Subject: [Gen-art] gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis-20

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 13:06:56 -0400

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
< http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis-20
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2014-03-21
IETF LC End Date: 2014-03-27
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: No problems

Comments:

As discussed in the LC review of version -19, I find it odd that a
standards track draft

  * obsoletes RFC 1323
  * but refers to it for substantial background information

In our standards process I've never seen a standards track RFC
simultaneously obsolete a previous RFC and yet refer to it for the
reasoning behind major decisions, even if that's informational. I was
concerned about procedures and organization of our standards. I asked
five innocent bystanders what they thought and they all said doing
this "smelled funny". However, since then I have come to believe it's
okay. 1323 is behind the times and definitely needs to be obsoleted.
This new draft contains a great deal of information, including lessons
learned -- enough to make 1323 just an informational reference, not
necessary even to understand the motivation for the protocol parts.
Therefore I'm withdrawing my previous concern.

Scott

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 13:46:16 +0800

Thanks for your review, Scott. I think I'm also leaning on this issue being OK.

Jari

On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:06 AM, Scott Brim <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art