IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs@netapp.com> Thu, 14 November 2013 23:38 UTC

Return-Path: <rs@netapp.com>
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 0D65F21E80B3 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:38:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.376
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.376 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.923, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 aRGMWwUzUmYm for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:38:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx12.netapp.com (mx12.netapp.com [216.240.18.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBC8821E808A for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:38:05 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,702,1378882800"; d="scan'208";a="115756607"
Received: from vmwexceht01-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.239]) by mx12-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 14 Nov 2013 15:38:04 -0800
Received: from SACEXCMBX02-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.1.86]) by vmwexceht01-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.239]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:38:04 -0800
From: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs@netapp.com>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] Is RFC1323bis' title still appropriate?
Thread-Index: AQHO4UIHPG5V/lmhfEOzjestTsDhAJokyvnAgACUnYD//4J4qIAAk5OA///q/7A=
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:38:03 +0000
Message-ID: <012C3117EDDB3C4781FD802A8C27DD4F25E96F48@SACEXCMBX02-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311141827200.14052@melkinpaasi.cs.helsinki.fi>
Accept-Language: de-AT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.104.60.115]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>, David Borman <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: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:38:17 -0000

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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email