IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Is RFC1323bis' title still appropriate?

"Zimmermann, Alexander" <Alexander.Zimmermann@netapp.com> Fri, 15 November 2013 10:01 UTC

Return-Path: <Alexander.Zimmermann@netapp.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 A5A2111E814D for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 02:01:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gWohGbkgBFAT for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 02:01:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx12.netapp.com (mx12.netapp.com [216.240.18.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D36BD11E8150 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 02:01:44 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.93,706,1378882800"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="115906292"
Received: from vmwexceht06-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.77.104]) by mx12-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 15 Nov 2013 02:01:44 -0800
Received: from SACEXCMBX04-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.6.215]) by vmwexceht06-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.77.104]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 02:01:43 -0800
From: "Zimmermann, Alexander" <Alexander.Zimmermann@netapp.com>
To: "L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk" <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] Is RFC1323bis' title still appropriate?
Thread-Index: AQHO4UIHPG5V/lmhfEOzjestTsDhAJokyvnAgACUnYD//4J4qIAAk5OA///q/7CAABCHFoABJc8A
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:01:42 +0000
Message-ID: <2A8B981C-45DF-4D89-A5FA-34B0ACFACE4C@netapp.com>
References: <8D54398D-C3A0-47D7-AAB5-922A8FB7B9E4@netapp.com> <012C3117EDDB3C4781FD802A8C27DD4F25E94B57@SACEXCMBX02-PRD.hq.netapp.com>, <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311141724400.14052@melkinpaasi.cs.helsinki.fi> <977B28B6-E1A6-4C89-AED3-FE14BBA057D4@netapp.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311141827200.14052@melkinpaasi.cs.helsinki.fi>, <012C3117EDDB3C4781FD802A8C27DD4F25E96F48@SACEXCMBX02-PRD.hq.netapp.com> <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E5103780@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E5103780@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.104.60.117]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E3AF39FD-E379-4462-B092-36EEBCF1BAC5"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>, David Borman <David.Borman@quantum.com>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Is RFC1323bis' title still appropriate?
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:01:48 -0000

Am 15.11.2013 um 01:30 schrieb L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk:

> "TCP options for window scaling and for timestamps“

I like this one. Maybe we can omit the 2nd for, but I’m not a
native speaker.

Do we need to talk about RTTM/PAWS in the title?

Eg Like this: TCP options for window scaling and timestamps and their applications

> 
> Needs to start with "TCP options" to set context.
> 
> Lloyd Wood
> http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Scheffenegger, Richard [rs@netapp.com]
> Sent: 14 November 2013 23:38
> To: Ilpo Järvinen
> Cc: tcpm@ietf.org Extensions; David Borman
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] Is RFC1323bis' title still appropriate?
> 
> Ilpo,
> 
> Very well then. But I'll need a good speaker to tell me which one is most correct
> 
> "TCP Window Scale and Timestamps option" (sounds like one combined option)
> 
> "TCP Window Scale and Timestamps options" (sounds odd)
> 
> "TCP Window Scale and TCP Timestamps options" (imho better)
> 
> "TCP Window Scale option and TCP Timestamps option" (least ambiguity, but is this proper?)
> 
> (prefixed with a "The"?)
> 
> 
> PS: I'm glad that we have come to the point to discuss the title :)
> 
> 
> Richard Scheffenegger
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ilpo Järvinen [mailto:ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi]
>> Sent: Donnerstag, 14. November 2013 17:46
>> To: Scheffenegger, Richard
>> Cc: Zimmermann, Alexander; David Borman; Pasi Sarolahti
>> (pasi.sarolahti@iki.fi); tcpm@ietf.org Extensions
>> Subject: Re: [tcpm] Is RFC1323bis' title still appropriate?
>> 
>> On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Scheffenegger, Richard wrote:
>> 
>>> Would you like to see WS and TS in the title, or keep the old one?
>> 
>> For some reason I've never liked RFC1323 title to begin with so I'd prefer
>> the actual option names here. It would actually be rather misleading to
>> say everything that benefits from WS today would have particularly "high
>> performance".
>> 
>> BTW, I just noticed that 1323 is also a counter-example:
>> 
>> RFC1072 TCP Extensions for Long-Delay Paths
>> RFC1185 TCP Extension for High-Speed Paths
>> RFC1323 TCP Extensions for High Performance
>> (+RFC2018 TCP Selective Acknowledgment Options)
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> i.
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email