IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-11: (with COMMENT)

"Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> Thu, 13 September 2018 07:33 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
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 8422D130DD9; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 00:33:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hs-esslingen.de
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 9KaghU1jc6Da; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 00:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de (mail.hs-esslingen.de [134.108.32.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD7DD12D7F8; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 00:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A0FA25A2A; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 09:32:57 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hs-esslingen.de; s=mail; t=1536823977; bh=9B63zBabbaGbopmPWtSBF4OTdPQZDPE9QQ7InYOUZMA=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=LWtub52ohJ8P9/vWO4LJBjNSLxteaDCm9brussgJOXsYIZWO67AK48qNaFJGpU0s7 TJMLinrjL1TwFTYTephSaJ9+Pa/uH9WoBuvXw8l2jnkiELazEZQJsiSzQiZoYHVdUc N7EDmNpgS86U6uMMBBwx78HAg+BR5km/LOFh4c/Y=
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.7.1 (20120429) (Debian) at hs-esslingen.de
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hs-esslingen.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0xD4asR7oJ06; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 09:32:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rznt8102.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (rznt8102.hs-esslingen.de [134.108.29.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 09:32:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from RZNT8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([169.254.3.253]) by rznt8102.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::f977:d5e6:6b09:56ac%10]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 09:32:56 +0200
From: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, "gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
CC: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, Michael Tüxen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "tcpm-chairs@ietf.org" <tcpm-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-11: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHUSwy7IaxtqP6MZkeR2eudo7HvW6TtqbGAgAAEfACAACMCYQ==
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 07:32:56 +0000
Message-ID: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E16BD37AF@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
References: <153680710893.9432.14024338054788704789.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5B9A0D13.7060103@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, <b8b81e5e-73b2-0b62-3a2d-3fe36c504b51@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <b8b81e5e-73b2-0b62-3a2d-3fe36c504b51@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [134.108.29.249]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E16BD37AFrznt8114rzntrzd_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/quB6PA3hOLeCv1YglcJnZ4CjhTI>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-11: (with COMMENT)
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: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 07:33:03 -0000

For what it is worth, RFC 5681 uses the term "congestion control algorithm". IMHO we should not change the term.

Michael


________________________________
Von: Adam Roach [adam@nostrum.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. September 2018 09:25
An: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org; Michael Tüxen; The IESG; tcpm-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn@ietf.org
Betreff: Re: Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-11: (with COMMENT)

On 9/13/18 2:09 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
Adam,

Thanks for the comments.
It would be very unusual to hyphenate "congestion control",
so I'd suggest leaving this as-is to be consistent with other RFCs.


You can, of course, do what you want here, but I'll note that RFC 7233 is pretty clear about the guidelines used for editorial matters:

   The world of technical publishing has generally accepted rules for
   grammar, punctuation, capitalization, sentence length and complexity,
   parallelism, etc.  The RFC Editor generally follows these accepted
   rules as defined by the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) [CMOS], with a
   few important exceptions to avoid ambiguity in complex technical
   prose and to handle mixtures of text and computer languages, or to
   preserve historical formatting rules.


And CMOS §7.85 indicates that hyphenation is called for in these circumstances.

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email