TCP Options and Maximum Segment Size (MSS)
RFC 6691
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) Yes
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) Yes
The abstracts seems to be rather short in order to give hints to a reader, i.e., it would be good to the part of IP options and TCP MSS from the into.
(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
I am surprised about the perceived need to update an obsoleted RFC, but if folk really want to do it, I think they should make it very clear in this document that RFC 2385 has been obsoleted by RFC 5925 so that readers understand that using RFC 2385 with the correction documented here is not the preferred approach. --- Would a reference to RFC 6151 help?
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
Substantive comments; these are non-blocking, but please consider them seriously, and feel free to chat with me about them: In addition to Adrian's comment... -- 8 -- At least RFC 879 and RFC 2385 should be normative references here. It's kind of hard to imagine how this can Update those, and not cite them normatively. (Don't make the mistake of thinking that Informational documents don't have normative references.)
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
I don't understand what we gain by having this statement: Additional clarification was sent to the TCP Large Windows mailing list in 1993 [Borman93]. The goal can't be to acknowledge the person who posted the email, as this is the author ;-) And it's even confusing. Should I review this email on the top of the document. This can't be, right? Note: that's the first time I see, part of a RFC, a reference to a specific email in the archive Regards, Benoit.
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
Please consider the editorial comments in the Gen-ART Review by Martin Thomson on 24-May-2012. Please find the review here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg07452.html
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
Just a reminder to publish a version that incorporates changes agreed to as part of the secdir review.
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection