IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-uto-02

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Fri, 22 September 2006 04:04 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GQcHH-0003tG-GX; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 00:04:39 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GQcHG-0003t4-3n for tcpm@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 00:04:38 -0400
Received: from vapor.isi.edu ([128.9.64.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GQcHE-0006o3-OE for tcpm@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 00:04:38 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.42] (pool-71-106-94-15.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.106.94.15]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id k8M44FqA006199; Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <451360BE.20608@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:04:14 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-uto-02
References: <BF9BD734.4234%gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <6.2.0.14.0.20051201035418.0323fc48@localhost> <4390569C.6050004@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <6.2.0.14.0.20051202201002.048b5de8@localhost> <20051208222808.GB22920@hut.isi.edu> <6.2.0.14.0.20051208164304.041ead70@localhost> <20051209182531.GC1177@hut.isi.edu> <439D7400.20902@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <20051212235603.GB1156@hut.isi.edu> <6.2.0.14.0.20051213012758.048ed298@localhost> <43A02978.4020809@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <45116707.9050301@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <7.0.1.0.0.20060920170030.05da7c80@gont.com.ar>
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.0.20060920170030.05da7c80@gont.com.ar>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352
Cc: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@netlab.nec.de>, tcpm@ietf.org
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="===============1888029575=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

...
>> An implementation that provides a system-wide toggle, should assign
>> the default value to disable this feature.
> 
> How about:
> "An implementation that provides a system-wide toggle, SHOULD assign the
> default value to disable this feature"
> (ie, RFC2119 speak)

It would be useful to omit the comma. It doesn't parse otherwise ;-)

"An implementation that provides a system-wide toggle SHOULD assign the
 default value to disable this feature"

However, this still reads oddly; I'd prefer:

"If an implementation provides a system-wide toggle to enable/disable
UTO, that toggle SHOULD be initialized to disable UTO."

Joe


_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email