Subject: [tsvwg] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis-17: (with COMMENT)

From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 08:25:23 -0800

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis-17: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for pulling these updates together - I think that it will make a helpful
future reference.

Given my lack of familiarity with STCP, I have only quickly reviewed the diffs
before this document and the base RFC, and do not have any significant comments
that will improve this document.

I was slightly surprised to see that this wasn't going for Internet Standard
rather than Proposed Standard, but I presume that this was considered and there
was a good reason not to do so.

Regards,
Rob

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 17:32:17 +0100

> On 15. Dec 2021, at 17:25, Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
Hi Rob,

we finally deprecated some parameters, which haven't been tested successfully
for interoperability, since they haven't been implemented. I guess this makes
it a PS initially.

Best regards
Michael

---

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 19:44:19 +0000

> for interoperability, since they haven't been implemented. I guess this makes
As TSVWG chair, I was going to come back at the end of this publication 
process (after we knew what changes were requested)

and then ask if we could make this an Internet Standard... I think that 
was always the final goal, once we had a complete spec.

Gorry

P.S. If the IESG recommends, I'd agree with declaring RFC 4460 and RFC 
8540 historic also.