Hi Zahed, Thanks for the review!
> On Dec 6, 2021, at 5:53 AM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks for well written and short document. > > This document have following text in the abstract and introduction – > > “Discussion of this work is encouraged to happen on the QUIC IETF mailing > list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or on the GitHub repository which > contains the draft: https://github.com/quicwg/datagram > <https://github.com/quicwg/datagram>.” > > I don’t think we need to have them at this stage of this document. Please > remove them. Looking at RFC9000, this was around even in the last version prior to RFC publication (draft-ietf-quic-transport-34). I don’t think it’s beneficial to remove this now. > > I have filed number of issues/clarification requests. I would like them to be > addressed before moving forward. Please find them below. > > https://github.com/quicwg/datagram/issues/65#issue-1072093788 > <https://github.com/quicwg/datagram/issues/65#issue-1072093788> I’ve opened: https://github.com/quicwg/datagram/pull/69 <https://github.com/quicwg/datagram/pull/69> > https://github.com/quicwg/datagram/issues/66#issue-1072096156 > <https://github.com/quicwg/datagram/issues/66#issue-1072096156> I’ve opened: https://github.com/quicwg/datagram/pull/70 <https://github.com/quicwg/datagram/pull/70> > https://github.com/quicwg/datagram/issues/67#issue-1072166520 > <https://github.com/quicwg/datagram/issues/67#issue-1072166520> > https://github.com/quicwg/datagram/issues/68#issue-1072177360 > <https://github.com/quicwg/datagram/issues/68#issue-1072177360> These two I’ve commented on. I don’t think either are appropriate to address specifically in this document. Rather, discussions about how media applications can be optimized seems like a larger future exercise beyond the definition of this frame type. If people have specific suggestions of text, I’d be happy to see that, though. Best, Tommy > > BR > > > Zahed
