IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-tcpm-persist-04.txt

"Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com> Mon, 06 June 2011 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ananth@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF3B511E8198 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 10:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.339
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.339 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.260, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KYM-LyBUAOlW for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 10:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EF1C11E8090 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 10:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=ananth@cisco.com; l=1558; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1307382019; x=1308591619; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=R5mwF0T4HX6rs8WWiFy4MTXw46Mta53R1RCUU9yMcj8=; b=N+te+ahir1NmCfjQ/ZniQ1l/2EETdhnE8RvrQ38jp+90QkjpZthLi/BJ xvj/1uf3n5e9D3/BnFirNZoeCNCVyqED3XGzB9FTm7HuPSinNLC4IkUuu BnNO9hXj+pg/qurb4q6zAWn97DFrC57h7nuXW5lq2RTVtQJlCw5RizIYg s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgwBAFQQ7U2rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABTl0KOYneIcaJ0nXKGIQSGdI5Wiwk
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,327,1304294400"; d="scan'208";a="371183494"
Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Jun 2011 17:40:19 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p56HeJpe015772; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 17:40:19 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.176]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 6 Jun 2011 10:40:18 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 10:40:17 -0700
Message-ID: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC580CE2C61B@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC580CE2C49C@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-tcpm-persist-04.txt
Thread-Index: Acwj+LaSkvXPIm4GQOqDIHBXxwTw/gAF3hpwABgPECA=
References: <4DEA9277.4020702@gmail.com> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC580CE2C3CE@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com> <4DEAF316.4060701@mti-systems.com> <4DEB018A.9060708@gmail.com> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC580CE2C3EE@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com> <133D9897FB9C5E4E9DF2779DC91E947C0607B26D@SLFSNX.rcs.alcatel-research.de> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC580CE2C434@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com> <4DEC4786.8030401@mti-systems.com> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC580CE2C49C@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
From: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jun 2011 17:40:18.0857 (UTC) FILETIME=[CD70F190:01CC2470]
Cc: David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>, draft-ietf-tcpm-persist.all@tools.ietf.org, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "SCHARF, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@alcatel-lucent.com>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-tcpm-persist-04.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 17:40:20 -0000

Sorry about an inadvertent typo below :-

> Brain's point was that if we documenting an oversight then lets be

Should be :-

Brian's point was that, if we are documenting .....

-Anantha


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 11:29 PM
> To: Wesley Eddy
> Cc: SCHARF, Michael; Brian E Carpenter; draft-ietf-tcpm-
> persist.all@tools.ietf.org; General Area Review Team; David Harrington
> Subject: RE: Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-tcpm-persist-04.txt
> 
> Hi Wes,
> 
> >
> > This document contains no protocol and alters no protocol.
> 
> But it documents (clarifies) a protocol action namely persist
> condition,
> FWIW.
> 
> >
> > I don't agree with attempting any comparison with RFC 6093.  That
RFC
> > changed the specification of the urgent pointer, whereas this
> > draft does not change the TCP specification one iota.
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> >
> > It's hard to see how Standards Track is appropriate for this draft.
> 
> Well, if a document updates a standards track document, then I don't
> see
> any issues making the updating document a standards track.
> 
> >
> > I agree with Michael that "MUST" versus "must" should make little
> > difference to a reader; they'll get the point.
> 
> Brain's point was that if we documenting an oversight then lets be
> honest about it. In the same spirits, why do we want even change the
> "MUST" to must.. Just to make the document informational? Beats me..
> 
> -Anantha

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email