On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Mark Allman wrote:
A new version of the TCP roadmap has been posted by the authors. This
version is a bit different from the last and rolls in many comments the
authors have received. It is:
Title : A Roadmap for TCP Specification Documents
Author(s) : M. Duke, et al.
Filename : draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-roadmap-01.txt
Pages : 32
Date : 2005-1-28
It would be great if folks could read through this and send comments to
the list. In principle, we should be able to get this one finished
fairly soon. So, please review it and let the WG know if there are big
issues that still need tackled.
I think this is basically good, but I have two bigger issues with it.
The first one is new (new text in -01), and the latter is something
that was commented earlier but not addressed.
RFC 2147 S: "TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms" (May 1997)
IPv6's support for longer datagrams than were allowed in IPv4,
necessitated some changes to the way that TCP's MSS and Urgent
fields (both 16 bits) are treated.
==> not all that many vendors support IPv6 jumbograms, so it seems a bit of
a stretch to put this under "mandatory basic TCP functionality". Maybe
downgrade this to "standard enhancements" ?
==> you should state which ones (subsections?) are to be considered normative
ones informative references.
==> you have failed to include references to internet-drafts discussed in
this document. Those should likely be under normative references so we can
make sure when this is published as an RFC, we can refer to them by the RFC
RFC 816: "Fault Isolation and Recovery" (July 1982)
In this document [RFC0816], TCP's response to indications of
network error conditions such as timeouts or received ICMP
==> "is analyzed" or something missing from the above ?
RFC 964: "Some Problems with the Specification of the Military
Standard Transmission Control Protocol" (November 1985)
This document [RFC0964] was prepared by the US Military to define
TCP in greater detail than RFC 793. A few serious specification
bugs are detailed in RFC 964, reminding us of the difficulty in
specification writing (even when working from existing
==> is the reference to 'bugs' unambigous? Does this mean that RFC
964 fixed some bugs or that it also introduced some grave new bugs in
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
tcpm mailing list