Telechat Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis-20
review-ietf-tcpm-1323bis-20-genart-telechat-brim-2014-03-21-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 21) | |
Type | Telechat Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2014-03-25 | |
Requested | 2014-03-06 | |
Authors | David Borman , Robert T. Braden , Van Jacobson , Richard Scheffenegger | |
I-D last updated | 2014-03-21 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -19
by Scott W. Brim
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -20 by Scott W. Brim (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -19 by Kathleen Moriarty (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -19 by Fred Baker (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Scott W. Brim |
State | Completed | |
Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 20 (document currently at 21) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2014-03-21 |
review-ietf-tcpm-1323bis-20-genart-telechat-brim-2014-03-21-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis-20 Reviewer: Scott Brim Review Date: 2014-03-21 IETF LC End Date: 2014-03-27 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: No problems Comments: As discussed in the LC review of version -19, I find it odd that a standards track draft * obsoletes RFC 1323 * but refers to it for substantial background information In our standards process I've never seen a standards track RFC simultaneously obsolete a previous RFC and yet refer to it for the reasoning behind major decisions, even if that's informational. I was concerned about procedures and organization of our standards. I asked five innocent bystanders what they thought and they all said doing this "smelled funny". However, since then I have come to believe it's okay. 1323 is behind the times and definitely needs to be obsoleted. This new draft contains a great deal of information, including lessons learned -- enough to make 1323 just an informational reference, not necessary even to understand the motivation for the protocol parts. Therefore I'm withdrawing my previous concern. Scott