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