IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Additional editorial comments on draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-20

"Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> Mon, 17 May 2021 16:10 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
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 07B8C3A3D7B for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 May 2021 09:10:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hs-esslingen.de
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 M14ERIFJuSMu for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 May 2021 09:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de (mail.hs-esslingen.de [134.108.32.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16ED23A3D66 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 May 2021 09:10:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA27225A13 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 May 2021 18:10:04 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hs-esslingen.de; s=mail; t=1621267804; bh=rLXmoKj0O79zt/LY5A3yNtw4YjQgRry4ZxNJvMt9g+o=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=xU8+g7BIbpwc/J40Auk5PquDVvAeuFC5sLEOge4n2XvM48RnRVM1eTx5kpEqQInsd Ej1JLMiJ+C6uzuO9HqFiQihGoh4vX/YqDnp8egyVx3/sc/EwELAr3uLqyP2KW3IvdG twdJzmuG5mrbAf/+jH3tHkGmBHaKTunFjEZG0/kU=
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.7.1 (20120429) (Debian) at hs-esslingen.de
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hs-esslingen.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0R0NWJmGVsze for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 May 2021 18:10:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rznt8201.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (rznt8201.hs-esslingen.de [134.108.48.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 May 2021 18:10:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (134.108.48.165) by rznt8201.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (134.108.48.164) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.14; Mon, 17 May 2021 18:10:02 +0200
Received: from rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::aca4:171a:3ee1:57e0]) by rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::aca4:171a:3ee1:57e0%3]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.014; Mon, 17 May 2021 18:10:02 +0200
From: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
To: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] Additional editorial comments on draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-20
Thread-Index: AQHXFyhxZqcl4km5/Uia0eKEoRIblKroA7qAgAA6M+A=
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 16:10:02 +0000
Message-ID: <86ed6e2086d946d79fcdf5ce045291d5@hs-esslingen.de>
References: <62b0a3c2-3ec5-c3d9-7a1c-909e11a23d0c@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <3ece7e28-c247-f980-3f31-5ea64314fff3@mti-systems.com>
In-Reply-To: <3ece7e28-c247-f980-3f31-5ea64314fff3@mti-systems.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [134.108.140.248]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/Fqx2s2TL-KHAPxcLCiRtPDAicuc>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Additional editorial comments on draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-20
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <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: Mon, 17 May 2021 16:10:13 -0000

Hi all,

As document shepherd, I have reviewed all (Post-) WGLC comments. In my understanding, Wes has addressed all known comments in version -22.

As a result, I believe I can close the WGLC and submit the document to the IESG.

In particular to those who have commented on 793bis during WGLC: If for whatever reason version -22 does not resolve your comments, please speak up ASAP!

Thanks

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcpm <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Wesley Eddy
> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 4:35 PM
> To: tcpm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] Additional editorial comments on draft-ietf-tcpm-
> rfc793bis-20
> 
> On 3/12/2021 5:13 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
> > I did some very careful reading of a few sections of  rfc793bis, and
> > have additional some late editorial comments.
> >
> > I suspect these really are minor, but I'd hope worthwhile:
> >
> > ---
> >
> > (1a) The text uses /may not/, in these two places:
> >
> > /Note that some options may not be included on all segments/
> >
> > - I wonder if this is umambiguous to all English speakers (it's not so
> > clear to me), I think it could be better as
> >
> > /Note that some options might not be included on all segments/
> >
> > or ...
> >
> > /Some of the segments might not include include all options/
> >
> > ... of something like that this?
> >
> > ---
> >
> > (1b) I'd suggest similarly avoiding /may not/ in the description of IP
> > Option processing.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > (2) The document seems to be missing an IPv6 "view" of extensions in
> > the IP Options part, section 3.6.1 (This is mentioned in the
> > pseudo-header compuation). I suggest we add a brief sentence saying
> > the calculation of "IPv6 Extension Headers" follows thar for IP Option
> > size.
> 
> 
> I missed your couple of comments above in the prior -21 revision, but
> Michael S. reminded me of them, and I've incorporated them into the -22
> revision just posted.  On the IPv6 comment, I changed the notion of "IP
> options" in a couple of places to "IPv4 options or IPv6 extension
> headers" which I think accomplishes the right thing.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email