[Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-16
Stewart Bryant via Datatracker <firstname.lastname@example.org> Fri, 03 July 2020 13:29 UTC
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61A353A07C3; Fri, 3 Jul 2020 06:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Stewart Bryant via Datatracker <email@example.com>
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Reply-To: Stewart Bryant <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2020 06:29:31 -0700
Subject: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-16
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2020 13:29:32 -0000
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. 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] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-tc… Stewart Bryant via Datatracker
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-iet… Alissa Cooper