Re: [tcpm] Please review 793bis!

Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com> Sun, 28 July 2019 01:44 UTC

Return-Path: <tpauly@apple.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 1AF5C120047 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 18:44:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=apple.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 HbwKaDdbO48m for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 18:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nwk-aaemail-lapp01.apple.com (nwk-aaemail-lapp01.apple.com [17.151.62.66]) (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 5466F1200CD for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 18:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (nwk-aaemail-lapp01.apple.com [127.0.0.1]) by nwk-aaemail-lapp01.apple.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x6S1h0rw010458; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 18:43:54 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apple.com; h=sender : from : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version : subject : date : references : to : in-reply-to : message-id; s=20180706; bh=/D4geg4VaTOUfuT7hV+aP94jG5Mga5rq3ipNqnbMrdE=; b=Fv6qs+X9FLzTEA9joefzvKvkuy9Q8PNocjqhGV5w4x/2yvIDky14+t8/QaTRRjV1Rzdu zs3VHd0ezHMEMDzDuuXL34RzmKAYxiJXNtVZx/oG6cmRSkUj9CSVgd5Bhqvcu9jDe+5M BbAXHoQS6AF0Rkqo+Ep+WdX81OW08QpdOMT2BO1IKkDHKjpCJH31b1rMkV6r4vcNHtvi jfLRNKZFyabYDFeoFPidkCXRCQ10o0rGui/z8umb/oB/gup/I6X8vYqP7zdsclAUFU8o O+WAnv+Zdo0Mcttya+GD/jh1LNIVbsjhsgHKEstb70phP1a8bkMT9MHzMSuEmFwVRZjl AA==
Received: from mr2-mtap-s02.rno.apple.com (mr2-mtap-s02.rno.apple.com [17.179.226.134]) by nwk-aaemail-lapp01.apple.com with ESMTP id 2u0nj0tyjh-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 27 Jul 2019 18:43:54 -0700
Received: from nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com (nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com [17.128.115.204]) by mr2-mtap-s02.rno.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.0.2.4.20190507 64bit (built May 7 2019)) with ESMTPS id <0PVB004FHWT6MC10@mr2-mtap-s02.rno.apple.com>; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 18:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from process_milters-daemon.nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com by nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.0.2.4.20190507 64bit (built May 7 2019)) id <0PVB00B00WNJZC00@nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com>; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 18:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Va-A:
X-Va-T-CD: 117aa55c2a658cd4023c3a43898c6033
X-Va-E-CD: 69be58a359e0ce403bce9bb83fb8fd92
X-Va-R-CD: 619c007249ad5d72124eaeedc31aa69f
X-Va-CD: 0
X-Va-ID: 4a942f39-c2f2-4ebd-bdf5-4cc9ebc9024c
X-V-A:
X-V-T-CD: 117aa55c2a658cd4023c3a43898c6033
X-V-E-CD: 69be58a359e0ce403bce9bb83fb8fd92
X-V-R-CD: 619c007249ad5d72124eaeedc31aa69f
X-V-CD: 0
X-V-ID: 42808d99-6bbb-4da1-8286-30024349938d
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-07-27_18:,, signatures=0
Received: from [17.235.29.98] by nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.0.2.4.20190507 64bit (built May 7 2019)) with ESMTPSA id <0PVB00M5PWT4RB30@nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com>; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 18:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: tpauly@apple.com
From: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.2\))
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 21:43:46 -0400
References: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D3CB17C@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
To: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D3CB17C@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
Message-id: <0E7412EE-5D31-4757-8DDC-09866629A4D7@apple.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.2)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-07-27_18:, , signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/T5l7l-FDtqza8u3QvkfeBtZEx1g>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Please review 793bis!
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: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 01:44:03 -0000

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>; 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
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm