[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: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ext_Alfred_H=CEnes?= <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