Subject: [Last-Call] Genart last call partial review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-24

From: Francis Dupont via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 09:00:15 -0700

Review is partially done. Another assignment may be needed to complete it.

Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review result: Ready with Nits

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-24
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 2021-08-18
IETF LC End Date: 2021-08-02
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready with Nits

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

 Only editorial comments: there are a lot of inconsistencies on US/UK spelling
 for instance acknowledgment vs acknowledgement, or e.g., vs e.g.. These should
 be addressed by the RFC Ediror. Note there is an i.e, (vs correct i.e.,) in
 3.8.6.2.1. page 47.

 I did not fully verify the technical details mainly because I review I-Ds in
 public transports so without the whole collection of merged RFCs and errata.
 In fact I only checked the figure 5 section 3.3.2 page 17 because an arrow
 missed from it in the original RFC: this is addressed by the note 2 (I
 compared with the fixed state transition diagram of the TCP/IP Illustrated
 volume 2).

There is a small note for the IESG in section 5 page 92 in the very last
paragraph about a PERPASS/privacy review.

Regards