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

Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Mon, 17 May 2021 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <wes@mti-systems.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 E10E83A3A1C for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 May 2021 07:34:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mti-systems-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 G_AwFGRFQoOz for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 May 2021 07:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf2c.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11B263A3A19 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 May 2021 07:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf2c.google.com with SMTP id u1so3158711qvg.11 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 May 2021 07:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mti-systems-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=zAxaTKQpnMSSxHSs9+FGoQotHDZQZBAXKQJxu36KrbE=; b=X3Ge4S4ysbSapUmGDTaLH+X8perYDNlj31v6xJ/Ik2lAmuY5bp7mdNb+KqkgJ+kmbn D1X37uD/ak0KVhpmPEjg51Oa9TEitRJ9fmmJvqOyIahAjBAdtBKQI2QKU/inH6RQ4xnu SPfNDWlLV/HFEpVHrZ8UOhoq8n23Olzb1vMqldR5aDIFwJbE3a9ds+yxqmu8fuawQ1Xq knHEpPyQkq/5ZvJc1lqtfUYJ/EecXxE1uZmNopg7oJ8gd5BkW9QY+xAbSrM7gK3/RYWw O5qJI0TUgVtEcBZUNJJNVuBc6d/msV25EnE/kBfLJ9A58xC/p/7/bCMml9/xK6Xe7BD7 Q5Cw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=zAxaTKQpnMSSxHSs9+FGoQotHDZQZBAXKQJxu36KrbE=; b=lP7BoqzTAyjDQHxI7IhTqAACYCdmwKz37PlEK1temPKXJoziGgEjojryszLKsu9vF7 7qOTX0FgyaYAWLf3/7m9QGPwb070uesKHAe4itq+OnNZECC8nIWMqNNR7A+3dGQGg0cC rnhiYqxwnNSqPA67kTwv2cP7YcTrBt+7dbA5TGOd2ro1vV1R9NhJMXrCWb1P3AxlqnOD Kht7zt8Q8agj/NZkKXgmG42KAucg681Woh5khFzEIoR6BMf12xErs2JkXYK1eX3nImGD uEQ6jL3u1FRBm93DDMJJ4DvDGaoi9JvXu5MiqzNPpJfA5bVbNoh9x2GE3M9uNh0KalWJ 6QyQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532J3LuiVzBzGt1xnmYJXOL5AMlTB/rMSQRyY5eWpIG+FI40WrWU 59ELfwpBciSh+X6pqzkHB5c0/v8wI6iA5H0Z
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzA8RoO6VAWnhn4werGe5GvGjY38Omk/weeQcoe95M1AIJPbUiQJr+r9rZv1Lpsqw7PyKX4Pw==
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:ee62:: with SMTP id n2mr51818491qvs.20.1621262091481; Mon, 17 May 2021 07:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.114] (069-135-001-122.biz.spectrum.com. [69.135.1.122]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y13sm10370335qkj.84.2021.05.17.07.34.50 for <tcpm@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 17 May 2021 07:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
To: tcpm@ietf.org
References: <62b0a3c2-3ec5-c3d9-7a1c-909e11a23d0c@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Message-ID: <3ece7e28-c247-f980-3f31-5ea64314fff3@mti-systems.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 10:34:47 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <62b0a3c2-3ec5-c3d9-7a1c-909e11a23d0c@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/Jsi2P8bFWGPlMyi0qDGKcWxor08>
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 14:35:00 -0000

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.