Document: draft-ietf-crisp-iris-lwz-07 Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins Review Date: 24 January 2007 IESG Telechat date: 25 January 2007 Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. I am not happy about two SHOULDs, which I mention in a re-review because both involve new text. Comments: My previous review (of -06) is at http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/reviews/draft-ietf-crisp-iris-lwz-06-dawkins.txt. The biggest issues I raised then have been addressed. This document could be published as-is. I think the specification could easily be improved in two ways. - Sequential Transaction IDs are still SHOULD NOT in 3.1.1, but the updated Section 8 now justifies SHOULD and adds a new MUST for implementers who are violating the SHOULD NOT. I'm not asking for 3.1.1 to be MUST NOT, but I'm really curious why the requirement isn't "MUST NOT be sequential", and I don't see any explanation about why MUST NOT was not chosen. - New text in Section 4 defines retransmission behavior, but initial RTO of one second and subsequent RTO doubling is SHOULD, not MUST, with no explanation about why an implementor might choose to violate the SHOULD. I'd love to know why this protocol is "special" - any TCP-based application protocol would be doing something like what this protocol has as a SHOULD...