Re: [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 1 of 2 - Editorial Comments

Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> Tue, 17 December 2019 18:25 UTC

Return-Path: <chromatix99@gmail.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 9EB32120874 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:25:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 DG07xkGUcFj5 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:25:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22d.google.com (mail-lj1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AD9C120873 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:25:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id j6so12085216lja.2 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:25:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=2pJC4QU1fY9ucttgMq/bhDZOvquW/PFVQ72CeN+/dmE=; b=Ht/dj5Dkx6y4DcUUBzNqpfm8WRix3p0do2IMMPpKf/BZaxeDZND+vj+HjgvHXHRblY sxMD/JgLsC6giJnrm4jq6nergQvD7tNRPe19epSi5yKVaj3K835nn9QRMLRFl7BBcABc PJkG2YJiooPkJQz3xEVuUuDPhjdo1CC4BYmAUU5B1HeEqsU68I2w7G1M2ajGDV+IzC7W uhdZ7M6Ag/BWJotYF3hqd9pP+3HwRWqpOxEkE3i4ebP3dVCTRQ5TKfhJpWTFDQuKq9aF 7l1bJLzOaGikgwjz8WIUFTRqz348iLcXZm/IPu7C62lzZ3Nb4cbKWiEpVqSRHB+qBOMq myBg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=2pJC4QU1fY9ucttgMq/bhDZOvquW/PFVQ72CeN+/dmE=; b=DJxlFqKUK1YQ+5CiPGFVlb6SIZHDv+brdi6vSaNeVsmZVXDCSxuEAi2ul11ReZXGIA LOwi4P16hui5x3NZDmL8l/PtTOGh4qQH3KAdhfJIP5bA6cuHLL+ikfUJp6c/CI7qIRZr 7aPFYKAja7vFbq/9YXjcFz5RoN3lnEPB1P0rhP29s/A+zotdcPSBNWEiMiV/MHto71HV yrdTiW4nsS5bF82iz0UKZFStHeIFBAZ/jkJ0k/4977Sf4Jigbtx8rlUOo/HWw2AM+6EP Q320UhukG79OrAvVBE9fagJzjMsJ4kbFiHsz/AQep4+ktRh4k3hywQxdJnanETyaLcQh fDvg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXtrL7Q6eyLH60oJyOT4kBeprZ8RSsJZB3q3D47A52R8QsLf8z+ 6T46fW8MVl7+mjMHO69RGII=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwiiOwTYvg6L5i3C26YOjq1xNoSEwlDSvOqYBHg75loRCLIK5v7bYvT5W3i3jmlVW5J5FEhEw==
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:5843:: with SMTP id x3mr4217161ljd.64.1576607152533; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:25:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan (83-245-229-102-nat-p.elisa-mobile.fi. [83.245.229.102]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k12sm6082800lfc.33.2019.12.17.10.25.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:25:51 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <38ac444f-a709-9641-da53-2d242953c167@mti-systems.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 20:25:50 +0200
Cc: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F3A4BF10-AEF6-4C0D-BD18-01FADCA730A0@gmail.com>
References: <5D669BDA.3000506@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <38ac444f-a709-9641-da53-2d242953c167@mti-systems.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/b2hA4bNk5xgVfkus48AidWgdKBc>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 1 of 2 - Editorial Comments
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: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 18:25:56 -0000

> On 17 Dec, 2019, at 7:12 pm, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> wrote:
> 
> I was looking at the way "crash" is used on a case-by-case basis, and I think we could mostly change this to "endpoint failures" or a host "rebooting" rather than "crashing"?  Is there any other terminology or condition that should be explicitly mentioned somehow?  The important point in most places where "crash" is used is that the host has lost all of its memory about connections in-progress and associated connection state, and that's easy to retain without saying "crash".

I think using "reboot" would be a good substitute here.

 - Jonathan Morton