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 (PST)
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