[tcpm] Comments on new rev of draft-ietf-tcpm-fastopen-06
Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Wed, 05 February 2014 18:53 UTC
Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91F101A0159 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 10:53:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.736
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.736 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 KweHSP8ROPVv for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 10:53:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spey.erg.abdn.ac.uk (spey.erg.abdn.ac.uk [139.133.204.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 259C41A0140 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 10:53:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by spey.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix, from userid 5001) id 2999A2B44CE; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 18:53:04 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from Gorry-2.local (ra-gorry.erg.abdn.ac.uk [139.133.204.42]) by spey.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 01C982B4266 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 18:53:02 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <52F2888E.6070109@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 18:53:02 +0000
From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Organization: The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tcpm@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [tcpm] Comments on new rev of draft-ietf-tcpm-fastopen-06
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 05 Feb 2014 18:53:06 -0000
Yuchung, The comments/suggestions in the email below to -06 could all be editorial, please check and let me know if I can help. Gorry ---- Formatting: The abstract does not say this RFC-to-be is experimental. I suspect this is a requirement? --- The first line of the introduction also does not say this is experimental. I suggest something like: /TCP Fast Open (TFO) enables/TCP Fast Open (TFO) is an experimental update to TCP that enables/ --- NiTs (mainly typos): Section 2 /delivered to application/delivered to the application/ ^^^ Section 2.1 /before 3WHS/before the 3-way handshake (3WHS)/ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ /It is not successful/It was not successful/ ^^^ 4.1.2. /But this is all server implementation/This is server implementation/ ^^^ ^^^ 4.1.3.1 /the client SHOULD disables/the client SHOULD disable/ ^ 4.1.3.1 /ICMP Error messages/ I agree hard ICMP error messages are negative indications, but I think more needs to be said than just ICMP. Referring to RFC 5461 may help? 4.2.1 /to record servers that failed/to record the set of servers that failed/ ^^^^^^^^^^^ 4.2.1 - It may be worth considering a line-break after /period/. To cleanly separate the standards language from the other alternative? 4.2.2 /in particular the initial window/ - this seems to read oddly, do you perhaps mean: /in managing the initial window/ - or setting the initial window? 5.1 - Starts with /However, the attacker/ - It may be better to simply start /An attacker/ 5.1 /For this reason it is crucial for the TFO server to limit/ - This seems like it is a requirement, since the word crucial is used, and I understand that indeed this is important, although it could be better to say /To protect the server it is crucial.../. Does it need to be a MUST? 5.1.1. /An attacker behind NAT/An attacker behind a NAT/ ^^ 6.1 /It is possible, though uncommon/ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - Seems like rather solid claims that need a reference to substantiate then. - Something lie this could be better to write: /It is possible, but thought to be not common in practice/ 6.1 Last sentence. This is a sentence with keywords that does not seem to parse to me, although from the rest of the document the meaning is OK. /A client that cannot handle receiving the same SYN data more than once MUST NOT enable TFO to send data in a SYN. A server that cannot accept receiving the same SYN data more than once MUST NOT enable TFO to receive data in a SYN./ - I'd also suggest placing this in a separate para to ensure the standards language stands out.
- [tcpm] Comments on new rev of draft-ietf-tcpm-fas… Gorry Fairhurst