Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis-05
review-ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis-05-opsdir-lc-romascanu-2014-07-06-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2014-06-30
Requested 2014-06-17
Authors Martin Duke, Robert Braden, Wesley Eddy, Ethan Blanton, Alexander Zimmermann
Draft last updated 2014-07-06
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Scott Brim (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -07 by Scott Brim (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Matt Lepinski (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dan Romascanu 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis-05-opsdir-lc-romascanu-2014-07-06
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 08)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2014-07-06

Review
review-ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis-05-opsdir-lc-romascanu-2014-07-06






This is the OPS-DIR review



draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis-05

. The version that I reviewed is http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis-05.txt.




 




The OPS-DIR reviews are focused on the operational and manageability aspects of the documents using RFC 5706 as guidance. Please consider these comments together with the other IETF Last Call comments.





 




This document updates RFC4614 providing a summary of the RFCs that define TCP and TCP extensions, including the developments and new documents published in the eight years since the publication of RFC4614. It is an informational RFC-to-be
 that defines no new protocol, so an RFC 5706 review does not apply. The document however is of interest to software developers and network operators because it includes a comprehensive list of specifications that are mandatory, recommended, experimental, and
 good-to-know by implementers and operators. Each document is described typically by one paragraph that explains the content of the RFC and the relation with other RFC that define the TCP layer in the stack.





 




I have two comments which I believe should be considered by the authors before the approval of the I-D as informational, although none of them is a show-stopper.





 




1.

      


Section 7.4 might benefit from mentioning RFC 6703 and specifically sections 7.1 and 7.3





2.

      


Section 4 starts with ‘The RFCs in this section are still experimental’. This statement is not fully accurate, as while the majority of the RFCs discussed in section 4 are indeed experimental and all deal with
 experimental extensions a few of the RFCs are not – RFC 2140, RFC 3124, RFC 5690. Also the ‘still’ is not really appropriate, as not all experimental RFCs become standards track RFCs during their life time.




 




 




One  editorial issue: 




 




1.

      


The title of section 7.7: s/Management Information Bases/MIB Modules




 




Regards,




 




Dan