TCP Options and Maximum Segment Size (MSS)
draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpmss-05
Yes
(Brian Haberman)
(Wesley Eddy)
No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Pete Resnick)
(Ralph Droms)
(Ron Bonica)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Stewart Bryant)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -04)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2012-06-04 for -04)
Unknown
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.
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -04)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-06-02 for -04)
Unknown
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?
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-06-05 for -04)
Unknown
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 normative references.)
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-06-06 for -04)
Unknown
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 Regards, Benoit.
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-06-01 for -04)
Unknown
Please consider the editorial comments in the Gen-ART Review by Martin Thomson on 24-May-2012. Please find the review here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg07452.html
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-06-05 for -04)
Unknown
Just a reminder to publish a version that incorporates changes agreed to as part of the secdir review.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown