Subject: [tcpm] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-tcpm-undeployed-03: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 05:31:09 -0800

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tcpm-undeployed-03: Yes

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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-undeployed/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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"!