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

[Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>]

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.