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

Wesley Eddy <> Tue, 17 December 2019 14:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 955A71209E1 for <>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 06:29:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UbmsbXm4uYdE for <>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 06:29:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::730]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96835120A05 for <>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 06:29:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id z76so5380476qka.2 for <>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 06:29:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=jGxjd999Ns1+NrfSgWoadbL3VkngNbERPcxirHvxltk=; b=GdKXkyL2Evu3IzSo4HQq1BP8RGBThWTg9JCI5GdsnZ9fkJSMmEEA8S9Ev9879+xrOx 8qV8GBpgHhG//hbKa6I8WYNiI39QVUzwj2WsSrhJxAC7amZZ6WUhl2jgcWw8jZRMYdXj Ssl9fv8pwpHL+JexltY4usLk/LqWIxF2S8iETjZvlV+Ords/6ZPU4HE8Gkg6BD+PmRc8 l1nQ52shsNYRIoDs/r4aSOuBkz8aro9kp2O8dvknEng8bs2kdh7wTHtjKrilJIR/J/nN Po0CHAXGB16/IvYKA9pZVRN04gw7HaPA3HG293VzgIeNH7vrmjwEKQpBmSkdH2yps9Xi jKzw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=jGxjd999Ns1+NrfSgWoadbL3VkngNbERPcxirHvxltk=; b=TGIFXSXlmrFvUzQd1acw72KiT8NAmzO7aAgY/nNjfl9tz7z9ZGg7bPGreDBsVQebis PatgSzXEBoV8XYkt7jd2a7UJhwpcuV1VrJ9Z0j76rn5m/s5yTnfc4GCQ5ajUJLzviabL QAWgld9i99IkPLDSSBw/zyGpUnAOWFuW8KknqyEtzHJdJUTzEyKZTU5kpXBT86VL6iQJ PEmhm1lxoW5oGNg+kO7GCbauiHw3/u0Hkpp8lQbb+0XT7hWT/zza4RJyuCAOB1G3VqnP w3QT0r5fK+MUzNbRESWTLIulNZxc+Y+xjRW6captzzgLD9U0XLWSEblmgctCBprouvKt BaYA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV4mzX+na7FjNpbhrD4HJZxMRbMuKIMB11wDbz0GPIAXii67aP0 OmybHuBn7T+AyQO1QCSpJ650uwwI7+Q=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxNaRnisBUJ4MwWvxMNXb/nVXfE6y9R+/YYZ8gbU1LmYhSG5fb7eURkNkcPIJRXdaN+wcH9lg==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:4d45:: with SMTP id a66mr5406540qkb.65.1576592962179; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 06:29:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id z28sm8308253qtz.69.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Dec 2019 06:29:21 -0800 (PST)
To:, "" <>
References: <>
From: Wesley Eddy <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 09:29:19 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 1 of 2 - Editorial Comments
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 14:29:27 -0000

Hi Gorry, I've been applying all of the editorial comments from your 
review, and they should show up in an update later this week.

There are some of them that I had quick responses to.

> ---
> OLD:
>   An "XXX" indicates a segment which is lost or rejected.
> - rejected seems odd here.
> NEW:
>   An "XXX" indicates a segment that is lost (not processed by the 
> receiving TCP endpoint).

Strangely, it seems like in 793, the "XXX" is explained, but never 
occurs otherwise in the text or diagrams.  I think we can just remove 
this sentence entirely?

> multiple OLD: "TCPs" and "a TCP"
> - This use of a "TCP" as an entity read as very ugly to me. I had to 
> read the sentences several times to parse them, could we explain that 
> we mean, i.e. "TCP endpoints" or "TCP implementations" etc. (usually 
> this seems to mean implementation). 
I'm fine with doing this.  It's a lot of changes though, so I wanted to 
quickly see if anyone strongly disagrees with doing this.

> OLD:
>    SYN (pun intended)
> - I didn't see the pun, can this be explained or omitted?

I think the intent from Jon (or whoever originally wrote this part) was 
"original sin".  We should probably remove this anyways in order to 
avoid cultural references that may not be understood by everyone.