Re: [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 1 of 2 - Editorial Comments
"Rodney W. Grimes" <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Tue, 17 December 2019 16:49 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D0D0120B54 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 08:49:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.4, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KETZIknHfubJ for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 08:49:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E206120B4E for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 08:49:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id xBHGn01q098281; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 08:49:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net)
Received: (from ietf@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id xBHGn05i098280; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 08:49:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ietf)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Message-Id: <201912171649.xBHGn05i098280@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
In-Reply-To: <a8b4062c-fbd8-a33d-416b-c13214f521ee@mti-systems.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 08:49:00 -0800
CC: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/4-fvB6zPPI545X3vrX9-2Kk4Fv4>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 1 of 2 - Editorial Comments
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:49:12 -0000
> Hi Gorry, I've been applying all of the editorial comments from your > review, and they should show up in an update later this week. > > There are some of them that I had quick responses to. Some feedback on inteneded actions. > > > --- > > OLD: > > ? An "XXX" indicates a segment which is lost or rejected. > > - rejected seems odd here. > > NEW: > > ? An "XXX" indicates a segment that is lost (not processed by the > > receiving TCP endpoint). > > Strangely, it seems like in 793, the "XXX" is explained, but never > occurs otherwise in the text or diagrams.? I think we can just remove > this sentence entirely? Searching 761 (obsoleted by 793) I see the same text, definition of XXX, but no usage. I suspect a diagram was revised, dropping out the XXX and the refering text was not updated. > > > multiple OLD: "TCPs" and "a TCP" > > - This use of a "TCP" as an entity read as very ugly to me. I had to > > read the sentences several times to parse them, could we explain that > > we mean, i.e. "TCP endpoints" or "TCP implementations" etc. (usually > > this seems to mean implementation). > I'm fine with doing this.? It's a lot of changes though, so I wanted to > quickly see if anyone strongly disagrees with doing this. This has always bothered me in documents that use TCP in this manner, though I believe it goes beyond RFC793, correcting it here may be a good idea, though making sure that all the corrections are right shall take a keen editorial eye. > > > OLD: > > ?? SYN (pun intended) > > - I didn't see the pun, can this be explained or omitted? > > I think the intent from Jon (or whoever originally wrote this part) was > "original sin".? We should probably remove this anyways in order to > avoid cultural references that may not be understood by everyone. Agreed, Pun's are fine on email lists and in personal communications, they however do not have a place in standards documents. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org
- [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 1 of … Gorry Fairhurst
- [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 2 of … Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 2… Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 2… Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 2… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 2… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 1… Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 1… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 1… Rodney W. Grimes
- Re: [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 1… Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 1… Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 1… Rodney W. Grimes
- [tcpm] 793bis: TCP Quiet Time Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: TCP Quiet Time Yuchung Cheng
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: TCP Quiet Time Neal Cardwell
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: TCP Quiet Time Matt Mathis
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: TCP Quiet Time Joe Touch
- [tcpm] 793bis: variable MTU Wesley Eddy
- [tcpm] 793bis: reset generation section Wesley Eddy
- [tcpm] 793bis: IPv6 jumbograms Wesley Eddy
- [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID David Borman
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: variable MTU Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Michael Tuexen
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: TCP Quiet Time Matt Mathis
- [tcpm] 793bis: dead gateway detection Wesley Eddy
- [tcpm] 793bis: delayed ACKs Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID David Borman
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID David Borman
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: delayed ACKs Yuchung Cheng
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: TCP Quiet Time Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: TCP Quiet Time Fernando Gont
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Fernando Gont
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: TCP Quiet Time Matt Mathis
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: TCP Quiet Time Fernando Gont
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: TCP Quiet Time Fernando Gont
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Fernando Gont
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Fernando Gont
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Fernando Gont
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Joe Touch