Thanks for your review, Scott. I think I'm also leaning on this issue being OK.
Jari On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:06 AM, Scott Brim <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
