[tcpm] Re: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-uto-06
Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> Tue, 30 October 2007 16:07 UTC
Return-path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ImtcU-0002CN-Px; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:07:10 -0400
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1ImtcU-0002CG-57 for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:07:10 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ImtcT-0002C1-Qb for tcpm@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:07:09 -0400
Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([131.228.20.172] helo=mgw-ext13.nokia.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ImtcN-0001Ur-8l for tcpm@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:07:09 -0400
Received: from esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh105.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.211]) by mgw-ext13.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with ESMTP id l9UG6IC7007807; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:06:54 +0200
Received: from esebh104.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.143.34]) by esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:06:28 +0200
Received: from mgw-int01.ntc.nokia.com ([172.21.143.96]) by esebh104.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:06:28 +0200
Received: from [172.21.34.135] (esdhcp034135.research.nokia.com [172.21.34.135]) by mgw-int01.ntc.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with ESMTP id l9UG5uv8028119; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:06:26 +0200
In-Reply-To: <200710291733.SAA13049@TR-Sys.de>
References: <200710291733.SAA13049@TR-Sys.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Message-Id: <BA493FE4-222B-4EBA-83E6-848698545E6C@nokia.com>
From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:05:54 +0200
To: ext Alfred HÎnes <ah@tr-sys.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Oct 2007 16:06:28.0643 (UTC) FILETIME=[D45D3730:01C81B0E]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b22590c27682ace61775ee7b453b40d3
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, fernando@gont.com.ar
Subject: [tcpm] Re: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-uto-06
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0874606615=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
On 2007-10-29, at 19:33, ext Alfred HÎnes wrote: > (1) Terminology -- Section 3, 3.1 et al. > > Section 3 newly has introduced the variable 'USER_TIMEOUT': > > USER_TIMEOUT > TCP's USER TIMEOUT parameter, as specified in [RFC0793]. > > The subsequent text uses 'user timeout', 'USER TIMEOUT', and > 'USER_TIMEOUT' in a way that seems to be a bit confusing; the > distinction between these terms, and the rationale for selecting > one of these terms remains unclear in some places. USER TIMEOUT refers to the RFC793-defined TCP state variable. USER_TIMEOUT names a variable in the formula in Section 3.1. that is used to set the local USER TIMEOUT. It's not a TCP state variable; USER TIMEOUT is. The lower-case phrase is used in the body of the text when the concept is talked about, and not one of the specific items above. At least that was the intent - we may have used the lower case in some places where we should have used the upper case form. > Also, the title of Section 3.1 contains 'User Timeout' whereas most > occurrences of 'user timeout' have been changed to 'USER TIMEOUT' > in the body of Section 3.1. All section titles have initial capitals. > I propose to reconsider the distinction, and to use 'USER TIMEOUT' > only in the immediate context of RFC 793 as opposed to this draft; > most of the occurrences of 'USER TIMEOUT' should better be replaced > by 'USER_TIMEOUT' (the TCP state variable) or 'user timeout' (the > abstract concept as seen from the application / user). USER_TIMEOUT isn't the TCP state variable, USER TIMEOUT (from 793) is. I'm OK with using the lower-case variant throughout the text, if people think that would eliminate confusion? > Also, the names of the two variables, USER_TIMEOUT and LOCAL_UTO, > are not good mnemonics for the intended purpose of these variables; > IMHO, the naming should be reconsidered again (I already had argued > in this matter). In particular, 'LOCAL_UTO' now has much diminuished > *local* significance, it it just the value advertised to the peer > (=> my new proposal: ADV_UTO ); USER_TIMEOUT ist the important local > state variable, and there's now only a loose coupling between both. I like ADV_UTO, change made. > (2) Section 3 > In the second-to-last paragraph of Section 3, there's an unnecessary > word replication: fixed > (3) Section 3.3 > In the last paragraph, remove the duplicate full-stop in > "connection.." done Thanks! Lars
_______________________________________________ tcpm mailing list tcpm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
- [tcpm] Re: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-uto-06 Lars Eggert
- [tcpm] draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-uto-06 Alfred Hönes