Re: [auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9293 <draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-28> for your review

[Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]>]

Martin,

Thank you for your reply. We have added the text that required your 
approval:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293-lastrfcdiff.html (these 
changes side by side)

https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293.txt
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293-diff.html (all changes inline)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293-rfcdiff.html (all changes 
side by side)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 
changes inline)

We'll await word from you and Wesley regarding other changes and/or 
approval.

Best regards,

RFC Editor/jm

On 8/3/22 11:41 AM, Martin Duke wrote:
> I approve.
>
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 11:17 AM Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     Wesley,
>
>     Thanks for your reply. We've updated the document:
>
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293-lastrfcdiff.html (these
>     changes side by side)
>
>     Regarding the spelling of "acknowledgment", we discovered that we
>     had already made that change (and that change was highlighted in
>     question 56a). Apologies for any confusion caused by asking about
>     it again.
>
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293.txt
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293.pdf
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293.html
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293.xml
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293-diff.html (all changes
>     inline)
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293-rfcdiff.html (all
>     changes side by side)
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293-auth48diff.html (all
>     AUTH48 changes inline)
>
>
>     We'll await word from you and the ADs regarding other changes
>     and/or approval.
>
>     Best regards,
>
>     RFC Editor/jm
>
>
>     On 7/29/22 11:20 AM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
>>
>>     Thank you; replies are below:
>>
>>
>>     On 7/28/2022 6:45 PM, Jean Mahoney wrote:
>>>
>>>     *AD, please see the Wesley's questions at the bottom of this
>>>     message.
>>>
>>>     Wesley,
>>>
>>>     Thank you for your response. We have updated the document with
>>>     your feedback:
>>>
>>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293-lastrfcdiff.html
>>>     (this changes side by side)
>>>
>>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293.txt
>>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293.pdf
>>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293.html
>>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293.xml
>>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293-diff.html (all
>>>     changes inline)
>>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293-rfcdiff.html (all
>>>     changes side by side)
>>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293-auth48diff.html (all
>>>     AUTH48 changes inline)
>>>
>>>
>>>     We also have two new questions and a followup question:
>>>
>>>     1) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.9.1.1 <http://3.9.1.1>: Please review
>>>     the placement of commas in the
>>>     following. We note that "local IP address," has a comma
>>>     following it, but
>>>     the other options have the comma before.
>>>
>>>     Current:
>>>
>>>           Format: OPEN (local port, remote socket, active/passive [,
>>>           timeout] [, Diffserv field] [, security/compartment] [local IP
>>>           address,] [, options]) -> local connection name
>>>     -->
>>>
>>     You're correct, the comment should be before, as with the other
>>     optional parameters.
>>
>>
>>>     2) <!-- [rfced] Sections 3.9.1.2 and 3.9.1.3 <http://3.9.1.3>:
>>>     In the following format statements,
>>>     should square brackets be used to indicate optional items? FYI,
>>>     we have
>>>     updated "push flag" to "PUSH flag" and "urgent flag" to "URGENT
>>>     flag" in
>>>     the second format statement.
>>>
>>>     Current:
>>>
>>>        Format: SEND (local connection name, buffer address, byte count,
>>>        PUSH flag (optional), URGENT flag [,timeout])
>>>        ...
>>>
>>>        Format: RECEIVE (local connection name, buffer address, byte
>>>        count) -> byte count, URGENT flag, PUSH flag (optional)
>>>     -->
>>>
>>     Yes, I think this is a good idea for consistency within the
>>     document, thank you.
>>
>>     I think that would be:
>>
>>         Format: SEND (local connection name, buffer address, byte count, URGENT flag [, PUSH
>>         flag] [, timeout])
>>
>>         Format: RECEIVE (local connection name, buffer address, byte count)
>>         -> byte count, URGENT flag [, PUSH flag]
>>
>>
>>
>>>     3) <!-- [rfced] Terminology:
>>>
>>>     b) The following are used inconsistently. The number of
>>>     instances are provided in parentheses. Please let us know how we
>>>     can make these terms consistent.
>>>
>>>     acknowledgement (13) / acknowledgment (66)
>>>
>>>     -->
>>>
>>     I noticed in older RFCs there is a mixture, but in newer ones the
>>     spelling without the extra 'e' seems prevalent.  So, lets go with
>>     "acknowledgment" (with one exception in the references list,
>>     where it's spelled with the extra 'e' in the title of RFC 2883).
>>
>>