Re: [tcpm] Please review 793bis!

[Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tim, I think I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but am 
unsure what you suggest changing.

The abstract and introduction are pretty verbose about the relation to 
793 (why it's being obsoleted) and the history (in what ways it's now 
obsolete), and there are pointers to the TCP roadmap in sections 1 and 2.

Do we need to say things differently somehow?  Any suggestions are welcome.


On 7/27/2019 10:06 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> Tommy
>
> For Implementation advice, I would refer people to the TCP Roadmap 
> document (rfc7414) which feels to me to be a better location.
> rfc7414 (or what may be the best location) should be spelled out more 
> clearly to readers.
>
> I noticed on reading through the document structure, there are 
> references to RFC793, yet the document is being Obsoleted.
> If we're obsoleting an entire document, is it wise to refer back to 
> it?  Does that confuse a casual reader? If there are references to the
> 793, such as in Section 2, I think it should be included.
> Tim
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 9:44 PM Tommy Pauly 
> <tpauly=[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     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?
>
>     Best
>     Tommy
>
>     > On Jul 26, 2019, at 11:17 AM, Scharf, Michael
>     <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen..de
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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:
>     >
>     > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-13
>     >
>     > 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
>     > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     tcpm mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm