In message <Pine.GSO.4.61.0506040243040.20116@rfhpc8317>,
Hubert Feyrer writes:

>On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Rui Paulo wrote:
>>> someone asked on comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc[1] about the status of the
>>> following TCP extensions:
>
>I wonder if the patch below makes any sense...
>
>
>  - Hubert
>
>Index: man4/tcp.4
>===================================================================
>RCS file: /cvsroot/src/share/man/man4/tcp.4,v
>retrieving revision 1.19
>diff -u -r1.19 tcp.4

>--- man4/tcp.4	29 Apr 2004 12:47:59 -0000	1.19
>+++ man4/tcp.4	4 Jun 2005 00:43:07 -0000

[...]

>@@ -195,6 +195,11 @@
>  Incoming connection requests that are source-routed are noted,
>  and the reverse source route is used in responding.
>  .Pp
>+The following extensions are included in
>+.Nx 's
>+TCP implementation:
>+Tahoe, Reno, NewReno, SACK, Westwood. 
>+.Pp
>  There are many adjustable parameters that control various aspects
>  of the
>  .Nx

I believe TCP purists would say no: TCP-Tahoe, Reno, and NewReno
aren't cumulative modifications that one can "include" in a single
TCP.  Rather, they are different points on an evolutionary scale.
(I'm thinking of Sally Floyd's paper showing side-by-side NS
simulations, labelled as Tahoe, Reno, and Reno+SACK.)  OTOH, anyone
that knowledgeable will probably figure out what you mean.

How about wording like this:

   The TCP implementation in 
   .Nx
   includes NewReno (which subsumes the earlier TCP-Reno and
   TCP-Tahoe versions), TCP Selective Acknowledgements (SACK,
   RFC-2018, rfc-2883), and TCP-Westwood.

followed by another sentence in the same paragraph, detailing which
options are off by default and require sysctls to enable them?