Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06
review-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06-opsdir-lc-schoenwaelder-2018-06-11-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2018-06-04
Requested 2018-05-21
Draft last updated 2018-06-11
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Brian Weis (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Jürgen Schönwälder (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Jürgen Schönwälder
State Completed
Review review-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06-opsdir-lc-schoenwaelder-2018-06-11
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 08)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2018-06-11

Review
review-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06-opsdir-lc-schoenwaelder-2018-06-11

Let me start this way: I am impressed that tsvwg is able to produce such a document. I understand that there is a precedence, namely RFC 4460. While keeping a record of changes is extremely useful, it is not clear whether it is valuable to go through the effort to publish them as RFCs. (In other WGs,	issue lists like these are often maintained outside the RFC process.)

Given the number ~50 issues, it is really important to have an RFC 4960bis	but I do not see such a document anywhere. This concerns me. Do we really help implementors if they have to extract patches from ~80 pages of text to apply them	to RFC 4960? Several issues have already been reported as errata. Why are errata	 not found to be sufficient until RFC 4960bis is produced?

If I would have a choice, I would rather have an RFC 4960bis with an appendix providing any explanations for changes that are not trivial
(there are also quite a few editorial changes).

I have marked this with 'has issues' but I am not really having an issue with the document per se but more with the fact that I do not see an RFC 4960bis that integrates all the changes. This I consider actually a serious issues - it is good to have a standards track specification with all the fixes applied (instead of an informational collection of fixes that people interested must apply themselves in a meaningful way).

Editorial:

- s/wrong order of of/wrong order of/