IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] [Errata Verified] RFC3390 (4583)

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Tue, 05 April 2016 00:26 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E5F012D130; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 17:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 57yfA-wO1RHb; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 17:26:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) (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 754AB12D113; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 17:26:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.184.182] ([128.9.184.182]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u350PoDl023587 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 4 Apr 2016 17:25:50 -0700 (PDT)
To: lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "mallman@bbn.com" <mallman@bbn.com>, "floyd@icir.org" <floyd@icir.org>, "craig@bbn.com" <craig@bbn.com>
References: <20160403132134.0B8B9180014@rfc-editor.org> <2057219261.4590383.1459815390909.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <5703060D.6090901@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 17:25:49 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2057219261.4590383.1459815390909.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MailScanner-ID: u350PoDl023587
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/gsVyRswD_Cy9FQ7Fk7Q98Nye95E>
Cc: "mls.ietf@gmail.com" <mls.ietf@gmail.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, touch@isi.edu
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [Errata Verified] RFC3390 (4583)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 00:26:14 -0000

In the context of the document, it's clear that this refers to starting
a connection.

I don't think this is ambiguous except in taken out of context, as below.

Joe

On 4/4/2016 5:16 PM, lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> "a TCP MAY start"
> 
> a TCP what? session? flow? transaction? tunnel? DoS attack?
> 
> thanks
> 
> L.
> 
>  Lloyd Wood lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk http://about.me/lloydwood 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
> To: touch@isi.edu; mallman@bbn.com; floyd@icir.org; craig@bbn.com
> Cc: mls.ietf@gmail.com; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org; iesg@ietf.org; tsvwg@ietf.org
> Sent: Sunday, 3 April 2016, 23:21
> Subject: [tsvwg] [Errata Verified] RFC3390 (4583)
> 
> The following errata report has been verified for RFC3390,
> "Increasing TCP's Initial Window". 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3390&eid=4583
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Status: Verified
> Type: Technical
> 
> Reported by: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
> Date Reported: 2016-01-06
> Verified by: Martin Stiemerling (IESG)
> 
> Section: 1.
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
>    This increased initial window is optional: a TCP MAY start with a
>    larger initial window.  However, we expect that most general-purpose
>    TCP implementations would choose to use the larger initial congestion
>    window given in equation (1) above.
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>    This increased initial window is optional: a TCP MAY start with a
>    smaller initial window.  However, we expect that most general-purpose
>    TCP implementations would choose to use the larger initial congestion
>    window given in equation (1) above.
> 
> Notes
> -----
> The MAY allows use of values smaller than this document allows, not larger.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC3390 (draft-ietf-tsvwg-initwin-04)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Increasing TCP's Initial Window
> Publication Date    : October 2002
> Author(s)           : M. Allman, S. Floyd, C. Partridge
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Transport Area Working Group
> Area                : Transport
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email