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

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/