rfc2626.txt

来自「<VC++网络游戏建摸与实现>源代码」· 文本 代码 · 共 1,531 行 · 第 1/5 页

TXT
1,531
字号
Network Working Group                                     P. Nesser IIRequest for Comments: 2626                  Nesser & Nesser ConsultingCategory: 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 isNesser                       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 uTCTimeSyntax3.2  "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 19993.7  "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 <email-address>   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,

⌨️ 快捷键说明

复制代码Ctrl + C
搜索代码Ctrl + F
全屏模式F11
增大字号Ctrl + =
减小字号Ctrl + -
显示快捷键?