[tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]

Alfred Hönes <ah@tr-sys.de> Thu, 14 August 2008 07:04 UTC

Return-Path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AAB23A6C3A; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:04:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31E263A6C2A for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:51:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.71
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.71 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d6kTIkzIG5IM for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from WOTAN.TR-Sys.de (gateway.tr-sys.de [213.178.172.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A3AF3A6BDB for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:51:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ZEUS.TR-Sys.de by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.26 $/16.3) id AA186036613; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:50:13 +0200
Received: (from ah@localhost) by z.TR-Sys.de (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id IAA05627; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:50:09 +0200 (MESZ)
From: Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= <ah@tr-sys.de>
Message-Id: <200808140650.IAA05627@TR-Sys.de>
To: ananth@cisco.com, rrs@cisco.com, mdalal@cisco.com
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:50:09 +0200 (MESZ)
X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.3 $]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="hp-roman8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

Hello all,
I have once more tried to closely read the latest (-10) version of
the 'tcpsecure' draft, and only found a very small number of nits --
see below.


Furthermore, I once more advocate making clear in the document
metadata what the document does, by adding to the heading:

    Updates: 793 (if approved)

Doing so will definitely help guide implementers to quickly locate
the document once published as an RFC.
By WG consensus, the document is intended for Standards Track, and
Sections 3.2, 4.2, and 5.2 clearly state that they update RFC 793;
thus, this should be made visible at the metadata level as well.


Nits (in recently added / modified text):

(1)
At the very end of section 1, please change:

              [...] please refer to draft [RFC4953]
                                   ^^^^^^          ^
   to:
              [...] please refer to RFC 4953 [RFC4953].
                                   ^^^^^^^^^          ^
   or:
              [...] please refer to [RFC4953].
                                   ^         ^

(2)
In the first paragraph of section 5.2, please correct two
punctuation flaws (missing period, and extraneous apostrophe).
I also have included two minor stylistic improvement below:

                                                    [...].  It needs to
|  be noted that RFC 793 page 72 (fifth check) says : "If the ACK is a
                        ^                          ^^
   duplicate (SEG.ACK < SND.UNA), it can be ignored.  If the ACK
   acknowledges something not yet sent (SEG.ACK > SND.NXT) then send an
|  ACK, drop the segment, and return" This mitigation makes the ACK
                                    ^^
   check more stringent since any ACK < SND.UNA wouldn't be accepted,
|  instead only ACK's which are in the range ((SND.UNA - MAX.SND.WND) <=
                   ^^
   SEG.ACK <= SND.NXT) gets through.
---
                                                    [...].  It needs to
|  be noted that RFC 793 on page 72 (fifth check) says: "If the ACK is a
                        ^^^^                          ^
   duplicate (SEG.ACK < SND.UNA), it can be ignored.  If the ACK
   acknowledges something not yet sent (SEG.ACK > SND.NXT) then send an
|  ACK, drop the segment, and return."  This mitigation makes the ACK
                                    ^^^^
   check more stringent since any ACK < SND.UNA wouldn't be accepted,
|  instead only ACKs which are in the range ((SND.UNA - MAX.SND.WND) <=
                   ^^
   SEG.ACK <= SND.NXT) gets through.

Note: The quotation comprises multiple sentences; hence the "rational
      quotation" rule of the RFC-Ed does not apply.


IMO, otherwise the draft is ready to go, and because of the importance
of the topic, it should now be advanced quickly!

Kind regards,
  Alfred Hönes.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  ah@TR-Sys.de                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm