meeting held at BBN
             on 10 January 1979
 807::   ::  Multimedia mail meeting notes
 805::   ::  Computer mail meeting notes
 788::   ::  Simple Mail Transfer Protocol
 786::   ::  Mail Transfer Protocol
 785::   ::  Mail Transfer Protocol
 784::   ::  Mail Transfer Protocol
 780::   ::  Mail Transfer Protocol
 773::   ::  Comments on NCP/TCP mail service transition strategy
 772::   ::  Mail Transfer Protocol
 771::   ::  Mail transition plan
 767::   ::  Structured format for transmission of multi-media
             documents
 763::   ::  Role mailboxes
 757::   ::  Suggested solution to the naming, addressing, and
             delivery problem for ARPANET message systems
 754::   ::  Out-of-net host addresses for mail
 753::   ::  Internet Message Protocol
 744::   ::  MARS - a Message Archiving and Retrieval Service
 733::   ::  Standard for theformat of ARPA network text messages
 724::   ::  Proposed official standard for the format of ARPA
             Network messages
 720::   ::  Address specification syntax for network mail
 714::   ::  Host-Host Protocol for an ARPANET-type network
 713::   ::  MSDTP-Message Services Data Transmission Protocol
 706::   ::  On the junk mail problem



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 49]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


 577::   ::  Mail priority
 574::   ::  Announcement of a mail facility at UCSB
 561::   ::  Standardizingnetwork mail headers
 555::   ::  Responses to critiques of the proposed mail protocol
 539::   ::  Thoughts on the mail protocol proposed in RFC524
 534::   ::  Lost message detection
 533::   ::  Message-ID numbers
 524::   ::  Proposed Mail Protocol
 516::   ::  Lost message detection
 512::   ::  More on lost message detection
 510::   ::  Request for network mailbox addresses
 498::   ::  On mail service to CCN
 475::   ::  FTP and network mail system
 469::   ::  Network mail meeting summary
 458::   ::  Mail retrieval via FTP
 453::   ::  Meeting announcement to discuss a network mail system
 333::   ::  Proposed experiment with a Message Switching Protocol
 278::   ::  Revision of theMail Box Protocol
 224::   ::  Comments on Mailbox Protocol
 221::   ::  Mail Box Protocol
 196::   ::  Mail Box Protocol
  58::   ::  Logical message synchronization
  42::   ::  Message data types
=====================================================================
NTP
2030::  I::  Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP) Version 4 for IPv4,
             IPv6 and OSI
1769::  I::  Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP)
1708::  I::  NTP PICS PROFORMA For the Network Time Protocol Version 3
1589::  I::  A Kernel Model for Precision Timekeeping
1361::  I::  Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP)
1305:: PS::  Network Time Protocol (v3)
1165::  E::  Network Time Protocol (NTP) over the OSI Remote Operations
             Service
1129::   ::  Internet time synchronization
1128::   ::  Measured performance of the Network Time Protocol in the
             Internet system
1119::  S::  Network Time Protocol version 2 specification and
             implementation
1059::   ::  Network Time Protocol version 1 specification and
             implementation
 958::   ::  Network Time Protocol NTP
 957::   ::  Experiments in network clock synchronization
 956::   ::  Algorithms for synchronizing network clocks
 868::  S::  Time Protocol
 867::  S::  Daytime Protocol
 778::  H::  DCNET Internet Clock Service
 738::   ::  Time server



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 50]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


  29::   ::  Response to RFC 28
  28::   ::  Time standards
=====================================================================
Name Serving
2053::  I::  The AM (Armenia) Domain
2052::  E::  A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)
2010::  I::  Operational Criteria for Root Name Servers
1996:: PS::  A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone Changes
             (DNS NOTIFY)
1995:: PS::  Incremental Zone Transfer in DNS
1982:: PS::  Serial Number Arithmetic
1956::  I::  Registration in the MIL Domain
1912::  I::  Common DNS Operational and Configuration Errors
1886:: PS::  DNS Extensions to support IP version 6
1876::  E::  A Means for Expressing Location Information in the
             Domain Name System
1794::  I::  DNS Support for Load Balancing
1713::  I::  Tools for DNS debugging
1712::  E::  DNS Encoding of Geographical Location
1706::  I::  DNS NSAP Resource Records
1664::  E::  Using the Internet DNS to Distribute RFC1327 Mail
             Address Mapping Tables
1591::  I::  Domain Name System Structure and Delegation
1537::  I::  Common DNS Data File Configuration Error
1536::  I::  Common DNS Implementation Errors and Suggested Fixes.
1480::  I::  The US Domain
1464::  E::  Using the Domain Name System To Store Arbitrary
             String Attributes
1394::  I::  Relationship of Telex Answerback Codes to Internet Domains
1386::  I::  The US Domain
1348::  E::  DNS NSAP RRs
1183::  E::  New DNS RR Definitions
1101::   ::  DNS encoding of network names and other types
1035::  S::  Domain names - implementation and specification
1034::  S::  Domain names - concepts and facilities
1033::   ::  Domain administrators operations guide
1032::   ::  Domain administrators guide
1031::   ::  MILNET name domain transition
 973::   ::  Domain system changes and observations
 952::   ::  DoD Internet host table specification
 921::   ::  Domain name system implementation schedule - revised
 920::   ::  Domain requirements
 897::   ::  Domain name system implementation schedule
 883::   ::  Domain names
 882::   ::  Domain names
 881::   ::  Domain names plan and schedule
 849::   ::  Suggestions for improved host table distribution
 830::   ::  Distributed system for Internet name service



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 51]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


 819::   ::  Domain naming convention for Internet user applications
 811::   ::  Hostnames Server
 810::   ::  DoD Internet host table specification
 799::   ::  Internet name domains
 796::   ::  Address mappings
 627::   ::  ASCII text file of hostnames
 625::   ::  On-line hostnames service
 623::   ::  Comments on on-line host name service
 620::   ::  Request for monitor host table updates
 608::   ::  Host names on-line
 606::   ::  Host names on-line
 289::   ::  What we hope is an official list of host names
 280::   ::  Draft of host names
 273::   ::  More on standard host names
 247::   ::  Proffered set of standard host names
 237::   ::  NIC view of standard host names
 236::   ::  Standard host names
 233::   ::  Standardization of host call letters
 229::   ::  Standard host names
 226::   ::  Standardization of host mnemonics
=====================================================================
Network Management
2128:: PS::  Dial Control Management Information Base using SMIv2
2127:: PS::  ISDN Management Information Base
2124::  I::  Light-weight Flow Admission Protocol Specification
             Version 1.0
2108:: PS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.3 Repeater
             Devices using SMIv2
2096:: PS::  IP Forwarding Table MIB
2089::  I::  V2ToV1 Mapping SNMPv2 onto SNMPv1 within a bi-lingual
             SNMP agent
2074:: PS::  Remote Network Monitoring MIB Protocol Identifiers
2064::  E::  Traffic Flow Measurement
2063::  E::  Traffic Flow Measurement
2051:: PS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for APPC
2041::  I::  Mobile Network Tracing
2039::  I::  Applicability of Standards Track MIBs to Management
             of World Wide Web Servers
2037:: PS::  Entity MIB
2024:: PS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for Data Link Switching
             using SNMPv2
2021:: PS::  Remote Network Monitoring Management Information
             Base Version 2 using SMIv2
2020:: PS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.12 Interfaces
2013:: PS::  SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the User
             Datagram Protocol using SMIv2
2012:: PS::  SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the
             Transmission Control Protocol



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 52]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


2011:: PS::  SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the Internet
             Protocol using SMIv2
2006:: PS::  The Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Mobility
             Support using SMIv2
1944::  I::  Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices
1910::  E::  User-based Security Model for SNMPv2
1909::  E::  An Administrative Infrastructure for SNMPv2
1908:: DS::  Coexistence between Version 1 and Version 2 of the
             Internet-standard Network Management Framework
1907:: DS::  Management Information Base for Version 2 of the
             Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
1906:: DS::  Transport Mappings for Version 2 of the Simple Network
             Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
1905:: DS::  Protocol Operations for Version 2 of the Simple Network
             Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
1904:: DS::  Conformance Statements for Version 2 of the Simple
             Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
1903:: DS::  Textual Conventions for Version 2 of the Simple
             Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
1902:: DS::  Structure of Management Information for Version 2 of
             the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
1901::  E::  Introduction to Community-based SNMPv2
1857::  I::  A Model for Common Operational Statistics
1856::  I::  The Opstat Client-Server Model for Statistics Retrieval
1850:: DS::  OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base
1792::  E::  TCP/IPX Connection Mib Specification
1759:: PS::  Printer MIB
1757:: DS::  Remote Network Monitoring Management Information Base
1749:: PS::  IEEE 802.5 Station Source Routing MIB using SMIv2
1748:: DS::  IEEE 802.5 MIB using SMIv2
1747:: PS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA Data Link Control
1743:: DS::  IEEE 802.5 MIB using SMIv2
1742:: PS::  AppleTalk Management Information Base II
1724:: DS::  RIP Version 2 MIB Extension
1697:: PS::  Relational Database Management System (RDBMS)
             Management Information Base (MIB) using SMIv2
1696:: PS::  Modem Management Information Base (MIB) using SMIv2
1695:: PS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for ATM Management
             Version 8.0 using SMIv2
1694:: DS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for SMDS Interfaces
             using SMIv2
1666:: PS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA NAUs using SMIv2
1665:: PS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA NAUs using SMIv2
1660:: DS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for Parallel-printer-like
             Hardware Devices using SMIv2
1659:: DS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for RS-232-like
             Hardware Devices using SMIv2
1658:: DS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for Character Stream



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 53]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


             Devices using SMIv2
1657:: PS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for the Fourth Version
             of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4) using SMIv2
1650:: PS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-like
             Interface Types using SMIv2
1643:: PS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-like
             Interface Types
1628:: PS::  UPS Management Information Base
1623::  S::  Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-like
             Interface Types
1612:: PS::  DNS Resolver MIB Extensions
1611:: PS::  DNS Server MIB Extensions
1596:: PS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for Frame Relay Service
1595:: PS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for the SONET/SDH
             Interface Type
1593::  I::  SNA APPN Node MIB
1592::  E::  Simple Network Management Protocol Distributed Protocol
             Interface Version 2.0
1573:: PS::  Evolution of the Interfaces Group of MIB-II
1567:: PS::  X.500 Directory Monitoring MIB
1566:: PS::  Mail Monitoring MIB
1565:: PS::  Network Services Monitoring MIB
1564::  I::  DSA Metrics (OSI-DS 34 (v3))
1559:: DS::  DECnet Phase IV MIB Extensions
1525:: PS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for Source Routing Bridges
1516:: DS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.3
             Repeater Devices
1515:: PS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.3
             Medium Attachment Units (MAUs)
1514:: PS::  Host Resources MIB
1513:: PS::  Token Ring Extensions to the Remote Network Monitoring MIB
1512:: PS::  FDDI Management Information Base
1503::  I::  Algorithms for Automating Administration in SNMPv2
             Managers
1493:: DS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges
1474:: PS::  The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Bridge
             Network Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol
1473:: PS::  The Definitions of Managed Objects for the IP Network
             Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol
1472:: PS::  The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Security
             Protocols of the Point-to-Point Protocol
1471:: PS::  The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Link Control
             Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol
1470::  I::  FYI on a Network Management Tool Catalog
1461:: PS::  SNMP MIB extension for MultiProtocol Interconnect over
             X.25
1452:: PS::  Coexistence between version 1 and version 2 of the
             Internet-standard Network Management Framework



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 54]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


1451:: PS::  Manager to Manager Management Information Base
1450:: PS::  Management Information Base for version 2 of the Simple
             Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
1449:: PS::  Transport Mappings for version 2 of the Simple Network
             Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
1448:: PS::  Protocol Operations for version 2 of the Simple Network
             Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
1447:: PS::  Party MIB for version 2 of the Simple Network Management
             Protocol (SNMPv2)
1446:: PS::  Security Protocols for version 2 of the Simple Network
             Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
1445:: PS::  Administrative Model for version 2 of the Simple Network
             Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
1444:: PS::  Conformance Statements for version 2 of the Simple
             Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
1443:: PS::  Textual Conventions for version 2 of the Simple Network
             Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
1442:: PS::  Structure of Management Information for version 2 of the
             Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
1441:: PS::  Introduction to version 2 of the Internet-standard
             Network Management Framework
1431::  I::  DUA Metrics
1420:: PS::  SNMP over IPX
1419:: PS::  SNMP over AppleTalk
1418:: PS::  SNMP over OSI
1414:: PS::  Ident MIB
1407:: PS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for the DS3/E3 Interface
             Type
1406:: PS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for the DS1 and E1
             Interface Types
1404::  I::  A Model for Common Operational Statistics
1398:: DS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-like
             Interface Types
1389:: PS::  RIP Version 2 MIB Extension
1382:: PS::  SNMP MIB Extension for the X.25 Packet Layer
1381:: PS::  SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 LAPB
1369::  I::  Implementation Notes and Experience for The Internet
             Ethernet MIB
1368:: PS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.3 Repeater
             Devices
1354:: PS::  IP Forwarding Table MIB
1353::  H::  Definitions of Managed Objects for Administration of
             SNMP Parties
1352::  H::  SNMP Security Protocols
1351::  H::  SNMP Administrative Model
1346::  I::  Resource Allocation, Control, and Accounting for the
             Use of Network Resources
1318:: PS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for Parallel-printer-like



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 55]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


             Hardware Devices
1317:: PS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for RS-232-like
             Hardware Devices
1316:: PS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for Character Stream
             Devices
1315:: PS::  Management Information Base for Frame Relay DTEs
1304:: PS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for the SIP Interface Type
1303::  I::  A Convention for Describing SNMP-based Agents
1298::  I::  SNMP over IPX
1289:: PS::  DECnet Phase IV MIB Extensions
1286:: PS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges
1285:: PS::  FDDI Management Information Base
1284:: PS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-like
              Interface Types
1283::  E::  SNMP over OSI
1273::  I::  A Measurement Study of Changes in Service-Level
             Reachability in the Global TCP/IP Internet
1272::  I::  Internet Accounting
1271:: PS::  Remote Network Monitoring Management Information Base
1270::  I::  SNMP Communications Services
1269:: PS::  Definitions of Managed Objects for the Border Gateway
             Protocol (Version 3)
1262::   ::  Guidelines for Internet Measurement Activities
1253:: PS::  OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base
1252:: PS::  OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base
1248:: PS::  OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base
1247:: DS::  OSPF Version 2
1243:: PS::  AppleTalk Management Information Base
1242::  I::  Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnection
             Devices
1239:: PS::  Reassignment of Experimental MIBs to Standard MIBs
1238::  E::  CLNS MIB - for use with Connectionless Network
             Protocol (ISO 8473) and End System to Intermediate
             System (ISO 9542)
1233::  H::  Definitions of Managed Objects for the DS3 Interface Type
1232::  H::  Definitions of Managed Objects for the DS1 Interface Type
1231:: DS::  IEEE 802.5 Token Ring MIB
1230::  H::  IEEE 802.4 Token Bus MIB
1229:: DS::  Extensions to the Generic-Interface MIB
1228::  E::  SNMP-DPI - Simple Network Management Protocol
             Distributed Program Interface
1227::  E::  SNMP MUX Protocol and MIB
1224::  E::  Techniques for Managing Asynchronously Generated Alerts
1215::  I::  A Convention for Defining Traps for use with the SNMP
1214::  H::  OSI Internet Management
1213::  S::  Management Information Base for Network Management of
             TCP/IP-based internets
1212::  S::  Concise MIB Definitions



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 56]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


1189::  H::  The Common Management Information Services and Protocols
             for the Internet
1187::  E::  Bulk Table Retrieval with the SNMP
1161::  E::  SNMP over OSI
1158:: PS::  Management Information Base for Network Management of
             TCP/IP-based internets
1157::  S::  A Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
1155::  S::  Structure and Identification of Management Information
             for TCP/IP-based Internets
1109::   ::  Report of the second Ad Hoc Network Management Review
             Group
1098::   ::  Simple Network Management Protocol SNMP
1095:: DS::  Common Management Information Services and Protocol
             over TCP/IP CMOT
1089::   ::  SNMP over Ethernet
1067::   ::  Simple Network Management Protocol
1066::  H::  Management Information Base for network management of
             TCP/IP-based internets
1065::  H::  Structure and identification of management information
             for TCP/IP-based internets
1052::   ::  IAB recommendations for the development of Internet
             network management standards
1028::  H::  Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol
1024::   ::  HEMS variable definitions
1023::   ::  HEMS monitoring and control language
1022::   ::  High-level Entity Management Protocol HEMP
1021::  H::  High-level Entity Management System HEMS
1012::   ::  Bibliography of Request For Comments 1 through 999
1011::  S::  Official Internet protocols
1010::  S::  Assigned numbers
 996::  H::  Statistics server
 619::   ::  Mean round-trip times in the ARPANET
 618::   ::  Few observations on NCP statistics
 616::   ::  Latest network maps
 615::   ::  Proposed Network Standard Data Pathname Syntax
 612::   ::  Traffic statistics December 1973
 601::   ::  Traffic statistics November 1973
 586::   ::  Traffic statistics October 1973
 579::   ::  Traffic statistics September 1973
 568::   ::  Response to RFC 567 - cross country network bandwidth
 567::   ::  Cross country network bandwidth
 566::   ::  Traffic statistics August 1973
 565::   ::  Storing network survey data at the datacomputer
 557::   ::  Revelations in network host measurements
 546::   ::  Tenex load averages for July 1973
 545::   ::  Of what quality be the UCSB resources evaluators?
 538::   ::  Traffic statistics June 1973
 531::   ::  Feast or famine? A response to two recent RFC's about



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 57]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


             network information
 522::   ::  Traffic statistics May 1973
 509::   ::  Traffic statistics April 1973
 500::   ::  Integration of data management systems on a computer
             network
 482::   ::  Traffic statistics February 1973
 455::   ::  Traffic statistics January 1973
 443::   ::  Traffic statistics December 1972
 423::   ::  UCLA Campus Computing Network liaison staff for ARPANET
 422::   ::  Traffic statistics November 1972
 421::   ::  Software consulting service for network users
 416::   ::  ARC system will be unavailable for use during
             Thanksgivingweek
 415::   ::  Tenex bandwidth
 413::   ::  Traffic statistics October 1972
 400::   ::  Traffic statistics September 1972
 392::   ::  Measurement of host costs for transmitting network data
 391::   ::  Traffic statistics August 1972
 389::   ::  UCLA Campus Computing Network liaison staff for ARPA
             Network
 388::   ::  NCP statistics
 384::   ::  Official site idents for organizations in the ARPA
             Network
 381::   ::  Three aids to improved network operation
 378::   ::  Traffic statistics July 1972
 369::   ::  Evaluation of ARPANET services January-March, 1972
 362::   ::  Network host status
 353::   ::  Network host status
 344::   ::  Network host status
 326::   ::  Network host status
 323::   ::  Formation of Network Measurement Group NMG
 308::   ::  ARPANET host availability data
 304::   ::  Data management system proposal for the ARPA network
 302::   ::  Exercising the ARPANET
 274::   ::  Establishing a local guide for network usage
 227::   ::  Data transfer rates Rand/UCLA
 212::   ::  NWG meeting on network usage
 193::   ::  Network checkout
 188::   ::  Data management meeting announcement
 156::   ::  Status of the Illinois site
 153::   ::  SRI ARC-NIC status
  96::   ::  Interactive network experiment to study modes of
             access tothe Network Information Center
  32::   ::  Connecting M.I.T. computers to the
             ARPA Computer-to-computer communication network
  18::   ::  [Link assignments]
======================================================================




Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 58]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


Network News
1036::   ::  Standard for interchange of USENET messages
 977:: PS::  Network News Transfer Protocol
 850::   ::  Standard for interchange of USENET messages
===================================================================
Real Time Services
:: ::
2102::  I::  Multicast Support for Nimrod
2090::  E::  TFTP Multicast Option
2038:: PS::  RTP Payload Format for MPEG1/MPEG2 Video
2035:: PS::  RTP Payload Format for JPEG-compressed Video
2032:: PS::  RTP payload format for H.261 video streams
2029:: PS::  RTP Payload Format of Sun's CellB Video Encoding
2022:: PS::  Support for Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based ATM
             Networks
1890:: PS::  RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal
             Control
1889:: PS::  RTP
1861::  I::  Simple Network Paging Protocol - Version 3 - Two-Way
             Enhanced
1821::  I::  Integration of Real-time Services in an IP-ATM Network
             Architecture
1819::  E::  Internet Stream Protocol Version 2 (ST2) Protocol
             Specification - Version ST2+
1789::  I::  INETPhone
1768::  E::  Host Group Extensions for CLNP Multicasting
1703::  I::  Principles of Operation for the TPC.INT Subdomain
1645::  I::  Simple Network Paging Protocol - Version 2
1614::  I::  Network Access to Multimedia Information
1569::  I::  Principles of Operation for the TPC.INT Subdomain
1568::  I::  Simple Network Paging Protocol - Version 1(b)
1546::  I::  Host Anycasting Service
1469:: PS::  IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks
1458::  I::  Requirements for Multicast Protocols
1453::  I::  A Comment on Packet Video Remote Conferencing and the
             Transport/Network Layers
1313::  I::  Today's Programming for KRFC AM 1313 Internet Talk Radio
1301::  I::  Multicast Transport Protocol
1257::  I::  Isochronous Applications Do Not Require
             Jitter-Controlled Networks
1197::  I::  Using ODA for Translating Multimedia Information
1193::   ::  Client Requirements for Real-Time Communication Services
1190::  E::  Experimental Internet Stream Protocol, Version 2 (ST-II)
1112::  S::  Host extensions for IP multicasting
1054::   ::  Host extensions for IP multicasting
 988::   ::  Host extensions for IP multicasting
 966::   ::  Host groups
 947::   ::  Multi-network broadcasting within the Internet



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 59]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


 809::   ::  UCL facsimile system
 804::   ::  CCITT draft recommendation T.4 [Standardization of
             Group 3 facsimile apparatus for document transmission]
 803::   ::  Dacom 450/500 facsimile data transcoding
 798::   ::  Decoding facsimile data from the Rapicom 450
 769::   ::  Rapicom 450 facsimile file format
 741::   ::  Specifications for the Network Voice Protocol NVP
 511::   ::  Enterprise phone service to NIC from ARPANET sites
 508::   ::  Real-time data transmission on the ARPANET
 420::   ::  CCA ICCC weather demo
 408::   ::  NETBANK
 251::   ::  Weather data
=====================================================================
Routing
2103::  I::  Mobility Support for Nimrod
2092::  I::  Protocol Analysis for Triggered RIP
2091:: PS::  Triggered Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits
2081::  I::  RIPng Protocol Applicability Statement
2080:: PS::  RIPng for IPv6
2073:: PS::  An IPv6 Provider-Based Unicast Address Format
2072::  I::  Router Renumbering Guide
2042::  I::  Registering New BGP Attribute Types
2008:: BC::  Implications of Various Address Allocation Policies for
             Internet Routing
1998::  I::  An Application of the BGP Community Attribute in
             Multi-home Routing
1997:: PS::  BGP Communities Attribute
1992::  I::  The Nimrod Routing Architecture
1987::  I::  Ipsilon's General Switch Management Protocol
             Specification Version 1.1
1966::  E::  BGP Route Reflection An alternative to full mesh IBGP
1965::  E::  Autonomous System Confederations for BGP
1955::  I::  New Scheme for Internet Routing and Addressing (ENCAPS)
             for IPN
1953::  I::  Ipsilon Flow Management Protocol Specification for
             IPv4 Version 1.0
1940::  I::  Source Demand Routing
1930:: BC::  Guidelines for creation, selection, and registration
             of an Autonomous System (AS)
1925::  I::  The Twelve Networking Truths
1923::  I::  RIPv1 Applicability Statement for Historic Status
1863::  E::  A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh routing
1817::  I::  CIDR and Classful Routing
1812:: PS::  Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers
1793:: PS::  Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits
1787::  I::  Routing in a Multi-provider Internet
1786::  I::  Representation of IP Routing Policies in a Routing
             Registry (ripe-81++)



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 60]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


1774::  I::  BGP-4 Protocol Analysis
1773::  I::  Experience with the BGP-4 protocol
1772:: DS::  Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet
1771:: DS::  A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)
1765::  E::  OSPF Database Overflow
1753::  I::  IPng Technical Requirements Of the Nimrod Routing and
             Addressing Architecture
1745:: PS::  BGP4/IDRP for IP---OSPF Interaction
1723:: DS::  RIP Version 2 Carrying Additional Information
1722:: DS::  RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement
1721::  I::  RIP Version 2 Protocol Analysis
1716::  I::  Towards Requirements for IP Routers
1702::  I::  Generic Routing Encapsulation over IPv4 networks
1701::  I::  Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)
1668::  I::  Unified Routing Requirements for IPng
1656::  I::  BGP-4 Protocol Document Roadmap and Implementation
             Experience
1655:: PS::  Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the
             Internet
1654:: PS::  A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)
1587:: PS::  The OSPF NSSA Option
1586::  I::  Guidelines for Running OSPF Over Frame Relay Networks
1585::  I::  MOSPF
1584:: PS::  Multicast Extensions to OSPF
1583:: DS::  OSPF Version 2
1582:: PS::  Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits
1581::  I::  Protocol Analysis for Extensions to RIP to Support
             Demand Circuits
1520::  I::  Exchanging Routing Information Across Provider Boundaries
             in the CIDR Environment
1519:: PS::  Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR)
1517:: PS::  Applicability Statement for the Implementation of
             Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR)
1504::  I::  Appletalk Update-Based Routing Protocol
1482::  I::  Aggregation Support in the NSFNET Policy Routing Database
1479:: PS::  Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Specification
1478:: PS::  An Architecture for Inter-Domain Policy Routing
1477::  I::  IDPR as a Proposed Standard
1476::  E::  RAP
1439::  I::  The Uniqueness of Unique Identifiers
1403:: PS::  BGP OSPF Interaction
1397:: PS::  Default Route Advertisement In BGP2 And BGP3 Versions Of
             The Border Gateway Protocol
1388:: PS::  RIP Version 2 Carrying Additional Information
1387::  I::  RIP Version 2 Protocol Analysis
1383::  I::  An Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing
1380::  I::  IESG Deliberations on Routing and Addressing
1371::  I::  Choosing a "Common IGP" for the IP Internet (The



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 61]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


             IESG's Recommendation to the IAB)
1370:: PS::  Applicability Statement for OSPF
1364:: PS::  BGP OSPF Interaction
1338::  I::  Supernetting
1322::  I::  A Unified Approach to Inter-Domain Routing
1268:: DS::  Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet
1267:: DS::  A Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3)
1266::  I::  Experience with the BGP Protocol
1265::  I::  BGP Protocol Analysis
1264::  I::  Internet Routing Protocol Standardization Criteria
1254::  I::  Gateway Congestion Control Survey
1246::  I::  Experience with the OSPF Protocol
1245::  I::  OSPF Protocol Analysis
1222::   ::  Advancing the NSFNET Routing Architecture
1195:: PS::  Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual
             Environments
1164:: PS::  Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet
1163:: PS::  A Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
1142::  I::  OSI IS-IS Intra-domain Routing Protocol
1136::   ::  Administrative Domains and Routing Domains
1133::   ::  Routing between the NSFNET and the DDN
1131:: PS::  OSPF specification
1126::   ::  Goals and functional requirements for inter-autonomous
             system routing
1125::   ::  Policy requirements for inter Administrative Domain
             routing
1124::   ::  Policy issues in interconnecting networks
1105::  E::  Border Gateway Protocol BGP
1104::   ::  Models of policy based routing
1102::   ::  Policy routing in Internet protocols
1092::   ::  EGP and policy based routing in the new NSFNET backbone
1075::  E::  Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol
1074::   ::  NSFNET backbone SPF based Interior Gateway Protocol
1058::  S::  Routing Information Protocol
1009::  H::  Requirements for Internet gateways
 995::   ::  End System to Intermediate System Routing Exchange
             Protocol for use in conjunction with ISO 8473
 985::   ::  Requirements for Internet gateways - draft
 981::   ::  Experimental multiple-path routing algorithm
 975::   ::  Autonomous confederations
 950::  S::  Internet standard subnetting procedure
 911::   ::  EGP Gateway under Berkeley UNIX 4.2
 904::  H::  Exterior Gateway Protocol formal specification
 898::   ::  Gateway special interest group meeting notes
 890::   ::  Exterior Gateway Protocol implementation schedule
 888::   ::  STUB Exterior Gateway Protocol
 875::   ::  Gateways, architectures, and heffalumps
 827::   ::  Exterior Gateway Protocol EGP



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 62]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


 823::  H::  DARPA Internet gateway
=====================================================================
Security
2104::  I::  HMAC
2085:: PS::  HMAC-MD5 IP Authentication with Replay Prevention
2084::  I::  Considerations for Web Transaction Security
2082:: PS::  RIP-2 MD5 Authentication
2078:: PS::  Generic Security Service Application Program Interface,
             Version 2
2069:: PS::  An Extension to HTTP
2065:: PS::  Domain Name System Security Extensions
2059::  I::  RADIUS Accounting
2058:: PS::  Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)
2057::  I::  Source directed access control on the Internet.
2040::  I::  The RC5, RC5-CBC, RC5-CBC-Pad, and RC5-CTS Algorithms
2025:: PS::  The Simple Public-Key GSS-API Mechanism (SPKM)
2015::   ::  MIME Security with Pretty Good Privacy (PGP)
1984::  I::  IAB and IESG Statement on Cryptographic Technology and
             the Internet
1969::  I::  The PPP DES Encryption Protocol (DESE)
1968:: PS::  The PPP Encryption Control Protocol (ECP)
1964:: PS::  The Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API Mechanism
1961:: PS::  GSS-API Authentication Method for SOCKS Version 5
1949::  E::  Scalable Multicast Key Distribution
1948::  I::  Defending Against Sequence Number Attacks
1938:: PS::  A One-Time Password System
1929:: PS::  Username/Password Authentication for SOCKS V5
1928:: PS::  SOCKS Protocol Version 5
1898::  I::  CyberCash Credit Card Protocol Version 0.8
1858::  I::  Security Considerations for IP Fragment Filtering
1852::  E::  IP Authentication using Keyed SHA
1851::  E::  The ESP Triple DES-CBC Transform
1829:: PS::  The ESP DES-CBC Transform
1828:: PS::  IP Authentication using Keyed MD5
1827:: PS::  IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)
1826:: PS::  IP Authentication Header
1825:: PS::  Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol
1824::  I::  The Exponential Security System TESS
1760::  I::  The S/KEY One-Time Password System
1751::  I::  A Convention for Human-Readable 128-bit Keys
1750::  I::  Randomness Recommendations for Security
1704::  I::  On Internet Authentication
1675::  I::  Security Concerns for IPng
1579::  I::  Firewall-Friendly FTP
1535::  I::  A Security Problem and Proposed Correction With Widely
             Deployed DNS Software
1511::  I::  Common Authentication Technology Overview
1510:: PS::  The Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 63]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


1509:: PS::  Generic Security Service API
1508:: PS::  Generic Security Service Application Program Interface
1507::  E::  DASS - Distributed Authentication Security Service
1492::  I::  An Access Control Protocol, Sometimes Called TACACS
1457::  I::  Security Label Framework for the Internet
1455::  E::  Physical Link Security Type of Service
1424:: PS::  Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail
1423:: PS::  Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail
1422:: PS::  Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail
1421:: PS::  Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail
1416::  E::  Telnet Authentication Option
1412::  E::  Telnet Authentication
1411::  E::  Telnet Authentication
1409::  E::  Telnet Authentication Option
1408::  H::  Telnet Environment Option
1321::  I::  The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm
1320::  I::  The MD4 Message-Digest Algorithm
1319::  I::  The MD2 Message-Digest Algorithm
1281::  I::  Guidelines for the Secure Operation of the Internet
1244::  I::  Site Security Handbook
1186::  I::  The MD4 Message Digest Algorithm
1170::  I::  Public Key Standards and Licenses
1156::  S::  Management Information Base for Network Management of
             TCP/IP-based internets
1115::  H::  Privacy enhancement for Internet electronic mail
1114::  H::  Privacy enhancement for Internet electronic mail
1113::  H::  Privacy enhancement for Internet electronic mail
1108:: PS::  U.S. Department of Defense Security Options for the
             Internet Protocol
1040::   ::  Privacy enhancement for Internet electronic mail
1038::   ::  Draft revised IP security option
1004::  E::  Distributed-protocol authentication scheme
 989::   ::  Privacy enhancement for Internet electronic mail
 972::   ::  Password Generator Protocol
 931::  E::  Authentication server
 927::   ::  TACACS user identification Telnet option
 912::   ::  Authentication service
 644::   ::  On the problem of signature authentication for
             network mail
=====================================================================
Virtual Terminal
2066::  E::  TELNET CHARSET Option
1647:: PS::  TN3270 Enhancements
1646::  I::  TN3270 Extensions for LUname and Printer Selection
1576::  I::  TN3270 Current Practices
1572:: PS::  Telnet Environment Option
1571::  I::  Telnet Environment Option Interoperability Issues
1372:: PS::  Telnet Remote Flow Control Option



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 64]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


1282::  I::  BSD Rlogin
1258::  I::  BSD Rlogin
1221::   ::  Host Access Protocol (HAP) Specification - Version 2
1205::   ::  5250 Telnet Interface
1184:: DS::  Telnet Linemode Option
1143::   ::  The Q Method of Implementing TELNET Option Negotiation
1116:: PS::  Telnet Linemode option
1097::   ::  Telnet subliminal-message option
1096::   ::  Telnet X display location option
1091::   ::  Telnet terminal-type option
1080::   ::  Telnet remote flow control option
1079::   ::  Telnet terminal speed option
1073::   ::  Telnet window size option
1053::   ::  Telnet X.3 PAD option
1043::   ::  Telnet Data Entry Terminal option
1041::   ::  Telnet 3270 regime option
1013::   ::  X Window System Protocol, version 11
1005::   ::  ARPANET AHIP-E Host Access Protocol enhanced AHIP
 946::   ::  Telnet terminal location number option
 933::   ::  Output marking Telnet option
 930::   ::  Telnet terminal type option
 929::   ::  Proposed Host-Front End Protocol
 907::  S::  Host Access Protocol specification
 885::   ::  Telnet end of record option
 884::   ::  Telnet terminal type option
 878::   ::  ARPANET 1822L Host Access Protocol
 861::   ::  Telnet extended options
 860::  S::  Telnet timing mark option
 859::  S::  Telnet status option
 858::  S::  Telnet Suppress Go Ahead option
 857::  S::  Telnet echo option
 856::  S::  Telnet binary transmission
 855::  S::  Telnet option specifications
 854::  S::  Telnet Protocol specification
 851::   ::  ARPANET 1822L Host Access Protocol
 818::  H::  Remote User Telnet service
 802::   ::  ARPANET 1822L Host Access Protocol
 782::   ::  Virtual Terminal management model
 779::   ::  Telnet send-location option
 764::   ::  Telnet Protocol specification
 749::   ::  Telnet SUPDUP-Output option
 748::   ::  Telnet randomly-lose option
 747::   ::  Recent extensions to the SUPDUP Protocol
 746::   ::  SUPDUP graphics extension
 736::   ::  Telnet SUPDUP option
 735::   ::  Revised Telnet byte macro option
 734::  H::  SUPDUP Protocol
 732::   ::  Telnet Data Entry Terminal option



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 65]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


 731::   ::  Telnet Data Entry Terminal option
 729::   ::  Telnet byte macro option
 728::   ::  Minor pitfall in the Telnet Protocol
 727::   ::  Telnet logout option
 726::   ::  Remote Controlled Transmission and Echoing Telnet option
 721::   ::  Out-of-band control signals in a Host-to-Host Protocol
 719::   ::  Discussion on RCTE
 718::   ::  Comments on RCTE from the Tenex implementation experience
 703::   ::  July, 1975, survey of New-Protocol Telnet Servers
 702::   ::  September, 1974, survey of New-Protocol Telnet servers
 701::   ::  August, 1974, survey of New-Protocol Telnet servers
 698::   ::  Telnet extended ASCII option
 688::   ::  Tentative schedule for the new Telnet implementation for
             the TIP
 679::   ::  February, 1975, survey of New-Protocol Telnet servers
 669::   ::  November, 1974, survey of New-Protocol Telnet servers
 659::   ::  Announcing additional Telnet options
 658::   ::  Telnet output linefeed disposition
 657::   ::  Telnet output vertical tab disposition option
 656::   ::  Telnet output vertical tabstops option
 655::   ::  Telnet output formfeed disposition option
 654::   ::  Telnet output horizontal tab disposition option
 653::   ::  Telnet output horizontal tabstops option
 652::   ::  Telnet output carriage-return disposition option
 651::   ::  Revised Telnet status option
 647::   ::  Proposed protocol for connecting host computers to
             ARPA-like networks via front end processors
 636::   ::  TIP/Tenex reliability improvements
 600::   ::  Interfacing an Illinois plasma terminal to the ARPANET
 596::   ::  Second thoughts on Telnet Go-Ahead
 595::   ::  Second thoughts in defense of the Telnet Go-Ahead
 587::   ::  Announcing new Telnet options
 563::   ::  Comments on the RCTE Telnet option
 562::   ::  Modifications to the Telnet specification
 560::   ::  Remote Controlled Transmission and Echoing Telnet option
 559::   ::  Comments on the new Telnet Protocol and its implementation
 513::   ::  Comments on the new Telnet specifications
 495::   ::  Telnet Protocol specifications
 470::   ::  Change in socket for TIP news facility
 466::   ::  Telnet logger/server for host LL-67
 461::   ::  Telnet Protocol meeting announcement
 447::   ::  IMP/TIP memory retrofit schedule
 435::   ::  Telnet issues
 431::   ::  Update on SMFS login and logout
 399::   ::  SMFS login and logout
 393::   ::  Comments on Telnet Protocol changes
 386::   ::  Letter to TIP users-2
 377::   ::  Using TSO via ARPA Network Virtual Terminal



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 66]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


 365::   ::  Letter to all TIP users
 364::   ::  Serving remote users on the ARPANET
 352::   ::  TIP site information form
 340::   ::  Proposed Telnet changes
 339::   ::  MLTNET
 328::   ::  Suggested Telnet Protocol changes
 318::   ::  [Ad hoc Telnet Protocol]
 311::   ::  New console attachments to the USCB host
 297::   ::  TIP message buffers
 296::   ::  DS-1 display system
 231::   ::  Service center standards for remote usage
 230::   ::  Toward reliable operation of minicomputer-based
             terminals on a TIP
 216::   ::  Telnet access to UCSB's On-Line System
 215::   ::  NCP, ICP, and Telnet
 206::   ::  User Telnet - description of an initial implementation
 205::   ::  NETCRT - a character display protocol
 177::   ::  Device independent graphical display description
 158::   ::  Telnet Protocol
 139::   ::  Discussion of Telnet Protocol
 137::   ::  Telnet Protocol - a proposed document
 110::   ::  Conventions for using an IBM 2741 terminal as a
             user console for access to network server hosts
  97::   ::  First cut at a proposed Telnet Protocol
=====================================================================
Other
2123::  I::  Traffic Flow Measurement
2121::  I::  Issues affecting MARS Cluster Size
2119:: BC::  Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels
2101::  I::  IPv4 Address Behaviour Today
2100::  I::  The Naming of Hosts
2099::  I::  Request for Comments Summary RFC Numbers 2000-2099
2083::  I::  PNG (Portable Network Graphics) Specification Version 1.0
2071::  I::  Network Renumbering Overview
2050:: BC::  INTERNET REGISTRY IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES
2036::  I::  Observations on the use of Components of the Class
             A Address Space within the Internet
2031::  I::  IETF-ISOC relationship
2028:: BC::  The Organizations Involved in the IETF Standards Process
2027:: BC::  IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process
2026:: BC::  The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3
2014:: BC::  IRTF Research Group Guidelines and Procedures
2007::  I::  Catalogue of Network Training Materials
2000::  S::  INTERNET OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS
1999::  I::  Request for Comments Summary RFC Numbers 1900-1999
1988::  I::  Conditional Grant of Rights to Specific Hewlett-Packard
             Patents In Conjunction With the Internet Engineering
             Task Force's Internet-Standard Network Management



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 67]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


             Framework
1983::  I::  Internet Users' Glossary
1958::  I::  Architectural Principles of the Internet
1952::  I::  GZIP file format specification version 4.3
1951::  I::  DEFLATE Compressed Data Format Specification version 1.3
1950::  I::  ZLIB Compressed Data Format Specification version 3.3
1941::  I::  Frequently Asked Questions for Schools
1935::  I::  What is the Internet, Anyway?
1920::  S::  INTERNET OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS
1900::  I::  Renumbering Needs Work
1899::  I::  Request for Comments Summary RFC Numbers 1800-1899
1882::  I::  The 12-Days of Technology Before Christmas
1880::  S::  INTERNET OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS
1879::  I::  Class A Subnet Experiment Results and Recommendations
1875::  I::  UNINETT PCA Policy Statements
1871:: BC::  Addendum to RFC 1602 -- Variance Procedure
1855::  I::  Netiquette Guidelines
1822::  I::  A Grant of Rights to Use a Specific IBM patent with
             Photuris
1818::  S::  Best Current Practices
1816::  I::  U.S. Government Internet Domain Names
1814::  I::  Unique Addresses are Good
1811::  I::  U.S. Government Internet Domain Names
1810::  I::  Report on MD5 Performance
1805::  I::  Location-Independent Data/Software Integrity Protocol
1802::  I::  Introducing Project Long Bud
1800::  S::  INTERNET OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS
1799::  I::  Request for Comments Summary RFC Numbers 1700-1799
1797::  E::  Class A Subnet Experiment
1796::  I::  Not All RFCs are Standards
1790::  I::  An Agreement between the Internet Society and Sun
             Microsystems, Inc. in the Matter of ONC RPC and
             XDR Protocols
1780::  S::  INTERNET OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS
1776::  I::  The Address is the Message
1775::  I::  To Be "On" the Internet
1758::  I::  NADF Standing Documents
1746::  I::  Ways to Define User Expectations
1739::  I::  A Primer On Internet and TCP/IP Tools
1720::  S::  INTERNET OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS
1718::  I::  The Tao of IETF - A Guide for New Attendees of the
             Internet Engineering Task Force
1715::  I::  The H Ratio for Address Assignment Efficiency
1709::  I::  K-12 Internetworking Guidelines
1700::  S::  ASSIGNED NUMBERS
1699::  I::  Request for Comments Summary RFC Numbers 1600-1699
1691::  I::  The Document Architecture for the Cornell Digital Library
1690::  I::  Introducing the Internet Engineering and Planning



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 68]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


             Group (IEPG)
1689::  I::  A Status Report on Networked Information Retrieval
1640::  I::  The Process for Organization of Internet Standards
             Working Group (POISED)
1636::  I::  Report of IAB Workshop on Security in the Internet
             Architecture - February 8-10, 1994
1635::  I::  How to Use Anonymous FTP
1627::  I::  Network 10 Considered Harmful (Some Practices
             Shouldn't be Codified)
1610::  S::  INTERNET OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS
1607::  I::  A VIEW FROM THE 21ST CENTURY
1606::  I::  A Historical Perspective On The Usage Of IP Version 9
1603::  I::  IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures
y1602::  I::  The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 2
1601::  I::  Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
1600::  S::  INTERNET OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS
1599::  I::  Request for Comments Summary RFC Numbers 1500 - 1599
1597::  I::  Address Allocation for Private Internets
1594::  I::  FYI on Questions and Answer Answers to Commonly
             asked "New Internet User" Questions
1580::  I::  Guide to Network Resource Tools
1578::  I::  FYI on Questions and Answers
1574::  I::  Essential Tools for the OSI Internet
1550::  I::  IP
1543::  I::  Instructions to RFC Authors
1540::  S::  INTERNET OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS
1539::  I::  The Tao of IETF - A Guide for New Attendees of the
             Internet Engineering Task Force
1527::  I::  What Should We Plan Given the Dilemma of the Network?
1501::  I::  OS/2 User Group
1500::  S::  INTERNET OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS
1499::  I::  Request for Comments Summary RFC Numbers 1400-1499
1481::  I::  IAB Recommendation for an Intermediate Strategy to
             Address the Issue of Scaling
1467::  I::  Status of CIDR Deployment in the Internet
1463::  I::  FYI on Introducing the Internet--A Short Bibliography
             of Introductory Internetworking Readings for the
             Network Novice
1462::  I::  FYI on "What is the Internet?"
1438::  I::  Internet Engineering Task Force Statements Of
             Boredom (SOBs)
1432::  I::  Recent Internet Books
1417::  I::  NADF Standing Documents
1410::  S::  IAB OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS
1402::  I::  There's Gold in them thar Networks! Searching for
             Treasure in all the Wrong Places
1401::  I::  Correspondence between the IAB and DISA on the use
             of DNS throughout the Internet



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 69]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


1399::  I::  Request for Comments Summary RFC Numbers 1300-1399
1396::  I::  The Process for Organization of Internet Standards
             Working Group (POISED)
1392::  I::  Internet Users' Glossary
1391::  I::  The Tao of IETF
1367::  I::  Schedule for IP Address Space Management Guidelines
1366::  I::  Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space
1360::  S::  IAB OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS
1359::  I::  Connecting to the Internet What Connecting
             Institutions Should Anticipate
1358::  I::  Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
1349:: PS::  Type of Service in the Internet Protocol Suite
1340::  S::  ASSIGNED NUMBERS
1336::  I::  Who's Who in the Internet Biographies of IAB,
             IESG and IRSG Members
1325::  I::  FYI on Questions and Answers Answers to Commonly
             asked "New Internet User" Questions
1324::  I::  A Discussion on Computer Network Conferencing
1311::  I::  Introduction to the STD Notes
1310::  I::  The Internet Standards Process
1300::  I::  Remembrances of Things Past
1299::  I::  Request for Comments Summary RFC Numbers 1200-1299
1297::  I::  NOC Internal Integrated Trouble Ticket System
             Functional Specification Wishlist
             ("NOC TT REQUIREMENTS")
1296::  I::  Internet Growth (1981-1991)
1295::  I::  User Bill of Rights for entries and listings in the
             Public Directory
1291::  I::  Mid-Level Networks
1290::  I::  There's Gold in them thar Networks! or Searching for
             Treasure in all the Wrong Places
1287::  I::  Towards the Future Internet Architecture
1280::  S::  IAB OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS
1261::  I::  Transition of NIC Services
1259::  I::  Building The Open Road
1251::   ::  Who's Who in the Internet
1250::  S::  IAB Official Protocol Standards
1249::  I::  DIXIE Protocol Specification
1217::   ::  Memo from the Consortium for Slow Commotion Research (CSCR)
1216::   ::  Gigabit Network Economics and Paradigm Shifts
1208::   ::  A Glossary of Networking Terms
1207::   ::  Answers to Commonly asked "Experienced Internet User"
             Questions
1206::   ::  FYI on Questions and Answers - Answers to Commonly
             asked "New Internet User" Questions
1200::  S::  IAB Official Protocol Standards
1199::  I::  Request for Comments Summary RFC Numbers 1100-1199
1198::  I::  FYI on the X Window System



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 70]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


1192::   ::  Commercialization of the Internet Summary Report
1181::   ::  RIPE Terms of Reference
1180::   ::  A TCP/IP Tutorial
1178::   ::  Choosing a Name for Your Computer
1177::   ::  FYI on Questions and Answers - Answers to Commonly
             Asked "New Internet User" Questions
1175::   ::  FYI on Where to Start - A Bibliography of
             Internetworking Information
1174::  I::  IAB Recommended Policy on Distributing Internet
             Identifier Assignment and IAB Recommended Policy Change
             to Internet "Connected" Status
1173::   ::  Responsibilities of Host and Network Managers
             Summary of the "Oral Tradition" of the Internet
1169::   ::  Explaining the Role of GOSIP
1167::   ::  Thoughts on the National Research and Education Network
1160::   ::  The Internet Activities Board
1152::   ::  Workshop Report
1150::  I::  F.Y.I. on F.Y.I.
1149::   ::  A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams
             on Avian Carriers
1147::  I::  FYI on a Network Management Tool Catalog
1140::  S::  IAB Official Protocol Standards
1135::   ::  Helminthiasis of the Internet
1130::  S::  IAB official protocol standards
1127::   ::  Perspective on the Host Requirements RFCs
1121::   ::  Act one - the poems
1120::   ::  Internet Activities Board
1118::   ::  Hitchhikers guide to the Internet
1117::   ::  Internet numbers
1111::   ::  Request for comments on Request for Comments
1100::  S::  IAB official protocol standards
1099::  I::  Request for Comments Summary RFC Numbers 1000-1099
1093::   ::  NSFNET routing architecture
1087::   ::  Ethics and the Internet
1083::  S::  IAB official protocol standards
1077::   ::  Critical issues in high bandwidth networking
1076::   ::  HEMS monitoring and control language
1060::  S::  ASSIGNED NUMBERS
1039::   ::  DoD statement on Open Systems Interconnection protocols
1020::   ::  Internet numbers
1019::   ::  Report of the Workshop on Environments for
             Computational Mathematics
1018::   ::  Some comments on SQuID
1017::   ::  Network requirements for scientific research
1015::   ::  Implementation plan for interagency research Internet
1014::   ::  XDR
1000::   ::  Request For Comments reference guide
 999::   ::  Requests For Comments summary notes



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 71]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


 997::   ::  Internet numbers
 992::   ::  On communication support for fault tolerant process groups
 991::  S::  Official ARPA-Internet protocols
 990::   ::  Assigned numbers
 980::   ::  Protocol document order information
 979::   ::  PSN End-to-End functional specification
 968::   ::  Twas the night before start-up
 967::   ::  All victims together
 961::  S::  Official ARPA-Internet protocols
 960::   ::  Assigned numbers
 945::   ::  DoD statement on the NRC report
 944::  S::  Official ARPA-Internet protocols
 943::   ::  Assigned numbers
 939::   ::  Executive summary of the NRC report on transport
             protocols for Department of Defense data networks
 938::  E::  Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol functional
             and interface specification
 928::   ::  Introduction to proposed DoD standard H-FP
 923::   ::  Assigned numbers
 909::  E::  Loader Debugger Protocol
 908::  E::  Reliable Data Protocol
 902::   ::  ARPA Internet Protocol policy
 901::  S::  Official ARPA-Internet protocols
 900::   ::  Assigned Numbers
 899::   ::  Request For Comments summary notes
 880::  S::  Official protocols
 873::   ::  Illusion of vendor support
 870::   ::  Assigned numbers
 869::  H::  Host Monitoring Protocol
 852::   ::  ARPANET short blocking feature
 847::   ::  Summary of Smallberg surveys
 846::   ::  Who talks TCP? - survey of 22 February 1983
 845::   ::  Who talks TCP? - survey of 15 February 1983
 844::   ::  Who talks ICMP, too? - Survey of 18 February 1983
 843::   ::  Who talks TCP? - survey of 8 February 83
 842::   ::  Who talks TCP? - survey of 1 February 83
 840::  S::  Official protocols
 839::   ::  Who talks TCP?
 838::   ::  Who talks TCP?
 837::   ::  Who talks TCP?
 836::   ::  Who talks TCP?
 835::   ::  Who talks TCP?
 834::   ::  Who talks TCP?
 833::   ::  Who talks TCP?
 832::   ::  Who talks TCP?
 831::   ::  Backup access to the European side of SATNET
 828::   ::  Data communications
 825::   ::  Request for comments on Requests For Comments



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 72]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


 820::   ::  Assigned numbers
 817::   ::  Modularity and efficiency in protocol implementation
 816::   ::  Fault isolation and recovery
 806::   ::  Proposed Federal Information Processing Standard
 800::   ::  Request For Comments summary notes
 794::   ::  Pre-emption
 790::   ::  Assigned numbers
 776::   ::  Assigned numbers
 774::   ::  Internet Protocol Handbook
 770::   ::  Assigned numbers
 766::   ::  Internet Protocol Handbook
 762::   ::  Assigned numbers
 758::   ::  Assigned numbers
 755::   ::  Assigned numbers
 750::   ::  Assigned numbers
 745::   ::  JANUS interface specifications
 739::   ::  Assigned numbers
 717::   ::  Assigned network numbers
 716::   ::  Interim revision to Appendix F of BBN 1822
 708::   ::  Elements of a distributed programming system
 705::   ::  Front-end Protocol B6700 version
 700::   ::  Protocol experiment
 699::   ::  Request For Comments summary notes
 694::   ::  Protocol information
 686::   ::  Leaving well enough alone
 684::   ::  Commentary on procedure calling as a network protocol
 681::   ::  Network UNIX
 678::   ::  Standard file formats
 677::   ::  Maintenance of duplicate databases
 672::   ::  Multi-site data collection facility
 671::   ::  Note on Reconnection Protocol
 667::   ::  BBN host ports
 666::   ::  Specification of the Unified User-Level Protocol
 663::   ::  Lost message detection and recovery protocol
 661::   ::  Protocol information
 645::   ::  Network Standard Data Specification syntax
 643::   ::  Network Debugging Protocol
 642::   ::  Ready line philosophy and implementation
 638::   ::  IMP/TIP preventive maintenance schedule
 637::   ::  Change of network address for SU-DSL
 635::   ::  Assessment of ARPANET protocols
 634::   ::  Change in network address for Haskins Lab
 631::   ::  International meeting on minicomputers and data
             communication
 629::   ::  Scenario for using the Network Journal
 628::   ::  Status of RFC numbers and a note on pre-assigned
             journal numbers
 621::   ::  NIC user directories at SRI ARC



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 73]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


 617::   ::  Note on socket number assignment
 609::   ::  Statement of upcoming move of NIC/NLS service
 604::   ::  Assigned link numbers
 603::   ::  Response to RFC 597
 602::   ::  The stockings were hung by the chimney with care
 598::   ::  RFC index - December 5, 1973
 597::   ::  Host status
 590::   ::  MULTICS address change
 588::   ::  London node is now up
 585::   ::  ARPANET users interest working group meeting
 584::   ::  Charter for ARPANET Users Interest Working Group
 582::   ::  Comments on RFC 580
 581::   ::  Corrections to RFC 560
 580::   ::  Note to protocol designers and implementers
 578::   ::  Using MIT-Mathlab MACSYMA from MIT-DMS Muddle
 569::  H::  NETED
 552::   ::  Single access to standard protocols
 547::   ::  Change to the Very Distant Host specification
 544::   ::  Locating on-line documentation at SRI-ARC
 537::   ::  Announcement of NGG meeting July 16-17
 530::   ::  Report on the Survey project
 529::   ::  Note on protocol synch sequences
 527::   ::  ARPAWOCKY
 526::   ::  Technical meeting
 523::   ::  SURVEY is in operation again
 519::   ::  Resource evaluation
 518::   ::  ARPANET accounts
 515::   ::  Specifications for datalanguage
 503::   ::  Socket number list
 496::   ::  TNLS quick reference card is available
 494::   ::  Availability of MIX and MIXAL in the Network
 492::   ::  Response to RFC 467
 491::   ::  What is "Free"?
 483::   ::  Cancellation of the resource notebook framework meeting
 474::   ::  Announcement of NGWG meeting
 464::   ::  Resource notebook framework
 462::   ::  Responding to user needs
 457::   ::  TIPUG
 456::   ::  Memorandum
 441::   ::  Inter-Entity Communication - an experiment
 440::   ::  Scheduled network software maintenance
 439::   ::  PARRY encounters the DOCTOR
 433::   ::  Socket number list
 432::   ::  Network logical map
 425::   ::  But my NCP costs $500 a day
 419::   ::  To
 405::   ::  Correction to RFC 404
 404::   ::  Host address changes involving Rand and ISI



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 74]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


 403::   ::  Desirability of a network 1108 service
 402::   ::  ARPA Network mailing lists
 401::   ::  Conversion of NGP-0 coordinates to device specific
             coordinates
 390::   ::  TSO scenario
 379::   ::  Using TSO at  CCN
 376::   ::  Network host status
 372::   ::  Notes on a conversation with Bob Kahn on the ICCC
 371::   ::  Demonstration at International Computer Communications
             Conference
 370::   ::  Network host status
 363::   ::  ARPA Network mailing lists
 356::   ::  ARPA Network Control Center
 355::   ::  Response to NWG/RFC 346
 350::   ::  User accounts for UCSB On-Line System
 349::   ::  Proposed standard socket numbers
 345::   ::  Interest in mixed integer programming MPSX on NIC
             360/91 at CCN
 334::   ::  Network use on May 8
 331::   ::  IMP System change notification
 330::   ::  Network host status
 329::   ::  ARPA Network mailing lists
 327::   ::  Data and File Transfer workshop notes
 322::   ::  Well known socket numbers
 321::   ::  CBI networking activity at MITRE
 320::   ::  Workshop on hard copy line printers
 319::   ::  Network host status
 317::   ::  Official Host-Host Protocol modification
 316::   ::  ARPA Network Data Management Working Group
 315::   ::  Network host status
 313::   ::  Computer based instruction
 305::   ::  Unknown host numbers
 303::   ::  ARPA Network mailing lists
 295::   ::  Report of the Protocol Workshop, 12 October 1971
 291::   ::  Data management meeting announcement
 290::   ::  Computer networks and data sharing
 282::   ::  Graphics meeting report
 276::   ::  NIC course
 270::   ::  Correction to BBN Report No. 1822 NIC NO 7958
 269::   ::  Some experience with file transfer
 263::   ::  Very Distant Host interface
 256::   ::  IMPSYS change notification
 254::   ::  Scenarios for using ARPANET computers
 253::   ::  Second Network Graphics meeting details
 249::   ::  Coordination of equipment and supplies purchase
 246::   ::  Network Graphics meeting
 245::   ::  Reservations for Network Group meeting
 243::   ::  Network and data sharing bibliography



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 75]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


 242::   ::  Data descriptive language for shared data
 240::   ::  Site status
 239::   ::  Host mnemonics proposed in RFC 226 NIC 7625
 235::   ::  Site status
 234::   ::  Network Working Group meeting schedule
 232::   ::  Postponement of network graphics meeting
 228::   ::  Clarification
 225::   ::  Rand/UCSB network graphics experiment
 223::   ::  Network Information Center schedule for network users
 219::   ::  User's view of the datacomputer
 218::   ::  Changing the IMP status reporting facility
 214::   ::  Network checkpoint
 213::   ::  IMP System change notification
 211::   ::  ARPA Network mailing lists
 209::   ::  Host/IMP interface documentation
 208::   ::  Address tables
 207::   ::  September Network Working Group meeting
 204::   ::  Sockets in use
 200::   ::  RFC list by number
 198::   ::  Site certification - Lincoln Labs 360/67
 195::   ::  Data computers-data descriptions and access language
 194::   ::  Data Reconfiguration Service - compiler/interpreter
             implementation notes
 187::   ::  Network/440 protocol concept
 186::   ::  Network graphics loader
 185::   ::  NIC distribution of manuals and handbooks
 182::   ::  Compilation of list of relevant site reports
 180::   ::  File system questionnaire
 179::   ::  Link number assignments
 173::   ::  Network data management committee meeting announcement
 171::   ::  Data Transfer Protocol
 170::   ::  RFC list by number
 169::   ::  Computer networks
 168::   ::  ARPA Network mailing lists
 167::   ::  Socket conventions reconsidered
 164::   ::  Minutes of Network Working Group meeting, 5/16
             through 5/19/71
 162::   ::  NETBUGGER3
 160::   ::  RFC brief list
 157::   ::  Invitation to the Second Symposium on Problems in the
             Optimization of Data Communications Systems
 155::   ::  ARPA Network mailing lists
 154::   ::  Exposition style
 149::   ::  Best laid plans
 148::   ::  Comments on RFC 123
 147::   ::  Definition of a socket
 140::   ::  Agenda for the May NWG meeting
 138::   ::  Status report on proposed Data Reconfiguration Service



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 76]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


 136::   ::  Host accounting and administrative procedures
 135::   ::  Response to NWG/RFC 110
 132::   ::  Typographical error in RFC 107
 131::   ::  Response to RFC 116
 130::   ::  Response to RFC 111
 129::   ::  Request for comments on socket name structure
 126::   ::  Graphics facilities at Ames Research Center
 124::   ::  Typographical error in RFC 107
 121::   ::  Network on-line operators
 120::   ::  Network PL1 subprograms
 119::   ::  Network Fortran subprograms
 118::   ::  Recommendations for facility documentation
 117::   ::  Some comments on the official protocol
 116::   ::  Structure of the May NWG meeting
 115::   ::  Some Network Information Center policies on handling
             documents
 113::   ::  Network activity report
 112::   ::  User/Server Site Protocol
 111::   ::  Pressure from the chairman
 109::   ::  Level III Server Protocol for the Lincoln Laboratory
             NIC 360/67 Host
 108::   ::  Attendance list at the Urbana NWG meeting, February
             17-19,1971
 107::   ::  Output of the Host-Host Protocol glitch cleaning committee
 106::   ::  User/Server Site Protocol network host questionnaire
 104::   ::  Link 191
 103::   ::  Implementation of interrupt keys
 102::   ::  Output of the Host-Host Protocol glitch cleaning committee
 101::   ::  Notes on the Network Working Group meeting,
             Urbana, Illinois, February 17, 1971
 100::   ::  Categorization and guide to NWG/RFCs
  99::   ::  Network meeting
  95::   ::  Distribution of NWG/RFC's through the NIC
  90::   ::  CCN as a network service center
  89::   ::  Some historic moments in networking
  87::   ::  Topic for discussion at the next Network Working Group
             meeting
  85::   ::  Network Working Group meeting
  84::   ::  List of NWG/RFC's 1-80
  82::   ::  Network meeting notes
  81::   ::  Request for reference information
  78::   ::  NCP status report
  77::   ::  Network meeting report
  76::   ::  Connection by name
  75::   ::  Network meeting
  74::   ::  Specifications for network use of the UCSB On-Line System
  73::   ::  Response to NWG/RFC 67
  72::   ::  Proposed moratorium on changes to network protocol



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 77]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


  71::   ::  Reallocation in case of input error
  69::   ::  Distribution list change for MIT
  68::   ::  Comments on memory allocation control commands
  66::  ::  NIC - third level ideas and other noise
  64::   ::  Getting rid of marking
  63::   ::  Belated network meeting report
  61::   ::  Note on interprocess communication in a resource
             sharing computer network
  57::   ::  Thoughts and reflections on NWG/RFC 54
  52::   ::  Updated distribution list
  51::   ::  Proposal for a Network Interchange Language
  50::   ::  Comments on the Meyer proposal
  49::   ::  Conversations with S. Crocker UCLA
  48::   ::  Possible protocol plateau
  47::   ::  BBN's comments on NWG/RFC #33
  46::   ::  ARPA Network protocol notes
  45::   ::  New protocol is coming
  44::   ::  Comments on NWG/RFC 33 and 36
  43::   ::  Proposed meeting [LIL]
  40::   ::  More comments on the forthcoming protocol
  39::   ::  Comments on protocol re
  37::   ::  Network meeting epilogue, etc
  36::   ::  Protocol notes
  35::   ::  Network meeting
  34::   ::  Some brief preliminary notes on the Augmentation
             Research Center clock
  31::   ::  Binary message forms in computer
  30::   ::  Documentation conventions
  27::   ::  Documentation conventions
  25::   ::  No high link numbers
  24::   ::  Documentation conventions
  21::   ::  Network meeting
  16::   ::  M.I.T
  15::   ::  Network subsystem for time sharing hosts
  13::   ::  [Referring to NWG/RFC 11]
  11::   ::  Implementation of the Host-Host software procedures
             in GORDO
  10::   ::  Documentation conventions
   9::   ::  Host software
   8::   ::  Functional specifications for the ARPA Network
   7::   ::  Host-IMP interface
   6::   ::  Conversation with Bob Kahn
   5::   ::  Decode Encode Language
   4::   ::  Network timetable
   3::   ::  Documentation conventions
   2::   ::  Host software
   1::   ::  Host software




Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 78]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


Appendix B:  Automatic Script to Implement Methodology

#!/usr/bin/perl

# Program to read text files (such as RFCs and Internet Drafts) and
#    output items that might relate to year 2000 issues, particularly
#    2-digit years.

# Version 1.1a. Slight modification by Philip J. Nesser
#    (phil@nesser.com) to split lines from old RFC's that are
#    too wide to conform with current RFC standards.

# Version 1.1. By Paul Hoffman (phoffman@imc.org). This is a
#    quick-and-dirty hack and could be written more elegantly and
#    more efficiently. There may be bugs in this software. For
#    example, there was an off-by-one-line bug in version 1.0.
#    Use this code at your own risk. This code may be freely
#    redistributed.

# Some people like using disk files, others like STDIN and STDOUT.
#    This program accomodates both types by setting the $UsageType
#    variable. 'file' means input comes from the first argument on
#    the command line, output goes to that filename with a ".out"
#    extension; 'std' means STDIN and STDOUT.
$UsageType = 'file';  # Should be 'file' or 'std'

# @CheckWords is a list of words to look for. This list is used in
#    addition to the automatic checking for "yy" on a line without "YYYY".
#    You might want to add "year yyyy" to this list, but then a large
#    proportion of the RFCs and drafts get selected

@CheckWords = qw(UTCTime two-digit 2-digit 2digit century 1900 2000);

if($UsageType eq 'file') {
        if($ARGV[0] eq '')
                { die "You must specify the name of the file to open.\n" }
        $InName = $ARGV[0];
        unless(-r $InName) { die "Could not read $InName.\n" }
        open(IN, $InName) or die "Could not open $InName.\n";
        $OutName = "$InName.out";
        open(OUT, ">$OutName") or die "Could not write to $OutName.\n";
        $OutStuff = '';  # Holder for what we're going to print out
} else {  # Do STDIN and STDOUT
        open(IN, "-"); open(OUT, ">-");
}

# Read the whole file into an array. This is a tad wasteful of memory
#    but makes the output easier.



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 79]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


@All = ();
while() { push(@All, $_) }
$LastLine = $#All;

# Process the instance of "yy" not followed by "yy"
for($i = 0; $i <= $LastLine; $i += 1 ) {
        next unless(grep(/yy/i, $All[$i]));
        next if(grep(/yyyy/i, $All[$i]));
        &PrintFive($i, "'yy' on a line without 'yyyy'");
}

# Next do the words that should cause extra concern
foreach $Word (@CheckWords) {
        for($i = 0; $i <= $LastLine; $i += 1 ) {
                next unless(grep(/$Word/i, $All[$i]));
                &PrintFive($i, "$Word");
        }
}

# All done. If writing to a file, and nothing got written, delete the
#    file so that you can quickly scan for the ".out" files.
#    (A better-written program would have waited to do the opens
#    until here so the unlink wouldn't be necessary. Oh, well.)
if($UsageType eq 'file') {
        if(length($OutStuff) > 0) {
                $OutStuff = "+=+=+=+=+= File $InName +=+=+=+=+= \n$OutStuff\n
                print OUT $OutStuff; close(OUT);
        } else {  # Nothing to put in the .out
                close(OUT);
                unlink($OutName) or die "Couldn't unlink $OutName\n";
        }
}
exit;

# Print the five lines around the word found
sub PrintFive {
    my $Where = shift(@_); my $Msg = shift(@_);
    my ($WhereRealLine, $Start, $End, $j);

    $WhereRealLine = $Where + 1;
    $OutStuff .= "$Msg found at line $WhereRealLine:\n";
    $Start = $WhereRealLine - 2; $End = $WhereRealLine + 2;
    if($Where < 2) { $Start = 0 }
    if($Where > $LastLine - 2) { $End = $LastLine }
    for($j = $Start; $j <= $End; $j += 1) {
        if (length($All[$j-1]) > 64) {
            $FirstHalf = substr($All[$j-1], 0, 64) . "\n";
            $LastHalf = "$j(continued):\t\t" . substr($All[$j-1], 64);



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 80]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


            $OutStuff .= "$j:  " . $FirstHalf . $LastHalf;
            }
        else {
        $OutStuff .= "$j:  " . $All[$j-1]
        }
    }
    $OutStuff .= "\n";
}

Appendix C:  Output of the script in Appendix B on all RFC's from 1
          through 2479

+=+=+=+=+= File RFC 52.txt +=+=+=+=+=
2000 found at line 141:
139:
140:      Chuck Rose                              Case University
141:      Jennings Computing Center               (216) 368-2000
142:      Case Western Reserve University                x2808
143:      10900 Euclid Avenue

+=+=+=+=+= File RFC 90.txt +=+=+=+=+=
2000 found at line 71:
69:                           consoles);
70:
71:                        j) Six data communication ports (3 dial @
71(continued):          2000 baud,
72:                           1 dedicated @ 4800 baud, and 2 dedicate
72(continued):          d @ 50,000
73:                           baud) for remote batch entry terminals;
73(continued):

+=+=+=+=+= File RFC 230.txt +=+=+=+=+=
2000 found at line 92:
90:  as for conventional synchronous block communication, since start
90(continued):           and
91:  stop bits for each character would need to be transmitted. This
91(continued):          loss
92:  is not substantial and does occur now for 2000 bps TIP-terminal
93:  communication.
94:

2000 found at line 134:
132:  92 transmitting sites in the U.S. and Canada were used with stan
132(continued):         dard
133:  Bell System Dataphone datasets used at both ends.  At both 1200
133(continued):         and
134:  2000 bps, approximately 82% of the calls had error rates of 1 er
134(continued):         ror in



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 81]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


135:  10^5 bits or better, assuming an equal number of short, medium,
135(continued):         and
136:  long hauls.

+=+=+=+=+= File RFC 241.txt +=+=+=+=+=
2000 found at line 32:
30:     justifiable on the basis that the IMP and Host computers were
30(continued):
31:     expected to be either in the same room (up to 30 feet of cabl
31(continued):          e) or,
32:     via the Distant Host option, within 2000 feet on well- contro
32(continued):          lled,
33:     shielded cables.  A connection through common carrier facilit
33(continued):          ies is
34:     not comparably free of errors.  Usage of common- carrier line
34(continued):          s for


+=+=+=+=+= File RFC 263.txt +=+=+=+=+=
2000 found at line 22:
20:  of the occasional desire to interface a Host to some IMP via a
21:  long-distance connection (where long-distance, in this context,
22:  is any cable run longer than 2000 feet but may typically be tens
22(continued):
23:  of miles) via either a hard-wire or telephone circuit.  We belie
23(continued):          ve
24:  that any good solution to the general problem of interfacing Hos
24(continued):          ts

+=+=+=+=+= File RFC 662.txt +=+=+=+=+=
2000 found at line 143:
141:  by a rather short cable (approximately 100 feet long.) The CISL
141(continued):         Multics is
142:  connected to the IMP number 6 (port 0) by an approximately l5OO
142(continued):         feet long cable.
143:  8oth IMPs are in close physical proximity (approximately 2000 fe
143(continued):         et,) and are
144:  connected to each other by a 5O kilobits per second line. The re
144(continued):         sults given
145:  above show considerable improvement in the performance with the
145(continued):         new IMP DIM.

+=+=+=+=+= File RFC 713.txt +=+=+=+=+=
2000 found at line 830:
828:  succeeding bytes in the stream used to encode the object.
829:
830:  A data object requiring 20000 (47040 octal) bytes would
831:  appear in the stream as follows.



Nesser                       Informational                     [Page 82]

RFC 2626  The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)  June 1999


832:

2000 found at line 837:
835:  10000010 -- specifying that the next 2 bytes
836:  contain the stream length
837:  01001110 -- first byte of number 20000
838:  00100000 -- second byte
839:  .

2000 found at line 845:
843:  .
844:
845:  Interpretation of the contents of the 20000 bytes in
846:  the stream can be performed by a module which knows the
847:  specific format of the non-atomic type specified by DEFGH in

+=+=+=+=+= File RFC 724.txt +=+=+=+=+=
2-digit found at line 1046:
1044:                                                  <4-digit-year>
1045:                 ::=    "/" 
1046:                                                   "/" <2-digit-ye
1046(continued):                ar>
1047:              ::=   
1048:               ::=   

2-digit found at line 1062:
1060:                                 | "December" | "Dec"
1061:           <4-digit-year>    ::=   
1062:           <2-digit-year>    ::=   
1063: