Re: [tcpm] Please review 793bis!

[Tim Wicinski <[e-mail]>]

Wes

I've been staring at this one sentence

   It does not replicate or attempt to update the introduction
   and philosophy content in RFC 793
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc793> (sections 1
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-13#section-1>
and 2 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-13#section-2>
of *that*
   document).


The 793 link is the link to 793, but sections 1 & 2 are linked to this
document.
Is the intention to link to the older document, or to the -bis document?
That would help clear up "that document" or "this document" to me.

Back in Section 1:


    RFC 793 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc793> and other updates also contain
   informative and descriptive text for human readers to understand
   aspects of the protocol design and operation.  This document does not
   attempt to alter or update this informative text, and is focused only
   on updating the normative protocol specification.



in DNSOP we struggled with this same question recently with 2845-bis
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis/
Initially, the idea was to make as few a changes as possible to the
document,
just make minor fixes.  But it became clear part of the reason there was an
issue with implementation was poor wording in the original document.
Sadly, I have no simple answers.

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 2:59 PM Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Tim, I think I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but am
> unsure what you suggest changing.
>
> The abstract and introduction are pretty verbose about the relation to 793
> (why it's being obsoleted) and the history (in what ways it's now
> obsolete), and there are pointers to the TCP roadmap in sections 1 and 2.
>
> Do we need to say things differently somehow?  Any suggestions are welcome.
>
>
> On 7/27/2019 10:06 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> Tommy
>
> For Implementation advice, I would refer people to the TCP Roadmap
> document (rfc7414) which feels to me to be a better location.
> rfc7414 (or what may be the best location) should be spelled out more
> clearly to readers.
>
> I noticed on reading through the document structure, there are references
> to RFC793, yet the document is being Obsoleted.
> If we're obsoleting an entire document, is it wise to refer back to it?
> Does that confuse a casual reader?   If there are references to the
>
> 793, such as in Section 2, I think it should be included.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 9:44 PM Tommy Pauly <tpauly=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> 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 <[e-mail]>> 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
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tcpm mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>
>