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 06:29 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 494BC11E80C1 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Jun 2011 23:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.166
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.166 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.433, 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 jekcUQFo8lyu for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Jun 2011 23:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8708411E80C0 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Jun 2011 23:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=ananth@cisco.com; l=945; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1307341747; x=1308551347; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=3zvth6T8z/k5yIS8TGp+eEGQWayGiyuBvNxFsmJNLfg=; b=DHRWcsz/iUWGM5UjquKcG9P1/BS0jc4o6YwJI+2szIUs8UUXML+Xm+1o HtYZzHQWnP/xYHule1nWJEkKSokLHcqvw4yK6z729GfjqIK31h8yIKOOT zb6o5d7LXYGIjH3V06jrqvJt8UWO+A76f39JIa2jqRS9HsyuIXntixI2c M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAOBy7E2rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABTpjZ3iHGkG50FhiEEhnSOVosJ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,325,1304294400"; d="scan'208";a="460172103"
Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Jun 2011 06:29:07 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p566T6nt021861; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 06:29:06 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); Sun, 5 Jun 2011 23:29:06 -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: Sun, 05 Jun 2011 23:29:04 -0700
Message-ID: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC580CE2C49C@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DEC4786.8030401@mti-systems.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/gAF3hpw
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>
From: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jun 2011 06:29:06.0316 (UTC) FILETIME=[0922DCC0:01CC2413]
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 06:29:08 -0000

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