Scott,
This is an informative reference, not a normative reference. I’d only see this
as an issue if it was the latter, which it isn’t. The protocol specification
in 1323bis stands on its own, which is why it obsoletes 1323. This is just an
informative reference so the reader knows that the original background material
in 1323 was omitted in 1323bis, and they should look at 1323 if they want that
additional history. We decided there wasn’t much value in rewriting the
background material to reflect current terminology and situations, and instead
just refer the reader to 1323, which can be read within the 20+ year old
context in which it was originally written.
-David
On Feb 10, 2014, at 12:17 PM, Scott Brim <[email protected]> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Scott Brim <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:49 AM
> Subject: gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis-19
> To: gen-art <[email protected]>
>
>
> 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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis-19
> Reviewer: Scott Brim
> Review Date: 2014-02-10
> IETF LC End Date: 2014-02-18
> IESG Telechat date: not yet
>
> Summary: Ready with a minor issue
>
> Major issues: none
>
> Minor issues:
>
>> For brevity, the full discussions of the merits and history behind
>> the TCP options defined within this document have been omitted.
>> [RFC1323] should be consulted for reference.
>
> The reader is referred to RFC 1323 for background information
> (basically an informative reference) ... but if this draft obsoletes
> RFC 1323, can it refer the reader to it?
>
> Nits/editorial comments: none
>
>
> Thanks ... Scott
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this transmission may be confidential. Any
disclosure, copying, or further distribution of confidential information is not
permitted unless such privilege is explicitly granted in writing by Quantum.
Quantum reserves the right to have electronic communications, including email
and attachments, sent across its networks filtered through anti virus and spam
software programs and retain such messages in order to comply with applicable
data security and retention requirements. Quantum is not responsible for the
proper and complete transmission of the substance of this communication or for
any delay in its receipt.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
