Skip to main content

TCP Options and Maximum Segment Size (MSS)
RFC 6691

Yes

(Brian Haberman)
(Wesley Eddy)

No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Pete Resnick)
(Ralph Droms)
(Ron Bonica)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Stewart Bryant)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -04)

                            

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2012-06-04 for -04)
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

Yes (for -04)

                            

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-06-02 for -04)
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

No Objection (2012-06-05 for -04)
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

No Objection (2012-06-06 for -04)
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

No Objection (for -04)

                            

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)

                            

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)

                            

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-06-01 for -04)
  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

No Objection (2012-06-05 for -04)
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

No Objection (for -04)

                            

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)