[tcpm] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-25

Bernie Volz via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 22 September 2021 15:27 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietf.org
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46D923A269E; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 08:27:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Bernie Volz via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <int-dir@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, tcpm@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.38.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <163232447920.20925.17043891479484831960@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Bernie Volz <bevolz@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 08:27:59 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/9JqnGwtdeiZwUfpsYyqFf13YzOQ>
Subject: [tcpm] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-25
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 15:28:00 -0000

Reviewer: Bernie Volz
Review result: Ready

I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis (-25).
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area
Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just
like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve
them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more
details on the INT Directorate, see

Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as YES

This document is useful to simplify the work of TCP software maintainers and
future TCP implementers. Having implemented several TCP stacks (albeit in the
late 1980s and 1990s before many of the documents incorporated and/or
referenced where written), I see that this updated specification would greatly
assist implementers and maintainers.

It has impact to the INT area in that proper and current operation of TCP
stacks is critical to the operation of the Internet.

A few very minor nits (most of these are just things the RFC-Editor will
review): - That the Glossary is near the end, rather than the beginning, is a
bit unusual. And, some terms are defined inline (such as 3WHS, and not included
in the glossary). Likely standardizing this would be a fairly large
undertaking. - There is one use of "three way" instead of "three-way". - There
is one instance of "receivers's" which I think should just be "reliever's". -
"recomendations" is misspelled. - There are mixed uses of "lower level" and
"lower-level". - There is "users authority" which I think should be "user's
authority". - The TCP Header table in the IANA section might use the "footnote"
technique of the table in Appendix B to avoid the page width issues.

Thanks to the TCPM WG and authors for putting this document together.