I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-uto-09.txt
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 24 November 2008
Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits
that should be fixed before publication.
Comments:
(1) Technical:
- Since a UTO can apparently be sent at any time, what happens if a
UTO is received that shortens the timeout and there are
unacknowledged packets that are already beyond the new timeout
value?
- Is it intended that the ENABLED flag applies to both sending and
receiving the UTO? It seems to be, but I want to be sure. If
that is the intention, could you make it clearer?
It certainly applies to a received UTO:
"This adaptation only happens if the other end of the connection
has explicitly allowed it (both ENABLED and CHANGEABLE are
true)."
but it seems to apply to sending a UTO as well:
"Before opening a connection, an application that wishes to use
the UTO option enables its use by setting ENABLED to true."
(2) Editorial:
1. Introduction
- "If an end-to-end connectivity disruption lasts longer than the
user timeout, no acknowledgments will be received for any
transmission attempt, including keep-alives, and the TCP
connection will close when the user timeout occurs."
I would rephrase for clarity:
If an end-to-end connectivity disruption lasts longer than the
user timeout, a sender will receive no acknowledgments for any
transmission attempt, including keep-alives, and it will close
the TCP connection when the user timeout occurs.
- "One example of such a scenario is mobile hosts that change
network attachment points based on current location."
Drop the last part as redundant:
One example of such a scenario is mobile hosts that change
network attachment points.
- "For example, an orbiting node on a non-geostationary satellite
might experience connectivity disruptions due to line-of-sight
blocking by other planetary bodies."
Let's see, it's orbiting the Earth although not geostationary,
and experiencing disruption because other planets are blocking
its transmissions ... it must be communicating with something
far out in the solar system. Either it doesn't matter whether
the orbit is geostationary (or whether it is orbiting at all),
or disruptions won't be due to planetary bodies. How about:
For example, a node in space might experience connectivity
disruptions due to line-of-sight blocking by planetary
bodies.
Scott
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
