Re: [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 1 of 2 - Editorial Comments

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

On 17/12/2019 14:29, Wesley Eddy wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>> ---
>> 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?
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>> 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.
>

Understood. That sounds fine. I'm sure you'll do the correct thing,

Gorry