Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Summary: Has enough positions to pass.
I am surprised about the perceived need to update an obsoleted RFC, but
if folk really want to do it, I think they should make it very clear in
this document that RFC 2385 has been obsoleted by RFC 5925 so that
readers understand that using RFC 2385 with the correction documented
here is not the preferred approach.
Would a reference to RFC 6151 help?
Substantive comments; these are non-blocking, but please consider them
seriously, and feel free to chat with me about them:
In addition to Adrian's comment...
-- 8 --
At least RFC 879 and RFC 2385 should be normative references here. It's kind
of hard to imagine how this can Update those, and not cite them normatively.
(Don't make the mistake of thinking that Informational documents don't have
I don't understand what we gain by having this statement:
Additional clarification was sent to the TCP Large Windows mailing
list in 1993 [Borman93].
The goal can't be to acknowledge the person who posted the email, as this is
the author ;-) And it's even confusing. Should I review this email on the top
of the document. This can't be, right?
Note: that's the first time I see, part of a RFC, a reference to a specific
email in the archive
The abstracts seems to be rather short in order to give hints to a reader,
i.e., it would be good to the part of IP options and TCP MSS from the into.
Please consider the editorial comments in the Gen-ART Review by
Martin Thomson on 24-May-2012. Please find the review here:
Just a reminder to publish a version that incorporates changes agreed to as
part of the secdir review.