Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpmss-
review-ietf-tcpm-tcpmss-genart-lc-thomson-2012-05-24-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpmss
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-05-30
Requested 2012-05-17
Draft last updated 2012-05-24
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -?? by Martin Thomson
Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Klaas Wierenga
Assignment Reviewer Martin Thomson
State Completed
Review review-ietf-tcpm-tcpmss-genart-lc-thomson-2012-05-24
Review completed: 2012-05-24

Review
review-ietf-tcpm-tcpmss-genart-lc-thomson-2012-05-24

Feature request for the tool: a place to put reviews so that I don't
keep forgetting to CC the gen-art list.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson at gmail.com>
Date: 20 May 2012 19:34
Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpmss-04
To: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpmss.all at tools.ietf.org


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpmss-04
Reviewer: Martin Thomson
Review Date: 2012-05-20
IETF LC End Date:
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: This draft clarifies a point of potential confusion around
the use of the TCP MSS. ÂThe draft is ready for publication as an
informational RFC, with a couple of nits.

Major issues: none

Minor issues: none

Nits/editorial comments:

Opinion... The draft seems a little long. ÂSection 4 contains the only
truly crucial point: namely the one made after the matrix. ÂThat
alone, plus the short description in Section 2, seems sufficient. The
appendix is excessive.

Section 6 does not contain security considerations. ÂIt need not
contain anything.

Sections 3 and 5 have extra indentation for their subsections.

The table in Section 4 has a wayward period.