TCP Sender Clarification for Persist Condition
RFC 6429

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

(Wesley Eddy) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

Comment (2011-05-23 for -)
No email
send info
   "Systems that adhere too strictly to the above verbiage of"

Comment: In English English I would not  consider "verbiage" to be polite to the author of RFC1122.

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

Comment (2011-06-07 for -)
No email
send info
Are the phrases "Zero-Window Probe (ZWP)", 'persist condition', "ZWP
state" and "ZWP or persist condition" all equivalent?  If so, for
consistency, choose one and use it throughout.

At the end of section 3, for clarity, I suggest changing:

OLD:

   to persist legitimate connections

NEW:

   to maintain legitimate connections in persist condition

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2011-06-09 for -)
No email
send info
Support David and Pete's Discusses

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(David Harrington) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

Comment (2011-06-07 for -)
No email
send info
Please expand "DoS" on first use and add an informative reference to RFC 4732.

(Sean Turner) No Objection

Comment (2011-06-09 for -)
No email
send info
I'm with Dave on this - shouldn't this draft include "Updates: 1122 (once approved)" in the header?  If it is updating 1122 then doesn't it have to go standards track?