IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

" Ilpo Järvinen " <ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi> Thu, 14 November 2013 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi>
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 7AB0121E8098 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 08:46:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.242
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.242 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.057, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 R6bVff-Vx75P for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 08:46:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from courier.cs.helsinki.fi (courier.cs.helsinki.fi [128.214.9.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3832721E8056 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 08:46:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from melkinpaasi.cs.helsinki.fi (melkinpaasi.cs.helsinki.fi [128.214.9.14]) (TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by mail.cs.helsinki.fi with esmtp; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 18:46:09 +0200 id 0006807D.5284FE51.00001B0E
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 18:46:09 +0200
From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi>
X-X-Sender: ijjarvin@melkinpaasi.cs.helsinki.fi
To: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs@netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <977B28B6-E1A6-4C89-AED3-FE14BBA057D4@netapp.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311141827200.14052@melkinpaasi.cs.helsinki.fi>
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>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-CS-Test-DKIM: none
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: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:46:39 -0000

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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email