Re: [tcpm] Please review 793bis!

"Scharf, Michael" <> Sun, 28 July 2019 11:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B00F120139 for <>; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 04:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.996
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fwK7a2_9fgf8 for <>; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 04:21:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BAB11200E7 for <>; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 04:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1884925A1E; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 13:21:50 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1564312910; bh=ydWGpmj6SyOg0ZJkIrgHdc9ngwADCqJaWqM3YJI23V8=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=EKMhpdFDnslABzKQu3Lgt0TYYAhWpTMQk/AN0gIAO/iCChiFKHg8Lu5F2rDFDYk7q 1URfUvXGn/u3p3HZJSc9eLhLMAldiV5viK/l2solaGtZj+4IVga3NvNSU3ziQ2IGcn IwpL2C3xGaPoCaSoZxZ7qCHytW2yeTHZSLTuWZu0=
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.7.1 (20120429) (Debian) at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Dr4jT0uNMWQ; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 13:21:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 13:21:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([fe80::bd73:d6a9:24d7:95f1%10]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 13:21:48 +0200
From: "Scharf, Michael" <>
To: Tommy Pauly <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] Please review 793bis!
Thread-Index: AdVDxBaWqg1nKqsFQCmaSvOixpeJnwBEQsEAABhg9Fk=
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 11:21:48 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D3CD44Brznt8114rzntrzd_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Please review 793bis!
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 11:21:54 -0000

Hi Tommy,

_any_ feedback is welcome.

This is a -bis document and it is not intended to change the TCP standards. Within that limit, we should try to come up with the best document we can. The document is owned by the working group. The question what changes will be incorporated is up to the working group as a whole. On that, I have not more to say than any other contributor to TCPM…

Personally, I think that your points are all valid concerns and I can think of ways this can be addressed (at least partially) without disrupting the document. But I’ll leave it to the document editor to comment on the impact.

In a nutshell, I believe your input falls within the very useful categories. Please continue. For instance, if there are other terms that may be outdated, flag them and let us know.

Thanks a lot!


Von: Tommy Pauly<>
Gesendet: Sonntag, 28. Juli 2019 03:44
An: Scharf, Michael<>;<>
Betreff: Re: [tcpm] Please review 793bis!

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the note about this (indeed important!) document. I unfortunately had a conflict for tcpm, so missed the recent meeting, but I do have some questions about what the group wants to see in reviews of this document.

As expected, much of the text remains unchanged from RFC793. While I understand and agree that it is a non-goal to change any behavior, reading the document does still feel like it is out of place amongst current RFCs from a terminology and organizational standpoint. If this is going to be published as a full STD document, it would be great to have something that also makes the reading clearer and easier for people new to TCP. Specifically, as some people are now working on implementations of TCP for user space stacks or minimal IoT devices, a clean reference would be a fantastic asset.

Some initial examples of changes that came to mind:

- Structure; there is both a Terminology section (3.2) relatively early on, and a glossary (3.11) near the end. It seems more typical nowadays to have a terminology section up front, and just refer inline to supporting documents (like IP, for example).
- Many of the RFCs referenced are the older or obsoleted versions
- Consistency and freshness; some of the terminology feels dated, such as "the local and remote socket numbers" for referring to what is called "port numbers" elsewhere in the document and in current parlance.

There's a lot of possible work to be done here, so before people embark on such reviews, can you clarify which of these categories of input are useful, and would be incorporated?


> On Jul 26, 2019, at 11:17 AM, Scharf, Michael <> wrote:
> Hi all,
> As discussed at IETF 105, we need reviews of draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis in order to complete this important TCPM milestone. The draft can be found at:
> If you care about TCP (after all you have decided to subscribe the TCPM list for some reason, no?), please try to find some cycles and please have a look at this document.
> Thanks
> Michael
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list