Hi Gorry and Tom, Thank you for your replies. We have updated as requested.
Please note that we have some follow-up questions/comments. >> 7) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document >> should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for >> content that is semantically less important or tangential to the >> content that surrounds it" >> (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside). >> - > All extra notes/comments can all be discarded at this stage. ) To clarify, would you like these notes within the document to be discarded, moved into the <aside> element, or left as is? Section 3: Note: UDP allows an Upper Layer protocol to send datagrams with or without payload data (with or without UDP Options). These are delivered across the network to the remote Upper Layer. When DPLPMTUD is implemented within the UDP transport service, probe packets that include a REQ or RES UDP Option can be sent with no UDP payload. In this case, these probe packets were not generated by a sending application; therefore, the corresponding received datagrams are not delivered to the remote application. Section 3.3: Note: A receiver that only responds when there is a datagram queued for transmission by the Upper Layer could potentially receive multiple datagrams with a REQ Option before it can respond. When sent, the RES Option will only acknowledge the latest received token value. A sender would then conclude that any earlier REQ Options were not successfully received. However, DPLPMTUD does not usually result in sending more than one probe packet per timeout interval, and a delay in responding will already have been treated as a failed probe attempt. Therefore, this does not significantly impact performance, although a more prompt response would have resulted in DPLPMTUD recording reception of all probe packets. >> 8) <!-- [rfced] We note that this document uses "UDP Options", while >> RFC-to-be 9868 <draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options> uses "UDP options" >> (lowercase). Please review and let us know if these should be made >> consistent. Perhaps lowercase for "UDP options" in general, but "Option" >> when referring to a specific option (e.g., Response (RES) Option). >> >> See <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9868.html>. >> --> >> > This document should be updated to become consistent with the RFC that will > define UDP options, please ammend this document to match the final format > used in the options specification. ) FYI, we will hold off on making these updates until we’ve received a response from RFC-to-be 9868 regarding this terminology. --- The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869.pdf The relevant diff files have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 changes side by side) Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further updates you may have. Note that we do not make changes once a document is published as an RFC. We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9869 Thank you, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Sep 12, 2025, at 9:05 AM, Tom Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> Please ammend the draft RFC. I plan to check the rendered document in >> detail after you complete this update. >> > > I think Gorry and I concur on these edits, Gorry thanks for the quick reply. > > - Tom > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
