Stewart, thanks for your review. > On Jul 3, 2020, at 9:29 AM, Stewart Bryant via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Stewart Bryant > Review result: Ready with Issues > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your > document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-16 > Reviewer: Stewart Bryant > Review Date: 2020-07-03 > IETF LC End Date: 2020-06-01 > IESG Telechat date: 2020-07-09 > > Summary: This is a well written document and is much improved over the previous > version that I reviewed. I thank the author for their work in that regard. > However I do have one concern that I think the Area Directors need to consider > carefully. > > Major issues: > Whilst the document has undoubtedly gained consensus in the > transport area, it is not clear whether the other areas that will > be impacted have properly considered the implications > of the text and proactively given their consensus to the text. > > In particular the following text in a BCP may be a burden on future > protocols, particularly in the routing and OAM spaces, with the potential > for disagreements in the closing stages of specification approval. > > - The requirements in this document may not be appropriate in all > cases and, therefore, inconsistent deviations and variants may > be necessary (hence the "SHOULD" in the last bullet). However, > inconsistencies MUST be (a) explained and (b) gather consensus. > > It is possible that I am over-reacting but experience tells me that this > holds the seeds of future disagreements between areas, delays in > publication, and possible re-engineering of what are in practice perfectly > acceptable implementations. I can see the concern, but given that the key requirement is a SHOULD I expect there to be flexibility in interpretation. Alissa > > Minor issues: > > None > > Nits/editorial comments: > There is a trivial nits issue in the abstract that the RFC editor will need > to resolve. > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
