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

[Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>]

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: 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: 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).