IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Is RFC1323bis' title still appropriate?

<l.wood@surrey.ac.uk> Fri, 15 November 2013 00:31 UTC

Return-Path: <l.wood@surrey.ac.uk>
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 64EF511E8165 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:31:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.321
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.321 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.723, BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iLGc1jLmg+xw for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:31:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com [195.245.231.152]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA39111E8150 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:31:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [85.158.136.51:4924] by server-16.bemta-5.messagelabs.com id E6/DC-17144-94B65825; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 00:31:05 +0000
X-Env-Sender: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-15.tower-49.messagelabs.com!1384475465!17674198!1
X-Originating-IP: [131.227.200.39]
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 6.9.13; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 28774 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2013 00:31:05 -0000
Received: from exht012p.surrey.ac.uk (HELO EXHT012P.surrey.ac.uk) (131.227.200.39) by server-15.tower-49.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 15 Nov 2013 00:31:05 -0000
Received: from EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk ([169.254.1.22]) by EXHT012P.surrey.ac.uk ([131.227.200.39]) with mapi; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 00:31:03 +0000
From: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
To: rs@netapp.com, ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 00:30:07 +0000
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] Is RFC1323bis' title still appropriate?
Thread-Index: AQHO4UIHPG5V/lmhfEOzjestTsDhAJokyvnAgACUnYD//4J4qIAAk5OA///q/7CAABCHFg==
Message-ID: <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E5103780@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
References: <8D54398D-C3A0-47D7-AAB5-922A8FB7B9E4@netapp.com> <012C3117EDDB3C4781FD802A8C27DD4F25E94B57@SACEXCMBX02-PRD.hq.netapp.com>, <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311141724400.14052@melkinpaasi.cs.helsinki.fi> <977B28B6-E1A6-4C89-AED3-FE14BBA057D4@netapp.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311141827200.14052@melkinpaasi.cs.helsinki.fi>, <012C3117EDDB3C4781FD802A8C27DD4F25E96F48@SACEXCMBX02-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <012C3117EDDB3C4781FD802A8C27DD4F25E96F48@SACEXCMBX02-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, David.Borman@quantum.com
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Is RFC1323bis' title still appropriate?
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 00:31:11 -0000

"TCP options for window scaling and for timestamps"

Needs to start with "TCP options" to set context.

Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/


________________________________________
From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Scheffenegger, Richard [rs@netapp.com]
Sent: 14 November 2013 23:38
To: Ilpo Järvinen
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org Extensions; David Borman
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Is RFC1323bis' title still appropriate?

Ilpo,

Very well then. But I'll need a good speaker to tell me which one is most correct

"TCP Window Scale and Timestamps option" (sounds like one combined option)

"TCP Window Scale and Timestamps options" (sounds odd)

"TCP Window Scale and TCP Timestamps options" (imho better)

"TCP Window Scale option and TCP Timestamps option" (least ambiguity, but is this proper?)

(prefixed with a "The"?)


PS: I'm glad that we have come to the point to discuss the title :)


Richard Scheffenegger


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ilpo Järvinen [mailto:ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 14. November 2013 17:46
> To: Scheffenegger, Richard
> Cc: Zimmermann, Alexander; David Borman; Pasi Sarolahti
> (pasi.sarolahti@iki.fi); tcpm@ietf.org Extensions
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] Is RFC1323bis' title still appropriate?
>
> On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Scheffenegger, Richard wrote:
>
> > Would you like to see WS and TS in the title, or keep the old one?
>
> For some reason I've never liked RFC1323 title to begin with so I'd prefer
> the actual option names here. It would actually be rather misleading to
> say everything that benefits from WS today would have particularly "high
> performance".
>
> BTW, I just noticed that 1323 is also a counter-example:
>
> RFC1072 TCP Extensions for Long-Delay Paths
> RFC1185 TCP Extension for High-Speed Paths
> RFC1323 TCP Extensions for High Performance
> (+RFC2018 TCP Selective Acknowledgment Options)
>
>
> --
>  i.
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email