[tcpm] rto-consider: may vs could wording nit
"Mark Allman" <mallman@icir.org> Fri, 22 November 2019 13:58 UTC
Return-Path: <mallman@icir.org>
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 56EB2120147 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 05:58:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 MTnkKXPalxj8 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 05:58:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rock.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (rock.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU [192.150.186.19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 445431200B9 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 05:58:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (Postfix) with ESMTP id 251962C404F; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 05:58:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ICSI.Berkeley.EDU
Received: from rock.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (maihub.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id K8aIQzsRw7KJ; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 05:58:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (envoy.ICIR.org [192.150.187.30]) by rock.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95DAA2C402B; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 05:58:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.244] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lawyers.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 441F61E88755; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 08:58:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org>
To: G Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Cc: Extensions <tcpm@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 08:58:49 -0500
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13r5655)
Message-ID: <37BEAEC9-3D47-4312-9BDB-6F963617A3BB@icir.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/7EbOKnYTLpYyKwnYDmYXt_prhq4>
Subject: [tcpm] rto-consider: may vs could wording nit
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: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 13:58:51 -0000
I-D>> Finally, we note that while allowing implementations to be I-D>> more aggressive may in fact increase the number of needless I-D>> retransmissions Gorry> - I think it would be wiser to say /could/ to be sure no-one Gorry> seems readable as potentially permissive. I really don’t grok this comment. However, I see no harm in changing “may” to "could" and so I've done it. allman
- [tcpm] rto-consider: may vs could wording nit Mark Allman