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