W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: Spencer Dawkins' Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:22:50 -0500
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+s8ch_qYNFsZUQnKQsLHcaLaO1bb6h_5oK8ACO4sayqQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, httpbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, draft-ietf-httpbis-http2.all@tools.ietf.org
>> > For this reference:
>> >
>> >    [TCP]      Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
>> >               793, September 1981.
>> >
>> > perhaps https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis-08,
>> > currently in the RFC Editor's queue, would be more appropriate?
>>
>> I notice that this is destined to be informational.  We do have a
>> normative dependency on TCP.  But I do recognize the inadequacy of 793
>> on its own.  I'll defer to others on this one.
>
> "New rule: anyone who uses RFC 793 as shorthand for TCP has to use TCP as
> defined in RFC 793. It doesn't even have Slow Start"
>
> So I hope that the others you're deferring to, do the right thing!

OK, well, here's the thing:

1. Most uses of TCP don't even use a reference.  We consider TCP to be
sufficiently well known that we don't expect to have to provide a
reference for it.

2. That said, we do rather say that STD 7 is TCP.

3. Whenever this comes up, the bottom line is that there's no good
reference that we SHOULD use for TCP.

If we want to have a proper reference for TCP, someone or some working
group (TSVWG, maybe?) needs to do one of two things:

a) update STD 7 to include the other documents that properly define
TCP today, so that STD 7, as a group of documents, can be used as a
reference, or

b) create a new "TCP roadmap" document that explains what people who
need to refer to documents about TCP need to know in order to find the
right documents for their purpose, and then have us reference *that*
new RFC.

It's simply not useful to have this keep coming up, and to have the
discussion continue to result in "Well, there's not really a good
reference that we can use."

Barry
Received on Friday, 23 January 2015 20:23:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:42 UTC