Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder Review result: Has Issues Let me start this way: I am impressed that tsvwg is able to produce such a document. I understand that there is a precedence, namely RFC 4460. While keeping a record of changes is extremely useful, it is not clear whether it is valuable to go through the effort to publish them as RFCs. (In other WGs, issue lists like these are often maintained outside the RFC process.) Given the number ~50 issues, it is really important to have an RFC 4960bis but I do not see such a document anywhere. This concerns me. Do we really help implementors if they have to extract patches from ~80 pages of text to apply them to RFC 4960? Several issues have already been reported as errata. Why are errata not found to be sufficient until RFC 4960bis is produced? If I would have a choice, I would rather have an RFC 4960bis with an appendix providing any explanations for changes that are not trivial (there are also quite a few editorial changes). I have marked this with 'has issues' but I am not really having an issue with the document per se but more with the fact that I do not see an RFC 4960bis that integrates all the changes. This I consider actually a serious issues - it is good to have a standards track specification with all the fixes applied (instead of an informational collection of fixes that people interested must apply themselves in a meaningful way). Editorial: - s/wrong order of of/wrong order of/
