Subject: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis-03

From: Yoshifumi Nishida <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 21:56:26 -0700

Hello,

As we have discussed in the London meeting, we initiate WGLC
for draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis-03. The WGLC will run until * April 4th
*.
The intended status of the draft is Informational.

If you have any comments or questions on this document, please send us
before the deadline.
The draft is available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis-03

Thanks,
--
Yoshifumi
(on behalf of tcpm co-chairs)

---

From: Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 20:09:21 -0400

On 3/19/2014 12:56 AM, Yoshifumi Nishida wrote:
> for draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis-03. The WGLC will run until * April
> 4th *.

Many thanks to Alex for initiating and working on this update to RFC
4614 to get it this far.

One major comment:

- I recall after the last roadmap revision (4614) that we took the
  opportunity to write 6247 and make a bunch of things Historic.
  Since we unearthed several more old RFCs with "Unknown" status in
  this revision, at least some of those should probably go to Historic
  also.

  It probably makes more sense to do that as a short separate
  effort like 6247 was done, after this roadmap is published, rather
  than to bundle the status changes with this same document.  But,
  we should discuss it at least.

  I say this is major, because *if* people think it should be done
  inline in this roadmap, then there's more work to do.  To be clear,
  I would prefer not to do this inline in the roadmap though.  It
  is not an urgent task.

  Either way, I'll be happy to help with figuring out which ones to
  alter and what to do to them.  For instance, 675 should go to
  Historic, and show as being Obsoleted by 761, I believe.

Some minor comments:

(1) Section 4.6 text mentions both user timeouts and time-wait in the
    initial text, but it only includes RFC 5482, which is strictly the
    user timeout.  I think the mention of time-wait can be removed.

(2) I looked at RFC 794, and I'm not entirely sure it best fits now as
    "Implementation Advice" the way we have it here.  However, there's
    no place better that I see to put it.  The description of it should
    really boil down to something more like "This document clarifies
    that operating systems need to manage their limited resources,
    which may include TCP connection state, and that these decisions
    can be made with application input, but they do not need to be part
    of the TCP protocol specification itself."

(3) I wonder whether RFC 3360 "Inappropriate TCP Resets Considered
    Harmful" should be in Implementation Advice, or might be better
    in Architectural Guidelines.  It's more for people who build
    middleboxen than normal TCP implementations.

(4) In the 6429 description, we should change "be taken" to "take".

(5) I think we should change "Highspeed Congestion Control" to something
    more like "Congestion Control for High Rate Flows".

-- 
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems

---

From: "Zimmermann, Alexander" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:35:11 +0000

Hi Wes,

>  this revision, at least some of those should probably go to Historic

ACK

>  I would prefer not to do this inline in the roadmap though.  It

I also prefer to make an additional doc. If we decide that this is way
we want to go, I can do an update of RFC 6247.

>  Historic, and show as being Obsoleted by 761, I believe.

I agree with all points mentioned below. Will include them in version 04

Alex

> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm