[Tsvwg] Re: Protocol Action: Increasing TCP's Initial Window to Proposed Standard

>  *> The IESG has approved the Internet-Draft 'Increasing TCP's Initial
>  *> Window' <draft-ietf-tsvwg-initwin-04.txt> as a Proposed Standard,
>  *> obsoleting RFC 2414. This document also updates RFC 2598.
>
>Are you sure it updates RFC 2598, the EF PIB?  It does not reference
>2598, and 2598 was itself obsoleted by 3246.
>
>Shouldn't it also update 793, 2581, and 1122?

I don't know where the list of "updated documents" came from in
this case, but in addition to obsoleting RFC 2414, the document
updates 2581.  I assume that whoever said "2598" should simply have
said "2581" instead.

It seems fine to me for it to be listed as updating 793 and 1122
as well.  But, as Fred observed, there are many other documents
updating 793 and 1122 that aren't so listed - maybe the guidelines
need to be more clear.

>Note that the text has a reference to RFC 2481, but there is an
>entry in the reference list for RFC 2581; are these the same?

Nope.  The text referenced RFC 2481 when discussing ECN.  RFC 2481
is ECN; RFC 2581 is TCP Congestion Control.  In its last 48-hour
pass through the RFC Editor, we (or the RFC editor) can update the
reference to RFC 2481 to refer to RFC 3168 instead.

>Finally, c'mon, friends, proper academic conduct if nothing else
>calls for a reference to RFC 793.

This wasn't an academic paper, it was an internet draft.  This
document cites RFC 2581, and RFC 2581 cites RFC 1122 as standardizing
these algorithms, so that seems fine by me.  Though we (or the RFC
Editor) could certainly add a sentence about RFC 1122 and
RFC 793 for clarity.

- Sally

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