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

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

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: 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).
>
>
>