Re: [tcpm] Please review 793bis!

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 28 July 2019 02:07 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@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 171331200D5 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 19:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 ArCWxP3IYisI for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 19:07:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22f.google.com (mail-oi1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22f]) (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 5D575120047 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 19:07:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id 65so42910906oid.13 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 19:07:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qobWVkLL87KHEi5RdMAfhRU3vEnz89tdorQU/FFCTl8=; b=UqwD1rpt1ubUrwFZa3cF0GuKT4EiVWapt48xfd4Q6BcPIVGqa1hoZDMi1VDicYkeE3 NcxdnDMaO6IA/2jFo9O2mv36MyounX8gY+YAgFljrPKltVmeJmiNpuLbFn3vzDRJM1DO PtUJ8q2PMJh+/ZbCE+O9IbytVR6dzWzrFsk0fK0ZHx6z2u34XBqvU49uPQGmJM5fDpE1 MLIssTAfajzYwz3XUiZqoLHYtbCH+kHhC02r04rGBSihP7AYi5qiCms3ekEK1tpN+dUx xibKF3wWBcmICOxSjP5RVO/PzEHIbGc+aMiE6+KMgHdPmA5EXpMPj5v4h+wQcFJyKAsr eTew==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qobWVkLL87KHEi5RdMAfhRU3vEnz89tdorQU/FFCTl8=; b=sBqqDIjQZAXZKjTX6GOgxlmd+QY+4yi+2kUrgU2RmyAq50Jcwht/hqP7iQ4s5WfLfL FTivFDUUB1vL403XhBaI9AUVCjLwm5dmtqallz8hOAaBCGvU4Ls4FvvlQ3/dbAEjQmyU FVwGG87hl1Tsb2TNsntHkVAgBY4Ao3/M+jYl+H/Nh7I6e2cc+WY77VaSPxUo/Tf8BuG3 hKXgJ6M4Zk1PvasvDte9ArZ15Ytm9h6Ud8ENAGOK8VW0kz7IkFqDc5lMufbp9qd2ABYa I3lDP2d0K29nKPuiY6EhRFlPjjoUMzojTUSQKaj3GlRD170un2TCHSHfu0xUpWPNT0Qy RHlQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVzUlRNTT+FR4AyFiRQghO9l6Lkrfjqm8IRjUcvrk4IGi2ECt+A uL4tPRSVWTIK3/wala0hNHe1W3myvZMPwBjZL3A=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzDkQAwUKOSQ+mCTxUBjNelBVrCDPOwZ9Nn+wCgX4NbsWLI9DyqvqFCfxdpje4hcIEszdwWyhojmEchSBZJkyY=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:b406:: with SMTP id d6mr49983847oif.173.1564279629666; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 19:07:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D3CB17C@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de> <0E7412EE-5D31-4757-8DDC-09866629A4D7@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <0E7412EE-5D31-4757-8DDC-09866629A4D7@apple.com>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 22:06:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+FNvQOiPhOHNzKWRZLeinBbC6Ci=rny+Ac-SrDUHF0TyA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a7ddb5058eb43b56"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/wXu6rbnPCoeVxaUUDxtBGbrLE4I>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Please review 793bis!
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: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 02:07:13 -0000

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=
40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; 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>; 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
> > tcpm@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>