Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-24
review-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-24-genart-lc-dupont-2021-08-19-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 28)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2021-08-02
Requested 2021-07-12
Authors Wesley Eddy
I-D last updated 2021-08-19
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -24 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -24 by Sarah Banks (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -24 by Kyle Rose (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -25 by Kyle Rose (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -25 by Bernie Volz (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Francis Dupont
State Partially completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/CWtoPko0HUPNAxS7CuDrFHAOhh8
Reviewed revision 24 (document currently at 28)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2021-08-19
review-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-24-genart-lc-dupont-2021-08-19-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-24
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 2021-08-18
IETF LC End Date: 2021-08-02
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready with Nits

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

 Only editorial comments: there are a lot of inconsistencies on US/UK spelling
 for instance acknowledgment vs acknowledgement, or e.g., vs e.g.. These should
 be addressed by the RFC Ediror. Note there is an i.e, (vs correct i.e.,) in
 3.8.6.2.1. page 47.

 I did not fully verify the technical details mainly because I review I-Ds in
 public transports so without the whole collection of merged RFCs and errata.
 In fact I only checked the figure 5 section 3.3.2 page 17 because an arrow
 missed from it in the original RFC: this is addressed by the note 2 (I
 compared with the fixed state transition diagram of the TCP/IP Illustrated
 volume 2).

There is a small note for the IESG in section 5 page 92 in the very last
paragraph about a PERPASS/privacy review.

Regards