Re: [tcpm] Some comments on draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis

["Scharf, Michael" <[e-mail]>]

I agree that we can leave the errata citation style as is. The RFC editor may have to sort this out.

BTW, I have tried to reverse engineer "SVC" myself and came to the same conclusion, but then I gave up. 

Thanks

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 1:50 AM
> To: Scharf, Michael <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail] Extensions <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Some comments on draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis
> 
> Hi Michael, thanks for the review.
> 
> All of your suggestions look pretty good to me, and I'll plan to apply
> them this week, except for the errata one, which seems like more of an
> open question at the moment.
> 
> For historical interest, I did a little homework on the mysterious
> acronym list "SVCs, UUOs, EMTs" refers to, and I think they are:
> 
> - SVC = Supervisor Call (IBM S/360)
> 
> - UUO = Unimplemented User Operations (DEC-10 system monitor call)
> 
> - EMT = Emulator Trap (PDP-11)
> 
> In any case, I agree with you that the sentence is more clear to a
> modern reader just by not including the mention of these examples!
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/21/2019 10:27 AM, Scharf, Michael wrote:
> > Hi Wes,
> >
> > I went through draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-13 in the airplane. Here are some
> minor observations, basically editorial:
> >
> > * Section 3.6 explains why the document uses the terms "security level"
> and "compartment" and in what specific context this may matter. However,
> these terms are used earlier in the document. I believe it could be useful to
> add a forward reference earlier in the document to Section 3.6 (and
> Appendix A.1), in particular for implementers who do not implement this. For
> instance, maybe one could add a forward reference in Section 3.2
> Terminology, where these terms seem to be used for the first time.
> >
> > * Section 3.7.4 defines the Nagle algorithm. The exact same definition is
> repeated in 3.8.6.2.1 (except for a reference). It is not clear to me why the
> definition must be repeated in 3.8.6.2.1.
> >
> > * Section 3.8 states: "The notation used is similar to most procedure or
> function calls in high level languages, but this usage is not meant to rule out
> trap type service calls (e.g., SVCs, UUOs, EMTs)." The acronyms SVCs, UUOs
> and EMTs have not been expanded in RFC 793. I wonder if I am really the
> only person who is not really familiar with those acronyms? In any case, I
> believe that "(e.g., SVCs, UUOs, EMTs)" could just be removed from the
> document.
> >
> > * I wonder if Erratas should added to the references, in particular if there is
> an explicit reference to their content. An example would be Errata ID 4772,
> which is cited like an RFC. Probably this is a formal question to the IESG or the
> RFC editor... Anyway, I don't know the answer, but it is something we could
> probably try to find out.
> >
> > * The Glossary includes terms that are not used in the document. I wonder
> if we really need to keep entries that maybe mattered in the original RFC 793
> only. Actually, I don't even understand why RFC 793 included some entries
> (e.g., "1822", "leader"), as they do not even show up in the document body
> of RFC 793.
> >
> > Finally, I want to note that the document by and large looks good to me
> and I really encourage others to read it, too.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Michael