Moving Outdated TCP Extensions and TCP-Related Documents to Historic or Informational Status
RFC 7805

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Alia Atlas) Yes

(Spencer Dawkins) Yes

Comment (2016-01-21)
No email
send info
Thank you for producing this. Anything that helps new implementers understand  what they can ignore in TCP is great!

I have one nit you might want to consider. There are a couple of descriptions like 

   o  [RFC0675] U, "Specification of Internet Transmission Control
      Program" was replaced by the final TCP specification [RFC0793]

that refer to "the final TCP specification". I know what you mean, but given that TCPM has producing an RFC 793 bis specification as a current milestone, RFC 793 may not be "final"!

(Martin Stiemerling) Yes

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (2016-01-20)
No email
send info
Does this really obsolete all the affected documents, in addition to the changing them to "historical"?

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Comment (2016-01-19)
No email
send info
Thanks for this clean-up document.

The first part of the sentence is obvious, right?

   For the content of the documents itself, the reader is referred
   either to the corresponding RFC or, for a brief description, to the
   TCP Roadmap document [RFC7414].

I guess you want to say something such as:
   The reader might find brief descriptions of those RFCs in the
   TCP Roadmap document [RFC7414].

If you keep your sentences: itself -> themselves

Editorial
OLD:
   o  [RFC0889] U, "Internet Delay Experiments", which which describes
      experiments with the TCP retransmission timeout calculation


NEW:
   o  [RFC0889] U, "Internet Delay Experiments", which describes
      experiments with the TCP retransmission timeout calculation

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Comment (2016-01-20)
No email
send info
Regarding RFC 6013, wouldn't implementations of an experimental spec be expected to use experimental code points? It seems to me like the last two bullets of explanation would be sufficient without the first one.

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection