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

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

It's fine as-is.

On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 2:28 PM Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thank you, Wesley! We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:
>
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9293
>
> We'll await word from Martin regarding the creation of a Contributors
> section at the end of the document to capture Postel's and Oppermann's
> contributions.
>
> Best regards,
>
> RFC Editor/jm
>
> On 8/10/22 7:28 PM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
>
> I approve.  The document looks great; thank you for your work on it and
> the many improvements!
>
>
> On 8/3/2022 5:44 PM, Jean Mahoney wrote:
>
> 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: 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).
>>
>>
>>
>
>