Re: [tcpm] Preparation of shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis-06

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Mon, 28 December 2020 18:12 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.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 8773C3A0CD9; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 10:12:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.319
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.319 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.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 zXBLXOJGS7wT; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 10:12:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server217-4.web-hosting.com (server217-4.web-hosting.com [198.54.116.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB9A13A0CD8; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 10:12:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=miU1khrSklITfSpGZej0mhxwo7KJnS6Hq76AIY+GMBg=; b=veX7xOBWLpKKJqP5sHLJnB9zV rJWNL8yTNfUYA8E9AqSSK8XGbZuJB0GOVvbS5u2xFrqlpuVBjb572+S2YHLQ5EjVUfu5N/fCNP6mp JNtvfF7bHpbcooKj9Vo5M6FinHxTNJAU7XfO6GglE9YXqDtmJ4AnWGcBpCwiVaO0J8DjsxSNPE163 B2qYkUtjuQ6Wcl5z8jbYqZdKANXuOfX5UWelQdEEhD8m01TIYZ/NJZ5Iuau74L5xOUbyZVwnO92mN Ql+eyhOiV/pqY7t0C6P//0msodpC/Hfgcnf4hIGUJNDuQlID0qW75y1ZOkj0kbBZ08rGmqP5HNm+c QnX+9+ang==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:55646 helo=[192.168.1.14]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1ktx0e-000Tb7-QI; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 13:12:49 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.40.0.2.32\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <6ab76a404d784607a6ce84612bbb8fa2@hs-esslingen.de>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 10:12:43 -0800
Cc: "draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis@ietf.org>, tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FA4D18C1-A345-4CB2-B225-992B4B12A9C0@strayalpha.com>
References: <6ab76a404d784607a6ce84612bbb8fa2@hs-esslingen.de>
To: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.40.0.2.32)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/Pq_RULQYGVfYCw3_K2DbOGLZ-9M>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Preparation of shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis-06
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, 28 Dec 2020 18:12:52 -0000

All items are addressed.

If my coauthors would like to recheck the 2016 table, we can update the doc to refer to “at the time of publication” rather than 2016.

The -07 update will be reposted in a few minutes.

Joe

> On Dec 28, 2020, at 5:50 AM, Scharf, Michael <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> wrote:
> 
> Authors,
> 
> I am preparing the shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis. In addition to a small id-nit issue (which I have shared offlist already), I run into three issues in draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis-06 during preparation of the write-up:
> 
> First, the table in Section 10 has the headline "CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS (as of 2016)". Given that the data is already a bit dated, I wonder whether it would be possible to update this table?
> 
> Otherwise, may be the word "current" should be removed? If no more recent data can be gathered, I can write that in the shepherd write-up. Yet, others could run into the date 2016 during IETF last call...
> 
> Second, Section 7.3 states:
> 
>  "It is also possible to
>   use sharing mechanisms over long timescales to adapt TCP's initial
>   window automatically, as described further in Appendix A."
> 
> I assume this refers to Appendix C? Given that I have to comment on appendix C in my write-up, I would like to ensure that this reference is correct in the document.
> 
> Third, Section 2 states:
> 
>  "However, this document is intended to describe behavior that is
>   already permitted by TCP standards. As a result, it provides
>   informative guidance but does not use such normative language,
>   except when quoting other documents."
> 
> The last sentence may not be correct given that appendix C uses capital letter MUSTs. Note that TCPM has published informational documents with RFC2119/RFC8174 in the past already (e.g., RFC 8312), i.e., use of capital letter words in informational descriptions of algorithms is not something new. Nonetheless, the document 2140bis should at least be internally consistent.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Michael
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm