Re: [Gen-art] gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis-19

Scott, This is an informative reference, not a normative reference. I’d only see this as an issue if it was the latter, which it isn’t. The protocol specification in 1323bis stands on its own, which is why it obsoletes 1323. This is just an informative reference so the reader knows that the

Re: [Gen-art] gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis-19

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:45 PM, David Borman wrote: > Scott, > > This is an informative reference, not a normative reference. I'd only see > this as an issue if it was the latter, which it isn't. The protocol > specification in 1323bis stands on its own, which is why it obsoletes 1323. > Th

Re: [Gen-art] gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis-19

Hi Scott, Thanks for your review! It was our understanding that obsoleted and historic rfcs can still be referenced... During the discussion in the WG, much of the discussion, and historic conjecture was decided to have to go, to be replaced with "lessons learned". But for someone not famili

[Gen-art] gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis-19

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis-19 Reviewer: Sco