Subject: [tsvwg] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Yes on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis-17: (with COMMENT)

From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 02:13:09 -0800

Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis-17: Yes

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 to the authors and contributors for making the 4960-bis happen. This
surely shows the dedication to this work. SCTP is important part of Radio
Access Network (RAN) deployment.

I found the changes between -15 and -17 are very good. I don't think I have
additional comments or concerns for this specifications.

On the question of obsoleting RFC 8540 brought up by my IESG colleagues, I know
RFC 8540's role for 4960-bis and this bis refers (informative) to RFC 8540 for
further details. I don't think obsoleting RFC 8540 will change the reference
for details relation form 4960-bis. Then the question is -- is there anything
in the RFC 8540 that has not been included in this 4960-bis and that need to
leave of it's own? If the answer is NO then we might just obsolete RFC 8540.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2021 11:57:50 +0100

> On 16. Dec 2021, at 11:13, Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
This document will obsolete RFC 4460 and RFC 8540.

Best regards
Michael