Re: [tsvwg] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis-17: (with COMMENT)

[[e-mail]]

> On 15. Dec 2021, at 20:38, Warren Kumari via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis-17: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you all of the work on this, and to Linda Dunbar for the OpsDir review.
Thanks for the review. See my comments in-line.

Best regards
Michael
> 
> I fully agree with Alvaro that this document should obsolete RFC 8540, and that
> it should be updated to say so.
The document will obsolete RFC 4460 and RFC 8540. I also added to the end
of the first paragraph of the abstract:

In addition to that, the Errata documents RFC 4460 and RFC 8540 are also
obsoleted by this document, if approved.</t>
> 
> In addition, I had started writing up a slightly grumpy ballot about how long
> the Abstract was, but then realized that this is almost as long in the original
> :-)
It got longer due to the first paragraph stating now:

<t>This document obsoletes RFC 4960, if approved.
It describes the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) and incorporates
the specification of the chunk flags registry from RFC 6096 and the
specification of the I bit of DATA chunks from RFC 7053.
Therefore, RFC 6096 and RFC 7053 are also obsoleted by this document, if approved.
In addition to that, the Errata documents RFC 4460 and RFC 8540 are also
obsoleted by this document, if approved.</t>

If you prefer, I can remove it and keep the abstract more in line what we had in RFC 4960.

What do you prefer?
> 
> Thanks again,
> W
> 
> 
>