TCP Sender Clarification for Persist Condition
RFC 6429
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
Support David and Pete's Discusses
(David Harrington; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
Please expand "DoS" on first use and add an informative reference to RFC 4732.
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection
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
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
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?
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection
"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.