A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification Documents
RFC 4614
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
(Allison Mankin; former steering group member) Yes
(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) Yes
(Alex Zinin; former steering group member) No Objection
(Bert Wijnen; former steering group member) No Objection
It might be good to update: RFC 2452 S: "IP Version 6 Management Information Base for the Transmission Control Protocol" (December 1998) This document [RFC2452] augments RFC 2012 by adding an IPv6- specific connection table. The rest of 2012 holds for any IP version. Into: RFC 2452 S: "IP Version 6 Management Information Base for the Transmission Control Protocol" (December 1998) This document [RFC2452] augments RFC 2012 by adding an IPv6- specific connection table. The rest of 2012 holds for any IP version. It is now obsoleted by RFC 4022. I.e. add a sentence to make clear it has been obsoletetd by 4022.
(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) No Objection
From Gen-ART review by Spencer Dawkins: - In Section 3.1, the following text seems confusing: Since TCP traditionally (in the absence of ECN) uses losses to infer congestion, there is a rather intimate coupling between congestion control and loss recovery mechanisms. Isn't it more correct to say that TCP always infers congestion from losses, and may also infer congestion from ECN? The current text makes it seem like TCP does not use losses to infer congestion when ECN is being used - I wish this could be true, but it's not. BC: I think the phrasing could be better, although I won't insist. For example, TCP traditionally treats lost packets as indicating congestive loss, and cannot distinguish between congestive loss and loss due to transmission errors. Even when ECN is in in use, there is a rather intimate coupling between congestion control and loss recovery mechanisms.
(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection
(Margaret Cullen; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
Section 3.3 says: > > A draft that is currently in the RFC Editor's > queue for publication [tcpmd5app] deprecates TCP MD5 for use > outside BGP. > This document has been published, and the wording of the sentence does not allow a simple substitution. Please reword. I propose: > > RFC 4278 deprecates the use of TCP MD5 outside BGP [RFC4278]. Please change [tcpmd5app] to reference RFC 4278.
(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) No Objection
(Scott Hollenbeck; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) No Objection