Document: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-timestamps-02.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 2010-12-06 / 2010-12-10
IETF LC End Date: 2010-12-07
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready with Nits

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
 - ToC page 2 and 7 page 8: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments
 (BTW the american for "honour" is "honor" too, ask the RFC Editor
  to change honour spelling if he wants)

 - 1 page 3: in
  "The Timestamps option, specified in RFC 1323 [RFC1323], allows a TCP
   to include a timestamp value in its segments, that can be used to"

  perhaps there is a missing word (like "speaker") after "TCP"?

 - 2 pages 4 and 5: I don't understand where the difference between
  these two texts comes from:

        "the Sequence Number of the incoming SYN segment
         is larger than the last sequence number seen on the previous
         incarnation of the connection (for that direction of the data
         transfer), then honour the connection request (creating a
         connection in the SYN-RECEIVED state)."
        "the Sequence Number of the incoming SYN
         segment is larger than the last sequence number seen on the
         previous incarnation of the connection (for the same direction
         of the data transfer), then honour the incoming connection
         request (even if the sequence number of the incoming SYN
         segment falls within the receive window of the previous
         incarnation of the connection)."

  i.e., I can easily tell whether the small variations between similar
  specifications are just to make reading less boring or are about
  real differences.

 - 2 page 6: KB/s -> kbytes/s or kilobytes/s (at least K (Kelvin) ->
  k (kilo) and B -> bytes in letters)

 - 4 page 7: I guess it is a typo:

  "[CPNI-TCP].  [RFC1948] proposes an alternative ISN-generation scheme
   which results in monotonically-increasing timestamps across
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^ ISNs
  connections that are not easily-predictable by an off-path attacker."

 - 8.2 page 9 [INFOCOM-99] and [Silbersack]]: ' .' -> '.'